Literature DB >> 6605976

Interlaboratory variation of antibiograms of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains with conventional and commercial testing systems.

K E Aldridge, A Janney, C V Sanders, R L Marier.   

Abstract

Laboratory-prepared (conventional) and commercial susceptibility testing systems were compared by using a group of methicillin-resistant (MR) and methicillin-susceptible (MS) strains of Staphylococcus aureus. A group of 25 MR and 15 MS S. aureus strains were coded and tested blindly by disk diffusion, agar dilution, broth microdilution, Sensititre, Micro-Media, Sceptor, API 3600S, MicroScan, Autobac I, and MS-2 systems. All systems were incubated at 35 degrees C and read with either a manual or automated reader at the recommended times. Where applicable, systems were also read at 48 h. Among the conventional assays, the broth and agar dilution methods were comparable, both detecting 88% of the MR strains at 24 h and detecting 92 and 96%, respectively, at 48 h. The disk diffusion method was less efficient, detecting only 36 and 72% at 24 and 48 h, respectively. Detection of cephalothin resistance was low for all systems at both time periods, with agar dilution and disk diffusion being the most and least efficient, respectively. Some variability was also seen with detection of resistance to clindamycin and gentamicin. Among the MS strains, variability among the conventional systems occurred with methicillin, gentamicin, ampicillin, and penicillin. Comparison of the commercial systems with manual readers with the broth microdilution method (reference method) showed that for MR strains, the Sceptor system gave identical results at 24 and 48 h. Sensititre detected 68 and 88% of the MR strains, whereas Micro-Media was least effective detecting 12 and 80% at 24 and 48 h, respectively. None of the commercial systems detected cephalothin resistance well, with only one strain being indicated by the Sceptor and Sensititre systems at 48 h. Slight differences were also seen among the systems with clindamycin and gentamicin. With regard to the MS strains, variability among the systems was seen with methicillin, penicillin, ampicillin, clindamycin, and gentamicin. Among commercial systems with automated readers, the API system detected a greater number of MR strains than did the reference method at 24 and 48 h, 96 and 100%, respectively. The MicroScan method was comparable to the reference method detecting 80 and 88% of the MR strains at both time periods, respectively. Both Autobac I and MS-2 were much less effective in detecting MR strains, noting only 32 and 16%, respectively, at the 3- to 6-h readings. Poor detection of cephalothin resistance among MR strains was evident in all systems. Variability also occurred among the systems with clindamycin, gentamicin, and ampicillin. A single strain of the MR group was reported to be vancomycin resistant by the API system. Among the MS group, the greatest variability was seen with methicillin. Less variability occurred with penicillin, ampicillin, gentamicin, and vancomycin.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6605976      PMCID: PMC272871          DOI: 10.1128/jcm.18.5.1226-1236.1983

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  32 in total

1.  A SURVEY OF METHICILLIN RESISTANCE IN STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS.

Authors:  M T PARKER; M P JEVONS
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1964-12       Impact factor: 2.401

2.  Evolutio of natural resistance to the newer penicillins.

Authors:  G T STEWART; R J HOLT
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1963-02-02

3.  [Staphylococcus strains naturally resistant to methicillin and 5-methyl-3-phenyl-4-iso-oxazolyl-penicillin].

Authors:  Y A CHABBERT; J G BAUDENS
Journal:  Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris)       Date:  1962-08

4.  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus susceptibility testing by an automated system, Autobac I.

Authors:  T J Cleary; D Maurer
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1978-05       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method.

Authors:  A W Bauer; W M Kirby; J C Sherris; M Turck
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1966-04       Impact factor: 2.493

6.  Resistance of Staphylococcus aureus to semisynthetic penicillins and cephalothin.

Authors:  A S Richmond; M S Simberkoff; S Schaefler; J J Rahal
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 5.226

7.  Changing staphylococci and staphylococcal infections. A ten-year study of bacteria and cases of bacteremia.

Authors:  O Jessen; K Rosendal; P Bülow; V Faber; K R Eriksen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1969-09-18       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  An outbreak of infections caused by strains of Staphylococcus aureus resistant to methicillin and aminoglycosides. I. Clinical studies.

Authors:  K Crossley; D Loesch; B Landesman; K Mead; M Chern; R Strate
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 5.226

9.  Bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  J P Myers; C C Linnemann
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 5.226

10.  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus susceptibility testing with Abbott MS-2 system.

Authors:  J R Carlson; F E Conley; D L Cahall
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 5.191

View more
  23 in total

Review 1.  Expert systems in clinical microbiology.

Authors:  Trevor Winstanley; Patrice Courvalin
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 26.132

2.  Epidemiologic factors affecting antimicrobial resistance of common bacterial isolates.

Authors:  P D Ellner; D J Fink; H C Neu; M F Parry
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 3.  Methicillin-resistant staphylococci: detection methods and treatment of infections.

Authors:  C J Hackbarth; H F Chambers
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Salt-supplemented medium for testing methicillin-resistant staphylococci with newer beta-lactams.

Authors:  J H Jorgensen; J S Redding; L A Maher; P E Ramirez
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 5.  Methicillin-resistant staphylococci.

Authors:  H F Chambers
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 26.132

6.  Rapid MIC testing with the sensititre autoreader.

Authors:  J L Staneck; S D Allen; E E Harris; R C Tilton
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Rapid recognition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by use of automated test systems.

Authors:  J H Jorgensen; J Redding; J E Johnson; V Holloway; R J Almeida
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 8.  Laboratory and epidemiologic experience with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the USA.

Authors:  J H Jorgensen
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 3.267

9.  Detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis.

Authors:  G L Woods; G S Hall; I Rutherford; K J Pratt; C C Knapp
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Comparative evaluation of four systems for determining susceptibility of gram-positive organisms.

Authors:  D Henry; L Kunzer; J Ngui-Yen; J Smith
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 5.948

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.