Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Conflict of Interest
    • Informed Consent
    • Human and Animal Rights
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
  • ascls.org
    • ascls.org

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
  • ascls.org
    • ascls.org
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Conflict of Interest
    • Informed Consent
    • Human and Animal Rights
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
  • Follow ASCLS on Twitter
  • Visit ASCLS on Facebook
  • Follow ASCLS on Instagram
  • RSS Feed
Research ArticleResearch and Reports

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Paradigms: Current Status and Future Directions

Robert J. Tibbetts
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science April 2018, 31 (2) 81-87; DOI: https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.2018000455
Robert J. Tibbetts
Henry Ford Health System
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    MIC distributions for a single bacterium/antimicrobial pair. As shown, the wild-type population appears to be log-normally distributed at the lower MICs. COWT (ie, ECV) is the calculated wild-type cutoff value and forms the basis of the “susceptible” breakpoint. MICs greater than this are considered non–wild type.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Comparison of zone diameters with MICs of a hypothetical antimicrobial (reprinted from reference7 with permission from the publisher). For this type of study, both the MICs and zones of inhibition are determined for a series of bacterial isolates. These values are then plotted in graphical form. The numbers within the boxes refer to the number of isolates with a particular MIC (y-axis) that matches a particular zone of inhibition (x-axis). For example, there were 12 isolates with an MIC of 0.12 ug/ml that also had a 40-mm zone of inhibition. Isolates that had MICs that were in the resistant range but were susceptible by the zone of inhibition are considered to be “very major errors.” MICs that were in the susceptible range but which the zones of inhibition indicated as resistant are considered to be “major errors.” When the MICs were in the intermediate range but their zone of inhibition was either susceptible or resistant, they are considered to be “minor errors.”

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Various indices of several families of antimicrobial agents based on the type of antimicrobial and post-antimicrobial effect.

    Antimicrobial TypePAEPK/PD IndicesAntimicrobial Class
    Time-dependentMinimalfT > MICBeta-lactams
    MinimalAUC:MICLinezolid
    ExtendedAUC:MICMacrolides, lincosamides, Tetracycline family
    Concentration-dependentExtendedfCmax:MICGlycopeptides
    MinimalAUC:MICPolymyxins
    ExtendedAUC:MIC and/or fCmax:MICAminoglycosides, quinolones, streptogramins, ketolides, Daptomycin

    Adapted from Turnridge and Patterson.8

    PreviousNext
    Back to top

    In this issue

    American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science: 31 (2)
    American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
    Vol. 31, Issue 2
    1 Apr 2018
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Print
    Download PDF
    Article Alerts
    Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Paradigms: Current Status and Future Directions
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Citation Tools
    Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Paradigms: Current Status and Future Directions
    Robert J. Tibbetts
    American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science Apr 2018, 31 (2) 81-87; DOI: 10.29074/ascls.2018000455

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Request Permissions
    Share
    Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Paradigms: Current Status and Future Directions
    Robert J. Tibbetts
    American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science Apr 2018, 31 (2) 81-87; DOI: 10.29074/ascls.2018000455
    Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • LEARNING OBJECTIVES
      • ABSTRACT
      • PART I. INTRODUCTION
      • PART II. METHODS OF AST IN THE CLINICAL LAB AND INDIVIDUAL LIMITATIONS
      • SUMMARY
      • References
    • Figures & Data
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    Related Articles

    • No related articles found.
    • Google Scholar

    Cited By...

    • No citing articles found.
    • Google Scholar

    More in this TOC Section

    • Barriers to Implementation of Quality Management Systems in Laboratories: Lessons from the Southern Africa TB Health Systems Project
    • Polyagglutination: Lectin Isolation for T-Activated Red Cells
    • Strength of Direct Antiglobulin Test as an Indicator of Disease Severity in Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia
    Show more Research and Reports

    Similar Articles

    Keywords

    • AST - antimicrobial susceptibility testing
    • AUC - area under the curve
    • BMD - broth microdilution
    • CFU - colony-forming unit
    • CLSI - Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute
    • CSF - cerebral spinal fluid
    • ECV - epidemiologic cut-off value
    • EMA - European Medicines Agency
    • EUCAST - European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
    • fCmax - peak free drug concentration
    • FDA - Food and Drug Administration
    • fT - free drug concentration
    • I - intermediate
    • MIC - minimum inhibitory concentration
    • NS - nonsusceptible
    • NWT - non–wild type
    • PAE - post-antimicrobial effect
    • PCR - polymerase chain reaction
    • PD - pharmacodynamics
    • PK - pharmacokinetics
    • R - resistant
    • S - susceptible
    • SDD - susceptible dose-dependent
    • USCAST - National Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Committee for the United States
    • UTI - urinary tract infection
    • WT - wild type
    • antimicrobial susceptibility testing
    • antimicrobial resistance

    © 2025 The American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science

    Powered by HighWire