We compared results of MIC and disk susceptibility tests on Haemophilus test medium (HTM) and those on comparative media. Ampicillin MICs were determined with seven ampicillin-resistant, non-f-lactamaseproducing (AmprNBLP) isolates by using HTM and supplemented brain heart infusion (sBHI) agar. Ampicilli and amoxicillin-clavulanate disk tests with 16 Amp'NBLP strains, 18 ampicillin-susceptible (Amps) isolates, and 17 ampicillin-resistant, .lactamase-producing (AmprBLP) strains were performed by using five media: laboratory-prepared HTM (PHTM), commercial HTM (CHTM), sBHI, enriched chocolate agar, and Mueller-Einton chocolate agar. We observed that five of seven and three of seven Amp'NBLP stains were misclassified as susceptible with PHTM (MIC, <2 ,ug/ml) with inocula of 103 and 1i@ CFU, respectively, but were resistant with sBHI (MIC,.2 ,ug/ml (.25 mm) and resistance (<21 mm) (1, 9). Presumably, these changes would allow identification of all ampicillin-resistant strains by using the standard 10-,ug ampicillin disk test. Previously, we showed with the former NCCLS criteria (7) and media that the 10-pLg disk test, in contrast to the 2-,ug ampicillin disk test, failed to detect 44% (8 of 18) of ampicillin-resistant, non-p-lactamase-producing (AmprNBLP) isolates; these isolates have an intermediate level of resistance compared with 3-lactamase-producing strains (median ampicillin MIC, 8 versus 32 p.g/ml, respectively, with an inoculum of 105 CFU) (4).Recently, we used HTM to compare the in vitro susceptibility of H. influenzae to three cephem antibiotics (6). In that study, we observed that the ampicillin MICs with HTM were lower for AmprNBLP strains compared with our previous data obtained with the same isolates in our laboratory when we used supplemented brain heart infusion medium (sBHI; Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Mich.); those data prompted this investigation. We compared the ampicillin MICs using HTM (2)