» Articles » PMID: 33042075

Agreement of Quantitative and Qualitative Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methodologies: The Case of Enrofloxacin and Avian Pathogenic

Overview
Journal Front Microbiol
Specialty Microbiology
Date 2020 Oct 12
PMID 33042075
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Avian pathogenic (APEC) is the causal agent of colibacillosis, one of the most common bacterial infections in the poultry sector. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is essential for rational and prudent antimicrobial therapy. Subsequently, uniformity in test results from the various testing methodologies used in diagnostic laboratories is pivotal. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the agreement between different AST methods in determining fluoroquinolone resistance in APEC. Twenty APEC isolates were selected and subjected to four different susceptibility tests: the quantitative microbroth dilution, agar dilution and gradient strip tests, and the qualitative disk diffusion method. The experiments were performed in triplicate. Categorical agreement, essential agreement and different errors were assessed. Moreover, agreement was also evaluated by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the quantitative tests and determining the Pearson correlation coefficients for the agreement between the disk diffusion method and the quantitative tests. Categorical agreement and essential agreement when compared with the microbroth technique ranged from 85-95% and 85-100%, respectively. No very major errors (false susceptible) and only one major error (false resistant) and minor errors (results involving an intermediary category) were detected. The calculated ICC values of the three quantitative tests fluctuated around 0.970 (range 0.940-0.988). There was a high negative correlation between the disk diffusion method and the other tests (correlation coefficients ranging from -0.979 to -0.940), indicating a clear inverse relationship between the minimum inhibitory concentration value and the zone diameter of growth inhibition. In conclusion, the overall agreement between the four different testing methodologies was very high. These results confirm the reliability of the disk diffusion and gradient strip test methods as substantiated alternatives, next to the gold standard agar and microbroth dilution, for fluoroquinolone susceptibility testing of APEC isolates.

Citing Articles

Development of Rapid Disk Diffusion Device Using Laser Speckle Formation Technology for Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing.

Lee J, Lee J, Cho K, Park J Curr Microbiol. 2024; 81(9):269.

PMID: 39003672 PMC: 11247048. DOI: 10.1007/s00284-024-03798-3.


Resazurin to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration on antifungal susceptibility assays for Fonsecaea sp. using a modified EUCAST protocol.

Herman T, da Silva Goersch C, Bocca A, Fernandes L Braz J Microbiol. 2024; 55(2):1349-1357.

PMID: 38438831 PMC: 11153478. DOI: 10.1007/s42770-024-01293-2.


Current Landscape of Methods to Evaluate Antimicrobial Activity of Natural Extracts.

Gonzalez-Pastor R, Carrera-Pacheco S, Zuniga-Miranda J, Rodriguez-Polit C, Mayorga-Ramos A, Guaman L Molecules. 2023; 28(3).

PMID: 36770734 PMC: 9920787. DOI: 10.3390/molecules28031068.


Effects of Incubation Time and Inoculation Level on the Stabilities of Bacteriostatic and Bactericidal Antibiotics against Typhimurium.

Laure N, Dawan J, Ahn J Antibiotics (Basel). 2021; 10(8).

PMID: 34439069 PMC: 8388968. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10081019.


Evaluation of Fluoroquinolone Resistance in Clinical Avian Pathogenic Isolates from Flanders (Belgium).

Temmerman R, Garmyn A, Antonissen G, Vanantwerpen G, Vanrobaeys M, Haesebrouck F Antibiotics (Basel). 2020; 9(11).

PMID: 33198103 PMC: 7696922. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics9110800.

References
1.
Jones R, Erwin M, Croco J . Critical appraisal of E test for the detection of fluoroquinolone resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996; 38(1):21-5. DOI: 10.1093/jac/38.1.21. View

2.
Li Q, Bi X, Diao Y, Deng X . Mutant-prevention concentrations of enrofloxacin for Escherichia coli isolates from chickens. Am J Vet Res. 2007; 68(8):812-5. DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.68.8.812. View

3.
Redgrave L, Sutton S, Webber M, Piddock L . Fluoroquinolone resistance: mechanisms, impact on bacteria, and role in evolutionary success. Trends Microbiol. 2014; 22(8):438-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2014.04.007. View

4.
Temmerman R, Garmyn A, Antonissen G, Vanantwerpen G, Vanrobaeys M, Haesebrouck F . Evaluation of Fluoroquinolone Resistance in Clinical Avian Pathogenic Isolates from Flanders (Belgium). Antibiotics (Basel). 2020; 9(11). PMC: 7696922. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics9110800. View

5.
Moraru R, Pourcher A, Jadas-Hecart A, Kempf I, Ziebal C, Kervarrec M . Changes in concentrations of fluoroquinolones and of ciprofloxacin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in chicken feces and manure stored in a heap. J Environ Qual. 2012; 41(3):754-63. DOI: 10.2134/jeq2011.0313. View