Archive for August 26, 2019

Point-Counterpoint: Differences between the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Recommendations for Reporting Antimicrobial Susceptibility Results

Journal of Clinical Microbiology September 2019 V.57 N.9

Gunnar Kahlmeter (a,b) Christian G. Giske (a,c) Thomas J. Kirn (d) Susan E. Sharp (e)

a EUCAST Steering Committee

b Clinical Microbiology, Central Hospital, Växjö, Sweden

c Clinical Microbiology, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

d Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA

e Copan Diagnostics, Inc., Murrieta, California, USA

Antibiotic susceptibility test results are among the most important results issued by clinical microbiology laboratories because they routinely guide critical treatment decisions. Interpretations of MIC or disk diffusion test results, such as “susceptible” or “resistant,” are easily understood. Clinical laboratories also need to determine whether and how their reports will reflect more complex situations. Such situations include, first, whether there is need to administer higher or more frequent doses of antibiotic than usual for clinical efficacy; second, whether an antimicrobial is likely to be effective at a body site where it concentrates; and third, whether there is some uncertainty in the test results due to technical variability that cannot be eliminated. Two leading organizations that set standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), have taken different strategies to deal with these challenges. In this Point-Counterpoint, Gunnar Kahlmeter and Christian Giske discuss how EUCAST is addressing these issues, and Thomas Kirn and Susan Sharp discuss the CLSI approach.



August 26, 2019 at 3:37 pm


August 2019

Posts by Month

Posts by Category