Evaluation of Three Techniques for Detection of Low-Level Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): a Disk Diffusion Method with Cefoxitin and Moxalactam, the Vitek 2 System, and the MRSA-Screen Latex Agglutination Test
Open Access
- 1 August 2002
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Society for Microbiology in Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Vol. 40 (8) , 2766-2771
- https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.40.8.2766-2771.2002
Abstract
Very-low-level methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), or class 1 MRSA, is often misdiagnosed as methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). We evaluated the performances of three methods for detection of low-level methicillin resistance: the disk diffusion method using the cephamycin antibiotics cefoxitin and moxalactam, the Vitek 2 system (bioMérieux), and the MRSA-screen test (Denka). Detection of the mecA gene by PCR was considered to be the “gold standard.” We also determined the sensitivity of the oxacillin disk diffusion method with 5- and 1-μg disks and that of the Oxascreen agar assay with 6 mg of oxacillin liter−1 for detection of MRSA. We compared the distributions of MICs of oxacillin and cefoxitin by the E-test (AB Biodisk), and those of moxalactam by dilutions in agar, for MRSA and MSSA isolates. The 152 clinical isolates of S. aureus studied were divided into 69 MSSA (mecA-negative) and 83 MRSA (mecA-positive) isolates, including 63 heterogeneous isolates and 26 class 1 isolates (low-level resistance). The cefoxitin and moxalactam disk diffusion tests detected 100% of all the MRSA classes: cefoxitin inhibition zone diameters were <27 mm, and moxalactam inhibition zone diameters were <24 mm. The Vitek 2 system and the MRSA-screen test detected 94 and 97.6% of all MRSA isolates, respectively. The sensitivities of the 5- and 1-μg oxacillin disks were 95.2 and 96.4%, respectively, whereas that of the Oxascreen agar screen assay was 94%. All of the tests except the 1-μg oxacillin disk test were 100% specific. For the class 1 MRSA isolates, the sensitivity of the Vitek 2 test was 92.3%, whereas those of the MRSA-screen test and the disk diffusion method with cefoxitin and moxalactam were 100%. Therefore, the cefoxitin and moxalactam disk diffusion methods were the best-performing tests for routine detection of all classes of MRSA.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of the Vitek Gram-Positive Susceptibility 106 Card and the MRSA-Screen Latex Agglutination Test for Determining Oxacillin Resistance in Clinical Bloodstream Isolates of Staphylococcus aureusJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2001
- Prevalence of nosocomial infections in France: results of the nationwide survey in 1996Journal of Hospital Infection, 2000
- Unusual Spread of a Penicillin-Susceptible Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clone in a Geographic Area of Low IncidenceClinical Infectious Diseases, 1999
- Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐ResistantStaphylococcus aureusin Hospitalized Adults and Children without Known Risk FactorsClinical Infectious Diseases, 1999
- The Progressive Intercontinental Spread of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusClinical Infectious Diseases, 1997
- Genomic diversity ofmecregulator genes in methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusandStaphylococcus epidermidisEpidemiology and Infection, 1996
- Genotypic identification of methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci by polymerase chain reactionAntimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1991
- -Lactam Resistance Mechanisms of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1991
- Stable classes of phenotypic expression in methicillin-resistant clinical isolates of staphylococciAntimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1991
- Emergence of methicillin-resistant clones from cephamycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 1989