Cargando…

Performance of the Oxoid M.I.C.Evaluator™ Strips compared with the Etest(®) assay and BSAC agar dilution

OBJECTIVES: The Oxoid M.I.C.Evaluator™ (M.I.C.E™; Thermo Fisher Scientific) comprises an antibiotic gradient on a plastic support. We compared its performance with Etest(®)—a similar product—using BSAC agar dilution as a reference. METHODS: Parallel MIC tests were performed by M.I.C.Evaluator, Etest...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mushtaq, Shazad, Warner, Marina, Cloke, Jonathan, Afzal-Shah, Mariya, Livermore, David M.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904667/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20562429
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkq206
_version_ 1782183891864387584
author Mushtaq, Shazad
Warner, Marina
Cloke, Jonathan
Afzal-Shah, Mariya
Livermore, David M.
author_facet Mushtaq, Shazad
Warner, Marina
Cloke, Jonathan
Afzal-Shah, Mariya
Livermore, David M.
author_sort Mushtaq, Shazad
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The Oxoid M.I.C.Evaluator™ (M.I.C.E™; Thermo Fisher Scientific) comprises an antibiotic gradient on a plastic support. We compared its performance with Etest(®)—a similar product—using BSAC agar dilution as a reference. METHODS: Parallel MIC tests were performed by M.I.C.Evaluator, Etest and agar dilution on Iso-Sensitest™ agar. In total, 9354 organism/strip combinations were tested by each method, using 1017 bacteria representing clinically important fastidious and non-fastidious species. RESULTS: Essential agreement of strip MIC values (±1 doubling dilution) with the agar dilution reference, with off-scale results excluded, was 89.9% for M.I.C.Evaluator versus 89.5% for Etest (P > 0.05). These proportions were similar, at 89.5% and 89.3% (P > 0.05), respectively, if off-scale values were counted as agreeing if they could agree (e.g. a strip MIC >32 mg/L and an agar dilution MIC of 128 mg/L). For both strips, agreement with agar dilution was best for non-fastidious genera, Moraxella, Listeria, Pasteurella and Campylobacter spp. and weaker for streptococci, anaerobes, Neisseria spp. and, especially, Haemophilus influenzae. Many ‘disagreements’, especially for H. influenzae, concerned organisms unequivocally resistant by all methods (e.g. ampicillin MIC 256 mg/L by agar dilution, 16 or 32 mg/L by both strips); nevertheless both strips underestimated imipenem MICs for Proteus. There was no difference between the two strip types in the proportion of agreements with agar dilution (P > 0.05); nevertheless their results agreed better with each other than with agar dilution (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The M.I.C.Evaluator performed almost identically to the Etest, giving good agreement with BSAC agar dilution.
format Text
id pubmed-2904667
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29046672010-07-16 Performance of the Oxoid M.I.C.Evaluator™ Strips compared with the Etest(®) assay and BSAC agar dilution Mushtaq, Shazad Warner, Marina Cloke, Jonathan Afzal-Shah, Mariya Livermore, David M. J Antimicrob Chemother Original Research OBJECTIVES: The Oxoid M.I.C.Evaluator™ (M.I.C.E™; Thermo Fisher Scientific) comprises an antibiotic gradient on a plastic support. We compared its performance with Etest(®)—a similar product—using BSAC agar dilution as a reference. METHODS: Parallel MIC tests were performed by M.I.C.Evaluator, Etest and agar dilution on Iso-Sensitest™ agar. In total, 9354 organism/strip combinations were tested by each method, using 1017 bacteria representing clinically important fastidious and non-fastidious species. RESULTS: Essential agreement of strip MIC values (±1 doubling dilution) with the agar dilution reference, with off-scale results excluded, was 89.9% for M.I.C.Evaluator versus 89.5% for Etest (P > 0.05). These proportions were similar, at 89.5% and 89.3% (P > 0.05), respectively, if off-scale values were counted as agreeing if they could agree (e.g. a strip MIC >32 mg/L and an agar dilution MIC of 128 mg/L). For both strips, agreement with agar dilution was best for non-fastidious genera, Moraxella, Listeria, Pasteurella and Campylobacter spp. and weaker for streptococci, anaerobes, Neisseria spp. and, especially, Haemophilus influenzae. Many ‘disagreements’, especially for H. influenzae, concerned organisms unequivocally resistant by all methods (e.g. ampicillin MIC 256 mg/L by agar dilution, 16 or 32 mg/L by both strips); nevertheless both strips underestimated imipenem MICs for Proteus. There was no difference between the two strip types in the proportion of agreements with agar dilution (P > 0.05); nevertheless their results agreed better with each other than with agar dilution (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The M.I.C.Evaluator performed almost identically to the Etest, giving good agreement with BSAC agar dilution. Oxford University Press 2010-08 2010-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC2904667/ /pubmed/20562429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkq206 Text en © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Mushtaq, Shazad
Warner, Marina
Cloke, Jonathan
Afzal-Shah, Mariya
Livermore, David M.
Performance of the Oxoid M.I.C.Evaluator™ Strips compared with the Etest(®) assay and BSAC agar dilution
title Performance of the Oxoid M.I.C.Evaluator™ Strips compared with the Etest(®) assay and BSAC agar dilution
title_full Performance of the Oxoid M.I.C.Evaluator™ Strips compared with the Etest(®) assay and BSAC agar dilution
title_fullStr Performance of the Oxoid M.I.C.Evaluator™ Strips compared with the Etest(®) assay and BSAC agar dilution
title_full_unstemmed Performance of the Oxoid M.I.C.Evaluator™ Strips compared with the Etest(®) assay and BSAC agar dilution
title_short Performance of the Oxoid M.I.C.Evaluator™ Strips compared with the Etest(®) assay and BSAC agar dilution
title_sort performance of the oxoid m.i.c.evaluator™ strips compared with the etest(®) assay and bsac agar dilution
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904667/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20562429
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkq206
work_keys_str_mv AT mushtaqshazad performanceoftheoxoidmicevaluatorstripscomparedwiththeetestassayandbsacagardilution
AT warnermarina performanceoftheoxoidmicevaluatorstripscomparedwiththeetestassayandbsacagardilution
AT clokejonathan performanceoftheoxoidmicevaluatorstripscomparedwiththeetestassayandbsacagardilution
AT afzalshahmariya performanceoftheoxoidmicevaluatorstripscomparedwiththeetestassayandbsacagardilution
AT livermoredavidm performanceoftheoxoidmicevaluatorstripscomparedwiththeetestassayandbsacagardilution