ライフサイエンスコーパス: Etest

1 microdilution, CLSI broth microdilution, and Etest).

2 ty testing for levofloxacin was performed by Etest.

3 d by broth microdilution, agar dilution, and Etest.

4 tested for mupirocin susceptibility by using Etest.

5 enerated by this method to MICs generated by Etest.

6 eillance were concurrently tested by BMD and Etest.

7 em, meropenem, and cefepime by utilizing the Etest.

8 es were also classified as nonsusceptible by Etest.

9 tories performed susceptibility testing with Etest.

10 etermined using the K-B diffusion method and eTest.

11 sk diffusion and 4 (13.3%) minor errors with Etest.

12 tion; mupirocin susceptibility was tested by Etest.

13 ibility by the disk-diffusion method and the Etest.

14 by broth macrodilution, disk diffusion, and Etest.

15 cessful transition from agar dilution to the Etest.

16 UC/MIC by broth microdilution and AUC/MIC by Etest.

17 = 0.25/0.5 mug/ml by broth microdilution and Etest.

18 and, in particular, to use caution with the Etest.

19 monly used antibiotics by disk diffusion and Etest.

20 isolates were interpreted as susceptible by Etest.

21 , five had susceptible MICs as determined by Etest.

22 (BMD-T), broth macrodilution (TDS), and the Etest.

23 on, broth microdilution, disk diffusion, and Etest.

24 ion (0.902, standard error [SE] = 0.076) and Etest (1.00, SE = 0.218) and for amphotericin B by disk

25 quent false-NS results (30 for BMD30, 18 for Etest, 22 for MicroScan Prompt, and 25 for MicroScan tur

26 nce broth microdilution, gradient diffusion (Etest), 23S rRNA gene sequencing, and cfr PCR.

27 ylococci were the highest for VITEK (35.7%), Etest (40.0%), and disk diffusion (53.3%), although the

28 63% (60/96) of isolates were susceptible by Etest, 70% (67/96) by DD, and 88% (84/96) by agar diluti

29 reference and test methods was observed for Etest (95%) and Sensititre (91%).

30 meropenem by agar dilution, disk diffusion, Etest (AB BIODISK North America, Inc., Piscataway, N.J.)

31 Several Etest (AB BIODISK, Solna, Sweden) gradient formats were

32 In this study, we found that the dalbavancin Etest (AB BIODISK, Solna, Sweden) procedure demonstrated

33 all 100 isolates were tested in parallel by Etest (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden), MicroScan WalkAway (D

34 ycin and teicoplanin was determined using an Etest (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden).

35 ostics, Sparks, MD), oxacillin and cefoxitin Etests (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) on Mueller-Hinton aga

36 s results from three validated methods (BMD, Etest [AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden], and disk diffusion).

37 agar dilution method and, separately, by the Etest according to the manufacturer's recommendations.

38 ween broth microdilution (BMD), Vitek 2, and Etest against 48 clinical KPC-producing Klebsiella pneum

39 otic Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and the Etest agar diffusion method were compared with the Clini

40 thod were compared to those generated by the Etest agar gradient diffusion method.

41 In turn, Etest also has false nonsusceptible results compared to

42 rds reference broth microdilution method and Etest (amphotericin B).

43 tes were significantly lower than those from Etest analysis at the time of isolation for both antibio

44 MICs from automated testing and Etest analysis of stored isolates were significantly low

45 erall categorical agreement (CA) was 90% for Etest and 88% for Sensititre; minor errors accounted for

46 The Etest and agar dilution methods were well correlated.

47 Overall agreements for Etest and agar dilution MIC values compared to reference

48 Overall agreement between Etest and BMD MICs was 96% for fluconazole and 95% for v

49 MIC comparisons between the Etest and BMD resulted in lower concordance for erythrom

50 ow (~51%) categorical agreement (CA) between Etest and BMD results across CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints

51 The MICs were determined by Etest and BMD using two different manufacturers (BBL and

52 cy was noted between the results obtained by Etest and broth microdilution for voriconazole, the Etes

53 eement (within 2 well dilutions) between the Etest and broth microdilution methods was 94%.

54 system (Vitek 2) and retrospective testing (Etest and CLSI reference broth microdilution [BMD] metho

55 .2% (micafungin), whereas the EA between the Etest and CLSI results ranged from 90.2% (caspofungin) t

56 The CA between the Etest and CLSI results was also excellent for all compar

57 is study was to determine the ability of the Etest and DD methods to differentiate daptomycin-suscept

58 By Etest and disc diffusion assay, pradofloxacin showed gre

59 The agar-based Etest and disk diffusion methods performed well for the

60 We compared Etest and disk diffusion to broth microdilution for the

61 Overall, the agreement between Etest and disk diffusion was better than the agreement b

62 twofold dilution, for 97% of the isolates by Etest and for 100% by JustOne.

63 evices for determination of daptomycin MICs, Etest and JustOne.

64 glucose-6-phosphate-supplemented fosfomycin Etest and Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion (DD) assays, and th

65 Overall agreement between Etest and microdilution MICs was 96% with RPMI agar and

66 Overall agreement percentages between the Etest and microdilution MICs were 97.6% for voriconazole

67 Overall, Etest and Sensititre methods compared favorably with the

68 lity testing in our clinical laboratory, the Etest and Sensititre methods were compared with the Clin

69 ere determined after 48 h of incubation, and Etest and Sensititre MICs were determined after 24 h and

70 Etest and Sensititre provided better CA at 24 h compared

71 Overall agreements between the Etest and the BMD MICs obtained with RPG and MBE agars w

72 The performances of the Etest and the disk diffusion methods for testing of the

73 Where a discrepancy was observed between Etest and the reference method, the Etest MIC was genera

74 where a discrepancy was observed between the Etest and the reference method, the Etest MIC was lower.

75 Where a discrepancy was observed between Etest and the reference method, the Etest tended to give

76 Where a discrepancy was observed between Etest and the reference method, the Etest tended to give

77 blood culture bottles by disk diffusion and Etest and the results of standardized susceptibility tes

78 Vancomycin MICs were determined using Etest and two broth microdilution assays, MicroScan and

79 mpared posaconazole M27-A2 and M38-A MICs to Etest and YeastOne MICs for 92 zygomycetes, 126 Aspergil

80 We compared the V-MIC (Etest) and the frequency of hVISA (Etest macromethod) fo

81 lts from clinical microbiology laboratories (Etest) and to polymyxin resistance testing.

82 medium supplementation (BMD30 method), (iii) Etest, and (iv and v) MicroScan panel 33 using 2 methods

83 No VME or ME were observed by Etest, and 11 minor errors for ciprofloxacin (19.0%) and

84 ement was 95.6% for agar dilution, 90.6% for Etest, and 85.2% for MTS.

85 ilution, 73.1% for disk diffusion, 96.3% for Etest, and 96.6% for MTS.

86 commercial and in-house broth microdilution, Etest, and common automated methods.

87 R) were tested by broth microdilution (BMD), Etest, and disk diffusion (DD), and the modified Hodge t

88 MIC values for agar dilution, Etest, and MTS were not significantly different from tha

89 rmatory testing employing disk augmentation, Etest, and the BD Phoenix NMC/ID-132 panel.

90 nce method) for MicroScan, Phoenix, VITEK 2, Etest, and VITEK were 99.0%, 95.8%, 92.0%, 92.0%, and 85

91 l 2016 through 10 May 2016 underwent routine Etest antimicrobial susceptibility testing by the Hawaii

92 rodilution method, validating the use of the Etest as an alternative test for investigational or clin

93 amicin, and tobramycin using disk diffusion, Etest, as well as the Phoenix, Vitek 2, and MicroScan au

94 sing the commercially available YeastOne and Etest assays and 102 isolates.

95 polystyrene trays and both the YeastOne and Etest assays.

96 or untreated trays and with the YeastOne and Etest assays.

97 methods (agar dilution, broth microdilution, Etest at 0.5 and 2.0 McFarland (McF) inocula, two agar s

98 sted for vancomycin susceptibility using the Etest between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2008.

99 the MicroScan MICroSTREP plus (Siemens), and Etest (bioMerieux) for antibiotic susceptibility tests (

100 on (Mast Group Ltd., Bootle Merseyside, UK), Etest (bioMerieux, Inc., Durham, NC), and MIC test strip

101 terobacteriaceae isolates were determined by Etest, BMD, Vitek-2, and MicroScan.

102 In conclusion, we found that the Etest can be effectively used as an alternative to agar

103 We studied whether the Etest can be used as an alternative to agar dilution to

104 The Etest compared favorably with agar dilution in a subsidi

105 ported to be elevated when determined by the Etest compared to determinations by the broth microdilut

106 s significantly more common as determined by Etest compared to that determined by BMD (odds ratio [OR

107 evaluation of the performance of the new P/T Etest compared to that of BMD following U.S. Food and Dr

108 luated the performance of disk diffusion and Etest compared to that of reference broth microdilution

109 For Etest compared to the reference broth microdilution, the

110 , since MICs are significantly elevated with Etest compared to those determined by the three other me

111 Etest demonstrated 82.6% agreement with broth microdilut

112 This paper presents Etest determinations of MICs of selected antimicrobial a

113 We performed Etest, disk diffusion, and broth microdilution susceptib

114 We performed Etest, disk diffusion, and broth microdilution susceptib

115 used in clinical microbiology laboratories (Etest, disk diffusion, and Sensititre broth microdilutio

116 ade Behring, Inc., West Sacramento, Calif.), Etest ESBL (AB BIODISK, Piscataway, N.J.), Vitek GNS-120

117 irmation panel and VITEK 1 GNS-120, 98%; and Etest ESBL, 94%.

118 firmation panel, 100%; VITEK 1 GNS-120, 99%; Etest ESBL, 97%; and BD BBL Sensi-Disk ESBL Confirmatory

119 MICs were determined by Etest for all 162 isolates with RPMI 1640 agar containin

120 MICs were determined by Etest for all 314 isolates with RPMI agar containing 2%

121 MICs were determined by Etest for all 726 isolates with RPMI agar containing 2%

122 The utility of Etest for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Yersin

123 der the supplemental use of reference BMD or Etest for cefepime and meropenem for susceptibility test

124 The positive predictive value of GRD Etest for hVISA was 16.2% for initial screen positive an

125 The performance of the Etest for itraconazole susceptibility testing of 50 isol

126 nts (CA) of Phoenix, Vitek 2, MicroScan, and Etest for penicillin were 95.5%, 94.2%, 98.7%, and 97.7%

127 The performance of the Etest for posaconazole (SCH 56592) susceptibility testin

128 - and intralaboratory reproducibility of the Etest for susceptibility testing of the rapidly growing

129 regarding the suitability of the tigecycline Etest for testing S. marcescens, Acinetobacter spp., and

130 The performance of the Etest for testing the susceptibilities to caspofungin (M

131 The performance of the Etest for voriconazole and amphotericin B susceptibility

132 The performance of the Etest for voriconazole and for itraconazole susceptibili

133 Performance of the Etest for voriconazole susceptibility testing of 312 iso

134 c susceptibility testing reagents (including Etest) for fusidic acid (CEM-102) performed at an excell

135 sessing concomitant ESBL and pAmpC genes for Etest (four of five), BD Phoenix (three of five), and di

136 nd broth microdilution for voriconazole, the Etest generally provided a higher MIC.

137 Recently, Etest glycopeptide resistance detection (GRD) strips hav

138 HI) agar, and a 2.0 McFarland inoculum; (ii) Etest glycopeptide resistance detection (GRD) using vanc

139 Institute broth microdilution method and the Etest GRD (glycopeptide resistance detection) method (bi

140 e hVISA incidence was 1.2%, as determined by Etest GRD and PAP-AUC.

141 es and determined the prevalence of hVISA by Etest GRD and population analysis profile-area under the

142 Etest GRD identified six hVISA isolates, two of which we

143 The Etest GRD screen for hVISA was initially positive for 68

144 romethod was 57% sensitive and 96% specific, Etest GRD was 57% sensitive and 97% specific, and BHI sc

145 Etest GRD was performed on all isolates, and those exhib

146 Isolates with Etest GRD-positive results for hVISA were evaluated furt

147 by broth microdilution >=650 and AUC/MIC by Etest >=320.

148 , while 96% of these same isolates tested by Etest had MICs of > or = 1 microg/ml.

149 synergy test, and the metallo-beta-lactamase Etest, had specificities of >90% for detecting carbapene

150 Etest hVISA screenings were done in parallel for 485 sav

151 t strains, whereas the EUCAST method and the Etest identified 6 of 7 mutant strains.

152 The Etest identified all 7 mutant strains using caspofungin

153 MICs were determined by Etest in both media for all 4,936 isolates and were read

154 The performance of Etest in fluconazole and voriconazole testing of 279 iso

155 cin MIC results obtained by Microscan and by Etest in Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci and found

156 In summary, the Etest in this evaluation did not perform as well as brot

157 range of clinical MICs, reexamination of the Etest interpretation of susceptible and nonsusceptible c

158 The best Etest interpretative criteria for the 2.0 McF inoculum w

159 Etest IP plus IP-EDTA with Mueller-Hinton agar had a sen

160 Etest is a gradient diffusion method that represents an

161 The methods included (i) Etest macromethod using vancomycin and teicoplanin test

162 The Etest macromethod was 57% sensitive and 96% specific, Et

163 he V-MIC (Etest) and the frequency of hVISA (Etest macromethod) for all MRSA blood isolates saved ove

164 eous resistance to vancomycin (hVISA) by the Etest macromethod.

165 mycin-intermediate S. aureus [hVISA]) by the Etest macromethod.

166 The Etest MBL strip appears to be an acceptable diagnostic r

167 The Etest metallo-beta-lactamase (Etest MBL) strips consisted of a double-sided seven-dilu

168 ystem [EARSS]), and the macrodilution method Etest (MET) (EARSS), with population analysis profile-ar

169 The Etest metallo-beta-lactamase (Etest MBL) strips consiste

170 he differences in the penicillin MICs by the Etest method and the difficulties of reading the Etest r

171 isolates without the need for MHT, while the Etest method characterized many KPC-Kp isolates as susce

172 microdilution testing and the results of the Etest method for any of the antimicrobial agents tested;

173 We concluded that the Etest method is an appropriate alternative to BMD for an

174 The Etest method produced MICs similar to those of the agar

175 l methods were easy to perform; however, the Etest method required more expertise to interpret the re

176 uiring further education on how to interpret Etest method results for this compound.

177 es is required to confirm the ability of the Etest method to detect voriconazole and posaconazole res

178 The Etest method using MH-GMB appears to be a useful method

179 The Etest method using RPG agar appears to be a useful metho

180 The Etest method using RPG agar appears to be a useful metho

181 The Etest method using RPG appears to be a useful method for

182 The Etest method using RPG appears to be useful for determin

183 The Etest method using RPMI agar appears to be a useful meth

184 The Etest method using RPMI agar appears to be a useful meth

185 The Macro Etest method was used to screen all available isolates.

186 id, susceptibility rates determined with the Etest method were 67.3% and 52.3% for minocycline, 21.5%

187 a commercialized gradient diffusion method (Etest method) as an alternative to BMD.

188 ISA-positive strains determined by the Macro Etest method.

189 ibiotic susceptibility was determined by the Etest method.

190 r ( approximately 5.6%), especially with the Etest method.

191 ds, and select isolates were examined by the Etest method.

192 omycin and clindamycin susceptibilities with Etest methodology among 546 group A streptococcal isolat

193 In general, the disk diffusion and Etest methods performed well with this challenging colle

194 rors were similar for the disk diffusion and Etest methods with 0.4 and 0.1%, respectively, very majo

195 the discrepancies by the disk diffusion and Etest methods with fluconazole were minor errors.

196 nd Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and Etest methods.

197 6 non-Aspergillus isolates) with the BMD and Etest methods.

198 this study, we evaluated the performance of Etest MEV (bioMerieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France) compared

199 Overall, Etest MEV demonstrated 92.4% essential agreement (EA), 9

200 Excluding P. mirabilis, MEV Etest MEV demonstrated 95.8% EA, 99.3% CA, 0% VME, 0% ME

201 In conclusion, we report that Etest MEV is accurate and reproducible for MEV susceptib

202 Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints, Etest MEV performance with clinical (16 MEV resistant) a

203 Etest MEV should not be used with P. mirabilis due to un

204 A, 0% ME, and 2.9% mE, precluding the use of Etest MEV with this species.

205 Reference CLSI MIC versus Etest MIC results (r = 0.77; 728 strains) showed 55.4% i

206 There was a good correlation between Etest MIC results and the results of BMD among laborator

207 ns) between the CLSI and EUCAST and CLSI and Etest MIC results was observed.

208 Etest MIC values demonstrated 98% agreement within +/-2

209 lation was acceptable for Mucoromycotina but Etest MIC values were consistently lower for Aspergillus

210 between Etest and the reference method, the Etest MIC was generally higher.

211 ween the Etest and the reference method, the Etest MIC was lower.

212 EAs between the reference BMD and BMD30, Etest, MicroScan Prompt, and MicroScan turbidity were 63

213 tained with six commercial MIC test systems (Etest, MicroScan, Phoenix, Sensititre, Vitek Legacy, and

214 was lower between reference posaconazole and Etest MICs (94 to 97%) and by both methods with amphoter

215 Modal Etest MICs agreed with those by broth microdilution only

216 Overall, the agreement between caspofungin Etest MICs and broth dilution values was higher with MEC

217 The proportion of isolates with Etest MICs of < 1 and > or = 1 microg/ml between childre

218 Etest MICs of azithromycin and telithromycin were more t

219 hus, institutions should consider conducting Etest MICs on all MRSA BSI isolates.

220 lus spp., the agreement between itraconazole Etest MICs read at 24 h and reference microdilution MICs

221 annii, although for most evaluated pathogens Etest MICs trended one doubling-dilution higher than BMD

222 These errors resulted when P/T Etest MICs were 1 doubling dilution apart from the BMD M

223 Etest MICs were also determined.

224 Etest MICs were determined with RPMI 1640 agar containin

225 Etest MICs were determined with RPMI agar containing 2%

226 Etest MICs were determined with RPMI agar containing 2%

227 Etest MICs were determined with RPMI agar containing 2%

228 Vancomycin Etest MICs were higher than those of other methods, wher

229 broth microdilution MICs on HTM; ampicillin Etest MICs were nearly twofold lower.

230 Etest MICs were obtained on solidified (1.5% agar) RPMI

231 The Etest MICs were significantly higher than those obtained

232 tories (r = 0.86 to 0.88), with 95.3% of the Etest MICs within a +/-1 log(2) dilution of the BMD MIC

233 Most of the Etest MICs, except for that of erythromycin, were on sca

234 performed in vitro susceptibility testing by Etest of four carbapenems for M. abscessus isolates.

235 orrelated with fluoroquinolone MICs based on Etests of these 15 MSSE isolates.

236 ar dilution tests, disk diffusion tests, and Etests, on six different agar media.

237 B. pertussis can be simplified by using the Etest or disk diffusion on RL-C to screen for erythromyc

238 In summary, daptomycin MICs generated by the Etest or JustOne method generally agreed within 1 diluti

239 solates with a vancomycin MIC of 2 mug/mL by Etest (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.34-2.21; P < .01).

240 ear 4 (2004 to 2005) was demonstrated by the Etest (P < 0.00007) but not by broth microdilution.

241 rim-sulfamethoxazole results were lower with Etest, particularly when the direct suspension method wa

242 Etest performed poorly, as the majority of interpretatio

243 mycin susceptibility were evaluated by using Etest performed prospectively on isolates in routine cli

244 ll categorical agreement levels for VITEK 2, Etest, Phoenix, disk diffusion, and VITEK were 93.0%, 90

245 entrations higher by all AST methods, except Etest, potentially impacting definitive antimicrobial th

246 th in vivo outcome of both microdilution and Etest procedures may detect more-relevant testing condit

247 The Etest produced MIC values 1 to 2 dilutions higher than t

248 methods were useful for tigecycline testing; Etest provided a conservative estimate of polymyxin B su

249 on method or with the commercially available Etest((R)) (Biomerieux, France) kit.

250 ation were similar to those calculated using Etest((R)).

251 Etest reading errors were apparent and skewed results to

252 Etest reported a significant increase (mode MIC = 1.5 mu

253 In conclusion, the new P/T Etest represents an accurate tool for performing antimic

254 The Etest results correlated well with reference MICs.

255 The Etest results for both voriconazole and amphotericin B c

256 ptomycin MIC (P = 0.03) by year of study for Etest results from the time of isolation.

257 The Etest results obtained using RPG correlated well with re

258 The Etest results obtained using RPG correlated well with th

259 and the within-2-log2 general agreement, the Etest results produced slightly lower MICs than the agar

260 t method and the difficulties of reading the Etest results through the glass of a biological safety c

261 Etest results were easy to read, with sharp zones of inh

262 The Etest results with MH-GMB correlated well with those wit

263 ntially giving inaccurate disk diffusion and Etest results.

264 We compared the performance of two Etest screening methods (macromethod [MAC] and glycopept

265 These findings suggest that both Etest screening methods have excellent NPV, but positive

266 Etest should probably not be used by laboratories for ti

267 Etest showed an >or=92% EA for MICs for all drugs tested

268 r 35 H. alvei and H. paralvei isolates using Etest strips for 24 antibiotics.

269 per isolate) using common lots of media and Etest strips.

270 Disk diffusion and Etest tended to be more accurate than the Vitek 2, Phoen

271 ance); the MicroScan and Phoenix systems and Etest tended to categorize susceptible strains as VISA;

272 between Etest and the reference method, the Etest tended to give lower values with both fluconazole

273 between Etest and the reference method, the Etest tended to give lower values with voriconazole and

274 ratories tested 26 diverse strains and found Etest to be reliable for testing antimicrobial agents us

275 acid disk test and the cefotetan-cloxacillin Etest to identify organisms with AmpC beta-lactamase pro

276 ng systems (MicroScan, Vitek 2, Phoenix, and Etest) to detect vancomycin MIC values of </=1 to >/=2 i

277 Across methodologies, the Etest underestimated the MIC relative to the gold standa

278 Etest using 0.5 and 2.0 McF inocula gave sensitivities a

279 ntaining 20% horse blood (reference method), Etest using BGA and Regan-Lowe agar without cephalexin (

280 a subset of 314 isolates were also tested by Etest using Casitone agar (CAS) and antibiotic medium 3

281 The performance of the Etest using Mueller-Hinton agar supplemented with glucos

282 of Candida spp. was assessed against that of Etest using RPMI agar with 2% glucose (RPG).

283 ColR was underestimated by Etest (very major error rate = 35%, major error rate = 0

284 ls of agreement between broth microdilution, Etest, Vitek 2, Sensititre, and MicroScan methods to acc

285 between CLSI and EUCAST for BMD testing and Etest was >95%.

286 The average precision for Etest was +/- 1.11-fold for vancomycin and +/- 1.16-fold

287 The Etest was also performed on these 50 isolates using Muel

288 Agreement in MICs obtained by Etest was determined for fluconazole (21 isolates), vori

289 Etest was used to determine the MIC of moxifloxacin and

290 solates tested were inhibited, determined by Etest, was 32 microgram/ml versus >256 microgram/ml in 7

291 s, measured by broth microdilution (BMD) and Etest, was prospectively assessed for 10 methicillin-res

292 However, daptomycin MICs determined by Etest were 1 dilution lower than the reference MICs for

293 , the results for penicillin obtained by the Etest were 1 to 9 dilutions lower than those obtained by

294 MEs and 28 mEs), and those for MicroScan and Etest were 99.5% each (19 and 13 mEs, respectively).

295 (VMEs) (i.e., false susceptibility) for the Etest were found in 47 to 53% of the resistant isolates,

296 ments for the ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin Etests were 89.6 and 83.7%, respectively.

297 Using the Etest with a 2.0 McF inoculum, six different media were

298 Similar profiles were observed by Etest, with the exception of A. baumannii, although for

299 rom a distributed surveillance that utilized Etest yielded a tigecycline activity profile that varied

300 In conclusion, agar dilution and Etest yielded comparable results to BMD for imipenem-rel