Premium
Levofloxacin Susceptibility Testing for Helicobacter pylori in China: Comparison of E‐Test and Disk Diffusion Method
Author(s) -
Yu Chaohui,
Li Lan,
Chen Wenguo,
Jiao Yangwen,
Yang Ningmin,
Yang En,
Zhang Jianzhong,
Chen Lihua,
Li Youming
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
helicobacter
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.206
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1523-5378
pISSN - 1083-4389
DOI - 10.1111/j.1523-5378.2011.00820.x
Subject(s) - levofloxacin , helicobacter pylori , diffusion , minimum inhibitory concentration , linear regression , agar diffusion test , microbiology and biotechnology , medicine , mathematics , biology , gastroenterology , statistics , bacteria , physics , antibiotics , antibacterial activity , genetics , thermodynamics
Background: The aims of this study were to compare disk diffusion with E‐test method for levofloxacin susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori and standardized breakpoints for disk diffusion as a stable and reliable method for determining qualitative levofloxacin susceptibility. Materials and Methods: We determined the levofloxacin susceptibility of 45 H. pylori strains isolated from Chinese patients by the E‐test method. Disk diffusion was evaluated as an alternative method to determine susceptibility and compared with the E‐test results by linear regression analysis. Results: The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values tested by E‐test method ranged from 0.047 to 32 μg/mL. Resistance to levofloxacin was detected in 16 (35.6%) isolates. The levofloxacin disk zone sizes obtained by disk diffusion method correlated well ( r 2 = .877) with the MICs obtained by E‐test method. As a consequence of regression analysis, isolates with inhibition diameters <12 mm were considered resistant to levofloxacin. There was 100% agreement between the two methods for levofloxacin, applying the regression‐based breakpoints. Conclusions: The disk diffusion method is equivalent to the E‐test method for testing levofloxacin susceptibility of H. pylori strains; it is more practical and inexpensive, and it is suitable for the analysis of a small number of isolates compared with the E‐test method.