Reliability of routine disc susceptibility testing by the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) method.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the agreement between MICs determined at a central laboratory, and susceptible, intermediate and resistant categorizations based on zone diameters recorded at diagnostic laboratories using the BSAC standardized method. METHODS: Standardized disc susceptibility tests were performed at sentinel laboratories in three surveys, with MIC tests performed on the collected isolates at a reference laboratory. The organisms comprised over 3300 Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter spp., pseudomonads, staphylococci and enterococci, with over 29 000 antibiotic/organism tests in total. RESULTS: More than 90% of the antibiotic/organism combinations classed as susceptible by disc tests in the sentinel laboratories were confirmed by MIC testing. Disagreements were more frequent where disc tests indicated resistance, with half of the piperacillin/tazobactam resistance and one-third of the cephalosporin resistance found in Enterobacteriaceae by disc tests not being confirmed, and with three-quarters of teicoplanin resistance in enterococci not confirmed. None of the few apparent cases of meropenem resistance in Enterobacteriaceae or linezolid, quinupristin/dalfopristin or vancomycin resistance in staphylococci were confirmed by MIC testing. When disagreements were found between disc- and MIC-based categorization, MICs were commonly, although not invariably, one to three doubling dilutions above or below the breakpoint. However, many of the disagreements where MICs were three or more dilutions from the breakpoint were not seen when disc tests were repeated in the central laboratory. CONCLUSIONS: The BSAC disc method seems adequate for confirming susceptibility to guide therapy and to monitor resistance trends. Nevertheless, there must be concern about the over-estimation of many resistances, and frequent zone:MIC disagreements for isolates with borderline susceptibility.

In vitro activity of piperacillin/tazobactam and other broad-spectrum antibiotics against bacteria from hospitalised patients in the British Isles.

Piperacillin/tazobactam is used for empirical therapy of severe and complex infections. We assessed its activity, 9 years after launch, against consecutive, clinically significant isolates from in-patients in UK and Ireland. Standardised disc susceptibility tests were performed on 5031 isolates at 28 hospitals. For quality assurance purposes, 5% of these isolates were collected centrally for MIC tests, as were those with exceptional resistances. Compared with a similar pre-launch survey in 1991, there were major increases in the proportions of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, beta-haemolytic streptococci and Enterococcus faecium isolates collected, balanced by decreases in Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis and coagulase-negative staphylococci. These changes in species prevalence mostly favoured organisms with inherent resistance(s) or-in the case of S. aureus-reflected the massive increase of MRSA, up from 0.7% of all isolates in 1991 to 14.8% in 2001. Based on the disc tests, piperacillin/tazobactam retained activity against 87% of Enterobacteriaceae isolates, 95% of P. aeruginosa, 99% of streptococci and 96% of Enterococcus faecalis. Resistance nevertheless had increased since 1991 in E. coli from 4 to 10%, Klebsiella spp. (5 to 21%) and in AmpC-inducible Enterobacteriaceae (17 to 23%), though not in P. mirabilis or P. aeruginosa. MIC tests confirmed most of the piperacillin/tazobactam resistance found by disc tests in Enterobacter spp., but indicated susceptibility for about half of the E. coli isolates recorded as resistant in disc tests. This situation might be remedied by reducing the zone breakpoint, but this would increase the "false susceptible" rate unacceptably. Thus, if disc tests suggest that an isolate is marginally resistant to piperacillin/tazobactam and the drug is sought as therapy, it is recommended that MIC be determined with, e.g., an Etest.

Activity of the ketolide telithromycin (HMR-3647) against erythromycin-susceptible and -resistant pneumococci isolated in the UK.

The novel ketolide telithromycin (formerly HMR-3647) was tested against a collection of pneumococci of varying sensitivity to erythromycin and clindamycin, isolated in geographically diverse UK hospitals. Telithromycin was highly active against erythromycin-susceptible pneumococci, the MIC(90) being 0.015 mg/l. Erythromycin-resistant pneumococci that contained the ermB gene, either alone or together with the mefE gene, were cross-resistant to other macrolides and to clindamycin, while erythromycin-resistant pneumococci that contained only the mefE gene were cross-resistant to azithromycin, clarithromycin and roxithromycin but remained susceptible to josamycin and clindamycin. Telithromycin was active against erythromycin-resistant pneumococci irrespective of their mechanism of macrolide resistance, although the MIC(90) (0.25 mg/l) was higher than that seen with erythromycin-sensitive isolates. Telithromycin thus appears to be a potentially useful drug in settings where pneumococcal resistance to macrolides is prevalent.

Antimicrobial susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: results of a UK survey and evaluation of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy disc susceptibility test.

A survey was conducted in 1999, first to establish the prevalence of antibiotic resistance among clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the UK and secondly to test whether the use of the standardized British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) disc testing method improved the accuracy of routine susceptibility testing for this organism. Twenty-five hospitals were each asked to collect up to 100 consecutive, clinically significant isolates of P. aeruginosa and to test their susceptibility to amikacin, gentamicin, ceftazidime, imipenem, meropenem, ciprofloxacin, piperacillin and piperacillin/tazobactam using the new BSAC disc method. A total of 2194 isolate reports were available for analysis and 10% of the isolates represented, plus those with unusual resistances, were re-tested centrally for quality control purposes. The zone distributions were essentially unimodal, indicating the absence of major populations with acquired resistance. The results indicated that resistance rates to the beta-lactam, aminoglycoside and quinolone agents tested in P. aeruginosa in the UK remain low (<12%), and were mostly unchanged since a previous survey conducted in 1993. High resistance rates were nevertheless reported for isolates from cystic fibrosis patients. The accuracy of susceptibility testing using the new BSAC disc testing method was better than in previous studies, when Stokes' method was most frequently used. Critically, the proportion of resistant isolates incorrectly reported as susceptible was reduced significantly; nevertheless, depending on the antibiotic, up to 49% of the isolates reported as intermediate or resistant were found susceptible on central re-testing.

Susceptibility of gram-positive cocci from 25 UK hospitals to antimicrobial agents including linezolid. The Linezolid Study Group.

The prevalence of antibiotic resistance amongst Gram-positive cocci from 25 UK hospitals was studied over an 8 month period in 1999. A total of 3770 isolates were tested by the sentinel laboratories using the Etest; these bacteria comprised 1000 pneumococci, 1005 Staphylococcus aureus, 769 coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) and 996 enterococci. To ensure quality, 10% of the isolates were retested centrally, as were any found to express unusual resistance patterns. The prevalence of penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, vancomycin-resistant enterococci and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) varied widely amongst the sentinel laboratories. The resistance rates to methicillin among S. aureus and CNS were 19.2 and 38.9%, respectively, with MRSA rates in individual sentinel sites ranging from 0 to 43%. No glycopeptide resistance was seen in S. aureus, but 6.5% of CNS isolates were teicoplanin resistant and 0.5% were vancomycin resistant. Vancomycin resistance was much more frequent among Enterococcus faecium (24.1%) than E. faecalis (0.5%) (P<0.05), with most resistant isolates carrying vanA. The rate of penicillin resistance in pneumococci was 8.9%, and this resistance was predominantly intermediate (7.9%), with only six hospitals reporting isolates with high level resistance. The prevalence of erythromycin resistance among pneumococci was 12.3%, with the majority of resistant isolates having the macrolide efflux mechanism mediated by mefE. All the organisms tested were susceptible to linezolid with MICs in the range 0.12-4 mg/L. The modal MICs of linezolid were 1 mg/L for CNS and pneumococci, and 2 mg/L for S. aureus and enterococci. Linezolid was the most potent agent tested against Gram-positive cocci, including multiresistant strains, and as such may prove a valuable therapeutic option for the management of Gram-positive infections in hospitals.