Validation of a modified Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method for metronidazole susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori
Department of Microbiology and Infectious Disease, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease (Impact Factor: 2.46). 03/1995; 21(3):135-40. DOI: 10.1016/0732-8893(95)00066-J
Triple antimicrobial therapy that includes metronidazole has been recommended as a first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori because it has the highest eradication rates. However, resistance in H. pylori to metronidazole has been reported worldwide and its presence may reduce the efficacy of triple therapy. Various methods for testing H. pylori against metronidazole have been used including agar dilution, disk diffusion and the Etest but there has been little standardization of methods. One hundred isolates of H. pylori from different patients were tested for susceptibility to metronidazole by agar dilution, Etest and disk diffusion (5 micrograms disk). The agar dilution results confirmed the MIC susceptibility breakpoint to be < or = 8 micrograms/ml. Using this breakpoint there was close agreement (98%) between Etest and agar dilution results. For susceptible strains, MICs by E-test were generally one twofold dilution lower. Using the error-rate bounded method, agreement between disk diffusion zone diameter and MIC was 98% for agar dilution with breakpoints of > or = 12 mm and < or = 8 micrograms/ml and 100% for Etest with breakpoints of > or = 12 mm and < or = 8 micrograms/ml. The Etest discriminated better than agar dilution between susceptible and resistant strains and was simple to perform. The disk diffusion test is a reliable and cheaper alternative to the Etest with susceptibility being a zone diameter > or = 12 mm with a 5 micrograms disk. The prevalence of metronidazole resistance in this study was 40% by Etest.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The optimal method for the determination of the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobials against Helicobacter pylori has not been established. The epsilometer agar diffusion gradient test (E-Test; AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) was compared with broth microdilution, the reference method, and disk diffusion for the antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 122 clinical isolates of H. pylori to ampicillin, clarithromycin, and metronidazole. Isolates were considered to be resistant when the MIC values was > 8 micrograms/ml for either ampicillin or metronidazole and > 2 micrograms/ml for clarithromycin. For an individual isolate, the MICs for ampicillin and clarithromycin determined by broth microdilution and the E-test were highly reproducible, with replicate results being within +/- 1 log2 dilution. The correlation between the MICs determined by E-test and broth microdilution was excellent for both ampicillin and clarithromycin (90.1% and 88.5% were within +/- log2 dilution, and 98.3% and 96.7% of the values were within +/- 2 log2 dilution, respectively). In no instance did the interpretation of "sensitive" or "resistant" differ. Conversely, only 70.5% of the E-test results of metronidazole were within +/- 1 log2 dilution of the broth microdilution results. In addition, 15 (12.3%) of the H. pylori isolates interpreted as resistant by the E-test were sensitive by the broth microdilution method. All discrepancies occurred when the E-test MIC values fell between 8 and 32 micrograms/ml. The results of the ampicillin and clarithromycin disk diffusion assay correlated 100% with the results of the broth microdilution. However, these data suggest that when the E-test MIC results of metronidazole yield values between 8 and 32 micrograms/ml, the MIC should be reevaluated by another method.Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 01/1996; 24(1):37-41. DOI:10.1016/0732-8893(95)00252-9 · 2.46 Impact Factor
Article: Anti-Helicobacter regimensThe Lancet 04/1996; 347(9009):1193–1194. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90656-X · 45.22 Impact Factor
- The Lancet 05/1996; 347(9009):1194-5. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90657-1 · 45.22 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.