Background and Plan of Analysis
|
|
- Samson Holland
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ENTEROCOCCI Background and Plan of Analysis UR-11 (2017) was sent to API participants as a simulated urine culture for recognition of a significant pathogen colony count, to perform the identification of the cultured organism, and to test the organism by the routinely used antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) method/product. The sample contained Enterococcus faecium, a species often observed to be multidrug-resistant (MDR), thus requiring accurate antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide infection treatments. This particular strain was MDR, carrying resistances to penicillins, fluoroquinolones, macrolides, tetracyclines, linezolid (an oxazolidinone), rifampin, and vancomycin, and high-level resistance to streptomycin among the aminoglycosides. In contrast to sample UR-01 (2017) tested earlier this year which was a pan-susceptible quality control Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922), 1 this enterococcal strain was selected to analyze survey results for recognition of true resistance to key therapeutic agents (categorical [CA] and quantitative accuracy [QA]) e.g., rates of serious false-susceptible error results. Participating laboratories were requested to return a separate form with additional disk diffusion (DD) zone diameter or MIC results. Those forms with quantitative/categorical results listed by drug, were tallied by breakpoint category and method or system utilized. 2-6 The results from UR-01 were compared to UR-11 to contrast rates of false-susceptible and false-resistance for AST methods/drugs occurring in contemporary clinical microbiology practice. The overall categorical response statistics (Table 1) included grading for 15 antimicrobials having >40 results for DD and/or MIC methods. Among these over 1,000 participating laboratories, 320 forwarded quantitative AST results (Tables 2-6). The interpretive breakpoint category criteria 4-6 most utilized by the API participants were from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 4 at 68.5%; see Table 2. This was true across all four test methods/systems, with USA-FDA criteria used by 19.2% of participants. Non-USA or unlisted/unknown criteria were reported by 12.3% of API survey respondents. 5,6 These results were very similar to those reported for UR-01 (2017). 1 Examination of results while preparing Table 2 also indicated that method/system utilization favors MIC methods and automation. Only 2.5% of laboratories used the DD method, and the use rank order of MICbased systems was: MicroScan (52.2%) > Vitek 2 (41.6%) > BD Phoenix (3.4%). This distribution of product application when testing an enterococcus was slightly different than that observed for UR-01 (2017), where 91.5% of participants used MIC systems (Vitek 2 > MicroScan) for testing the E. coli strain. 1
2 Table 1. Categorical agreement (CA) for DD and MIC methods 1,2 when testing UR-11 (2017), a MDR VRE E. faecium. a Expected No. tests (% CA) for: Antimicrobial Agent category a DD method MIC method Ampicillin Resistant 47 (100.0) 888 (99.1) Ciprofloxacin Resistant 51 (100.0) 746 (99.2) Daptomycin Susceptible 0 (--) 175 (93.2) Erythromycin Resistant 3 (100.0) 77 (100.0) Gentamicin b Susceptible 14 (78.6) 221 (97.3) Levofloxacin Resistant 25 (100.0) 806 (99.6) Linezolid Resistant 7 (42.9) 515 (93.6) Nitrofurantoin Susceptible-Intermediate 55 (76.4) 846 (98.1) Norfloxacin Resistant 10 (90.0) 36 (100.0) Penicillin Resistant 20 (100.0) 662 (99.4) Quinupristin-Dalfopristin Susceptible 1 (100.0) 158 (98.7) Rifampin Resistant-Intermediate 0 (--) 132 (90.9) Streptomycin b Resistant 0 (--) 174 (99.4) Tetracycline Resistant 32 (90.6) 792 (97.2) Vancomycin Resistant 30 (100.0) 946 (99.5) a. Correct categorical interpretation was determined by the reference MIC result, using the M07-A10, M100-S27 and USA-FDA breakpoint criteria or participant consensus (gentamicin, norfloxacin, penicillin, rifampin, streptomycin). b. Susceptibility indicates potential synergistic activity in combination with cell wall active agents. Table 2. API Survey subscriber use of antimicrobial susceptibility breakpoint organization criteria for sample UR-11 (2017), by listed AST method or commercial product applied (320 responses). a AST breakpoint AST method used by API participant (%): organizations Disk Diffusion (DD) BD Phoenix MicroScan Vitek 2 CLSI FDA Other Not listed Listed a. 320 laboratories provided quantitative results, e.g., 14.5% (DD method) to 33.0% (MIC method) of all participants; see Table 1. One response from a Sensititre user named CLSI as the category criteria source.
3 Categorical and Quantitative Accuracy Analyses Overall Categorical Accuracy (CA) for DD and MIC Methods Table 1 lists the CA of both major AST testing groups (DD and commercial MIC devices) for the 15 most tested antimicrobial agents, regardless of appropriateness for the infection site listed. These tested drugs had >40 reported categorical results, with the greatest number of responses for vancomycin (976), ampicillin (943), nitrofurantoin (901), levofloxacin (831), tetracycline (824), and ciprofloxacin (801). Only nitrofurantoin among the six most reported agents was marginally active (MIC, µg/ml); significant resistances (linezolid, rifampin, etc.) of epidemiologic importance were reported by less than half of the laboratories. Graded overall CA for DD method was lower than that of the MIC systems (Table 1) at 91.9% versus 97.7%. Lowest CA values were observed for linezolid (42.9%), nitrofurantoin (76.4%) and high-level gentamicin resistance (78.6%). The errors for linezolid may be caused by inappropriate endpoint (zone edge reading) interpretation; see references 4 and 5 for reading instructions. False-susceptible errors (called very major errors) were most common for tetracycline HCl (nearly 10%) among DD test users. Among MIC test results, the most serious and significant errors were (Table 1): 1. Daptomycin false-resistant or false-nonsusceptible reports at 6.9% of results; 2. Linezolid false-susceptible results at 6.4%; and 3. Rifampin false-susceptible values at 9.1%. CA and QA Analyses of the DD Method 3,4 Table 3 lists the DD zones of inhibition for the seven drugs most reported on the supplemental quantitative result form. CA among these tallied antimicrobials was low at 90.3% (91.1% overall; Table 1). The QA results (% of zones within the correct category 4 ) was similar at 91.2%. The antimicrobials having the highest rates of QA results out of range were gentamicin HLAR and nitrofurantoin (28.6% with zones 14 mm or resistant). Sample sizes for DD QA were considered small (34), in contrast to sample UR-01 (2017) 1 for a Gram-negative bacillus.
4 Table 3. Categorical agreement (CA) for the disk diffusion (DD) method including the reported zone diameters (mode and range) compared to the all participant CA values for sample UR-11, a MDR VRE- E. faecium (8 reporting sites). Antimicrobial CA % Quantitative subset results (mm): agent Expected category a All Subset b Modal zone (%) Range c Ampicillin Resistant (100.0) 6 Ciprofloxacin Resistant (87.5) 6-15 Gentamicin Susceptible (66.7) 6-25 Linezolid Resistant (100.0) 15 Nitrofurantoin Susceptible-Intermediate (28.6) Tetracycline Resistant (50.0) 6-14 Vancomycin Resistant (75.0) 6-14 a. Graded categorical response for all participants in this challenge. b. Subset of DD users that reported category and quantitative (mm zone diameter) results. c. Acceptable categorical results would be zone diameters (mm) as follows: ampicillin ( 16), ciprofloxacin ( 15), gentamicin ( 10 mm; 120-µg disk content), linezolid ( 20), nitrofurantoin ( 15), tetracycline ( 14) and vancomycin ( 14). CA and QA Analyses of the BD Phoenix MIC Device Three commercial MIC devices were tabulated separately (Tables 4-6), each having enough results to calculate both CA and QA (compared to correct MIC category ranges) rates. 3 Table 4 lists the BD Phoenix results (3.4% of MIC reporting sites; 2.8% for UR-01) for the ten antimicrobial agents that allowed comparisons of the most reported MICs 1) to the breakpoint categorical criteria, 2) to the MIC range for the correct category, and 3) to calculate the CA and QA. The CA rates for BD Phoenix calculated across these 10 listed antimicrobial agents was similar to the all MIC systems CA reported in Table 1, except for three drugs (daptomycin, linezolid and quinupristindalfopristin [Q-D]). All three daptomycin MIC results forwarded for analysis were >4 µg/ml, or not susceptible, and represented a major testing error. Three of nine linezolid MIC results were either 2 or 4 µg/ml, and represented a false-intermediate or false-susceptible error. Finally, the only Q-D MIC reported (2 µg/ml) was a minor, false-intermediate result.
5 Table 4. Categorical agreement (CA) for the BD Phoenix commercial MIC system subset including MIC (µg/ml) quantitative results (mode and range) compared to the all participant MIC and CA values for sample UR-11, a MDR VRE-E. faecium (11 participating sites). Antimicrobial agent Quantitative subset MIC Expected CA % results (µg/ml): category a All Subset b Modal MIC (%) Range Acceptable MICs (%) Ampicillin Resistant >8 (100.0) >8 16 (100.0) Daptomycin Susceptible >4 (100.0) >4 4 (0.0) c Gentamicin Susceptible (100.0) (100.0) Levofloxacin Resistant >4 (100.0) >4 8 (100.0) Linezolid Resistant >4 (66.7) 2->4 8 (66.7) d Penicillin Resistant >8 (100.0) >8 16 (100.0) Quinupristin-Dalfopristin Susceptible (100.0) 2 1 (0.0) d Streptomycin Resistant >2000 (100.0) > 2000 >1000 (100.0) Tetracycline Resistant >8 (100.0) >8 16 (100.0) Vancomycin Resistant >16 (100.0) >16 32 (100.0) a. Graded categorical response for all participants in this challenge. b. Subset of BD Phoenix system users that reported category and quantitative (MIC) results. c. All reported MIC values for daptomycin were in error (false-resistant or non-susceptible). d. Poor CA and quantitative performance. CA and QA Analyses of the MicroScan MIC System Table 5 lists results from the MicroScan device (used by 52.2% of MIC reporting sites) for 12 tabulated antimicrobials. When the MicroScan CA rates were compared to the all MIC method CA rates ( %) several concerns were noted. The MicroScan subset (Table 5) showed CA rates of <90.0% for daptomycin (86.7%) and gentamicin (84.2%); and the QA were 89.8% and 100.0%, respectively. The reference laboratory daptomycin MIC (4 µg/ml) was at the CLSI susceptible breakpoint concentration as was the MicroScan modal value, thus minimizing the method-based concern due to normal MIC variation. Other potential MicroScan device concerns were the linezolid false-susceptible results found by 3.6% of participants (QA also at 3.6%); however, the all MIC method CA shows greater numbers of errors (6.4%) produced by other systems or methods. Similarly, rifampin false-susceptible results (MIC, 1 µg/ml) were observed by 4.3% of MicroScan participants but 9.1% of all MIC participants. Conversely,the MicroScan CA rate for tetracycline HCl (94.1%) was worse than the all MIC method rate (97.2%). For this MIC product interpretive testing errors were generally uncommon for this MDR Gram-positive pathogen, most often encountered as false resistances for daptomycin and falsely susceptible range MICs for linezolid, rifampin and the tetracyclines.
6 Table 5. Categorical agreement (CA) for the MicroScan commercial MIC system subset including MIC (µg/ml) quantitative results (mode and range) compared to the all participant MIC and CA values for sample UR-11, a MDR VRE-E. faecium (167 participating sites). Antimicrobial agent Quantitative subset MIC Expected CA % results (µg/ml): category a All Subset b Modal MIC (%) Range Acceptable MICs (%) Ampicillin Resistant >8 (98.2) >8 - >16 16 (100.0) Ciprofloxacin Resistant >2 (96.9) >2 - >16 4 (100.0) Daptomycin Susceptible c 4 (79.7) >4 4 (89.8) c Gentamicin Susceptible (73.9) (100.0) Levofloxacin Resistant >4 (100.0) >4 8 (100.0) Linezolid Resistant d >4 (96.4) 1 - >4 8 (96.4) d Nitrofurantoin Susceptible- Intermediate (91.0) (100.0) Penicillin Resistant >8 (100.0) >8 16 (100.0) Rifampin Resistant- Intermediate d >2 (54.3) 1 - >2 2 (95.7) d Streptomycin Resistant >1000 (100.0) >1000 >1000 (100.0) Tetracycline Resistant >8 (90.4) 4 - >16 16 (97.1) Vancomycin Resistant >16 (97.2) (99.3) a. Graded categorical response for all participants in this challenge. b. Subset of MicroScan MIC system users that reported category and quantitative (MIC) results. c. False-resistant values of >4 µg/ml reported by >10% of laboratories. This error rate was greater than the all laboratory average. d. False-susceptible reports were observed for two significant treatment agents at unacceptable rates of %. CA and QA Analyses of the Vitek 2 MIC System Table 6 presents results from the Vitek 2 device (used by 41.6% of MIC reporting sites) for 12 tabulated antimicrobial agents. MIC results from this product are "calculated" from testing several drug concentrations and reported for a validated MIC range for each agent. The most reported calculated MIC values are found in Table 6, and were usually at the highest extreme of the calculated MIC range. 4-6 Where MIC results could be evaluated for QA, 75.0% (daptomycin) to 100.0% (six agents) of MIC values were within the acceptable category concentration range. Most of the Vitek 2 CA results ( %) were similar to the all MIC device CAs of %. For these enterococcus susceptibility tests, the most compromised Vitek 2 MIC results, like other systems, were for daptomycin (CA and QA, 83.3 and 75.0%) and linezolid (CA and QA, 91.1 and 89.3%). The false-resistant results for Vitek 2 showed inconsistent MIC values, but from a small sample size (only
7 eight responses). Furthermore, some participants stated these were supplemental tests, possibly from agar diffusion techniques (DD or Etest). Linezolid Vitek 2 MIC results had 51 of 56 values at 8 µg/ml, with MICs as low as 2 µg/ml. Participants should examine their routine QC results for these two drugs for possible trends toward falsely-high (daptomycin) or falsely-low (linezolid) MICs. Most other Vitek 2 MIC and categorical results for these reported antimicrobials had accuracy rates (QA or CA) superior to the all MIC method CA (Tables 1 and 6). Table 6. Categorical agreement (CA) for the Vitek 2 commercial MIC system subset including MIC (µg/ml) quantitative results (mode and range) compared to the all participant MIC and CA values for sample UR- 11, a MDR VRE-E. faecium (133 participating sites). Antimicrobial agent Quantitative subset MIC Expected CA % results (µg/ml): category a All Subset b Modal MIC (%) Range Acceptable MICs (%) Ampicillin Resistant (97.6) 2 - > (97.6) Ciprofloxacin Resistant (100.0) 8 4 (100.0) Daptomycin Susceptible c 4 (50.0) (75.0) c Gentamicin Susceptible (100.0) (100.0) Levofloxacin Resistant (100.0) 8 8 (100.0) Linezolid Resistant d 8 (89.3) (89.3) d Nitrofurantoin Susceptible- Intermediate (67.2) (99.2) Penicillin Resistant (100.0) (100.0) Quinupristin- Dalfopristin Susceptible (83.0) (96.4) Streptomycin Resistant >2000 (100.0) > 2000 >1000 (100.0) Tetracycline Resistant (99.2) (99.2) Vancomycin Resistant (99.2) 32 - > (100.0) a. Graded categorical response for all participants in this challenge. Small sample sizes for tigecycline (susceptible at 0.12 µg/ml; two responses), doxycycline (intermediate at 8 µg/ml; one), and fosfomycin (susceptible at 48 µg/ml; one) were received, but not presented in this table. b. Subset of Vitek 2 MIC system users that reported category and quantitative (MIC) results. c. Generally poor performance, but some participants stated they used Etest and other products (reported as Vitek 2). d. Poor performance with 8.9 to 10.7% categorical or quantitative false-susceptible or false-intermediate errors.
8 Major Findings and Points of Concern from Analysis of this Sample (UR-11, 2017) Major Findings for E. faecium UTI Sample Over 1,000 laboratories participated in this survey, approximately 35% forwarding additional quantitative results (MICs and zone diameters). Commercial MIC-based devices (MicroScan > Vitek 2 > BD Phoenix) dominated AST use at over 97%. Interpretive breakpoint criteria applied to susceptibility test results were: CLSI (68.5%) > USA- FDA (19.2%) > others, i.e., consistent with sample UR-01 (2017); see Table 2. CA rate results for the evaluated drugs were (UR-01/UR-11): DD (97.8/91.9%) and all commercial MIC devices (99.5/97.7%). QA Findings (% of results within acceptable MIC or DD zone category ranges) For DD method the QA was at 91.2%, with the highest "out-of-acceptable category range" rate for nitrofurantoin. For BD Phoenix device the QA was only 84.1%, compromised by daptomycin and linezolid results among a small number of users. For MicroScan products the QA was 98.3%. For Vitek 2 system the QA was 98.7%. Points of Greatest Concern DD QA was below 90% overall on this sample and for UR-01 (2017). We observed in UR-01 (2017) that commercial MIC method products rarely test MIC endpoints in a dilution range where the E. coli ATCC or other QC organisms can be used as an effective strain. This fact limits precise use of MIC results to guide clinical therapy (dosing adjustments and TDM) via evolving "Antibiotic Stewardship" programs. Commercial MIC device testing of MDR strains appear to produce high CA & QA, but worrisome occurrences of false susceptibility (linezolid) and false resistance (daptomycin) have been observed. Furthermore, the antimicrobials recently approved by the USA-FDA (ceftaroline, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, dalbavancin, delafloxacin, meropenemvaborbactam, oritavancin, tedizolid, telavancin, etc.) have not been translated into the devices which would be valuable for treatment of MDR strains.
9 As with UR-01 (2017), some results forwarded by participating laboratories imply that category breakpoint interpretations are not current with regulatory or other breakpoint publications. 3-5 Recommendations Assure availability of diagnostic products that provide category interpretations of antimicrobials, old and recently approved, for therapies of MDR Gram-positive and -negative pathogens. Re-evaluate any test procedure where unacceptable categorical grades were received, especially for daptomycin and linezolid among Gram-positive-targeted compounds. Re-evaluate QC procedures to assure routine testing of appropriate strains that provide measures of quantitative precision for each antimicrobial, not just a CA metric. Assure that current category interpretive breakpoints 4-6 are being applied locally and/or via utilized commercial AST product software. References 1. Jones RN. "Contemporary Assessment of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST) Accuracy: Methods Used, Categorical Performance, and Quantitative Precision (Sample UR-01, 2017)." Traverse City, MI. American Proficiency Institute, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M07-A10. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically; approved standard. 10th ed. Wayne, PA. CLSI, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M02-A12. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. 12th ed. Wayne, PA. CLSI, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M100-S27. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: 27th informational supplement. Wayne, PA. CLSI, EUCAST. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MIC's and zone diameters. Version 7.1, March Available at _Tables.pdf. Accessed March USCAST. Breakpoint tables for interpretations of MICs and Zone Diameters, Version 3.0, January Available at Accessed March 2017.
a. 379 laboratories provided quantitative results, e.g (DD method) to 35.4% (MIC method) of all participants; see Table 2.
AND QUANTITATIVE PRECISION (SAMPLE UR-01, 2017) Background and Plan of Analysis Sample UR-01 (2017) was sent to API participants as a simulated urine culture for recognition of a significant pathogen colony
More informationEuropean Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Routine and extended internal quality control for MIC determination and disk diffusion as recommended by EUCAST Version 8.0, valid from 018-01-01
More informationCompliance of manufacturers of AST materials and devices with EUCAST guidelines
Compliance of manufacturers of AST materials and devices with EUCAST guidelines Data are based on questionnaires to manufacturers of materials and devices for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The
More informationEUCAST recommended strains for internal quality control
EUCAST recommended strains for internal quality control Escherichia coli Pseudomonas aeruginosa Staphylococcus aureus Enterococcus faecalis Streptococcus pneumoniae Haemophilus influenzae ATCC 59 ATCC
More informationANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY CONTEMPORARY SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTS AND TREATMENTS FOR VRE INFECTIONS
TREATMENTS FOR VRE INFECTIONS Sample ES-01 (2015) was a simulated blood culture isolate from a patient with associated clinical symptoms (pure culture). Participants were requested to identify any potential
More informationEuropean Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Routine and extended internal quality control as recommended by EUCAST Version 5.0, valid from 015-01-09 This document should be cited as "The
More informationCompliance of manufacturers of AST materials and devices with EUCAST guidelines
Compliance of manufacturers of AST materials and devices with EUCAST guidelines Data are based on questionnaires to manufacturers of materials and devices for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The
More informationRoutine internal quality control as recommended by EUCAST Version 3.1, valid from
Routine internal quality control as recommended by EUCAST Version.1, valid from 01-01-01 Escherichia coli Pseudomonas aeruginosa Staphylococcus aureus Enterococcus faecalis Streptococcus pneumoniae Haemophilus
More informationUnderstanding the Hospital Antibiogram
Understanding the Hospital Antibiogram Sharon Erdman, PharmD Clinical Professor Purdue University College of Pharmacy Infectious Diseases Clinical Pharmacist Eskenazi Health 5 Understanding the Hospital
More informationEducating Clinical and Public Health Laboratories About Antimicrobial Resistance Challenges
Educating Clinical and Public Health Laboratories About Antimicrobial Resistance Challenges Janet Hindler, MCLS MT(ASCP) UCLA Medical Center jhindler@ucla.edu also working as a consultant with the Association
More informationANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY VANCOMYCIN RESISTANCE IN AN UNCOMMON ENTEROCOCCAL SPECIES
ENTEROCOCCAL SPECIES Sample ES-02 was a simulated blood culture isolate from a patient with symptoms of sepsis. Participants were asked to identify any potential pathogen and to perform susceptibility
More informationESCMID Online Lecture Library. by author
Quality Assurance of antimicrobial susceptibility testing Derek Brown EUCAST Scientific Secretary ESCMID Postgraduate Education Course, Linz, 17 September 2014 Quality Assurance The total process by which
More informationThe Basics: Using CLSI Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Standards
The Basics: Using CLSI Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Standards Janet A. Hindler, MCLS, MT(ASCP) UCLA Health System Los Angeles, California, USA jhindler@ucla.edu 1 Learning Objectives Describe information
More informationIntrinsic, implied and default resistance
Appendix A Intrinsic, implied and default resistance Magiorakos et al. [1] and CLSI [2] are our primary sources of information on intrinsic resistance. Sanford et al. [3] and Gilbert et al. [4] have been
More informationMICRONAUT MICRONAUT-S Detection of Resistance Mechanisms. Innovation with Integrity BMD MIC
MICRONAUT Detection of Resistance Mechanisms Innovation with Integrity BMD MIC Automated and Customized Susceptibility Testing For detection of resistance mechanisms and specific resistances of clinical
More informationAntimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: The Basics
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: The Basics Susan E. Sharp, Ph.D., DABMM, FAAM Director, Airport Way Regional Laboratory Director, Regional Microbiology and Molecular Infectious Diseases Laboratories
More informationMethod Preferences and Test Accuracy of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
Method Preferences and Test Accuracy of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Updates From the College of American Pathologists Microbiology Surveys Program (2000) Ronald N. Jones, MD; for the College of
More informationTHE NAC CHALLENGE PANEL OF ISOLATES FOR VERIFICATION OF ANTIBIOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING METHODS
THE NAC CHALLENGE PANEL OF ISOLATES FOR VERIFICATION OF ANTIBIOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING METHODS Stefanie Desmet University Hospitals Leuven Laboratory medicine microbiology stefanie.desmet@uzleuven.be
More information56 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. All rights reserved.
Table 2C 56 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. All rights reserved. Table 2C. Zone Diameter and Minimal Inhibitory Concentration Breakpoints for Testing Conditions Medium: Inoculum: diffusion:
More informationMain objectives of the EURL EQAS s
EQAS Enterococci, Staphylococci and E. coli EURL workshop, April, 11 Lourdes García Migura Main objectives of the EURL EQAS s To improve the comparability of antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST)
More informationAntimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Advanced Course
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Advanced Course Cascade Reporting Cascade Reporting I. Selecting Antimicrobial Agents for Testing and Reporting Selection of the most appropriate antimicrobials to
More informationANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY DETECTION OF ELEVATED MICs TO PENICILLINS IN β- HAEMOLYTIC STREPTOCOCCI
HAEMOLYTIC STREPTOCOCCI This specimen was designated as a sample from a skin wound that was to be cultured, identified to species level and susceptibility tested [1-3]. The culture contained a Streptococcus
More informationJanuary 2014 Vol. 34 No. 1
January 2014 Vol. 34 No. 1. and Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Interpretive Standards for Testing Conditions Medium: diffusion: Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) Broth dilution: cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton
More informationUNDERSTANDING YOUR DATA: THE ANTIBIOGRAM
UNDERSTANDING YOUR DATA: THE ANTIBIOGRAM April Abbott, PhD, D(ABMM) Deaconess Health System Evansville, IN April.Abbott@Deaconess.com Special thanks to Dr. Shelley Miller for UCLA data WHAT WE WILL COVER
More informationConcise Antibiogram Toolkit Background
Background This toolkit is designed to guide nursing homes in creating their own antibiograms, an important tool for guiding empiric antimicrobial therapy. Information about antibiograms and instructions
More informationBactiReg3 Event Notes Module Page(s) 4-9 (TUL) Page 1 of 21
www.wslhpt.org 2601 Agriculture Drive Madison, WI 53718 (800) 462-5261 (608) 265-1111 2015-BactiR Reg3 Shipment Date: September 14, 2015 Questions or comments should be directed to Amanda Weiss at 800-462-5261
More informationUNDERSTANDING THE ANTIBIOGRAM
UNDERSTANDING THE ANTIBIOGRAM April Abbott, PhD, D(ABMM) Deaconess Health System Indiana University School of Medicine - Evansville Evansville, IN April.Abbott@Deaconess.com WHAT WE WILL COVER Describe
More information2016 Antibiotic Susceptibility Report
Fairview Northland Medical Center and Elk River, Milaca, Princeton and Zimmerman Clinics 2016 Antibiotic Susceptibility Report GRAM-NEGATIVE ORGANISMS 2016 Gram-Negative Non-Urine The number of isolates
More informationجداول میکروارگانیسم های بیماریزای اولویت دار و آنتی بیوتیک های تعیین شده برای آزمایش تعیین حساسیت ضد میکروبی در برنامه مهار مقاومت میکروبی
جداول میکروارگانیسم های بیماریزای اولویت دار و آنتی بیوتیک های تعیین شده برای آزمایش تعیین حساسیت ضد میکروبی در برنامه مهار مقاومت میکروبی ویرایش دوم بر اساس ed., 2017 CLSI M100 27 th تابستان ۶۹۳۱ تهیه
More informationCAP Laboratory Improvement Programs. Performance Accuracy of Antibacterial and Antifungal Susceptibility Test Methods
CAP Laboratory Improvement Programs Performance Accuracy of Antibacterial and Antifungal usceptibility Test Methods Report From the College of American Pathologists Microbiology urveys Program (001 003)
More informationEvaluation of a computerized antimicrobial susceptibility system with bacteria isolated from animals
J Vet Diagn Invest :164 168 (1998) Evaluation of a computerized antimicrobial susceptibility system with bacteria isolated from animals Susannah K. Hubert, Phouc Dinh Nguyen, Robert D. Walker Abstract.
More informationSTAPHYLOCOCCI: KEY AST CHALLENGES
Romney Humphries, PhD D(ABMM) Section Chief, UCLA Clinical Microbiology Los Angeles CA rhumphries@mednet.ucla.edu STAPHYLOCOCCI: KEY AST CHALLENGES THE CHALLENGES detection of penicillin resistance detection
More informationWhat s new in EUCAST methods?
What s new in EUCAST methods? Derek Brown EUCAST Scientific Secretary Interactive question 1 MIC determination MH-F broth for broth microdilution testing of fastidious microorganisms Gradient MIC tests
More informationENTEROCOCCI. April Abbott Deaconess Health System Evansville, IN
ENTEROCOCCI April Abbott Deaconess Health System Evansville, IN OBJECTIVES Discuss basic antimicrobial susceptibility principles and resistance mechanisms for Enterococcus Describe issues surrounding AST
More informationShould we test Clostridium difficile for antimicrobial resistance? by author
Should we test Clostridium difficile for antimicrobial resistance? Paola Mastrantonio Department of Infectious Diseases Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome,Italy Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) (first
More informationPerformance Information. Vet use only
Performance Information Vet use only Performance of plates read manually was measured in three sites. Each centre tested Enterobacteriaceae, streptococci, staphylococci and pseudomonas-like organisms.
More informationJasmine M. Chaitram, 1,2 * Laura A. Jevitt, 1,2 Sara Lary, 1,2 Fred C. Tenover, 1,2 and The WHO Antimicrobial Resistance Group 3,4
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, June 2003, p. 2372 2377 Vol. 41, No. 6 0095-1137/03/$08.00 0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.6.2372 2377.2003 The World Health Organization s External Quality Assurance System Proficiency
More informationPlease distribute a copy of this information to each provider in your organization.
HEALTH ADVISORY TO: Physicians and other Healthcare Providers Please distribute a copy of this information to each provider in your organization. Questions regarding this information may be directed to
More information2015 Antibiotic Susceptibility Report
Citrobacter freundii Enterobacter aerogenes Enterobacter cloacae Escherichia coli Haemophilus influenzenza Klebsiella oxytoca Klebsiella pneumoniae Proteus mirabilis Pseudomonas aeruginosa Serratia marcescens
More informationAntimicrobial Stewardship Strategy: Antibiograms
Antimicrobial Stewardship Strategy: Antibiograms A summary of the cumulative susceptibility of bacterial isolates to formulary antibiotics in a given institution or region. Its main functions are to guide
More informationDISCLAIMER: ECHO Nevada emphasizes patient privacy and asks participants to not share ANY Protected Health Information during ECHO clinics.
DISCLAIMER: Video will be taken at this clinic and potentially used in Project ECHO promotional materials. By attending this clinic, you consent to have your photo taken and allow Project ECHO to use this
More informationTel: Fax:
CONCISE COMMUNICATION Bactericidal activity and synergy studies of BAL,a novel pyrrolidinone--ylidenemethyl cephem,tested against streptococci, enterococci and methicillin-resistant staphylococci L. M.
More informationRecommendations to take it forward!
Capacity Building and Strengthening of Hospital Infection Control to detect and prevent antimicrobial resistance in India AIIMS-ICMR-CDC EQAS Recommendations to take it forward! Top regional diagnostic
More informationANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY - ROLE OF NON-GROUP A AND B BETA-HEMOLYTIC STREPTOCOCCI IN CONTEMPORARY INFECTIONS: IS S. DYSGALACTIAE DIFFERENT?
STREPTOCOCCI IN CONTEMPORARY INFECTIONS: IS S. DYSGALACTIAE DIFFERENT? Sample ES-02 (2018) was a simulated wound aspirate from a 57-year-old diabetic patient with a high fever (sepsis). Participants were
More informationProject Summary. Impact of Feeding Neomycin on the Emergence of Antibiotic Resistance in E. coli O157:H7 and Commensal Organisms
Project Summary Impact of Feeding Neomycin on the Emergence of Antibiotic Resistance in E. coli O157:H7 and Commensal Organisms Principal Investigators: Mindy Brashears, Ph.D., Texas Tech University Guy
More informationSuggestions for appropriate agents to include in routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing
Suggestions for appropriate agents to include in routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing These suggestions are intended to indicate minimum sets of agents to test routinely in a diagnostic laboratory
More informationStaph Cases. Case #1
Staph Cases Lisa Winston University of California, San Francisco San Francisco General Hospital Case #1 A 60 y.o. man with well controlled HIV and DM presents to clinic with ten days of redness and swelling
More informationAntimicrobial susceptibility testing of Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli. CRL Training course in AST Copenhagen, Denmark 23-27th Feb.
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli CRL Training course in AST Copenhagen, Denmark 23-27th Feb. 2009 Methodologies E-test by AB-biodisk A dilution test based on the
More informationSurveillance for antimicrobial resistance in enteric bacteria in Australian pigs and chickens
Surveillance for antimicrobial resistance in enteric bacteria in Australian pigs and chickens Dr Pat Mitchell R & I Manager Production Stewardship APL CDC Conference, Melbourne June 2017 Dr Kylie Hewson
More informationSTAPHYLOCOCCI: KEY AST CHALLENGES
Romney Humphries, PhD D(ABMM) Section Chief, UCLA Clinical Microbiology Los Angeles CA rhumphries@mednet.ucla.edu STAPHYLOCOCCI: KEY AST CHALLENGES THE CHALLENGES detection of penicillin resistance detection
More informationQuality assurance of antimicrobial susceptibility testing
Quality assurance of antimicrobial susceptibility testing Derek Brown Routine quality control Repeated testing of controls in parallel with tests to ensure that the test system is performing reproducibly
More informationDANMAP Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Programme
DANMAP Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Programme Hanne-Dorthe Emborg Department of Microbiology and Risk Assessment National Food Institute, DTU Introduction The DANMAP
More information2017 Antibiogram. Central Zone. Alberta Health Services. including. Red Deer Regional Hospital. St. Mary s Hospital, Camrose
2017 Antibiogram Central Zone Alberta Health Services including Red Deer Regional Hospital St. Mary s Hospital, Camrose Introduction This antibiogram is a cumulative report of the antimicrobial susceptibility
More informationPrinciples and Practice of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Microbiology Technical Workshop 25 th September 2013
Principles and Practice of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Microbiology Technical Workshop 25 th September 2013 Scope History Why Perform Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing? How to Perform an Antimicrobial
More informationEDUCATIONAL COMMENTARY - Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: An Update
EDUCATIONAL COMMENTARY - Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: An Update Educational commentary is provided through our affiliation with the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP). To obtain
More informationJanuary 2014 Vol. 34 No. 1
January 2014 Vol. 34 No. 1. and Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Interpretive Standards for Testing Conditions Medium: diffusion: Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) roth dilution: cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton
More informationProtocol for Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance in Urinary Isolates in Scotland
Protocol for Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance in Urinary Isolates in Scotland Version 1.0 23 December 2011 General enquiries and contact details This is the first version (1.0) of the Protocol
More informationLab Exercise: Antibiotics- Evaluation using Kirby Bauer method.
Lab Exercise: Antibiotics- Evaluation using Kirby Bauer method. OBJECTIVES 1. Compare the antimicrobial capabilities of different antibiotics. 2. Compare effectiveness of with different types of bacteria.
More informationESBL Producers An Increasing Problem: An Overview Of An Underrated Threat
ESBL Producers An Increasing Problem: An Overview Of An Underrated Threat Hicham Ezzat Professor of Microbiology and Immunology Cairo University Introduction 1 Since the 1980s there have been dramatic
More informationSTAPHYLOCOCCI: KEY AST CHALLENGES
Romney Humphries, PhD D(ABMM) Section Chief, UCLA Clinical Microbiology Los Angeles CA rhumphries@mednet.ucla.edu STAPHYLOCOCCI: KEY AST CHALLENGES THE CHALLENGES detection of penicillin resistance detection
More informationSMART WORKFLOW SOLUTIONS Introducing DxM MicroScan WalkAway System* ...
SMART WORKFLOW SOLUTIONS Introducing DxM MicroScan WalkAway System* The next-generation MicroScan WalkAway System combines proven technology and reliability with enhanced ease-of-use features to streamline
More informationNew Drugs for Bad Bugs- Statewide Antibiogram
New Drugs for Bad Bugs- Statewide Antibiogram Felicia Matthews, Pharm.D., BCPS Senior Consultant, Pharmacy Specialty BE MedMined Services Disclosures Employee of BD Corporation MedMined Services Agenda
More informationAntimicrobial susceptibility of Salmonella, 2016
susceptibility of Salmonella, 06 Hospital and community laboratories are requested to refer all Salmonella isolated from human salmonellosis cases to ESR for serotyping and the laboratory-based surveillance
More informationAntibiotics: mode of action and mechanisms of resistance. Slides made by Special consultant Henrik Hasman Statens Serum Institut
Antibiotics: mode of action and mechanisms of resistance. Slides made by Special consultant Henrik Hasman Statens Serum Institut This presentation Definitions needed to discuss antimicrobial resistance
More informationPractical approach to Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) and quality control
Practical approach to Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) and quality control A/Professor John Ferguson, Microbiologist & Infectious Diseases Physician, Pathology North, University of Newcastle,
More informationEUCAST Workshop: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing with EUCAST breakpoints and methods
EUCAST Workshop: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing with EUCAST breakpoints and methods Susceptibility testing of infrequently isolated fastidious organisms Luis Martinez-Martínez Service of Microbiology
More informationUR-11 (2017) SUSCEPTIBILITY FINDING AN ACTIVE ANTIMICROBIAL FOR THERAPY OF MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT (MDR) ENTEROCOCCAL URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS
MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT (MDR) ENTEROCOCCAL URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS Sample UR-11 (2017) was a simulated urine culture with an isolate from a febrile ICU patient with symptoms of a urinary tract infection (UTI).
More informationAntibiotic Updates: Part I
Antibiotic Updates: Part I Fredrick M. Abrahamian, DO, FACEP, FIDSA Health Sciences Clinical Professor of Emergency Medicine David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Los Angeles, California Financial Disclosures
More informationIMPORTANCE OF GLOBAL HARMONIZATION OF ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN CANADA FOR DEFINING ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE
IMPORTANCE OF GLOBAL HARMONIZATION OF ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN CANADA FOR DEFINING ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE Robert P. Rennie Professor Emeritus Laboratory Medicine and Pathology University
More informationDefining Resistance and Susceptibility: What S, I, and R Mean to You
Defining Resistance and Susceptibility: What S, I, and R Mean to You Michael D. Apley, DVM, PhD, DACVCP Department of Clinical Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine Kansas State University Susceptible
More information2015 Antibiogram. Red Deer Regional Hospital. Central Zone. Alberta Health Services
2015 Antibiogram Red Deer Regional Hospital Central Zone Alberta Health Services Introduction. This antibiogram is a cumulative report of the antimicrobial susceptibility rates of common microbial pathogens
More informationThere are two international organisations that set up guidelines and interpretive breakpoints for bacteriology and susceptibility
ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING ON MILK SAMPLES Method and guidelines There are two international organisations that set up guidelines and interpretive breakpoints for bacteriology and susceptibility
More information2016 Antibiogram. Central Zone. Alberta Health Services. including. Red Deer Regional Hospital. St. Mary s Hospital, Camrose
2016 Antibiogram Central Zone Alberta Health Services including Red Deer Regional Hospital St. Mary s Hospital, Camrose Introduction This antibiogram is a cumulative report of the antimicrobial susceptibility
More informationMonitoring of antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter EURL AR activities in framework of the new EU regulation Lina Cavaco
Monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter EURL AR activities in framework of the new EU regulation Lina Cavaco licav@food.dtu.dk 1 DTU Food, Technical University of Denmark Outline EURL-AR
More informationNew Opportunities for Microbiology Labs to Add Value to Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs
New Opportunities for Microbiology Labs to Add Value to Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs Patrick R. Murray, PhD Senior Director, WW Scientific Affairs 2017 BD. BD, the BD Logo and all other trademarks
More informationInfectious Disease: Drug Resistance Pattern in New Mexico
Infectious Disease: Drug Resistance Pattern in New Mexico Are these the world's sexiest accents? Obi C. Okoli, MD.,MPH. Clinic for Infectious Diseases Las Cruces, NM. Are these the world's sexiest accents?
More informationANTIBIOTICS USED FOR RESISTACE BACTERIA. 1. Vancomicin
ANTIBIOTICS USED FOR RESISTACE BACTERIA 1. Vancomicin Vancomycin is used to treat infections caused by bacteria. It belongs to the family of medicines called antibiotics. Vancomycin works by killing bacteria
More informationEDUCATIONAL COMMENTARY CURRENT METHODS IN ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING
Commentary provided by: Linsey Donner, MPH, CPH, MLS (ASCP) CM Assistant Professor, Microbiology and Serology College of Allied Health Professions, Division of Medical Laboratory Science University of
More informationShort Report. R Boot. Keywords: Bacteria, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, quality, diagnostic laboratories, proficiency testing
Short Report Frequent major errors in antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacterial strains distributed under the Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum Quality Assurance Program R Boot Former Section of
More informationSurveillance for Antimicrobial Resistance and Preparation of an Enhanced Antibiogram at the Local Level. janet hindler
Surveillance for Antimicrobial Resistance and Preparation of an Enhanced Antibiogram at the Local Level janet hindler At the conclusion of this talk, you will be able to Describe CLSI M39-A3 recommendations
More informationPROTOCOL for serotyping and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Salmonella test strains
PROTOCOL for serotyping and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Salmonella test strains 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 2 OBJECTIVES... 2 3 OUTLINE OF THE EQAS 2017... 2 3.1 Shipping, receipt and storage of strains...
More informationChanging Practices to Reduce Antibiotic Resistance
Changing Practices to Reduce Antibiotic Resistance Jean E. McLain, Research Scientist and Assistant Dean University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and Department of Soil, Water and
More informationSAMPLE. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilution Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria Isolated From Animals
VET01 5th Edition Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilution Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria Isolated From Animals This standard covers the current recommended methods for disk diffusion
More informationThe Very Latest from the CLSI AST Subcommittee.
2 0 1 4 The Very Latest from the CLSI AST Subcommittee. Susan E. Sharp, Ph.D., DABMM, FAAM Director - Regional Laboratory Director - Regional Microbiology/Molecular Infectious Diseases Diagnostics Laboratory
More informationInt.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(11):
International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 6 Number 11 (2017) pp. 2293-2299 Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.611.272
More informationESCMID Online Lecture Library. by author
ESCMID Postgraduate Technical Workshop Antimicrobial susceptibility testing and surveillance of resistance in Gram-positive cocci: laboratory to clinic Current epidemiology of invasive enterococci in Europe
More informationLeveraging the Lab and Microbiology Department to Optimize Stewardship
Leveraging the Lab and Microbiology Department to Optimize Stewardship Presented by: Andrew Martinez MLS(ASCP), MT(AMT), MBA Alaska Native Medical Center Microbiology Supervisor Maniilaq Health Center
More informationAntimicrobial Resistance Surveillance from sentinel public hospitals, South Africa, 2013
Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance from sentinel public s, South Africa, 213 Authors: Olga Perovic 1,2, Melony Fortuin-de Smidt 1, and Verushka Chetty 1 1 National Institute for Communicable Diseases
More informationEARS Net Report, Quarter
EARS Net Report, Quarter 4 213 March 214 Key Points for 213* Escherichia coli: The proportion of patients with invasive infections caused by E. coli producing extended spectrum β lactamases (ESBLs) increased
More informationManagement of Antibiotic Resistant Pathogens
Management of Antibiotic Resistant Pathogens Jonathan J. Juliano, MD, MSPH Assistant Professor UNC School of Medicine Director of Antibiotic Stewardship UNC Hospitals, Chapel Hill SPICE Conference Friday
More informationHelp with moving disc diffusion methods from BSAC to EUCAST. Media BSAC EUCAST
Help with moving disc diffusion methods from BSAC to EUCAST This document sets out the main differences between the BSAC and EUCAST disc diffusion methods with specific emphasis on preparation prior to
More informationQ1. (a) Clostridium difficile is a bacterium that is present in the gut of up to 3% of healthy adults and 66% of healthy infants.
Q1. (a) Clostridium difficile is a bacterium that is present in the gut of up to 3% of healthy adults and 66% of healthy infants. C. difficile rarely causes problems, either in healthy adults or in infants.
More informationThe Nuts and Bolts of Antibiograms in Long-Term Care Facilities
The Nuts and Bolts of Antibiograms in Long-Term Care Facilities J. Kristie Johnson, Ph.D., D(ABMM) Professor, Department of Pathology University of Maryland School of Medicine Director, Microbiology Laboratories
More informationCLSI vs. EUCAST. What is EUCAST? Structure of EUCAST CLSI. Where they fit? SASCM WORKSHOP 5/24/2014
vs. Olga Perovic, Principal Pathologist, Center for Opportunistic, Tropical and Hospital Infections, Associate Professor at WITS, Saturday, May 24, 2014 A not-for-profit membership organization, the Clinical
More informationEUCAST Expert Rules for Staphylococcus spp IF resistant to isoxazolylpenicillins
EUAST Expert Rules for 2018 Organisms Agents tested Agents affected Rule aureus Oxacillin efoxitin (disk diffusion), detection of meca or mec gene or of PBP2a All β-lactams except those specifically licensed
More informationAntibiotics. Antimicrobial Drugs. Alexander Fleming 10/18/2017
Antibiotics Antimicrobial Drugs Chapter 20 BIO 220 Antibiotics are compounds produced by fungi or bacteria that inhibit or kill competing microbial species Antimicrobial drugs must display selective toxicity,
More informationMark Your Calendars Now! Next Event Ships: September 14, 2015
www.wslhpt.org 2601 Agriculture Drive Madison, WI 53718 (800) 462-5261 (608) 265-1111 Shipment Date: June 15, 2015 Questions or comments should be directed to Amanda Weiss at 800-462-5261 x51 or amanda.weiss@slh.wisc.edu.
More informationEXTENDED-SPECTRUM BETA-LACTAMASE (ESBL) TESTING
EXTENDED-SPECTRUM BETA-LACTAMASE (ESBL) TESTING CHN61: EXTENDED-SPECTRUM BETA-LACTAMASE (ESBL) TESTING 1.1 Introduction A common mechanism of bacterial resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics is the production
More informationThis document is protected by international copyright laws.
Table 2C Table 2C. and s for Product Name: Infobase 2010 - Release Date: February 2010 60 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. All rights reserved. Testing Conditions Medium: diffusion: MHA Broth
More informationMercy Medical Center Des Moines, Iowa Department of Pathology. Microbiology Department Antibiotic Susceptibility January December 2016
Mercy Medical Center Des Moines, Iowa Department of Pathology Microbiology Department Antibiotic Susceptibility January December 2016 These statistics are intended solely as a GUIDE to choosing appropriate
More information