4.3 Article

Evaluation of disk diffusion methods to detect low-level β-lactamase-negative ampicillin-resistant Haemophilus influenzae

Journal

APMIS
Volume 119, Issue 6, Pages 385-392

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2011.02745.x

Keywords

BLNAR; ftsI; cephalosporin resistance; susceptibility testing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We evaluated the efficacy of disk diffusion methods for detection of low-level beta-lactamase-negative ampicillin-resistant (low-BLNAR) Haemophilus influenzae. Four hundred and seventy unselected, recent clinical isolates were tested with ampicillin (10 mu g), cefaclor (30 mu g) and cefuroxime (30 mu g) on iso-Sensitest agar enriched with nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) and horse blood [ST agar; Swedish Reference Group for Antibiotics (SRGA) guidelines], and on chocolate agar (in-house guidelines). Selected isolates (n = 147) were subjected to partial sequencing of the ftsI gene. Forty-seven strains (10.0%) were genotypically identified as low-BLNAR, which was confirmed by determination of minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) using microbroth dilution method: only low level resistance to ampicillin was detected [MIC < 1 mu g/mL; MIC50 = 0.5 mu g/mL, implying susceptibility by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and European Committee on Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) interpretative criteria]. The MIC of cefuroxime varied between 1 and 4 mu g/mL (MIC50 = 2 mu g/mL), indicating susceptibility to cefuroxime by CLSI but not by EUCAST guidelines. Disk diffusion methods were able to discriminate low-BLNAR H. influenzae from the wild-type population with sensitivities ranging from 87% to 98% and specificities from 96% to 99%. Cefaclor was found to be superior to cefuroxime and ampicillin. Cefaclor zone diameter breakpoints of 30/29 and 23/22 mm are suggested for ST agar and chocolate agar, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available