Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and MIC Interpretation in Veterinary Medicine

Introduction

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is a cornerstone of clinical veterinary microbiology and antimicrobial stewardship. The primary objective of AST is to provide a quantitative or qualitative measure of the activity of an antimicrobial agent against a specific bacterial isolate, thereby guiding therapeutic decision-making [1, 2]. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) is the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial that inhibits visible growth of a microorganism under standardized in vitro conditions [3]. The interpretation of MIC values relies on the application of clinical breakpoints or epidemiological cut-off values (ECOFFs), which are derived from pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) data, MIC distributions, and clinical outcomes [4, 5]. This article provides a detailed examination of the methodologies, interpretive frameworks, and clinical applications of AST and MIC interpretation in veterinary medicine.

Methodologies for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

Broth Microdilution

Broth microdilution is considered the reference standard for MIC determination [1, 3]. In this method, serial two-fold dilutions of an antimicrobial agent are prepared in a liquid growth medium, typically Mueller-Hinton broth, within a 96-well microtiter plate [3]. A standardized bacterial inoculum, usually 5 x 10^5 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL), is added to each well [3]. After incubation at 35 degrees Celsius for 16 to 20 hours, the MIC is recorded as the lowest concentration of the antimicrobial that prevents visible bacterial growth [3]. This method is highly reproducible and allows for the simultaneous testing of multiple isolates and antimicrobial agents [1]. Standardized protocols for broth microdilution are published by organizations such as the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. For veterinary-specific pathogens, including those from aquatic species, standardized methods have been developed and validated [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18].

Agar Dilution

Agar dilution is another reference method for MIC determination [1]. In this technique, serial dilutions of an antimicrobial agent are incorporated into molten agar medium, which is then poured into Petri dishes [1]. A standardized inoculum of each test organism is spotted onto the surface of the agar plates [1]. After incubation, the MIC is defined as the lowest concentration of the antimicrobial that completely inhibits bacterial growth [1]. While agar dilution is well-suited for testing multiple isolates on a single plate, it is more labor-intensive and less flexible than broth microdilution for routine clinical use [1].

Disk Diffusion

The disk diffusion method, also known as the Kirby-Bauer test, is a qualitative or semi-quantitative AST method [1, 11]. Filter paper disks impregnated with a specific concentration of an antimicrobial agent are placed on the surface of an agar plate that has been inoculated with a standardized bacterial suspension [1]. Following incubation, the diameter of the zone of inhibition around each disk is measured [1]. The zone diameter is inversely correlated with the MIC; larger zones indicate greater susceptibility [1]. Interpretive criteria (zone diameter breakpoints) are used to categorize the isolate as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant [11]. Disk diffusion is simple, cost-effective, and suitable for testing a wide range of bacteria, but it does not provide a precise MIC value [1].

Gradient Diffusion

Gradient diffusion methods, such as the Etest, combine the principles of disk diffusion and broth microdilution [1]. A plastic strip impregnated with a continuous gradient of an antimicrobial agent is placed on an inoculated agar plate [1]. After incubation, an elliptical zone of inhibition is formed, and the MIC is read at the point where the zone edge intersects the strip [1]. This method provides a quantitative MIC result and is useful for testing fastidious organisms or when a precise MIC is required for clinical decision-making [1].

Automated Systems

Commercial automated systems are widely used in veterinary diagnostic laboratories to increase throughput and reduce turnaround time [1]. These systems typically employ broth microdilution in a proprietary format, with automated reading of bacterial growth via turbidimetric or fluorometric detection [1]. While these systems offer convenience and standardization, they may have limitations in testing certain veterinary-specific pathogens or antimicrobial combinations [1]. It is essential that automated systems are validated against reference methods for the specific bacterial species and antimicrobial agents being tested [1].

Interpretation of MIC Values: Breakpoints and Epidemiological Cut-Off Values

Clinical Breakpoints

Clinical breakpoints are the MIC values that separate bacterial populations into categories of susceptible (S), intermediate (I), and resistant (R) [4, 11]. These breakpoints are established by standard-setting bodies such as CLSI and EUCAST, and they are based on a combination of data, including MIC distributions, pharmacokinetic (PK) data, pharmacodynamic (PD) targets, and clinical outcome studies [4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. For veterinary medicine, CLSI publishes the VET01 and VET02 documents, which provide standardized methods and interpretive criteria for bacteria isolated from animals [19, 4]. The derivation of veterinary-specific breakpoints is a complex process that requires species-specific PK data and an understanding of the PD indices that correlate with efficacy [19, 4, 5]. For example, proposed meropenem breakpoints for bacteria isolated from dogs were derived using Monte Carlo simulations based on PK data from dogs, with a target of achieving a time above the MIC for the unbound fraction of the drug (fT > MIC) for at least 40% of the dosing interval [19].

Epidemiological Cut-Off Values (ECOFFs)

ECOFFs, also known as wild-type cut-off values (COWT), are distinct from clinical breakpoints [20, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18]. An ECOFF defines the upper limit of the MIC distribution for the wild-type (WT) population of a given bacterial species, i.e., those organisms that lack acquired resistance mechanisms [20, 16]. Isolates with MIC values above the ECOFF are considered non-wild-type (NWT) and may harbor acquired resistance mechanisms [20, 16]. ECOFFs are derived solely from MIC distribution data and do not incorporate PK-PD or clinical outcome information [20, 16]. They are valuable for surveillance of antimicrobial resistance and for detecting the emergence of reduced susceptibility within a bacterial population [20, 16]. For example, an ECOFF of 2 micrograms per milliliter was established for cefquinome against Staphylococcus aureus isolated from cattle, encompassing 99.1% of the wild-type population [20]. Similarly, ECOFFs have been developed for aquatic pathogens such as Yersinia ruckeri, Vibrio harveyi, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Vibrio anguillarum, and Aeromonas species [13, 14, 16, 17, 18].

Discrepancies Between CLSI and EUCAST Breakpoints

Differences in breakpoints between CLSI and EUCAST can lead to discrepancies in susceptibility categorization [11]. A study analyzing Enterobacteriaceae isolates found that the level of agreement between CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints varied from almost perfect to slight, depending on the antimicrobial agent [11]. For example, the least agreement was observed for fosfomycin and cefazolin [11]. These discrepancies highlight the importance of laboratories clearly indicating which interpretive criteria are being used and the need for harmonization efforts [11].

Factors Influencing MIC Results

Test Conditions

Several technical factors can influence MIC results, including the composition of the growth medium, pH, temperature, and incubation atmosphere [1, 3]. Standardization of these conditions is critical for reproducibility [1, 3]. For example, the use of cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth is recommended for broth microdilution testing of non-fastidious bacteria [3]. For fastidious organisms, such as mycoplasmas, specialized media and incubation conditions are required [15].

Inoculum Size

The size of the bacterial inoculum can significantly affect the MIC [1, 3]. A higher inoculum may result in an artificially elevated MIC, particularly for beta-lactam antibiotics [1]. Standardized inoculum preparation, such as the 0.5 McFarland standard, is essential for consistent results [3].

Biofilm Formation

Bacteria growing in biofilms exhibit significantly reduced antimicrobial susceptibility compared to their planktonic counterparts [21]. Standard AST methods are performed on planktonic cells and do not reflect the in vivo susceptibility of biofilm-associated infections [21]. Biofilm AST methods are an area of active research, but standardized protocols for routine clinical use are not yet widely available [21].

Host Factors

In vivo factors, such as protein binding, pH at the infection site, and the presence of pus or other organic material, can alter the activity of antimicrobial agents [4, 2]. The MIC determined in vitro may not perfectly predict the in vivo efficacy, which is why PK-PD modeling is used to integrate MIC data with drug exposure [4, 5].

Clinical Application and Reporting

Selective and Cascade Reporting

The manner in which AST results are reported to clinicians can influence antimicrobial prescribing practices [22]. Selective reporting, where only a subset of tested antimicrobials is reported, and cascade reporting, where results for broader-spectrum agents are only reported if the isolate is resistant to narrower-spectrum agents, have been shown to improve antimicrobial stewardship [22]. A survey of veterinarians found that while many preferred full or selective reports, their antimicrobial choices aligned more closely with guidelines when cascade reports were used [22]. This finding underscores the importance of AST report design in promoting appropriate antimicrobial use [22].

Integration with PK-PD Data

The interpretation of MIC values should be integrated with PK-PD principles to optimize dosing regimens [4, 5]. For time-dependent antimicrobials (e.g., beta-lactams), the goal is to maintain the free drug concentration above the MIC for a certain percentage of the dosing interval [19, 4]. For concentration-dependent antimicrobials (e.g., aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones), the goal is to achieve a high peak concentration relative to the MIC (Cmax/MIC) or a high area under the concentration-time curve relative to the MIC (AUC/MIC) [4]. Population PK modeling and Monte Carlo simulations are used to determine the probability of target attainment (PTA) for various dosing regimens, which informs the setting of clinical breakpoints [19, 5].

Species-Specific Considerations

The interpretation of AST results must account for the target animal species, as PK parameters can vary significantly between species [19, 4]. For example, breakpoints derived for dogs may not be applicable to cats or horses [19]. Furthermore, the bacterial species and the site of infection are critical considerations [4]. For pathogens with species-specific ECOFFs, such as those for aquatic bacteria, the interpretive criteria must be applied accordingly [13, 14, 16, 17, 18].

Resistance Surveillance and Epidemiology

AST data are essential for monitoring antimicrobial resistance (AMR) trends in veterinary medicine [23, 24, 25, 26]. Surveillance studies provide valuable information on the prevalence of resistance in different bacterial species, animal populations, and geographic regions [23, 24, 25, 26]. For example, a study of Staphylococcus species isolated from dogs and cats in Poland found high resistance rates to penicillin (86.5%), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (77.2%), and tetracycline (68.0%), with Staphylococcus pseudintermedius being the predominant species in dogs and showing the highest resistance burden [23]. Similarly, studies on Pseudomonas aeruginosa from companion animals have demonstrated strong co-non-susceptibility between meropenem and ceftazidime [25]. Surveillance data also inform the development of empirical treatment guidelines and the identification of emerging resistance mechanisms [23, 24, 25, 26].

Emerging Technologies

Rapid AST methods are being developed to reduce the turnaround time from sample collection to result [27, 28, 29]. These technologies include phenotypic methods based on detection of bacterial growth at the single-cell level using microfluidics or microscopy, as well as genotypic methods that detect resistance genes or mutations [27, 28, 29]. While many of these technologies are still in development or early clinical validation, they hold promise for enabling more timely and targeted antimicrobial therapy [27, 28, 29]. For veterinary applications, the adaptation of these technologies to animal pathogens and the development of cost-effective platforms remain important challenges [28].

Workflow for AST and MIC Interpretation

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates a typical workflow for AST and MIC interpretation in a veterinary diagnostic laboratory.

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical Sample Collection], > B[Bacterial Isolation and Identification]
    B, > C{Select AST Method}
    C, > D[Broth Microdilution]
    C, > E[Disk Diffusion]
    C, > F[Automated System]
    D, > G[MIC Value Obtained]
    E, > H[Zone Diameter Measured]
    F, > I[MIC or Category Obtained]
    G, > J{Interpretation}
    H, > J
    I, > J
    J, > K[Apply Clinical Breakpoints<br>(CLSI/EUCAST)]
    J, > L[Apply ECOFFs<br>(Surveillance)]
    K, > M[Report S/I/R Category]
    L, > N[Report WT/NWT Category]
    M, > O[Clinical Decision-Making<br>with PK-PD Integration]
    N, > P[Resistance Surveillance]

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a clinical breakpoint and an epidemiological cut-off value (ECOFF)?

A clinical breakpoint is a threshold used to categorize an isolate as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant based on PK-PD data and clinical outcomes, whereas an ECOFF is a threshold used to differentiate wild-type from non-wild-type populations based solely on MIC distribution data [4, 20, 16].

Why are veterinary-specific breakpoints necessary?

Veterinary-specific breakpoints are necessary because the pharmacokinetics of antimicrobial agents can differ significantly between animal species and humans, and the target pathogens and dosing regimens are often unique to veterinary medicine [19, 4].

How is the MIC determined using broth microdilution?

The MIC is determined by preparing serial two-fold dilutions of an antimicrobial in a broth medium, inoculating with a standardized bacterial suspension, incubating, and then reading the lowest concentration that inhibits visible bacterial growth [3].

What factors can affect the accuracy of MIC results?

Factors include the composition and pH of the growth medium, incubation temperature and atmosphere, inoculum size, and the presence of biofilm [1, 21, 3].

How should AST results be reported to optimize antimicrobial use?

AST results should be reported using selective or cascade reporting strategies to guide clinicians toward the most appropriate, narrow-spectrum antimicrobial agent [22].

What is the role of PK-PD modeling in MIC interpretation?

PK-PD modeling integrates MIC data with drug exposure in the target animal species to determine the probability of achieving therapeutic targets, which informs both breakpoint setting and dosing regimen optimization [19, 4, 5].

Are there standardized AST methods for aquatic veterinary pathogens?

Yes, standardized broth microdilution methods and ECOFFs have been developed for several aquatic pathogens, including Yersinia ruckeri, Vibrio harveyi, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, and Vibrio anguillarum [12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18].

What are the limitations of current AST methods for biofilm-associated infections?

Standard AST methods test planktonic bacteria and do not reflect the reduced susceptibility of bacteria in biofilms, and standardized biofilm AST methods are not yet available for routine clinical use [21].

References

[1] Gajić I, Kabic J, Kekić D, et al. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: A Comprehensive Review of Currently Used Methods. Antibiotics. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/570b480dc50a6f4d4b62091654621820b4e923e0

[2] Wenzler E, Maximos M, Asempa T, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: An updated primer for clinicians in the era of antimicrobial resistance: Insights from the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists.

[3] Barnes V L, Heithoff DM, Mahan SP, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing to evaluate minimum inhibitory concentration values of clinically relevant antibiotics. STAR Protocols. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5b1377df13002b10523c2b6b6a5c9a661fbf9ec9

[4] Papich M. SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING IN ANIMALS - HOW BREAKPOINTS ARE DERIVED AND INTERPRETATION OF SUSCEPTIBILITY DATA. 2007. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/78dd8b961d72690c0a1d18e7f84a8d30b66b2f73

[5] Winter EA, Pelligand L, Toutain PL, et al. Determination of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic cutoff values of oxytetracycline in calves and adult cattle using population pharmacokinetic modeling. Front Microbiol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39697656/

[6] Patel J, Weinstein M, Eliopoulos G, et al. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4bb1f0b9f8434efe69af6706e5e45a7a4d60cd11

[7] Schuetz AN, Ferrell A, Hindler J, et al. Overview of changes in the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: M100 32nd and 33rd editions. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7319f5e3ad1358022f148016ce1566a88617586e

[8] CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Twenty-First Informational Supplement. 2010. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/093db659542dd8138ff2ca793bb38770e657a1ec

[9] Cockerill F, Clinical. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Eighteenth Informational Supplement. 2008. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b7b2fa9d9db23f9e1ffe5391278d2dd4e6f36ea6

[10] Humphries R, Bobenchik A, Hindler J, et al. Overview of Changes to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, M100, 31st Edition. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/596df7f9021753d52326627dcc45a3b4e062374e

[11] Gaur P, Hada V, Rath R, et al. Interpretation of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Using European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) Breakpoints: Analysis of Agreement. Cureus. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/62e605a0fba5d40573cd71e8053751656f3fbcb2

[12] Alderman D, Smith P. Development of draft protocols of standard reference methods for antimicrobial agent susceptibility testing of bacteria associated with fish diseases. 2001. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7f2bdcf73493e53b592e11fcd9686a3ea50a12b7

[13] Gieseker CM, Saab ME, Welch TJ, et al. Wild-type cutoff values for standard broth microdilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Yersinia ruckeri isolates. Dis Aquat Organ. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41744306/

[14] Gieseker CM, Simon DA, Coiner D, et al. Approved consensus-driven epidemiological cutoff values for standard broth microdilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing of aquatic Vibrio harveyi isolates. Dis Aquat Organ. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41677008/

[15] Jaÿ M, Klose SM, Bottinelli M, et al. Advancing standardization of diagnostics and antimicrobial susceptibility testing for pathogenic mycoplasmas of livestock origin: insights from the MyMIC network. BMC Vet Res. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41462247/

[16] Smith P, Baron S, Kronvall G. Feasibility of setting epidemiological cut-off values for Aeromonas spp. Dis Aquat Organ. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41342222/

[17] Smith P, Joseph A, Baker-Austin C, et al. Epidemiological cut-off values for Vibrio parahaemolyticus calculated from minimal inhibitory concentration data generated at 35 and 28 degrees C. Dis Aquat Organ. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39665310/

[18] Duman M, Altun S, Satıcıoğlu IB, et al. Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Local Epidemiological Cut-Off Values of Vibrio anguillarum Isolated From Fish Farms in Turkey. J Fish Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39609359/

[19] Papich M, Martinez MN. Proposed Meropenem Breakpoints for Interpretation of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Bacteria Isolated From Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2026. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2c752bbd4927bc9060cbb6a7f631061c17c707f4

[20] Ahmad I, Ahmed S, Faizan M, et al. Establishing the Epidemiological Cut-Off Value (ECOFF) for Cefquinome Against Staphylococcus aureus Using Standardised MIC Data. Veterinary Medicine and Science. 2026. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c27e7cbe462fa54886528ff2f2fc213bc8faec97

[21] Coenye T. Biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing: where are we and where could we be going? Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e033ba83fd561baab239f12f4c0aaa6ab613632a

[22] Diaz-Campos D, King C, van Balen JC, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing reporting style and education to support clinical decision-making in small animal medicine. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/48a3f19b4176983432e761500ecbbb12bc9c4c1f

[23] Tyc J, Jańczak D, Górecki P, et al. Species distribution and antimicrobial resistance of Staphylococcus spp. isolated from dogs and cats in Poland: a retrospective laboratory-based study. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2026. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b768aa65532dcfbb210dc520bdc2708dfbf17095

[24] Martínez-Torrecilla C, García ME, Pérez-Sancho M, et al. Antibiotic Resistance of Acinetobacter Isolated in a Spanish Veterinary Teaching Hospital. Animals (Basel). 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42353379/

[25] Jańczak D, Górecki P, Wójtowicz W, et al. MIC Distributions and CLSI-Categorized Resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Companion Animals in Poland: Evidence of Strong Meropenem-Ceftazidime Co-Non-Susceptibility. Microorganisms. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41753663/

[26] Lin WH, Liou ZW, Lin SM, et al. Comparison of antimicrobial susceptibility of Glaesserella parasuis from different pig production systems in Taiwan between 2015 and 2020. Porcine Health Manag. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40102942/

[27] Kim TH, Kang J, Jang H, et al. Blood culture-free ultra-rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Nature. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3bd5ad631ba15b2e5a762d4044481f23a3ab2b4e

[28] Reszetnik G, Hammond K, Mahshid S, et al. Next-generation rapid phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Nature Communications. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/63f3a32a3b0113ca3a326f80fbdc59eee3c40ac8

[29] Hattab S, Ma A, Tariq Z, et al. Rapid Phenotypic and Genotypic Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Approaches for Use in the Clinical Laboratory. Antibiotics. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/59609f6ef2fc9e0b0485db838a124d77035da307

[30] Dutarte M, Genestet C, Lina G, et al. Nocardia antimicrobial susceptibility testing by microdilution: evaluation of ready-to-use plate including tedizolid and meropenem. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42400824/

[31] Casals JB, Musaeus J. Standardised antimicrobial sensitivity testing in veterinary practice. Nordisk veterinaermedicin. 1978. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e5a588db737d4323ca91afa5e7d03f973106e1b0

[32] Fowler P, Hawley R, Milbrath MO. Potential confounding factors in currently used antibiotic susceptibility assays for the honey bee pathogen Melissococcus plutonius. J Med Microbiol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41385265/

[33] Ikeda R, Nakamura K, Korsak N, et al. Non-Melibiose Fermentation and Tellurite Resistance by Shigatoxigenic and Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli O80:H2 from Diseased Calves: Comparison with Human Shigatoxigenic E. coli O80:H2. Vet Sci. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40266978/

[34] Koritnik T, Cvetkovikj I, Zendri F, et al. Towards harmonized laboratory methodologies in veterinary clinical bacteriology: outcomes of a European survey. Front Microbiol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39450288/

[35] Salam MA, Al-Amin M, Pawar J, et al. Conventional methods and future trends in antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0125066b9743b10c8d217c698aa8f894e0a3a369