Comparative analysis of three methods for screening for colistin resistant Escherichia coli

M.O. Oseri, K. Otokunefor, O.N. Akomah-Abadaike
{"title":"Comparative analysis of three methods for screening for colistin resistant Escherichia coli","authors":"M.O. Oseri, K. Otokunefor, O.N. Akomah-Abadaike","doi":"10.4314/sa.v23i2.22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The usage of colistin regarded as a drug of last resort has increased tremendously in recent years. This increase has been followed by an increase in the development of colistin resistant bacteria. Due the large size of colistin and its ability to adhere to plastic, the broth microdilution method using a special medium is the recommended testing method. Resource limited settings struggle with this method and employ alternate methods. This study therefore set out to determine colistin resistance in a group of Escherichia coli using three different methods comprised of colistin agar spot test (COL-AS), colistin drop test (COL-DT) and a disc diffusion method. A total of 51 Escherichia coli isolated from wound samples were screened for colistin resistance using the COLAS, COL-DT and colistin disc diffusion methods. Results showed a combined resistance rate of 96.1% among test isolates. Actual resistance rates varied between testing methods giving values of ranging from 37.3%, 66.0% and 88.2% for COL- DT, colistin disc diffusion methods and COL-A respectively. An assessment of test performance showed categorical agreement values and very major error values of 57.1%/36.7% for COL-DT and 63.3%/8.2% for COL-A. Results of this study show a high-level occurrence of colistin resistance among clinical Escherichia coli isolates. Furthermore, it demonstrates the superiority of the colistin agar test to the colistin drop test. It also points at a need to use higher concentrations of colistin in the screening tests. ","PeriodicalId":166410,"journal":{"name":"Scientia Africana","volume":"36 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientia Africana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/sa.v23i2.22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The usage of colistin regarded as a drug of last resort has increased tremendously in recent years. This increase has been followed by an increase in the development of colistin resistant bacteria. Due the large size of colistin and its ability to adhere to plastic, the broth microdilution method using a special medium is the recommended testing method. Resource limited settings struggle with this method and employ alternate methods. This study therefore set out to determine colistin resistance in a group of Escherichia coli using three different methods comprised of colistin agar spot test (COL-AS), colistin drop test (COL-DT) and a disc diffusion method. A total of 51 Escherichia coli isolated from wound samples were screened for colistin resistance using the COLAS, COL-DT and colistin disc diffusion methods. Results showed a combined resistance rate of 96.1% among test isolates. Actual resistance rates varied between testing methods giving values of ranging from 37.3%, 66.0% and 88.2% for COL- DT, colistin disc diffusion methods and COL-A respectively. An assessment of test performance showed categorical agreement values and very major error values of 57.1%/36.7% for COL-DT and 63.3%/8.2% for COL-A. Results of this study show a high-level occurrence of colistin resistance among clinical Escherichia coli isolates. Furthermore, it demonstrates the superiority of the colistin agar test to the colistin drop test. It also points at a need to use higher concentrations of colistin in the screening tests. 
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
筛选耐大肠杆菌的三种方法的比较分析
近年来,被视为最后手段的可乐定的使用量大幅增加。在使用量增加的同时,耐秋水仙素细菌的数量也在增加。由于秋水仙素体积较大,且能附着在塑料上,因此推荐使用使用特殊培养基的肉汤微稀释法进行检测。资源有限的环境难以使用这种方法,只能采用其他方法。因此,本研究采用了三种不同的方法来确定一组大肠埃希菌对秋水仙素的耐药性,包括秋水仙素琼脂斑点试验(COL-AS)、秋水仙素滴落试验(COL-DT)和盘扩散法。使用 COL-AS、COL-DT 和秋水仙素盘扩散法对从伤口样本中分离出的 51 个大肠埃希菌进行了秋水仙素耐药性筛查。结果显示,测试分离物的综合耐药率为 96.1%。不同检测方法的实际耐药率各不相同,COL-DT、可乐定盘扩散法和 COL-A 的耐药率分别为 37.3%、66.0% 和 88.2%。对测试性能的评估显示,COL-DT 和 COL-A 的分类一致值和误差值分别为 57.1%/36.7%和 63.3%/8.2%。该研究结果表明,临床大肠埃希菌分离物对可乐定耐药性的发生率很高。此外,它还证明了可乐定琼脂试验优于可乐定滴落试验。研究还指出,有必要在筛选试验中使用更高浓度的秋水仙素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An efficient intrusion detection technique for traffic pattern learning Evaluation of antioxidant potential of crude extract of metabolites from endophytic fungi isolated from Annona senegalensis Pers Storage implications on the microbiological quality of some locally manufactured pharmaceuticals Geophysical survey and radiometric assessment of aquifer strata and vulnerable groundwater quality of Ukwuani Ommunities in Delta State Antidyslipidemic effect of ethanol extract of Irvingia wombolu seeds in high fat diet induced dyslipidemic rat
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1