Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 1998, p. 52-57, Vol. 36, No. 1
Laboratoire de Bactériologie, CHU de
Rouen, Hôpital Charles Nicolle, 76031 Rouen Cedex, France
Received 23 June 1997/Returned for modification 22 August
1997/Accepted 15 October 1997
The performance characteristics of the E-test (AB Biodisk, Solna,
Sweden), the ATB Staph, the Rapid ATB Staph, and the Vitek GPS-503 card
(bioMérieux, La Balme Les Grottes, France) methods for the
detection of oxacillin resistance in a collection of staphylococci with
a high proportion of troublesome strains were evaluated. Sixty-four
Staphylococcus aureus strains and 76 coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains were tested. All strains were mecA
positive and were characterized by the oxacillin agar screen plate
test; 75 (53.6%) were found to be heterogeneous by a large-inoculum oxacillin disk diffusion assay, and oxacillin MICs for 89 (63.6%) were
Oxacillin-resistant
staphylococci are major nosocomial pathogens with frequent
multiple resistance, leading to the overuse of glycopeptides in
therapy. One of the priority measures to decrease this strong
antibiotic pressure is to optimize the detection of oxacillin
resistance in clinical laboratories. The heterogeneous resistance of
many strains (4, 9, 24) makes this detection a constant
challenge for clinical laboratories. Recent evidence suggests that the
heteroresistance of staphylococci is linked to the inactivation of
transcription regulators, such as the sar regulon
(6) and the sigma-B operon (36). Several studies have raised concerns over the failures of the conventional methods to
detect such resistance and have led to various recommendations to
enhance the expression of the resistance in vitro (2, 4, 8-11,
17, 20-23, 25, 27, 31, 33, 37). At present, the detection of the
mecA gene, which is responsible for methicillin resistance
in practically all clinical methicillin-resistant staphylococcal strains (9, 24, 28), is considered the reference test
(2, 4, 7, 17, 23, 25-28, 32). In spite of the growing
consensus in the literature for this method, it is not yet available in all clinical laboratories, and the alternative reference test remains
the oxacillin agar screen plate test (1). Both
mecA detection and agar screening have been used as "gold
standards" for the evaluation of commercial methods (12-14, 16,
22, 25, 26, 33-35, 38). Automated systems are widely used in
clinical laboratories, but they may lack accuracy for the detection of heterogeneously resistant isolates (9, 17, 22, 25). However, in the past few years, several reports have emphasized the performance characteristics of different rapid methods, such as the Rapid ATB Staph
(bioMérieux, la Balme-Les Grottes, France) system
(26), the Rapid MicroScan panel (Baxter Microscan, West
Sacramento, Calif.) (25, 35), and the Vitek system
(bioMérieux Vitek, Inc., Hazelwood, Mo.) (13, 25).
In particular, Knapp et al. (13) showed the usefulness of
the Vitek system for the detection of low-level-expression class
isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus
epidermidis. However, these authors raised concerns over the
accuracy of the Vitek system for detecting borderline-susceptible isolates that lack mecA (14). Moreover, the Vitek
system may miss a significant number of coagulase-negative
staphylococci that have the mecA gene and for which the
oxacillin MICs are in the susceptible range (1 to 2 µg/ml)
(22).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the E-test system and three
automated systems currently used in France, the ATB Staph, the Rapid
ATB Staph, and the Vitek systems, and to compare their performance
characteristics for the detection of oxacillin-resistant staphylococci.
These methods were tested against a difficult population of S. aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains, previously characterized by the PCR amplification of the mecA gene and
the oxacillin agar screen plate test. Half of the challenge strains were selected because they exhibited heteroresistance when tested by a
large-inoculum disk diffusion assay.
Organisms tested.
Sixty-three clinical isolates of S. aureus and 76 clinical isolates of coagulase-negative
staphylococci were determined to be oxacillin resistant because of the
presence of the mecA gene. The strains were isolated between
May 1995 and December 1996 from the following clinical specimens (the
numbers of S. aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococcal
isolates, respectively, are in parentheses): blood (11 and 20),
urogenital tract (24 and 14), cutaneous-mucous specimens (20 and 29),
respiratory tract (6 and 4), joint fluid (1 and 1), pericardic fluid (0 and 1), cerebrospinal fluid (0 and 1), digestive tract (1 and 4), and
transplant device (0 and 2). The S. aureus and
coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains were collected from 27 and 29 different care units, respectively, in the universitary hospital in
Rouen. Strain ATCC 43300, a mecA-positive heteroresistant
S. aureus strain, was used as the reference strain. Isolates
were identified as S. aureus or coagulase-negative
staphylococci by colony morphology, Gram stain characteristics,
coagulase reactions, and the Pastorex Staph Plus test (Sanofi
Diagnostics Pasteur, Marnes la Coquette, France). Strains were stored
frozen in glycerol at Amplification of the mecA gene.
For preparation
of a template from staphylococcal cells we used a simplified procedure,
which does not require lysostaphin lysis. Two microliters of a 2×
McFarland suspension of cells was heated in the presence of 10 µl of
Genereleaser (BioVentures, Murfreesboro, Tenn.), a reagent which
sequesters cell lysis products, directly in the amplification tube of a
GeneAmp PCR system 2400 (Perkin-Elmer Cetus, Norwalk, Conn.). A
nine-temperature, one-cycle DNA extraction program was conducted as
recommended by the manufacturer. Subsequently, 40 µl of the PCR
reagent mixture was added to the PCR tube to initiate amplification.
PCR was performed with the following primers, previously designed by
Geha et al. (7): mecA 1 (5'-GTA GAA ATG ACT GAA
CGT CCG ATA A) and mecA 2 (5'-CCA ATT CCA CAT TGT TTC GGT
CTA A). The PCR reagent mixture consisted of 200 µM concentrations of
deoxynucleoside triphosphates (dNTPs), 10 mM Tris (pH 8.3), 50 mM KCl,
1.5 mM MgCl2, a 0.25 µM concentration of each primer, and
1.25 U of Taq polymerase (Appligene Oncor, Gaithersburg,
Md.). DNA amplification was carried out with the following thermal
cycling profile: initial denaturation at 94°C for 5 min, followed by
30 cycles of amplification (denaturation at 94°C for 15 s,
annealing at 55°C for 15 s, extension at 72°C for 30 s),
ending with a final extension at 72°C for 2 min. A positive result
was indicated by the presence of the 310-bp amplified DNA fragment
revealed by electrophoresis on a 1.5% agarose gel at 130 V for 45 min.
Results were obtained within 4 h. Each PCR assay included strain
ATCC 43300 as a positive control and water as a negative control.
Oxacillin agar screen method.
Agar screen tests for
susceptibility to oxacillin were performed as directed in National
Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) guidelines
(21). For each isolate, 100 µl of a 0.5× McFarland
suspension was streaked on a Mueller-Hinton agar plate supplemented
with 4% NaCl and 6 µg of oxacillin per ml. The plates were then
incubated for 48 h at 35°C. Any growth on the plate was recorded
as indicating oxacillin resistance.
Disk diffusion testing.
The disk diffusion assay was
performed with 5-µg oxacillin disks and a 108-CFU/ml
inoculum. The disks were placed on Mueller-Hinton agar plates (Becton
Dickinson, Cockeysville, Md.) not supplemented with NaCl; the plates
were then incubated for 48 h at 30°C. Strains were considered
resistant when the diameter of inhibition was <20 mm, in accordance
with the French recommendations (3), and when any growth
around the disk was observed. Strains were considered heterogeneously
resistant when partial growth within the inhibition zone or
microcolonies around the oxacillin disk were observed.
Determination of MICs.
The MICs of oxacillin were determined
by means of the E-test (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden), performed according
to the manufacturer's recommendations. E-test strips were placed on
Mueller-Hinton agar plates containing 2% NaCl, which enhance the
growth of microcolonies and the expression of the resistance. These
plates were inoculated by swabbing the surfaces with a 0.5× McFarland
suspension for S. aureus strains or with a 1× McFarland
suspension coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains. The plates were
then incubated at 35°C for 24 h.
ATB Staph system and Rapid ATB Staph system.
Susceptibility
testing was performed according to the manufacturer's recommendations
(bioMérieux). Briefly, a 0.5× McFarland emulsion of isolated
colonies in sterile saline was added to 7 ml of the ATB medium
(Mueller-Hinton broth supplemented with 5% NaCl). The final inoculum
was transferred into an oxacillin (2 µg/ml) well and incubated for
24 h at 35°C. The Rapid ATB Staph system was tested against
S. aureus strains only.
Vitek system.
Susceptibility testing with the Vitek GPS-503
card (bioMérieux) was performed according to the manufacturer's
instructions. The cards were inoculated with a 0.5× McFarland
suspension of the cells and processed in a Vitek 120 reader-incubator.
All isolates analyzed in this study harbored the mecA
gene. The degree of agreement between the results of the reference
tests (the PCR amplification of the mecA gene and the
oxacillin agar screen plate test) and those of the E-test MIC
determination and the automated systems is shown in Table
1. The discrepant results yielded by at
least one of the susceptibility testing methods are presented in Table
2 for S. aureus isolates, and
in Table 3 for coagulase-negative
staphylococcal isolates.
0095-1137/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Comparison of ATB Staph, Rapid ATB Staph, Vitek, and E-Test
Methods for Detection of Oxacillin Heteroresistance in
Staphylococci Possessing mecA
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References
32 µg/ml. Three (4.7%) S. aureus strains and 25 (32.9%) coagulase-negative strains were classified as susceptible by
the E-test, as defined by the National Committee for Clinical
Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) oxacillin breakpoint (MIC
2 µg/ml). The ATB Staph method failed to detect oxacillin resistance in
7 (11%) S. aureus isolates and 32 (42.1%)
coagulase-negative isolates. The MICs for all but six of these
discrepant isolates were
16 µg/ml. The Rapid ATB Staph method was
tested against S. aureus strains only and yielded 15 (23.4%) false-susceptible results for strains for which the MICs were
32 µg/ml. The Vitek system was the best-performing system, since it
failed to detect oxacillin resistance in only 3 (4.7%) S. aureus strains and 15 (19.7%) coagulase-negative strains, the
MICs for all of which were
2 µg/ml. These data indicate that (i)
the performance of the two ATB Staph systems can be limited when the
prevalence of borderline-heteroresistant staphylococci is high and (ii)
the unreliability of the E-test and the Vitek methods for detecting
resistant coagulase-negative strains might be reduced by the potential
revision of the oxacillin breakpoint currently recommended by the
NCCLS.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References
70°C and subcultured to ensure purity before
testing. All strains were oxacillin resistant, as determined by the PCR
amplification of the mecA gene described below. Thirty-two
(50%) of the S. aureus isolates and 45 (59.2%) of the
coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates were intentionally included
in the study because they exhibited a heterogeneous phenotype when
tested by the disk diffusion assay, as described below. All isolates
for which the results of different methods were discrepant were tested
twice.
![]()
RESULTS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References
TABLE 1.
Agreement between the oxacillin E-test, the ATB Staph,
the Rapid ATB Staph, and the Vitek systems and the reference methods
(PCR amplification of the mecA gene and oxacillin agar
screening) for S. aureus and coagulase-negative
staphylococcal isolates
TABLE 2.
Characteristics of 16 S. aureus strains
misclassified as oxacillin susceptible by at least one of the
susceptibility testing methods
TABLE 3.
Characteristics of 36 coagulase-negative staphylococcal
strains misclassified as oxacillin susceptible by at least one of
the susceptibility testing methods
Two mecA-positive S. aureus isolates, for which the oxacillin MICs were 0.38 and 1 µg/ml, did not grow on the oxacillin agar screen plate but expressed heteroresistance when tested by the large-inoculum disk diffusion assay (Table 2). Of the 76 mecA-positive coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates, 4 did not grow on the oxacillin agar screen plate (Table 3). Among these four discrepant isolates, two, for which the MICs were 0.25 and 0.75 µg/ml, were not detected by the other methods and the others, for which the MICs were 1 and 2 µg/ml, were detected by the disk diffusion assay after 48 h of incubation (Table 3).
The distribution of the oxacillin MICs, as determined by the E-test, is
presented in Fig. 1. The MIC for
reference strain ATCC 43300 was 16 µg/ml. The MICs of oxacillin for
43 (67%) of the S. aureus strains and 46 (60.5%) of the
coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains were
32 µg/ml. Whereas
the MICs of oxacillin for most of the heterogeneous S. aureus strains were around 16 µg/ml, the MICs for the
heterogeneous coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains exhibited a
bimodal distribution (Fig. 1). According to the NCCLS breakpoint (
2
µg/ml), the E-test identified 3 S. aureus strains (Table
2) and 25 coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains (Table 3) as
susceptible strains. Therefore, the percentages of agreement of the
E-test with the PCR amplification of the mecA gene and the
oxacillin agar screen test were 95.3 and 98.4%, respectively, for the
S. aureus strains and 67.1 and 72.4%, respectively, for the
coagulase-negative strains (Table 1).
|
The ATB Staph system generated results within 18 h for all
strains. Compared to the PCR amplification of the mecA gene,
the ATB Staph system failed to detect resistance in 7 (11%) S. aureus isolates (Table 2) and 32 (42.1%) coagulase-negative
staphylococcal isolates (Table 3). Among the seven falsely susceptible
S. aureus isolates, five expressed heteroresistance when
tested by disk diffusion and the MICs for six were
16 µg/ml (Table
2). Among the 32 coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates, with
undetected resistance, 24 expressed heteroresistance; 22 were
susceptible to oxacillin (oxacillin MICs
2 µg/ml), 5 were
borderline (MICs
16 µg/ml), and 5 (15.6%) were highly
resistant (MICs > 256 µg/ml) (Table 3).
The Rapid ATB Staph system was tested against S. aureus
strains exclusively, as recommended by the manufacturer. Results were provided within 5 h for all isolates. The Rapid ATB expression system yielded 15 (23.4%) false-susceptible results (Table 2). Thus,
the percentages of agreement of the Rapid ATB Staph method with the PCR
amplification of the mecA gene and with the agar screen
plate test were 76.6 and 79.7%, respectively (Table 1). The MICs of
oxacillin for all of the discrepant strains identified in this
comparison of results were
32 µg/ml (Table 2).
No strain failed to grow in the Vitek GPS-503 card. Results were
obtained within 8 h for 62 (96.9%) S. aureus isolates.
For two S. aureus strains the Vitek system yielded results
within 9 and 13 h. For the coagulase-negative staphylococci, final
reports were achieved within 6 to 8 h for 63 (82.9%) isolates and
required 12 h for 6 isolates. The mean time required to generate a
final report was slightly longer for S. aureus isolates (8 h) than for coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates (7.6 h). The
oxacillin susceptibility results yielded by the Vitek system correlated with the presence of the mecA gene for 61 (95.3%) S. aureus isolates and 61 (80.3%) coagulase-negative staphylococcal
isolates (Table 1). The percentages of agreement between the Vitek
system and the oxacillin screen test were 98.4 and 85.5% for S. aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates,
respectively (Table 1). The MICs for all isolates that were
undetectable by the Vitek system were
2 µg/ml, and all isolates
expressed heteroresistance, except for strains 2910 and 1089, which did
not express any resistance. None of these isolates was detectable by
the ATB Staph or the Rapid ATB Staph system (Tables 1 and 2).
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The purpose of this study was to compare the efficiencies of
different commercial and widely used methodologies for the detection of
oxacillin heteroresistance. The PCR amplification of the
mecA gene and the oxacillin screen plate test were used as
the "gold standards." Oxacillin MICs were determined by the E-test.
In previous evaluations of automated susceptibility testing methods
(13, 37, 38), the problem was mostly one of accurate
detection of oxacillin resistance and not of false resistance to
oxacillin. Therefore, we focused the present work on a collection of
mecA-positive staphylococci. Fifty percent of the isolates
were selected for the study because they exhibited a heterogeneous
phenotype when tested by a large-inoculum disk diffusion assay.
Therefore, the whole population of strains tested in this study has no
epidemiological significance and does not reflect the relative
frequencies of staphylococci with heterogeneous phenotypes in our
hospital. In order to screen for heteroresistant isolates, we performed
the disk diffusion method according to the French recommendations, i.e., with 5-µg oxacillin disks and salt-free Mueller-Hinton agar plates incubated at 30°C, except that we increased the inoculum (108 instead of 107 CFU/ml) and the incubation
time (48 instead of 24 h). Although we did not perform the
differential inoculum disk diffusion method (4), we observed
that most of our heteroresistant isolates were undetectable when the
assay was performed with a 106 inoculum (data not shown).
This and the fact that the oxacillin MICs for 43 (67%) S. aureus isolates and 46 (60.5%) coagulase-negative staphylococcal
isolates were low (
32 µg/ml) suggest a predominance of
heterogeneously resistant strains belonging to phenotypic expression class 1 or 2 (4, 28).
The usefulness of the detection of the mecA gene for the detection of oxacillin resistance has extensively been shown (2, 7, 8, 10, 17, 25-32). Several PCR-based methods have successfully been used (7, 27, 29, 30, 32). In the present work, the preparation of the template from staphylococcal cells was simplified by heating the cells in the presence of a reagent which sequesters cell lysis products (Genereleaser; BioVentures Inc.). This procedure is easy and as efficient as lysostaphin lysis. Moreover, the fact that all heating reactions can be performed on the thermal cycler within a single tube might contribute to the automation of the PCR amplification.
There is a growing consensus in the literature that the oxacillin agar screen plate test (1, 21) is the most reliable phenotypic test for the detection of the oxacillin resistance (7-9, 11, 17, 23, 25, 26, 31, 37). In the present evaluation, there was concordance between the results of the PCR amplification of mecA and those of the agar screening test, except for two S. aureus isolates and four coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates. Surprisingly, these two S. aureus strains and two of the four coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains were detectable by the large-inoculum oxacillin disk diffusion assay (Tables 2 and 3). Such discrepancies might be resolved by reevaluating the NaCl incorporation of the oxacillin agar plates, as suggested by other investigators (8, 11). The absence of any growth of coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains 2910 and 1089 may be related to the absence of expression of the mecA gene. Whether the mecA gene was functional and whether the production of PBP 2' was inducible in these strains were not investigated. Such mecA-positive strains susceptible to oxacillin, for which the MICs ranged between 0.25 and 2 µg/ml, have been found in other studies (7, 11, 22, 27). The reduced beta-lactam resistance relies on the down-regulation of mecA transcription (19) and is influenced by auxiliary genes such as mecR, mecI (15), and the fem genes (5). However, these cryptic methicillin-resistant strains, also called preMRSA (10, 15), are potentially highly resistant, since they can generate highly resistant subclones in vitro (10, 27). Therefore, their detection appears to determine the choice of antibiotic therapy and relies only on the detection of the mecA gene.
In this study, the oxacillin MICs were determined by the E-test, which
has been reported as a reliable alternative to the conventional agar or
broth dilution methods (11, 12, 32, 34). We found that the
E-test was acceptable for detecting oxacillin-resistant S. aureus isolates, as shown by the agreement of 98.4% with the oxacillin agar screen plate results (Table 1). In contrast, when testing the coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates, we found only
67.1 and 72.4% agreement with the PCR amplification of mecA and the agar screen test, respectively. However, 25 coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains were misinterpreted as susceptible by the E-test
because the oxacillin MICs for them ranged from 0.125 to 2 µg/ml.
Such mecA-positive coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains
for which the oxacillin MICs cluster around 1 or 2 µg/ml have also
been observed by using conventional MIC determination methods (12,
17, 18). In agreement with these previous studies, our results
suggest that NCCLS MIC interpretative criteria may underestimate
oxacillin resistance among coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains.
The use of an oxacillin breakpoint of
0.5 µg/ml for resistance,
previously proposed by McDonald et al. (18), would lead us
to revise the MIC interpretations of 16 coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates in our study and would increase the agreement of the E-test with the PCR of the mecA gene to 94.7%.
The automated methodologies for susceptibility testing are used in a
large number of clinical laboratories. A multicentric study focusing on
the detection of low-level-expression class reference strain ATCC 43300 (16) showed that the automated methods were generally more
reliable than the disk diffusion method. However, in that study, many
types of equipment and preprepared MIC panels were represented and the
number of laboratories that used any one method was too small to allow
comparisons between the different systems. In the present work, we
compared the performance characteristics of the ATB Staph, the Rapid
ATB Staph, and the Vitek GPS-503 card systems. The ATB Staph system
failed to detect oxacillin resistance in 7 (11%) S. aureus
isolates and 32 (42.1%) coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates.
The MICs for the falsely susceptible strains were
16 µg/ml, except
for one S. aureus strain (Table 2) and five
coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains (Table 3). Considering the
collection of strains tested in this study, the performance of the ATB
Staph system can be considered acceptable for testing S. aureus strains, in agreement with the great sensitivity reported
by other investigators (38). In contrast, the ATB Staph system generated a high rate of false-susceptible results among the
coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains, since its results correlated
with the presence of the mecA gene for 44 (57.9%) of the
coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains only (Table 1). This lack of
accuracy of commercial systems for the detection of oxacillin-resistant
coagulase-negative staphylococci has also been reported for the BBL
Crystal MRSA (33) and the rapid fluorogenic MicroScan
systems (35).
The Rapid ATB Staph system, evaluated for S. aureus strains
only, misinterpreted as susceptible 15 (23.4%) strains, for which the
MICs were all
32 µg/ml (Table 2). Therefore, the Rapid ATB Staph
system was less reliable than the ATB Staph system, as illustrated by
its lower percentage of agreement with the PCR amplification of the
mecA gene (76.6 versus 89.0%) (Table 1). In spite of
previous data reporting 97 to 99% accuracy for the Rapid ATB Staph
system (26), we conclude that the accuracy may not be
acceptable when the prevalence of heterogeneously resistant isolates is
high.
Among the automated systems tested herein, the Vitek system was the
most reliable at detecting oxacillin heteroresistance. None of the 3 (4.7%) S. aureus strains and 15 (19.7%) coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains misdetected by the Vitek system was found to be
resistant by the ATB Staph systems. Moreover, the MICs for all these
strains were
2 µg/ml, whereas the ATB systems miscategorized many
strains for which the MICs were >2 µg/ml (Tables 2 and 3). Considering the percentage of agreement of the Vitek system with the
PCR amplification of the mecA gene (95.3%), we found that it is a reliable method for the detection of oxacillin-resistant S. aureus strains. It is difficult to draw a similar
conclusion for the coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates, since
the agreement of the Vitek system with the PCR amplification of the mecA gene is only 80.3% (Table 1). This failure of the
Vitek system to detect oxacillin resistance in some
mecA-positive coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains has
been reported by other investigators (22, 25). However, in
our study, the lack of accuracy of the Vitek system for the detection
of oxacillin resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci is related to
the high number of coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains for which
the MICs are
2 µg/ml. False-susceptible results for strains for
which the MICs are
2 µg/ml have been observed with the Microscan
system as well (25). If the NCCLS MIC interpretative
criteria were to be revised for coagulase-negative staphylococcal
strains, as was previously suggested (18), the subsequent
revision of the expert system softwares would probably increase the
accuracy of such automated methodologies. For example, if the Vitek
system interpretation could be modified on the basis of an oxacillin
breakpoint of
0.5 µg/ml for resistance, as suggested above, 12 of
the 15 coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates initially undetected
by the Vitek system could be classified as resistant. The agreement of
the Vitek system with the PCR of the mecA gene would then be
96%.
In this study we did not evaluate the abilities of the commercial
systems to differentiate between borderline oxacillin-susceptible and
-resistant staphylococci. Recently, Knapp et al. reported the ability
of the Vitek system to differentiate borderline-susceptible S. aureus isolates from heterogeneous class 1 and 2 resistant strains
and found a correct classification by the Vitek card for 86% of the
strains (14). Concerning the detection of borderline oxacillin-resistant staphylococci, our data emphasize the superiority of the Vitek system over the ATB Staph and the Rapid ATB Staph systems.
However, considering that the Vitek system failed to detect
mecA-positive staphylococci for which the oxacillin MICs were
2 µg/ml, a confirmation test remains essential for the
treatment of serious infections. This confirmation can be provided by
the oxacillin agar screen plate test, which is accessible to all
clinical laboratories. However, this test requires 48 h to confirm
oxacillin susceptibility. Alternatively, the rapid BBL Crystal MRSA
test provides results within 4 h, but it may misclassify some
borderline and/or heterogeneously resistant strains (38),
and it is less reliable for coagulase-negative staphylococcal than for
S. aureus isolates (33). Finally, the most rapid
and reliable procedure providing the definitive discrimination for such
isolates remains the PCR amplification of the mecA gene.
In conclusion, among the commercial systems compared in the present study, we found that the E-test and the Vitek system were the most accurate at detecting oxacillin heteroresistance in staphylococci. The potential revision of the 2-µg/ml oxacillin NCCLS breakpoint was previously proposed for coagulase-negative staphylococcal strains (18) and might reduce the relative lack of efficiency of these methods for such strains.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENT |
|---|
We gratefully thank Jean-Louis Pons for help in preparing the manuscript.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: C.H.U. de Rouen, Hôpital Charles Nicolle, Laboratoire de Bactériologie, 1, rue de Germont, 76031 Rouen Cedex, France. Phone: 33 2 32 88 80 52. Fax: 33 2 32 88 80 24. E-mail: bacteriologie{at}chu-rouen.fr.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Archer, G. L., and E. Pennell.
1990.
Detection of methicillin resistance in staphylococci by using a DNA probe.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
34:1720-1724 |
| 2. |
Bignardi, G. E.,
N. Woodford,
A. Chapman,
A. P. Johnson, and D. C. E. Speller.
1996.
Detection of the mecA gene and phenotypic detection of resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolates with borderline or low-level methicillin resistance.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
37:53-63 |
| 3. | Comité de l'Antibiogramme de la Société Française de Microbiologie. 1996. Valeurs critiques pour l'antibiogramme. Bull. Soc. Fr. Microbiol. 11:315-320. |
| 4. |
de Lencastre, H.,
A. M. Sa Figueiredo,
C. Urban,
J. Rahl, and A. Tomasz.
1991.
Multiple mechanisms of methicillin resistance and improved methods for detection in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
35:632-639 |
| 5. |
de Lencastre, H., and A. Tomasz.
1994.
Reassessment of the number of auxiliary genes essential for expression of high-level methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
38:2590-2598 |
| 6. | Duran, S. P., F. H. Kayser, and B. Berger-Bächi. 1996. Impact of sar and agr on methicillin-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 141:255-260[Medline]. |
| 7. |
Geha, D. J.,
J. R. Uhl,
C. A. Gustaferro, and D. H. Persing.
1994.
Multiplex PCR for identification of methicillin-resistant staphylococci in the clinical laboratory.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:1768-1772 |
| 8. |
Gerberding, J. L.,
C. Miick,
H. H. Liu, and H. F. Chambers.
1991.
Comparison of conventional susceptibility tests with direct detection of penicillin-binding protein 2a in borderline oxacillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
35:2574-2579 |
| 9. |
Hackbarth, C. J., and H. F. Chambers.
1989.
Methicillin-resistant staphylococci: detection methods and treatment of infections.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
33:995-999 |
| 10. | Hiramatsu, K., H. Kihara, and T. Yokota. 1992. Analysis of borderline-resistant strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus using polymerase chain reaction. Microbiol. Immunol. 36:445-453[Medline]. |
| 11. |
Huang, M. B.,
T. E. Gay,
C. N. Baker,
S. N. Banerjee, and F. C. Tenover.
1993.
Two percent sodium chloride is required for susceptibility testing of staphylococci with oxacillin when using agar-based dilution methods.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
31:2683-2688 |
| 12. | Ieven, M., H. Jansens, D. Ursi, J. Verhoeven, and H. Goossens. 1995. Rapid detection of methicillin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci by commercially available fluorescence test. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:2183-2185[Abstract]. |
| 13. |
Knapp, C. C.,
M. D. Ludwig, and J. A. Washington.
1994.
Evaluation of differential inoculum disk diffusion method and Vitek GPS-SA card for detection of oxacillin-resistant staphylococci.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:433-436 |
| 14. | Knapp, C. C., M. D. Ludwig, J. A. Washington, and H. F. Chambers. 1996. Evaluation of Vitek GPS-SA card for testing of oxacillin against borderline-susceptible staphylococci that lack mec. J. Clin. Microbiol. 34:1603-1605[Abstract]. |
| 15. | Kuwohara-Arai, K., N. Kondo, S. Hori, E. Tateda-Susuki, and K. Hiramatsu. 1996. Suppression of methicillin resistance in a mecA-containing pre-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strain is caused by the mecI-mediated repression of PBP2' production. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 40:2680-2685[Abstract]. |
| 16. |
Mackenzie, A. M. R.,
H. Richardson,
P. Missett,
D. E. Wood, and D. J. Groves.
1993.
Accuracy of reporting of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a provincial quality control program: a 9-year study.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
31:1275-1279 |
| 17. | Mackenzie, A. M. R., H. Richardson, R. Lannigan, and D. Wood. 1995. Evidence that the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards disk test is less sensitive than the screen plate for the detection of low-expression-class methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:1909-1911[Abstract]. |
| 18. | McDonald, C. L., W. E. Maher, and R. J. Fass. 1995. Revised interpretation of oxacillin MICs for Staphylococcus epidermidis based on mecA detection. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39:982-984[Abstract]. |
| 19. |
Mempel, M.,
H. Feucht,
W. Ziebuhr,
M. Endres,
R. Laufs, and L. Grüter.
1994.
Lack of mecA transcription in slime-negative phase variants of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
38:1251-1255 |
| 20. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1993. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. Approved standard M2-A5. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Villanova, Pa. |
| 21. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1993. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically, 3rd ed. Approved standard M7-A3 National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Villanova, Pa. |
| 22. | Ramotar, K., P. Jessamine, M. Bobrowska-Gacek, W. Woods, I. Coultish, and B. Toye. 1996. Detection of methicillin-resistance in coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS), abstr. C-177, p. 32. In Abstracts of the 96th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology 1996. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 23. |
Richard, P.,
M. Meyran,
E. Carpentier,
A. Thabaut, and H. B. Drugeon.
1994.
Comparison of phenotypic methods and DNA hybridization for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:613-617 |
| 24. |
Ryffel, C.,
F. H. Kayser, and B. Berger-Bächi.
1992.
Correlation between regulation of mecA transcription and expression of methicillin resistance in staphylococci.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
36:25-31 |
| 25. |
Skulnick, M.,
A. E. Simor,
D. Gregson,
M. Patel,
G. W. Small,
B. Kreiswirth,
D. Hathoway, and D. E. Low.
1992.
Evaluation of commercial and standard methodology for determination of oxacillin susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
30:1985-1988 |
| 26. | Struelens, M. J., C. Nonhoff, P. Van der Auwera, R. Mertens, E. Serruys, Groupement pour le Dépistage, l'Etude et la Prévention des Infections Hospitalières-Groep Ter Opsporing, and Studie en Preventie van Infecties in de Ziekenhuizen. 1995. Evaluation of Rapid ATB Staph for 5-hour antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:2395-2399[Abstract]. |
| 27. |
Tokue, Y.,
S. Shoji,
K. Satoh,
A. Watanabe, and M. Motomiya.
1992.
Comparison of a polymerase chain reaction assay and a conventional microbiologic method for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
36:6-9 |
| 28. |
Tomasz, A.,
S. Nachman, and H. Leaf.
1991.
Stable classes of phenotypic expression in methicillin-resistant clinical isolates of staphylococci.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
35:124-129 |
| 29. |
Ubakata, K.,
S. Nakagami,
A. Nitta,
A. Yamane,
S. Kawakami,
M. Sugiura, and M. Konno.
1992.
Rapid detection of the mecA gene in methicillin-resistant staphylococci by enzymatic detection of polymerase chain reaction products.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
30:1728-1733 |
| 30. |
Ünal, S.,
J. Hoskins,
J. E. Flokowitsch,
C. Y. E. Wu,
D. A. Preston, and P. L. Skatrud.
1992.
Detection of methicillin-resistant staphylococci by using the polymerase chain reaction.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
30:1685-1691 |
| 31. |
Ünal, S.,
K. Werner,
P. DeGirolami,
F. Barsanti, and G. Eliopoulos.
1994.
Comparison of tests for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a clinical microbiology laboratory.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
38:345-347 |
| 32. | Vanuffel, P., J. Gigi, H. Ezzedine, B. Vandercam, M. Delmee, G. Wauters, and J.-L. Gala. 1995. Specific detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus species by multiplex PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:2864-2867[Abstract]. |
| 33. |
Wallet, F.,
M. Roussel-Delvallez, and R. J. Courcol.
1996.
Choice of a routine method for detecting methicillin-resistance in staphylococci.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
37:901-909 |
| 34. |
Weller, T. M. A.,
D. W. Crook,
M. R. Crow,
W. Ibrahim,
T. H. Pennington, and J. B. Selkon.
1997.
Methicillin susceptibility testing of staphylococci by Etest and comparison with agar dilution and mecA detection.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
39:251-253 |
| 35. |
Woods, G. L.,
D. LaTemple, and C. Cruz.
1994.
Evaluation of MicroScan rapid gram-positive panels for detection of oxacillin-resistant staphylococci.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:1058-1059 |
| 36. |
Wu, S.,
H. de Lencastre, and A. Tomasz.
1996.
Sigma-B, a putative operon encoding alternate sigma factor of Staphylococcus aureus RNA polymerase: molecular cloning and DNA sequencing.
J. Bacteriol.
178:6036-6042 |
| 37. | York, M. K., L. Gibbs, F. Chehab, and G. F. Brooks. 1996. Comparison of PCR detection of mecA with standard susceptibility testing methods to determine methicillin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci. J. Clin. Microbiol. 34:249-253[Abstract]. |
| 38. | Zambardi, G., J. Fleurette, G. C. Schito, R. Auckenthaler, E. Bergogne-Berezin, R. Hone, A. King, W. Lenz, C. Lohner, A. Makristhatis, F. Marco, C. Müller-Serieys, C. Nonhoff, I. Phillips, P. Rohner, M. Rotter, K. P. Schaal, M. Struelens, and A. Viebahn. 1996. European multicentre evaluation of a commercial system for identification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. 15:747-749. |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»