Journals / Mikrobiyoloji Bülteni / 2011 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of oxacillin, cefoxitin, ceftizoxime, and moxalactam disk diffusion methods for detection of methicillin susceptibility in staphylococci

Stafilokoklarda metisilin duyarlılığının belirlenmesinde oksasilin, sefoksitin,seftizoksim ve moksalaktam disk difüzyon yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması

Pages
258–265
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, due to the problems in detection of methicillin resistance with phenotypic methods, the use of different mecA gene-inducing antibiotic disks at the same time, and utilization of molecular methods as reference method might be suggested, when a discordance is observed between the antibiotic disks.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Penicillin binding protein 2a/2’ (PBP2a/PBP2’) which is encoded by the mecA gene, is responsible for the methicillin resistance in staphylococci.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Thus, for the rapid and accurate diagnosis of MRSA strains, easy and practical phenotypic tests are still required.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, due to the problems in detection of methicillin resistance with phenotypic methods, the use of different mecA gene-inducing antibiotic disks at the same time, and utilization of molecular methods as reference method might be suggested, when a discordance is observed between the antibiotic disks.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Penicillin binding protein 2a/2’ (PBP2a/PBP2’) which is encoded by the mecA gene, is responsible for the methicillin resistance in staphylococci. Detection of methicillin resistance with phenotypic methods is still a problem especially because of heterogenous expression of mecA gene. Although mecA gene determination by polymerase chain reaction is considered as the gold standard method, molecular tests are not easily applied in all routine laboratories. Thus, for the rapid and accurate diagnosis of MRSA strains, easy and practical phenotypic tests are still required. This study was conducted to compare the oxacillin (OX), cefoxitin (CFX), ceftizoxime (CZX), and moxolactam (MOX) susceptibility testing by disk diffusion method for the detection of methicillin resistance in staphylococci. A total of 247 staphylococci (125 Staphylococcus aureus and 122 coagulase-negative staphylococci; CNS) isolated from various clinical specimens (114 wound and soft tissue materials, 51 urine, 48 blood, 30 respiratory tract, and four other samples) of inpatients and outpatients, were included in this study. PBP2a latex agglutination test was used as the reference method for the recognition of methicillin resistance; four antibiotic disks tested and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were determined for each of them. According to PBP2a latex agglutination test 66 (54.1%) of CNS and 53 (42.4%) of S.aureus isolates were found methicillin- resistant. OX and MOX disks detected 113 (63 CNS and 50 S.aureus) methicillin-resistant strain out of 119 PBP2a positive isolates, where CFX and CZX disks detected 110 (60 CNS and 50 S.aureus) of them. Among 128 PBP2a negative isolates, 123 (52 CNS and 71 S.aureus) were detected as susceptible with OX, 127 (55 CNS and 72 S.aureus) with CFX and CZX, 126 (54 CNS and 72 S.aureus) with MOX. According to these results, the sensitivities and specificities of OX, CFX, CZX, and MOX disks were; 95.4% and 92.8%, 90.9% and 98.2%, 90.9% and 98.2%, 95.4% and 96.4%, respectively for CNS and 94.3% and 98.6%, 94.3% and 100%, 94.3% and 100%, 94.3% and 100%, respectively for S.aureus. The difference between sensitivities and specificities of tested antibiotic disks were not found statistically significant. In conclusion, due to the problems in detection of methicillin resistance with phenotypic methods, the use of different mecA gene-inducing antibiotic disks at the same time, and utilization of molecular methods as reference method might be suggested, when a discordance is observed between the antibiotic disks.

Özet

Stafilokoklarda metisilin direnci, mecA geni tarafından kodlanan penisilin bağlayan protein 2a/2’ (PBP2a/PBP2’) proteininin üretimi sonucu ortaya çıkmaktadır. mecA geninin heterojen ekspresyonu nedeniyle, metisilin direncinin fenotipik olarak gösterilmesi halen bir sorun oluşturmaktadır. Polimeraz zincir reaksiyonu ile mecA geninin tespit edilmesi altın standart yöntem olmakla birlikte, çoğu laboratuvarda moleküler yöntemlerin çalışılabileceği olanaklar bulunmadığından, metisiline dirençli suşları hızlı ve doğru olarak saptayabilecek, kolay uygulanabilir fenotipik yöntemlere ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, stafilokoklarda metisilin duyarlılığının belirlenmesinde oksasilin (OX), sefoksitin (CFX), seftizoksim (CZX) ve moksalaktam (MOX) disk difüzyon yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmaya, hastanede yatan veya ayaktan başvuran hastaların, yara ve yumuşak doku materyali (n= 114), idrar (n= 51), kan (n= 48), solunum yolu (n= 30) ve diğer (n= 4) klinik örneklerinden enfeksiyon etkeni olarak izole edilen 125’i Staphylococcus aureus, 122’si koagülaz-negatif stafilokok (KNS) olmak üzere toplam 247 stafilokok suşu alınmıştır. PBP2a lateks aglütinasyon yöntemi, metisilin direncini belirlemede referans yöntem olarak kullanılmış ve dört antibiyotikle yapılan disk difüzyon yönteminin duyarlılık, özgüllük, pozitif ve negatif prediktif değerleri hesaplanmıştır. PBP2a lateks aglütinasyon yöntemi ile KNS’lerin 66 (%54.1)’sı, S.aureus’ların 53 (%42.4)’ü metisiline dirençli bulunmuştur. PBP2a pozitif olan 119 suştan 113 (63 KNS, 50 S.aureus)’ü OX ve MOX ile, 110 (60 KNS, 50 S.aureus)’u ise CFX ve CZX ile dirençli tespit edilirken; PBP2a negatif olan 128 suştan 123 (52 KNS, 71 S.aureus)’ü OX, 127 (55 KNS, 72 S.aureus)’ si CFX ve CZX, 126 (54 KNS, 72 S.aureus)’sı ise MOX ile duyarlı saptanmıştır. Bu bulgulara göre OX, CFX, CZX ve MOX ile elde edilen duyarlılık ve özgüllük değerleri sırasıyla; KNS’ler için %95.4 ve %92.8, %90.9 ve %98.2, %90.9 ve %98.2, %95.4 ve %96.4; S.aureus’lar için %94.3 ve %98.6, %94.3 ve %100, %94.3 ve %100, %94.3 ve %100 olarak tespit edilmiştir. İstatistiksel değerlendirmede, dört antibiyotik ile uygulanan disk difüzyon testleri arasında duyarlılık ve özgüllük açısından anlamlı bir fark saptanmamıştır. Sonuç olarak, fenotipik yöntemlerle metisilin direncinin tespitindeki sorunlar, nedeniyle, mecA genini indükleyen farklı antibiyotik disklerinin aynı anda test edilmesi ve diskler arasında uyumsuzluk gözlendiğinde moleküler yöntemlere başvurulması önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZEL, G., ASLAN, V., BAHAR, G. E., ÇAĞATAY, M., MERT, A., ŞENCAN, İ. (2011). Comparison of oxacillin, cefoxitin, ceftizoxime, and moxalactam disk diffusion methods for detection of methicillin susceptibility in staphylococci. Mikrobiyoloji Bülteni, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 2, 258–265. https://ajindex.com/articles/298711

References (11)

  1. Zhu LX, Zhang ZW, Wang C, Yang HW, Zhang Q, Cheng J. Evaluation of the CLSI cefoxitin 30-microg diskdiffusion method for detecting methicillin resistance in staphylococci. Clin Microbiol Infect 2006; 12(10): 1039-42
  2. Perez LR, Antunes AL, Barth AL, d’Azevedo PA. Variations of agar screen tests for detection of methicillin resistance in staphylococci: focus on cefoxitin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2007; 26(4): 267-70
  3. Velasco D, del Mar Tomas M, Cartelle M, et al. Evaluation of different methods for detecting methicillin (oxacillin) resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 55(3): 379-82
  4. Felten A, Grandry B, Langrange PH, Casin I. 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. J Clin Microbiol 2002; 40(8): 2766-71
  5. Bosgelmez-Tinaz G, Ulusoy S, Aridogan B, Coskun-Ari F. Evaluation of different methods to detect oxacillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and their clinical laboratory utility. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2006; 25(6): 410-2
  6. Witte W, Pasemann B, Cuny C. Detection of low-level oxacillin resistance in mecA-positive Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Microbiol Infect 2007; 13(4): 408-12
  7. Johnson G, Millar MR, Matthews S, et al. Evaluation of BacLite Rapid MRSA, a rapid culture based screening test for the detection of ciprofloxacin and methicillin resistant S.aureus (MRSA) from screening swabs. BMC Microbiol 2006; 6: 83. 8. von Eiff C, Maas D, Sander G, Friedrich AW, Peters G, Becker K. Microbiological evaluation of a new growthbased approach for rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 61(6): 1277-80
  8. Coban AY, Darka O, Tasdelen Fisgin N, et al. Short communication: use of cefoxitin disc diffusion method for the detection of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates. Mikrobiyol Bul 2007; 41(1): 109-13
  9. Swenson JM, Skov R, Patel JB. The cefoxitin disk test-what a clinical microbiologist needs to know. Clinical Microbiology Newsletter 2007; 29(5): 33-40
  10. Andrews J, Brenwald N, Brown DF, et al. Evaluation of a 10 {micro}g cefoxitin disc for the detection of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus by BSAC methodology. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56(3): 599-600
  11. Wagenvoort JH, Ciraci VE, Penders RJ, Gronenschild JH, De Br