Rosco真菌药敏试验与其他方法的比较研究

Comparative study on Rosco antifungal susceptibility test with other methods

目的 对 3种酵母菌药物敏感试验 [E试验法、美国临床实验室标准化委员会 (NCCLS)认可的纸片扩散法、丹麦Rosco纸片扩散法 ]进行比较 ,探讨Rosco的纸片扩散法与其他 2种方法的一致性。方法 对临床分离的 5 2株酵母菌用Rosco纸片扩散法做药敏试验 ,并与E试验及纸片扩散法 (NCCLS认可 )进行对照 ,同时用标准菌株做质控。结果 氟康唑Rosco纸片扩散法与E试验法相符率为 98.0 8% (5 1 / 5 2 ) ,与NCCLS认可的纸片扩散法相符率为 96 .1 5 % (5 0 / 5 2 )。其他抗真菌药Rosco纸片扩散法与E试验法相符率分别为 :伊曲康唑98.0 8% (5 1 / 5 2 ) ;酮康唑 98.0 8% (5 1 / 5 2 ) ;两性霉素B 98.0 8% (5 1 / 5 2 ) ;氟胞嘧啶 96 .1 5 % (5 0 / 5 2 )。经配对 χ2检验 ,差异无显著性 (P >0 .0 5 )。结论 Rosco纸片扩散法与E试验法、NCCLS认可的纸片扩散法结果基本一致 ,其方法操作简便、结果直观、价廉、药物选择种类多、准确性好 。

Objective To study comparatively three methods for antifungal susceptibility test: E test, the disc diffusion method proposed by NCCLS and the Neosensitabs (Rosco, Denmark) disc diffusion method in order to set up a method easier to perform and with lower cost. Methods 52 clinical isolates were tested by the three methods. The quality control tests were performed with standard strains. Results For fluconazole, the comformable rate between Neosensitabs and E test was 98.08% (51/52) and that between Neosensitabs and NCCLS disc diffusion method was 96.15% (50/52). For itraconazole, ketoconazole, and amphotericin, the comformable rate between Neosensitabs and E test was 98.08% (51/52), and for flucytosine 96.15% (50/52). No statistical difference ( P >0.05 ) was found by χ 2 matching test. Conclusions The Neosensitabs disc diffusion method has approximate results with E test and the NCCLS disc diffusion method. But it is easier to perform and more accurate to interpret, covering more antifungal drugs, and with lower cost, and can be chosen as a routine clinical antifungal testing method.