Testing the efficacy of Mueller Hinton agar over Nutrient agar for optimal antibiotic sensitivity testing response by selected clinical bacterial pathogens

Dafinone Festus Otajevwo; Osama Emmanuella Osawaru

doi:10.30574/gscarr.2020.5.2.0037

Authors

Dafinone Festus Otajevwo Department of Microbiology, Western Delta University, Oghara, Nigeria.
Osama Emmanuella Osawaru Department of Microbiology, Western Delta University, Oghara, Nigeria.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30574/gscarr.2020.5.2.0037

Keywords:

AST, Efficacy, MHA, NA, Optimal Response, Bacterial Pathogens

Abstract

The efficacy of Mueller Hinton agar over Nutrient agar in terms of antibiotic sensitivity testing for optimal antibiotic response by selected clinical bacterial pathogens was carried out in this study. Clinical bacterial pathogens used for the study were Pseudomonas aerµginosa, Enterococcus spp, Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Standard and locally manufactured antibiotic discs used were by Abtek Biologicals Ltd, Liverpool and Maxicare Medical Laboratory, Nigeria respectively. Antibiotic sensitivity testing (AST) was by agar diffusion method. Pure cultures of each isolate were subcultured on sterile Mueller Hinton agar (MHA) and Nutrient agar (NA) media after which the standard and locally manufactured discs were aseptically impregnated on the media. All inoculated plates were incubated at 37^oC for 24hrs aerobically after appropriate labeling. Zones of inhibition were measured by standard methods and recorded. On Nutrient agar, standard and locally produced ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, gentamycin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid discs did not produce zones of inhibition significantly different from each other at both 95% and 99% confidence intervals (P ˃ 0.05 and P ˃ 0.01). On Mueller Hinton agar, standard and locally manufactured ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, gentamycin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid discs produced zones of inhibition that were significantly different from each other at 95% confidence interval (P ˂ 0.05). Standard and local ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, gentamycin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid discs produced zones of inhibition on MHA and NA which were not significantly different (P ˃ 0.05 and P ˃ 0.01). Standard discs used recorded better zones of inhibition on MHA compared to the local discs. Standard and local discs zones of inhibition on MHA was however not significantly different from those recorded on NA (P ˃ 0.05). Standard discs therefore, did not produce better zones of inhibition over local discs on MHA and on NA. On the whole, the use of MHA for antibiotic sensitivity testing did not record greater (better) zones of inhibition than those recorded on NA except for standard ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin and gentamycin discs over the corresponding local discs on MHA only. Findings did not convincingly establish better performance of standard discs over local discs whether used on MHA or NA. Further studies in this direction is recommended.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Nasser MS, Hazzah WA.and Bakr MK. Validation of AST results on NA medium as a substitute for MHA by some Microbiology laboratories in Alexandria, Egypt. Journal Egypt Public Health Association, 2019; 94 (1):4-10.

FDA. 2017. US battle of the bµgs: fighting antibiotic resistance. [Internet]Updated: Available from:http://www.fda.gov/drµgs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143568.htm

Shigemura k, Tanaka k, Adachi M, Yamshita M, Arakawa S. and FujisawaM. Chronological change of antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli causing urinary tract infections. Journal Infectious Disease and Chemotherapy, 2011; 17:646–651. Doi :10.1007/s10156-011-0241-

King A. and Brown DFJ. Quality assurance of antimicrobial susceptibility testing by disc diffusion. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2001; 48:71–76. doi: 10.1093/jac/48.suppl.

Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 20th Informational supplement M100-S20. Wayne: CLSI. 2010

Garrod LP. and Waterworth PM. A study of antibiotic sensitivitytesting with proposals for simple uniform methods. Journal of Clinical Patholo Pathology, 1971; 24:779–789. doi: 10.1136/jcp.24.9.779.

Niederstebruch N. and Sixt D. Standard nutrient agar 1 as a substitute for blood-supplemented Müeller-Hinton agar for antibiograms in developing countries. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 2013; 32:237–241. doi: 10.1007/s10096-012-1735-2.

ARYAL, S. (2015). Mueller Hinton agar (MHA) – composition, principle,uses and preparation. Microbiology info. [Internet]Availablefrom:http://www.microbiologyinfo.com/mueller-hinton-agar-mha composition principle uses-and-preparation.

Jean SS, Liao CH, Sheng WH, Lee WS. and Hsueh PR.Comparison of commonly used antimicrobial susceptibility testing’ methods for evaluating susceptibilities of clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermentative Gram-negative bacilli to cefoperazone–sulbactam. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, 2017; 50(4):454–453.

Stuckey S. Automated systems: an overview. In: Schwalbe R, Steele-Moore L, Goodwin AC, editors. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing protocols. Ch 5. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor and Francis; 2007; 81–89pp.

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute 2007. Methods for dilution and antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically, approve approved standard M7-A7. Wayne: CLSI.

Donkor ON, Henrickson A and Singh KT. ACE- inhibitory activit activity of probiotic Yoghurt. International Dairy Journal, 2007; 17(11):1321-1331.

Cullimoore DR. 2000. Practical atlas for bacterial identification.Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. 102p.

Cowan ST. and Steel KJ. Manual for the identification of medical medical Bacteria. 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press. Lonon, New York, Rockville, Melbourne and Sydney. 150p 1993

Bauer AW, Kirby WMM, Sherries JC.and Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single Disk Method. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 1966; 45:493-496.

Ochei J. and Kolhatka, C. Medical laboratory science theory and practice. New Delhi: Tata Mc Graw hill publishing company limited. 2008; 233-255pp.

Byron F, Brehm S. and Eric AJ. Sensitization of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli to antibiotics by these sesquiterpenoids. Antimicrob Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapys, 2003; 47(10):3357-3360.

Mueller JH.and Hinton J. A protein-free medium for primary isolation of Gonococcus, Meningococcus. Proc. Soc. Exp. Diol and Med, 1941; 48:30-333.

Haltiner RC, Migneault PC and Robertson RG. Incidence of thymidine Dependent enterococci detected on Mueller Hinton agar with thymidine content. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1980; 18(3):365-368.

Boot R. Frequent major errors in antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacterial strains distributed under the Deutsches Quality Assurance Program. Laboratory Animal, 2012; 46(3):253-257.

[ Ekundayo EO. and Omodamiro DO. Evaluation of the quality of locally manufactured antimicrobial susceptibility testing discs used in South Eastern Nigeria. African Journal of Clinical and Experimental Microbiology, 2008; 9(3):122-128.

Ibeawuchi R. and Mbata IJ. Rational and irrational use of antibiotics. Africa Health, 2000; 24(2):16-17.

World Health Organization. Antimicrobial resistance: Fact sheet.No194. 2005.