Table 3.
Comparison of B460 system results to M960 system results listed by antimicrobial agent and by participating laboratory sitea
| Antimicrobial agentb (CC B460/CC M960)c | No. of strains at: |
Overall % reproducibility of B460 vs M960 | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site 1 |
Site 2 |
Site 3 |
Site 4 |
||||||||||||||
| S/S | S/R | R/R | R/S | S/S | S/R | R/R | R/S | S/S | S/R | R/R | R/S | S/S | S/R | R/R | R/S | ||
| Amikacin (1.0/1.0) | 26 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 100 |
| Capreomycin (1.25/2.5) | 24 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 100 |
| Ethionamide (2.5/5.0) | 19 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 17 | 6 | 13 | 0 | 19 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 94.4 |
| Kanamycin (5.0/5.0) | 26 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 100 |
| Linezolid (1.0/1.0) | 33 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100 |
| Ofloxacin (2.0/2.0) | 25 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 25 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 98.6 |
| Moxifloxacin (0.5/0.25) | 25 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 100 |
| PAS (4.0/4.0) | 30 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 27 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 31 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 92.3d |
| Rifabutin (0.5/0.5) | 21 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 100 |
a
S, sensitive; R, resistant.
b
Results are expressed as B460 system interpretation/M960 system interpretation.
c
CCs are in μg/ml.
d
Nine discrepancies associated with PAS testing were due to erroneous results obtained with the B460 system, likely caused by overinoculation due to clumping.