Abstract
Azithromycin is a component of empirical treatment regimens for Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections, but antimicrobial susceptibility testing for this agent is technically challenging. We compared the intertest variability, MIC values, and CLSI/EUCAST categorization of clinical and reference isolates of N. gonorrhoeae treated with azithromycin by testing 107 clinical isolates and nine reference isolates by agar dilution and in duplicates using MIC test strips (Liofilchem, Italy) and Etests (bioMérieux, France). Replicate isolate agreement within 1 log(2) between duplicate tests was 87% for MIC test strips and 100% for Etests (P < 0.001). Essential agreement with the agar dilution method was higher for Etests (91%) than for MIC test strips (44%, P < 0.001). The geometric mean MIC was highest for MIC test strips (0.8 mg/liter) and significantly higher than both Etest (0.47 mg/liter, P < 0.001) and agar dilution (0.26 mg/liter, P < 0.001) methods. Etest MICs were higher than those obtained with agar dilution (P < 0.001). Agar dilution, MIC test strip, and Etest methods categorized 96%, 85%, and 95% (P = 0.003) of clinical isolates, respectively, as susceptible/wild type according to CLSI/EUCAST criteria. Our results illustrate the difficulties underlying azithromycin susceptibility testing for N. gonorrhoeae and demonstrate that results can vary using different methods. This variability could influence antimicrobial resistance reporting between laboratories involved in N. gonorrhoeae surveillance programs.