4.7 Article

Evaluation of new Vitek 2 card and disk diffusion method for determining susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus to oxacillin

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 8, Pages 2525-2528

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00291-08

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Detection of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus is a challenge, especially low-level resistance, which is often misdiagnosed. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracies of the automated Vitek 2 system and disk diffusion tests, using cefoxitin and moxalactam, for the detection of methicillin resistance in S. aureus strains. Four sets of genotypically diverse isolates were selected from a national reference collection, including mecA-negative S. aureus isolates (n=56), hospital-acquired ( n = 88) and community-acquired ( n = 40) S. aureus isolates, and heterogeneous methicillin-resistant S. aureus isolates ( n = 29). Oxacillin susceptibility was tested by the Vitek 2 system with the AST P549 card and by disk diffusion methods using 10, 30, and 60 mu g cefoxitin and 30 mu g moxalactam. Oxacillin resistance was confirmed by PCR for the mecA gene. The overall sensitivities for oxacillin resistance detection were 97.5% for the Vitek 2 automated system, 98.7% for 60-mu g cefoxitin and moxalactam disk diffusion, and 99.6% for 10- and 30-mu g cefoxitin disks, respectively. Methicillin-susceptible S. aureus isolates were correctly reported as susceptible by all methods. The median times for methicillin testing were 7 h for the Vitek 2 system versus 24 h for disk diffusion methods. In conclusion, the cefoxitin and moxalactam disk diffusion methods and the Vitek 2 automated system are highly accurate methods for methicillin resistance detection, including a range of representative Belgian methicillin-resistant S. aureus strains and unusual strains exhibiting cryptic or low-level oxacillin resistance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available