Comparison of Rosco Neo-Sensitabs with Oxoid paper disks in EUCAST disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing on Mueller–Hinton agar

  • U. S. Justesen
  • Z. Acar
  • K. Olsson
  • T. G. Jensen
  • M. B. Kerrn
  • R. L. Skov
  • B. Gahrn-Hansen
Article

Abstract

This study compared Neo-Sensitabs with Oxoid paper disks using the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility test on Mueller–Hinton agar. The EUCAST-recommended quality control strains (Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 and Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212) (Part I) and clinical isolates (Part II) were investigated. In Part I of the study, 27 combinations of antimicrobial agents were tested on four quality control strains repeatedly up to 60 times and zone diameters of tablets and disks were compared. In Part II of the study, 351 clinical isolates were included to cover a broad range of species, as well as resistance mechanisms. In Part I, four major deviations (>1 mm outside quality control ranges) were observed with Neo-Sensitabs. In one case with P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 (meropenem), there was a corresponding major deviation (2 mm) with the Oxoid disk. The three remaining major deviations with Neo-Sensitabs were observed with meropenem (2 mm) in E. coli ATCC 25922 and with ciprofloxacin (2 mm) and gentamicin (3 mm) in P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853. For Oxoid disks, there were only minor deviations (=1 mm outside quality control ranges) in these three cases. In Part II, there were six discrepancies, susceptible versus resistant, in 3,533 comparisons between the two methods with the clinical isolates. The Rosco Neo-Sensitabs appear to be a possible alternative to Oxoid paper disks for EUCAST disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing on Mueller–Hinton agar.

Supplementary material

10096_2012_1785_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (445 kb)
ESM 1Figures with scatterplots from Part II of the study showing the measured zone diameters with a linear regression line (X=Y) and an identity line for each bacterial group and antimicrobial agent are presented. (PDF 444 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) (2012) EUCAST web site. http://www.eucast.org. Accessed 21 Sept 2012
  2. 2.
    European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) (2012) EUCAST Disk Diffusion Test Methodology. http://www.eucast.org/antimicrobial_susceptibility_testing/disk_diffusion_methodology/. Accessed 21 Sept 2012
  3. 3.
    European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) (2012) Clinical breakpoints. http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints. Accessed 21 Sept 2012
  4. 4.
    Lauwers S, Philippe J, Van Zeebroeck A, Pierard D, Derde MP, Kaufman L (1991) Quality control in antimicrobial disk susceptibility testing: a Belgian multicenter study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 10(8):652–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rodríguez-Villalobos H, Boeras A (2012) Comparison of Neo-sensitabs (ROSCO) tablets with paper discs (OXOID) for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Gram-negative clinical isolates according to the EUCAST recommendations. Clin Microbiol Infect 18(Suppl 3):S119Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hansen DS, Schumacher H, Hansen F, Stegger M, Hertz FB, Schønning K, Justesen US, Frimodt-Møller N; DANRES Study Group (2012) Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) in Danish clinical isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae: prevalence, β-lactamase distribution, phylogroups, and co-resistance. Scand J Infect Dis 44(3):174–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stegger M, Andersen PS, Kearns A, Pichon B, Holmes MA, Edwards G, Laurent F, Teale C, Skov R, Larsen AR (2012) Rapid detection, differentiation and typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus harbouring either mecA or the new mecA homologue mecA(LGA251). Clin Microbiol Infect 18(4):395–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lester CH, Olsen SS, Schønheyder HC, Hansen DS, Tvede M, Holm A, Arpi M, Friis-Møller A, Jensen KT, Kemp M, Hammerum AM (2010) Typing of vancomycin-resistant enterococci obtained from patients at Danish hospitals and detection of a genomic island specific to CC17 Enterococcus faecium. Int J Antimicrob Agents 35(3):312–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) (2012) EUCAST Quality Control. http://www.eucast.org/antimicrobial_susceptibility_testing/qc_tables/. Accessed 21 Sept 2012
  10. 10.
    Leclercq R, Cantón R, Brown DF, Giske CG, Heisig P, Macgowan AP, Mouton JW, Nordmann P, Rodloff AC, Rossolini GM, Soussy CJ, Steinbakk M, Winstanley TG, Kahlmeter G (2011) EUCAST expert rules in antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Clin Microbiol Infect [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03703.x

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. S. Justesen
    • 1
  • Z. Acar
    • 1
  • K. Olsson
    • 3
  • T. G. Jensen
    • 1
  • M. B. Kerrn
    • 2
  • R. L. Skov
    • 3
  • B. Gahrn-Hansen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical MicrobiologyOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark
  2. 2.SSI DiagnosticaStatens Serum InstitutHillerødDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Microbiology and Infection ControlStatens Serum InstitutKøbenhavn SDenmark

Personalised recommendations