John R Papp1, Marie-Claire Rowlinson2, Norman P O'Connor3, Jason Wholehan4, Jafar H Razeq5,6, Anita Glennen7, Dapne Ware8, Peter C Iwen9, Lillian V Lee10, Celia Hagan11. 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Bureau of Public Health Laboratories, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 3. State Laboratory Division, Hawaii Department of Health, Pearl City, HI, USA. 4. Michigan Department of Community Health, Lansing, MI, USA. 5. Maryland Department of Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Present address: Department of Public Health, Rocky Hill, CT, USA. 7. Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, MN, USA. 8. Mississippi Public Health Laboratories, Jackson, MS, USA. 9. Nebraska Public Health Laboratory, Omaha, NE, USA. 10. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY, USA. 11. Association of Public Health Laboratories, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Neisseria gonorrhoeae is a sexually transmitted bacterial pathogen that continues to evolve to become resistant to known antibiotics. In preparing for potential emergence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that clinical laboratories maintain or develop protocols to assess antibiotic susceptibly for this organism. This study examines the intra-laboratory variability of using the Etest method to provide consistent MIC values for N. gonorrhoeae and also compared the results of the Etest to known agar dilution MIC values. METHODOLOGY: Clinical N. gonorrhoeae isolates, 100 paired duplicates, were tested by eight laboratories for antibiotic susceptibility to ceftriaxone, cefixime and azithromycin using Etest strips.Results/Key findings. Overall, >80 % of the paired Etest MIC values were within one log2 dilution of the replicate. When compared to the agar dilution reference method, the cefixime Etest MIC values were consistently underreported by one dilution (seven laboratories) or two dilutions (one laboratory). The azithromycin Etest MIC values agreed 90.7 % with the agar dilution MIC values while the agreement with ceftriaxone was 90.9 %. CONCLUSION: Overall, the Etest method yielded reproducible MIC values within each laboratory with the azithromycin and ceftriaxone MIC results consistent to the reference agar dilution method while the cefixime result tended to provide a lower MIC value.
PURPOSE:Neisseria gonorrhoeae is a sexually transmitted bacterial pathogen that continues to evolve to become resistant to known antibiotics. In preparing for potential emergence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that clinical laboratories maintain or develop protocols to assess antibiotic susceptibly for this organism. This study examines the intra-laboratory variability of using the Etest method to provide consistent MIC values for N. gonorrhoeae and also compared the results of the Etest to known agar dilution MIC values. METHODOLOGY: Clinical N. gonorrhoeae isolates, 100 paired duplicates, were tested by eight laboratories for antibiotic susceptibility to ceftriaxone, cefixime and azithromycin using Etest strips.Results/Key findings. Overall, >80 % of the paired Etest MIC values were within one log2 dilution of the replicate. When compared to the agar dilution reference method, the cefixime Etest MIC values were consistently underreported by one dilution (seven laboratories) or two dilutions (one laboratory). The azithromycin Etest MIC values agreed 90.7 % with the agar dilution MIC values while the agreement with ceftriaxone was 90.9 %. CONCLUSION: Overall, the Etest method yielded reproducible MIC values within each laboratory with the azithromycin and ceftriaxone MIC results consistent to the reference agar dilution method while the cefixime result tended to provide a lower MIC value.
Authors: Severin Gose; Carol J Kong; Yer Lee; Michael C Samuel; Heidi M Bauer; Paula Dixon; Olusegun O Soge; John Lei; Mark Pandori Journal: J Microbiol Methods Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.363
Authors: Crista B Wadsworth; Mohamad R A Sater; Roby P Bhattacharyya; Yonatan H Grad Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jordan C Raisman; Michael A Fiore; Lucille Tomin; Joseph K O Adjei; Virginia X Aswad; Jonathan Chu; Christina J Domondon; Ben A Donahue; Claudia A Masciotti; Connor G McGrath; Jo Melita; Paul A Podbielski; Madelyn R Schreiner; Lauren J Trumpore; Peter C Wengert; Emalee A Wrightstone; André O Hudson; Crista B Wadsworth Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matthew M Hamill; Annet Onzia; Tza-Huei Wang; Agnes N Kiragga; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; Rosalind Parkes-Ratanshi; Ethan Gough; Peter Kyambadde; Johan H Melendez; Yukari C Manabe Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2022-05-07 Impact factor: 3.667