Review of methods for susceptibility testing of anaerobes

  • R. J. Zabransky
Current Topic: Review

Abstract

In the USA, the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards has studied and published a reference agar dilution method for the susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. While numerous investigators both in Europe and the USA have evaluated a variety of methods with a variety of modifications, only the broth microdilution method appears to be appropriate for routine use. The problems of the choice of breakpoint, inoculum size, media, media additives, endpoint recognition and other parameters affecting test performance and interpretation, while troublesome for anaerobes, are not unique to this group of organisms. The increasing resistance of anaerobes and the ever existing need to provide therapeutic guidance, surveillance for resistance and susceptibility data on new drugs make the need for an accurate and reliable susceptibility test for anaerobes critical. The newer methods, while showing promise, need further evaluation with all agents that have a therapeutic indication for anaerobic infections.

Keywords

Anaerobic Bacterium National Committee Dilution Method Inoculum Size Therapeutic Indication 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Zabransky RJ Revisiting anaerobic susceptibility testing. Clinical Microbiology Newsletter 1989, 11: 185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baron EJ, Citron DM, Wexler HM Son of anaerobic susceptibility testing — revisited. Clinical Microbiology Newsletter 1990, 12: 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wexler HM Susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria: myth, magic or method? Clinical Microbiology Reviews 1991, 4: 470–484.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria — second edition. Approved standard M11-A2. NCCLS, Villanova, PA, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Third informational supplement, M100-S3. NCCLS, Villanova, PA, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilkins TD, Chalgren S Medium for use in antibiotic susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1976, 10: 926–928.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sutter VL, Barry AL, Wilkins TD, Zabransky RJ Collaborative evaluation of a proposed reference dilution method of susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1979, 16: 495–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Alternative methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Proposed guideline, M17-P. NCCLS, Villanova, PA, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aldridge KE, Sanders CV Antibiotic- and method-dependent variation in susceptibility testing results ofBacteroides fragilis group isolates. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1987, 25: 2317–2321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finegold SM, andthe National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Working Group on Anaerobic Susceptibility Testing Susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1988, 26: 1253–1256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Phillips I A guide to sensitivity testing. Report of the Working Party on Antimicrobial Sensitivity Testing of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1991, 27, Supplement D: 1–50.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Report by a working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy: Breakpoints for in-vitro sensitivity testing. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1988, 21: 701–710.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Swedish Reference Group for Antibiotics A revised system for antibiotic sensitivity testing. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1981, 13: 148–152.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilkins TD, Thiel T Modified broth-disk method for testing the antibiotic susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1973, 3: 350–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barry AL, Packer RR Determination of susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria to cefotetan and cefoxitin by the thioglycolate disk elution method. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1984, 20: 912–916.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jorgensen JH, Redding JS, Howell AW Evaluation of broth disk elution methods for susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria with the newer β-lactam antibiotics. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1986, 23: 545–550.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zabransky RJ, Birk RJ, Kurzynski TA, Toohey KL Predicting the susceptibility of anaerobes to cefoperazone, cefotaxime, and cefoxitin with the thioglycolate broth disk procedure. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1986, 24: 181–185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barry AL, Zabransky RJ Eubacterium lentum ATCC 40355: a new reference strain for quality control of anaerobic susceptibility tests. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1989, 28: 2375–2376.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenblatt JE Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1984, 6, Supplement: 242–248.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    West SEH, Wilkins TD Vaspar broth procedure for antibiotic susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1980, 17: 288–291.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wexler HM, Finegold SM Effects of differences in media and methods on MIC values for anaerobes. Hospital Practice 1990, 25, Supplement 4: 24–30.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fox AR, Phillips I The antibiotic sensitivity of theBacteroides fragilis group in the United Kingdom. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1987, 20: 477–488.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rodloff AC, Appelbaum PC, Zabransky RJ Practical anaerobic bacteriology. Cumitech 5A. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heizmann W, Werner H, Herb B Comparison of four commercial microdilution systems for susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 1988, 7: 758–763.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones RN, Barry AL, Cotton JL, Sutter VL, Swenson JM Collaborative evaluation of the Micro-Media Systems anaerobic susceptibility panel: comparison with reference methods and test reproducibility. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1982, 16: 245–249.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sutter VL, Kwok YY, Finegold SM Susceptibility ofBacteroides fragilis to six antibiotics determined by standardized antimicrobial disk susceptibility testing. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1973, 3: 188–193.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barry AL, Fuchs PC, Gerlach EH, Allen SD, Acar JF, Aldridge KE, Bourgault AM, Grim H, Hall GS, Heizmann W, Jones RN, Swenson JM, Thornsberry C, Wexler H, Williams JD, Wust J Multilaboratory evaluation of an agar diffusion disk susceptibility test for rapid growing anaerobic bacteria. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1989, 12, Supplement 2: 210–217.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Horn R, Bourgault AM, Lamothe F Disk diffusion susceptibility testing of theBacteroides fragilis group. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1987, 31: 1596–1599.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baker CN, Stocker SA, Culver DH, Thornsberry C Comparison of the E Test to agar dilution, broth microdilution, and agar diffusion susceptibility test techniques by using a special challenge set of bacteria. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1991, 29: 533–538.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Citron DM, Ostovari MI, Karlsson A, Goldstein EJC Evaluation of the E Test for susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1991, 29: 2197–2203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hill GB, Schalkowsky S Development and evaluation of the spiral gradient endpoint method for susceptibility testing of anaerobic gram-negative bacilli. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1990, 12, Supplement 2: 200–209.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wexler HM, Molitoris E, Jashnian F, Finegold SM Comparison of spiral gradient with conventional agar dilution for susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1991, 35: 1196–1202.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. J. Zabransky
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity of Texas Medical Branch at GalvestonGalvestonUSA

Personalised recommendations