To determine which antibiotics reliably treat which bacterial infections, diagnostic laboratories that focus on clinical microbiology test pathogens isolated from patients. As multidrug-resistant organisms continue to emerge, these tests -- called antibiotic susceptibility assays -- are increasingly critical. Clinicians depend on reliable results when choosing the right drug to treat patients.
A recent study revealed that one aspect of these tests may fall short and not be stringent enough.
To obtain consistently reliable results, researchers conducting antibiotic susceptibility assays follow national guidelines with standardized methods, including the use of a specific number of organisms - or "inoculum" - that is added to each assay. There is a target inoculum, and then a range of an allowable inoculum, or acceptable upper and lower bounds around the target inoculum.
"Our question was whether this wiggle room impacts results," said co-author James Kirby, MD, director of the clinical microbiology laboratory at BIDMC. "Our findings were clear: inoculum matters." Kirby and his colleague Kenneth Smith, PhD published their findings in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy May 21.
The investigators examined pathogens cited by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization as urgent and concerning drug resistance threats. "We found that the susceptibility determination against two big gun drugs--meropenem and cefepime--were dramatically affected by inoculum differences within the allowable range of inoculum," said Kirby. "Although we have no idea about how often clinical labs deviate even beyond the allowable range, we expect this happens with some frequency and would further skew results."
Kirby and Smith's findings indicate that clinical microbiology laboratories must hit the target inoculum pretty much on the nose to obtain reliable testing results for multidrug-resistant pathogens.
This work was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Research Recourses and the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, National Institutes of Health Award UL1 TR001102) and by financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. Kenneth Smith was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (F32 AI124590).
The Next Frontier in Infection Control: AI-Driven Operating Rooms
Published: July 15th 2025 | Updated: July 15th 2025Discover how AI-powered sensors, smart surveillance, and advanced analytics are revolutionizing infection prevention in the OR. Herman DeBoard, PhD, discusses how these technologies safeguard sterile fields, reduce SSIs, and help hospitals balance operational efficiency with patient safety.
Targeting Uncertainty: Why Pregnancy May Be the Best Time to Build Vaccine Confidence
July 15th 2025New national survey data reveal high uncertainty among pregnant individuals—especially first-time parents—about vaccinating their future children, underscoring the value of proactive engagement to strengthen infection prevention.
CDC Urges Vigilance: New Recommendations for Monitoring and Testing H5N1 Exposures
July 11th 2025With avian influenza A(H5N1) infections surfacing in both animals and humans, the CDC has issued updated guidance calling for aggressive monitoring and targeted testing to contain the virus and protect public health.
IP LifeLine: Layoffs and the Evolving Job Market Landscape for Infection Preventionists
July 11th 2025Infection preventionists, once hailed as indispensable during the pandemic, now face a sobering reality: budget pressures, hiring freezes, and layoffs are reshaping the field, leaving many IPs worried about their future and questioning their value within health care organizations.