» Articles » PMID: 37807751

[Comparison of Epsilometer Test and Agar Dilution Method in Detecting the Sensitivity of to Metronidazole]

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2023 Oct 9
PMID 37807751
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Agar dilution method (ADM) was used as the golden standard to evaluate the consistency of Epsilometer test (E-test) in detecting the sensitivity of () to metronidazole.

Methods: From August 2018 to July 2020, patients with infection treated for the first time in Peking University Third Hospital for gastroscopy due to dyspepsia were included in this study. Gastric mucosas were taken from the patients with infection. culture was performed. Both the ADM and E-test were applied to the antibiotic susceptibility of to metro-nidazole, and the consistency and correlation between the two methods were validated.

Results: In the study, 105 clinical isolates of were successfully cultured, and the minimum inhibitory concentration ≥ 8 mg/L was defined as drug resistance. Both ADM and the E-test showed high resistance rates to metronidazole, 64.8% and 62.9%, respectively. Among them, 66 drug-resistant strains were detected by ADM and E-test, and 37 were sensitive strains, so the consistency rate was 98.1%. Two strains were evaluated as drug resistance by ADM, but sensitive by the E-test, with a very major error rate of 1.9%. There was zero strain sensitive according to ADM but assessed as resistant by the E-test, so the major error rate was 0%. Taking ADM as the gold standard, the sensitivity of E-test in the detection of metronidazole susceptibility was 97.1% (95%: 0.888-0.995), and the specificity was 100% (95%: 0.883-1.000). Cohen's kappa analysis showed substantial agreement, and kappa coefficient was 0.959 (95%: 0.902-1.016, < 0.001). Spearmans correlation analysis confirmed this correlation was significant (=0.807, < 0.001). The consistency evaluation of Bland-Altman method indicated that it was good, and there was no measured value outside the consistency interval. In this study, cost analysis, including materials and labor, showed a 32.2% higher cost per analyte for ADM as compared with the E-test (356.6 yuan 269.8 yuan).

Conclusion: The susceptibility test of to metronidazole by E-test presents better agreement with ADM. Because it is less expensive, less labor intensive, and more rapid, it is an easy and reliable method for susceptibility testing.

Citing Articles

Study on seed-borne cultivable bacterial diversity and antibiotic resistance of L.

Xie J, Yang J, Zhu S, Hou X, Chen H, Bai X Front Microbiol. 2024; 15:1347760.

PMID: 38351918 PMC: 10864108. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1347760.

References
1.
Pan J, Shi Z, Lin D, Yang N, Meng F, Lin L . Is tailored therapy based on antibiotic susceptibility effective ? a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial. Front Med. 2020; 14(1):43-50. DOI: 10.1007/s11684-019-0706-8. View

2.
Hachem C, Clarridge J, Reddy R, Flamm R, Evans D, Tanaka S . Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori. Comparison of E-test, broth microdilution, and disk diffusion for ampicillin, clarithromycin, and metronidazole. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1996; 24(1):37-41. DOI: 10.1016/0732-8893(95)00252-9. View

3.
Ogata S, Gales A, Kawakami E . Antimicrobial susceptibility testing for Helicobacter pylori isolates from Brazilian children and adolescents: comparing agar dilution, E-test, and disk diffusion. Braz J Microbiol. 2015; 45(4):1439-48. PMC: 4323321. DOI: 10.1590/s1517-83822014000400039. View

4.
Alarcon T, Urruzuno P, Martinez M, Domingo D, Llorca L, Correa A . Antimicrobial susceptibility of 6 antimicrobial agents in Helicobacter pylori clinical isolates by using EUCAST breakpoints compared with previously used breakpoints. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2016; 35(5):278-282. DOI: 10.1016/j.eimc.2016.02.010. View

5.
Glupczynski Y, Broutet N, Cantagrel A, Andersen L, Alarcon T, Lopez-Brea M . Comparison of the E test and agar dilution method for antimicrobial suceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2002; 21(7):549-52. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-002-0757-6. View