Abstract
We studied whether the Etest can be used as an alternative to agar dilution to determine antimicrobial susceptibilities of ceftriaxone, cefixime, and cefpodoxime in Neisseria gonorrhoeae surveillance. One hundred fifteen clinical and laboratory isolates of N. gonorrhoeae were tested following the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-approved CLSI standard agar dilution method and, separately, by the Etest according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The MICs were determined and compared. Ten laboratory-generated mutants were used to simulate substantially nonsusceptible specimens. The Etest and agar dilution methods were well correlated. Statistical tests produced regression R2 values of 88%, 82%, and 85% and Pearson correlation coefficients of 92%, 91%, and 92% for ceftriaxone, cefixime, and cefpodoxime, respectively. When paired comparisons were made, the two tests were 88.7%, 80%, and 87% within 1 log2 dilution from each other for ceftriaxone, cefixime, and cefpodoxime, respectively. The within-2-log2 agreements were 99.1%, 98.3%, and 94.8% for ceftriaxone, cefixime, and cefpodoxime, respectively. Notwithstanding the good correlations and the within-2-log2 general agreement, the Etest results produced slightly lower MICs than the agar dilution results. In conclusion, we found that the Etest can be effectively used as an alternative to agar dilution testing to determine the susceptibility of N. gonorrhoeae to ceftriaxone, cefixime, and cefpodoxime, although we recommend further research into extremely resistant isolates. For isolates within the typical range of clinical MICs, reexamination of the Etest interpretation of susceptible and nonsusceptible categories would likely allow for successful transition from agar dilution to the Etest.