Literature DB >> 34613800

Multilaboratory Comparison of Omadacycline MIC Test Strip to Broth Microdilution MIC against Gram-Negative, Gram-Positive, and Fastidious Bacteria.

L K Koeth1, J M DiFranco-Fisher1, D J Hardy2, E L Palavecino3, E Carretto4, A Windau5.   

Abstract

The performance of the Liofilchem omadacycline MIC Test Strip (MTS) was evaluated in a multisite study. Three testing sites collected/tested clinical isolates and one site tested challenge isolates that totaled 175 S. aureus, 70 S. lugdunensis, 121 E. faecalis, 100 E. faecium, 578 Enterobacterales, 142 Haemophilus spp., 181 S. pneumoniae, 45 S. anginosus group, 35 S. pyogenes,and 20 S. agalactiae. MIC testing was performed by CLSI broth microdilution (BMD) and MTS. Fastidious isolates testing included BMD and MTS testing with both CLSI and EUCAST Mueller-Hinton Fastidious (MH-F). In addition, each site performed reproducibility for nonfastidious and fastidious isolates and QC by MTS and BMD. All BMD and MTS results for the QC strains were within expected ranges, with exception of one MTS HTM result for H. influenzae ATCC 49247. Among reproducibility isolates, omadacycline MTS results were within one dilution of the modal MIC for 95.2% of nonfastidious Gram-positive, 100% of Gram-negative, 99.3% and 98.5% of fastidious isolates tested on CLSI and EUCAST media, respectively. MTS results for all study isolates were within one doubling dilution of the CLSI BMD MIC for 98.9% of S. aureus, 100% of S. lugdunensis, 98.3% of E. faecalis, 100% of E. faecium, and 99.6% of Enterobacterales. Essential agreement rates for CLSI and EUCAST MH-F agar compared to CLSI BMD were 98.2% and 98.2%, for H. influenzae, 91.1% and 73.6%, for S. pneumoniae and 100% and 85-91.7% for other streptococcus species, respectively. Based on CLSI media, all categorical errors were minor errors and categorical agreement rates were >90% with exception of C. freundii, S. lugdunensis, E. faecalis, S. anginosus and S. constellatus.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MIC method comparison; broth microdilution; gradient strip; multilab study; omadacycline MIC testing

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34613800      PMCID: PMC8769744          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01410-21

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   11.677


  5 in total

1.  Minimal inhibitory concentration of omadacycline and doxycycline against bacterial isolates with known tetracycline resistance determinants.

Authors:  Ad C Fluit; Sjoukje van Gorkum; Judith Vlooswijk
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 2.803

Review 2.  CLSI Methods Development and Standardization Working Group Best Practices for Evaluation of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests.

Authors:  Romney M Humphries; Jane Ambler; Stephanie L Mitchell; Mariana Castanheira; Tanis Dingle; Janet A Hindler; Laura Koeth; Katherine Sei
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline.

Authors:  A B Macone; B K Caruso; R G Leahy; J Donatelli; S Weir; M P Draper; S K Tanaka; S B Levy
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2013-12-02       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  In Vitro Activities of Omadacycline and Comparators against Anaerobic Bacteria.

Authors:  Laure Stapert; Cindy Wolfe; Dean Shinabarger; Andrea Marra; Chris Pillar
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Microbiology and Preclinical Review of Omadacycline.

Authors:  James A Karlowsky; Judith Steenbergen; George G Zhanel
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 9.079

  5 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Enterococci.

Authors:  Ayesha Khan; William R Miller; Dierdre Axell-House; Jose M Munita; Cesar A Arias
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 11.677

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.