Comparison of Disk Diffusion and Agar Dilution Methods for Erythromycin, Ciprofloxacin, and Tetracycline Susceptibility Testing of
 Campylobacter coli
 and for Tetracycline Susceptibility Testing of
 Campylobacter jejuni
 subsp.
 jejuni

Gaudreau, Christiane; Girouard, Yves; Gilbert, Huguette; Gagnon, Josée; Békal, Sadjia

doi:10.1128/aac.00767-08

Cited by 31 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some of those studies, the results have been in line, though in some other studies, inconsistencies between the methods have been observed (8,9,15,(17)(18)(19)(20). Nevertheless, the disk diffusion test is currently widely used, since it is easy to perform in clinical microbiology laboratories.…”

supporting

confidence: 59%

“…Several previous papers have focused on the efficacy and accuracy of the disk diffusion method and the Etest method compared to the agar plate dilution or broth microdilution methods, with somewhat contradictory results (8,9,15,17,19,20). In these studies, the disk diffusion tests were performed only once for each strain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these studies, the disk diffusion tests were performed only once for each strain. Gaudreau et al (8,9) have found the disk diffusion method to be a reliable, easy and inexpensive method for the testing of the susceptibility of C. jejuni to erythromycin, ciprofloxacin, and tetracycline. Corroborating the present study, the results of, e.g., van der Beek et al are different (19).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Inaccuracy of the Disk Diffusion Method Compared with the Agar Dilution Method for Susceptibility Testing of Campylobacter spp

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The agar dilution method has been standardized by the CLSI for the susceptibility testing of Campylobacter species, and according to these standards, the disk diffusion method should be used only in screening for macrolide and ciprofloxacin resistance. Nevertheless, the disk diffusion test is currently widely used, since it is easy to perform in clinical microbiology laboratories. In this study, the disk diffusion method was compared to the agar dilution method by analyzing the in vitro activities of seven antimicrobial agents against 174 Campylobacter strains collected in Finland between 2003 and 2008. Recommendations of the CLSI were followed using Mueller-Hinton agar plates with 5% of sheep blood. For each strain, the disk diffusion tests were performed two to four times. Of the 33 erythromycin-resistant strains (MIC, >16 g/ml), 24 (73%) constantly showed a 6-mm erythromycin inhibition zone (i.e., no inhibition), while for seven strains the inhibition zone varied from 6 to 44 mm in repeated measurements. Among the 141 erythromycin-susceptible strains (MIC, <16 g/ml), erythromycin inhibition zones varied between 6 and 61 mm. Of the 87 ciprofloxacin-resistant strains, 47 (54%) showed 6-mm inhibition zones, while 40 strains showed inhibition zones between 6 and 60 mm. Significant differences between the repetitions were observed in the disk diffusion for all antimicrobial agents and all strains except for the macrolide-resistant strains regarding the macrolides. For 17 (10%) strains, the variation in repeated measurements was substantial. These results show that the disk diffusion method may not be a reliable tool for the susceptibility testing of Campylobacter spp. Further studies are needed to assess whether the disk diffusion test could be improved or whether all susceptibilities of campylobacters should be tested using an MIC-based method.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 59%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inaccuracy of the Disk Diffusion Method Compared with the Agar Dilution Method for Susceptibility Testing of Campylobacter spp

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, in comparison to the agar dilution method, the C. jejuni and C. coli erythromycin and ciprofloxacin disk diffusion method (3, 4, 6) so far agrees for 100% and 98% of the isolates for erythromycin and ciprofloxacin, respectively. Our results (3,4,6) match the CLSI erythromycin and ciprofloxacin disk diffusion method standardization (2): all isolates without a zone (6 mm) around erythromycin or ciprofloxacin disks were resistant to macrolides and ciprofloxacin, respectively.…”

supporting

confidence: 61%

Disk Diffusion Method for Erythromycin and Ciprofloxacin Susceptibility Testing of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli

Gaudreau¹

2013

J Clin Microbiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the disk diffusion method, Lehtopolku et al. (1) reported diameters of 6 mm to 44 to 70 mm for susceptible, as well as resistant, Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli isolates exposed to seven and six antimicrobial agents, respectively. These results disagree with the erythromycin and ciprofloxacin disk diffusion method standardization by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (2) and with the other disk diffusion studies for erythromycin and ciprofloxacin (3-5). The CLSI reported that the absence of a zone (6 mm) around the 15-g erythromycin disk or around the 5-g ciprofloxacin disk indicates resistance to macrolides or ciprofloxacin, respectively, and that a diameter of Ͼ6 mm requires a MIC (2). Their erythromycin resistance breakpoint of Ն16 mg/liter and their two Campylobacter spp. resistant to erythromycin but susceptible to azithromycin (1) disagree with the CLSI recommendations, namely, that the erythromycin resistance breakpoint is Ն32 mg/liter and the erythromycin-resistant isolates are resistant to azithromycin (2).In our studies with C. jejuni and C. coli (3, 4) and erythromycin, 303 susceptible isolates (MICs, Յ4 mg/liter) had a Ն15-mm zone and 57 resistant isolates (MICs, Ն64 mg/liter) had no zone around the 15-g erythromycin disk. For ciprofloxacin, 223 susceptible C. jejuni and C. coli isolates (MICs, Յ1 mg/liter) had a Ն25-mm zone around the 5-g ciprofloxacin disk, except for 1 isolate (21 mm), and had a zone around the 30-g nalidixic acid disk and 155 resistant (MICs, Ն4 mg/liter) and 2 intermediately resistant (MIC of 2 mg/liter) isolates had zones of 6 to 20 mm around the ciprofloxacin disk and had no zone around the nalidixic acid disk. The nalidixic acid disk diffusion test results of 92 C. jejuni isolates at the Laboratoire de Santé Publique du Québec and the erythromycin and nalidixic acid disk diffusion test results of 146 C. jejuni isolates at the Hôpital Sacré-Coeur matched our results (3). In our laboratory, disk diffusion testing was repeated for many isolates with matching results even if not reported (3, 4, 6; our unpublished data).Since our studies were published (3, 4), in two studies done in our laboratory and one or more other laboratories, the C. jejuni and C. coli erythromycin, nalidixic acid, and ciprofloxacin disk diffusion method was as in agreement and reproducible as it was for susceptible as well as for resistant isolates (0% and Յ0.5% of the isolates were intermediately resistant to erythromycin and ciprofloxacin, respectively) compared with the MICs determined by agar dilution, the Etest, or both methods, including 44 erythromycin-resistant isolates (our unpublished data). Overall, in comparison to the agar dilution method, the C. jejuni and C. coli erythromycin and ciprofloxacin disk diffusion method (3, 4, 6) so far agrees for 100% and 98% of the isolates for erythromycin and ciprofloxacin, respectively. Our results (3, 4, 6) match the CLSI erythromycin and ciprofloxacin disk diffusion method standardization (2): all isolates without a zone (6 mm) ...

show abstract

“…Institute (CLSI), to ensure that the results of the new and old methods were comparable to each other. While it is possible that different rates of antibiotic sensitivity may reflect changes in these methods several studies examining these different methods against a range of antibiotics and a range of organisms have generally found excellent correlation between tests with agreement approaching 95% in most studies [19,20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Haemophilus influenzae and Haemophilus parainfluenza in Cystic Fibrosis: 15 Years Experience

Ebbing¹,

Robertson

Robinson

2015

J Medical Microbiol Diagnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of Disk Diffusion and Agar Dilution Methods for Erythromycin, Ciprofloxacin, and Tetracycline Susceptibility Testing of Campylobacter coli and for Tetracycline Susceptibility Testing of Campylobacter jejuni subsp. jejuni

Cited by 31 publications

References 10 publications

Inaccuracy of the Disk Diffusion Method Compared with the Agar Dilution Method for Susceptibility Testing of Campylobacter spp

Inaccuracy of the Disk Diffusion Method Compared with the Agar Dilution Method for Susceptibility Testing of Campylobacter spp

Disk Diffusion Method for Erythromycin and Ciprofloxacin Susceptibility Testing of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli

Haemophilus influenzae and Haemophilus parainfluenza in Cystic Fibrosis: 15 Years Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About