Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1992 Sep;30(9):2284–2289. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.9.2284-2289.1992

Broth microdilution testing of Haemophilus influenzae with haemophilus test medium versus lysed horse blood broth. Canadian Haemophilus Study Group.

S R Scriver 1, D E Low 1, A E Simor 1, B Toye 1, A McGeer 1, R Jaeger 1
PMCID: PMC265493  PMID: 1400992

Abstract

Broth microdilution testing of 702 community-acquired isolates of Haemophilus influenzae from across Canada was performed with both Mueller-Hinton broth supplemented with 3% lysed horse blood broth (LHB) (BBL Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, Md.) and haemophilus test medium (HTM). The prevalence of beta-lactamase production was found to be 26% with no regional variation. MICs determined with LHB tended to be higher than those with HTM, but interpretive errors due to these differences were observed only rarely with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (n = 5), cefaclor (n = 8), and cefamandole (n = 3). The interobserver variability in MIC determinations was found to be greater when LHB was used than when HTM was used. There was no difference in intraobserver variability between the two medium formulations. beta-Lactamase-positive isolates developed false resistance to amoxicillin-clavulanate 2 weeks after microdilution panels of both types of medium were stored at -20 degrees C but not when panels were stored at -70 degrees C. In conclusion, this study supports the use of HTM rather than LHB for sensitivity testing of H. influenzae because of its lower rate of interobserver variability and its ability to support the growth of these organisms, which is comparable to that of LHB.

Full text

PDF
2284

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Azemun P., Stull T., Roberts M., Smith A. L. Rapid detection of chloramphenicol resistance in Haemophilus influenzae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981 Aug;20(2):168–170. doi: 10.1128/aac.20.2.168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barry A. L., Fernandes P. B., Jorgensen J. H., Thornsberry C., Hardy D. J., Jones R. N. Variability of clarithromycin and erythromycin susceptibility tests with Haemophilus influenzae in four different broth media and correlation with the standard disk diffusion test. J Clin Microbiol. 1988 Nov;26(11):2415–2420. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.11.2415-2420.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergeron M. G., Simard P., Provencher P. Influence of growth medium and supplement on growth of Haemophilus influenzae and on antibacterial activity of several antibiotics. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Apr;25(4):650–655. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.4.650-655.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Campos J., Garcia-Tornel S., Sanfeliu I. Susceptibility studies of multiply resistant Haemophilus influenzae isolated from pediatric patients and contacts. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984 Jun;25(6):706–709. doi: 10.1128/aac.25.6.706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Doern G. V., Jorgensen J. H., Thornsberry C., Preston D. A. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among clinical isolates of Haemophilus influenzae: a collaborative study. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1986 Feb;4(2):95–107. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(86)90143-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Doern G. V., Jorgensen J. H., Thornsberry C., Preston D. A., Tubert T., Redding J. S., Maher L. A. National collaborative study of the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among clinical isolates of Haemophilus influenzae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988 Feb;32(2):180–185. doi: 10.1128/aac.32.2.180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Doern G. V., Jorgensen J. H., Thornsberry C., Snapper H. Disk diffusion susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae using haemophilus test medium. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1990 May;9(5):329–336. doi: 10.1007/BF01973739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fernandes P. B., Hardy D., Bailer R., McDonald E., Pintar J., Ramer N., Swanson R., Gade E. Susceptibility testing of macrolide antibiotics against Haemophilus influenzae and correlation of in vitro results with in vivo efficacy in a mouse septicemia model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987 Aug;31(8):1243–1250. doi: 10.1128/aac.31.8.1243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gunn B. A., Woodall J. B., Jones J. F., Thornsberry C. Letter: Ampicillin-resistant haemophilus influenzae. Lancet. 1974 Oct 5;2(7884):845–845. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91113-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jorgensen J. H., Howell A. W., Maher L. A. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of less commonly isolated Haemophilus species using Haemophilus test medium. J Clin Microbiol. 1990 May;28(5):985–988. doi: 10.1128/jcm.28.5.985-988.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jorgensen J. H., Redding J. S., Maher L. A., Howell A. W. Improved medium for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Nov;25(11):2105–2113. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.11.2105-2113.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lapointe J. R., Lavallée C. Antibiotic interaction of amoxycillin and clavulanic acid against 132 beta-lactamase positive Haemophilus isolates: a comparison with some other oral agents. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1987 Jan;19(1):49–58. doi: 10.1093/jac/19.1.49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. MANTEL N., HAENSZEL W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719–748. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Machka K., Braveny I., Dabernat H., Dornbusch K., Van Dyck E., Kayser F. H., Van Klingeren B., Mittermayer H., Perea E., Powell M. Distribution and resistance patterns of Haemophilus influenzae: a European cooperative study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988 Feb;7(1):14–24. doi: 10.1007/BF01962165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Markowitz S. M. Isolation of an ampicillin-resistant, non-beta-lactamase-producing strain of Haemophilus influenzae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Jan;17(1):80–83. doi: 10.1128/aac.17.1.80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mendelman P. M., Chaffin D. O., Clausen C., Stull T. L., Needham C., Williams J. D., Smith A. L. Failure to detect ampicillin-resistant, non-beta-lactamase-producing Haemophilus influenzae by standard disk susceptibility testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 Aug;30(2):274–280. doi: 10.1128/aac.30.2.274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mendelman P. M., Wiley E. A., Stull T. L., Clausen C., Chaffin D. O., Onay O. Problems with current recommendations for susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Aug;34(8):1480–1484. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.8.1480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Miller W. V., Schmidt R., Luke R. G., Caywood B. E. Effect on cytotoxicity antibodies in potential transplant recipients of leucocyte-poor blood-transfusion. Lancet. 1975 Apr 19;1(7912):893–895. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(75)91688-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Mäkelä P. H. Unencapsulated Haemophilus influenzae--what kind of pathogen? Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988 Oct;7(5):606–609. doi: 10.1007/BF01964236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Needham C. A. Haemophilus influenzae: antibiotic susceptibility. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1988 Apr;1(2):218–227. doi: 10.1128/cmr.1.2.218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sinai R., Hammerberg S., Marks M. I., Pai C. H. In vitro susceptibility of Haemophilus influenzae to sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim and cefaclor, cephalexin, and cephradine. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 May;13(5):861–864. doi: 10.1128/aac.13.5.861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Strandberg D. A., Jorgensen J. H., Drutz D. J. Activities of newer beta-lactam antibiotics against ampicillin, chloramphenicol, or multiply-resistant Haemophilus influenzae. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1984 Sep;2(4):333–337. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(84)90065-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Syriopoulou V. P., Scheifele D. W., Sack C. M., Smith A. L. Effect of inoculum size on the susceptibility of Haemophilus influenzae b to beta-lactam antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1979 Oct;16(4):510–513. doi: 10.1128/aac.16.4.510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Tremblay L. D., L'Ecuyer J., Provencher P., Bergeron M. G. Susceptibility of Haemophilus influenzae to antimicrobial agents used in Canada. Canadian Study Group. CMAJ. 1990 Nov 1;143(9):895–901. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Turk D. C. The pathogenicity of Haemophilus influenzae. J Med Microbiol. 1984 Aug;18(1):1–16. doi: 10.1099/00222615-18-1-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Williams J. D., Moosdeen F. Antibiotic resistance in Haemophilus influenzae: epidemiology, mechanisms, and therapeutic possibilities. Rev Infect Dis. 1986 Nov-Dec;8 (Suppl 5):S555–S561. doi: 10.1093/clinids/8.supplement_5.s555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. van Klingeren B., van Embden J. D., Dessens-Kroon M. Plasmid-mediated chloramphenicol resistance in Haemophilus influenzae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1977 Mar;11(3):383–387. doi: 10.1128/aac.11.3.383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES