This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Torres, E.
Right arrow Articles by Bou, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Torres, E.
Right arrow Articles by Bou, G.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, December 2008, p. 4114-4115, Vol. 46, No. 12
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01020-08
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Evaluation of the Vitek 2 AST-P559 Card for Detection of Oxacillin Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus{triangledown}


arrow
LETTER
 
Staphylococcus aureus strains with resistance to methicillin or oxacillin (MRSA) represent one of the main nosocomial pathogens at present. MRSA infections are clearly associated with higher mortality and economic cost than those caused by methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (1). In Spain, the prevalence of methicillin resistance among S. aureus isolates has increased since the 1990s and in some cases has now reached levels higher than 30% (2).

Rapid and accurate detection of MRSA strains in hospital as well as community settings is imperative.

The performance of cefoxitin either as a disk or as a supplement in agar medium for the detection of MRSA has been confirmed extensively (6, 7). Also, cefoxitin-based screening broth proved to be more sensitive and rapid than oxacillin-based broth (3). Recently, a new Vitek card (AST P549) for determining susceptibility of S. aureus to oxacillin has been reported (5). The Vitek 2 AST-P559 card (bioMérieux) incorporates specific antimicrobial agents to test susceptibility and also includes the determination of oxacillin MICs as well as screening for cefoxitin (6 µg/ml). The main advantage of the card is its promptness in detecting methicillin resistance, as it is possible to interpret the results of a cefoxitin screen after 4 h of card inoculation. However, final confirmation is done after 12 h upon reading the oxacillin MICs as well as the cefoxitin screen well and according to the manufacturer's instructions. The Vitek 2 AST-P559 card cannot be manually read, so interpretive information must be derived from the software interpretation.

A total of 301 S. aureus strains were evaluated (51 mecA negative and 250 mecA positive as determined by PCR). S. aureus ATCC 29213 was used as a negative control. Molecular typing of the X region of the spa gene was done with the 250 mecA-positive isolates (4), and these were then grouped into a spa clonal complex (BURST.Ridom StaphType software), with 4 types more prevalent than the others (t02, 23.6%; t18, 22%; t67, 17.6%; and t12, 16.3%).

Overall results are shown in Table 1. Three out of 250 isolates yielded a negative result by the cefoxitin screening methods as well as yielding an oxacillin MIC of ≤2. However, when these isolates were preincubated for 24 h in BBL CHROMagar MRSA medium (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD), which includes 6 µg/ml of cefoxitin, and the assay was repeated, they yielded a positive result with both antibiotics, therefore suggesting that the existence of subpopulations heteroresistant to oxacillin may cause a false-negative result with the Vitek 2 card. All mecA-positive isolates yielded a positive result with the cefoxitin screening (and also yielded an oxacillin MIC of ≥4 µg/ml) and showed positive PBP 2a agglutination with the Slidex MRSA detection kit (bioMérieux). Regarding specificity, all mecA-negative S. aureus strains were negative by the cefoxitin screening method and also yielded an oxacillin MIC of ≤2 µg/ml. However, PBP 2a agglutination yielded three false-positive results (96% specificity).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Number of isolates yielding results corresponding to the different tests with the Vitek 2 AST-P559 card

Considering the results from these three isolates at preincubation time with the cefoxitin agar plate (false negative), the overall results of this study with the AST-P559 card showed sensitivity and specificity of 98.8% and 100%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 94%, respectively. However, the values for all parameters increased to 100% when the three strains were analyzed after induction of the mecA gene product with cefoxitin.

The main advantage of the AST-P559 card is the incorporation of two tests to provide simultaneous determination of oxacillin MICs as well as cefoxitin screening. Several studies (6, 7) have shown that cefoxitin is a better predictor of the presence of mecA than oxacillin, and, indeed, Velasco et al. (7) reported an increase of 2% in sensitivity to detect mecA when the cefoxitin screening test was used in addition to the oxacillin MIC. For these reasons, the simultaneous presence of two tests (oxacillin MIC and cefoxitin screening) in the same card may offer a noticeable advantage for detection of some mecA-negative S. aureus isolates which are identified by cefoxitin screening rather than oxacillin MIC. In addition, information about susceptibility to antibiotics against gram-positive microorganisms is provided by this card, which offers an undoubted advantage with respect to chromogenic agars, agglutination latex, or molecular techniques, since they only detect the marker of resistance to oxacillin. In addition to that, the possibility of diagnosis of an MRSA infection in 4 h (by the software interpretation of the cefoxitin screening) will make the use of this automated method very attractive for clinical microbiology laboratories worldwide.


arrow
FOOTNOTES
 
{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 22 October 2008. Back


arrow
REFERENCES
 
    1
  1. Chambers, H. F. 1997. Methicillin resistance in staphylococci: molecular and biochemical basis and clinical implications. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 10:781-791.[Abstract]
    2. 2
  2. Cuevas, O., E. Cercenado, A. Vindel, J. Guinea, M. Sánchez-Conde, M. Sánchez-Somolinos, E. Bouza, and the Spanish Group for the Study of Staphyloccus. 2004. Evolution of the antimicrobial resistance of Staphylococcus spp. in Spain: five nationwide prevalence studies, 1986 to 2002. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48:4240-4245.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    3. 3
  3. Fang, H., and G. Hedin. 2006. Use of cefoxitin-based selective broth for improved detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:592-594.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    4. 4
  4. Harmsen, D., H. Claus, W. Witte, J. Rothgänger, H. Claus, D. Turnwald, and U. Vogel. 2003. Typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a university hospital setting by using novel software for spa repeat determination and database management. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:5442-5448.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    5. 5
  5. Roisin, S., C. Nonhoff, O. Denis, and M. Struelens. 11 June 2008. Evaluation of new Vitek 2 card and disk diffusion method for determining susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus to oxacillin. J. Clin. Microbiol. doi:10.1128/JCM.00291-08.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    6. 6
  6. Swenson, J. M., F. C. Tenover, and the Cefoxitin Disk Study Group. 2005. Results of disk diffusion testing with cefoxitin correlate with the presence of mecA in Staphylococcus spp. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:3818-3823.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    7. 7
  7. Velasco, D., M. Tomas, M. Cartelle, A. Beceiro, A. Pérez, F. Molina, R. Moure, R. Villanueva, and G. Bou. 2005. Evaluation of different methods for detecting methicillin (oxacillin) resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 55:379-382.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Eva Torres
Servicio de Microbiología
Hospital Juan Canalejo-INIBIC
La Coruña, Spain

Sonia Pérez
Servicio de Microbiología
Hospital Meixoeiro
Vigo, Spain

Rosa Villanueva
Germán Bou*
Servicio de Microbiología
Hospital Juan Canalejo-INIBIC
La Coruña, Spain

* Phone: 34-981-176087, Fax: 34-981-176097, E-mail: germanbou{at}canalejo.org

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, December 2008, p. 4114-4115, Vol. 46, No. 12
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01020-08
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Torres, E.
Right arrow Articles by Bou, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Torres, E.
Right arrow Articles by Bou, G.

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»