| Literature DB >> 31779615 |
Isabela Rotta Batista1, Amanda Caroline Lima Prates1, Bruna de Souza Santos1, Josimara Cristina Carvalho Araújo1, Yan Christian de Oliveira Bonfim1, Marcus Vinícius Pimenta Rodrigues1, Glilciane Morceli1, Jossimara Polettini1, Andressa Cortes Cavalleri1, Lizziane Kretli Winkelstroter1, Valéria Cataneli Pereira2.
Abstract
This study aimed at detecting Staphylococcus aureus from white coats of college students and characterizing antimicrobial susceptibility and biofilm production. Bacterial samples (n = 300) were obtained from white coats of 100 college students from August 2015 to March 2017 S. aureus was isolated and it´s resistance profile was assessed by antimicrobial disk-diffusion technique, screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), detection of mecA gene by PCR, and determination of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) by multiplex PCR. Congo red agar (CRA) and icaA and icaD genes by PCR were used for biofilm characterization. S. aureus was identified in 45.0% of samples. Resistance of S. aureus sample to antimicrobial was seen for penicillin (72.59%), erythromycin (51.85%), cefoxitin (20.74%), oxacillin (17.04%), clindamycin (14.81%) and levofloxacin (5.18%). MRSA was detected in 53.3% of the samples with SCCmec I (52.8%), SCCmec III (25%) and SCCmec IV (11.1%). Biofilm production was observed in 94.0% S. aureus samples. These data show that biosafety measures need to be enhanced in order to prevent dissemination of multiresistant and highly adhesive bacteria across other university settings, relatives, and close persons.Entities:
Keywords: Biofilm; MRSA; S. aureus; White coats
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31779615 PMCID: PMC6883624 DOI: 10.1186/s12941-019-0337-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob ISSN: 1476-0711 Impact factor: 3.944
Antimicrobial susceptibility in S. aureus by disk-diffusion technique
| Antimicrobial | Resistant |
|---|---|
| N (%) | |
| Pen | 21 (15.5) |
| Ery | 3 (2.22) |
| Cef/Lev | 1 (0.74) |
| Pen/Clin | 3 (2.22) |
| Pen/Cef | 1 (0.74) |
| Pen/Ery | 34 (25.18) |
| Ery/Oxa/Clin | 1 (0.74) |
| Pen/Oxa/Cef | 5 (3.7) |
| Pen/Cef/Lev | 1 (0.74) |
| Pen/Ery/Oxa | 4 (2.96) |
| Pen/Ery/Cef | 8 (5.92) |
| Pen/Ery/Clin | 7 (5.18) |
| Pen/Oxa/Cef/Clin | 1 (0.74) |
| Pen/Ery/Oxa/Cef | 3 (2.22) |
| Pen/Ery/Oxa/Clin | 1 (0.74) |
| Pen/Ery/Oxa/Cef/Clin | 3 (2.22) |
| Pen/Ery/Oxa/Cef/Lev | 3 (2.22) |
| Pen/Ery/Cef/Clin/Lev | 1 (0.74) |
| Pen/Ery/Oxa/Clin/Lev | 1 (0.74) |
| Pen/Ery/Oxa/Cef/Clin/Lev | 1 (0.74) |
| Sensitivea | 32 (23.70) |
Pen penicillin, Ery erythromycin, Oxa oxacillin, Cef cefoxitin, Clin clindamycin, Lev levofloxacin, N number of S. aureus samples
aS. aureus sensitive to all antimicrobials
Sensibility and specificity to oxacillin in S. aureus samples by phenotypic and genotypic methods
| Phenotypic methods | Sensibility | Specificity | Kappa coefficient | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | ||||
| N = 72 | N = 63 | % | % | ||
| Oxacillin (10 µg) | 13 | 10 | 18.0 | 84.1 | 0.02 Non-concordance |
| Cefoxitin (30 µg) | 17 | 11 | 23.6 | 82.5 | 0.07 Non-concordance |
| Screeninga | 26 | 18 | 36.1 | 82.5 | 0.35 Satisfactory concordance |
N: number of S. aureus; k: Kappa coefficient
aOxacillin (6 μg/ml) and NaCl (4%)-enriched Mueller–Hinton Agar
Determination of antimicrobial resistance by MRSA, according to SCCmec types
| Antimicrobial | N | SCC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type I (%) | Type III (%) | Type IV (%) | Untyped (%) | ||
| Erythromycin | 38 | 50 | 30 | 8 | 12 |
| Clindamycin | 10 | 50 | 40 | 10 | 0 |
| Penicillin | 50 | 54 | 26 | 8 | 12 |
| Levofloxacin | 3 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Fig. 1Colonization frequency of white coats by S. aureus and MRSA according to the different current course period of the participants
Fig. 2Questions on coat usage by students of the Biomedicine course. a Usage places. b Usage reasons. c Sanitizing frequency. d Sanitizing frequency of S. aureus colonized coats. e Sanitizing places. f Opinion about colonization