Comparative Evaluation of Traditional Susceptibility Testing for MRSA with the PCR Approach

Tim Sandle¹, Ilya Azizov², Dmitriy Babenko², Alena Lavrinenko², Antonella Chesca³

¹Bio Products Laboratory, Elstree, UK.
²Science Research Center, Karaganda State Medical University, Karaganda, Kazakhstan.
³Faculty of Medicine, Transilvania University of Brasov, Brasov, Romania.

DOI: 10.4236/aim.2014.416130                

Abstract

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a multi-drug resistant pathogen, which is responsible for increasing cases of serious diseases, including life-threatening diseases and nosocomial and community-acquired infections. Laboratory identification of MRSA is crucial and essential both for initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapies and for effective infection control strategies that are designed to limit the spread of MRSA. In spite of the availability of commercial kits for MRSA detection in the market, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) recommends the use of phenotypic methods, such as the disk diffusion method with oxacillin or with cefoxitin, as well as a serial dilution method with oxacillin. Nevertheless, some studies have shown that results obtained with such phenotypic methods are controversial. The aim of the study described in this paper was to comparatively evaluate the traditional susceptibility testing for MRSA with PCR as the gold standard assay. Analysis of collection (n = 68) isolates of Staphylococcus aureus revealed that the serial dilution method with oxacillin possessed the highest sensitivity (at 100%). In contrast, the disk diffusion methods with oxacillin and cefoxitin showed lower sensitivity (95.83%, 95% CI (78.81%-99.30%)). Furthermore, the borderline value of zone inhibition diameters for cefoxitin might be considered as a risk, and they may give false-susceptible result.

Keywords

MRSA, mecA, Phenotypic Methods, PCR

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Yi, J.Y. and Kim, E.C. (2010) Microbiological Characteristics of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Korean Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 13, 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5145/KJCM.2010.13.1.1
[2]	Cosgrove, S.E., et al. (2003) Comparison of Mortality Associated with Methicillin-Resistant and Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: A Meta-Analysis. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 36, 53-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/345476
[3]	Chambers, H.F. (2005) Community-Associated MRSA—Resistance and Virulence Converge. The New England Journal of Medicine, 352, 1485-1487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe058023
[4]	Honda, H., Krauss, M.J., Coopersmith, C.M., Kollef, M.H., Richmond, A.M., Fraser, V.J. and Warren, D.K. (2010) Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Colonization and Subsequent Infection in Intensive Care Unit Patients: Does Methicillin Resistance Matter? Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 31, 584-591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/652530
[5]	Hiramatsu, K., Cui, L.Z., Kuroda, M. and Ito, T. (2001) The Emergence and Evolution of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Trends in Microbiology, 9, 486-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0966-842X(01)02175-8
[6]	Labrou, M., Michaila, G., Ntokoua, E., Pittarasb, T.E., Pournarasa, S. and Tsakris, A. (2012) Activity of Oxacillin versus That of Vancomycin against Oxacillin-Susceptible mecA-Positive Staphylococcus aureus Clinical Isolates Evaluated by Population Analyses, Time-Kill Assays, and a Murine Thigh Infection Model. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 56, 3388-3391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00103-12
[7]	Saeed, K., Dryden, M. and Parnaby, R. (2010) Oxacillin-Susceptible MRSA, the Emerging MRSA Clone in the UK? Journal of Hospital Infection, 76, 267-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2010.03.004
[8]	Velasco, D., Tomas, M., Cartelle, M., Beceiro, A., Perez, A., Molina, F., Moure, R., Villanueva, R. and Bou, G. (2005) Evaluation of Different Methods for Detecting Methicillin (Oxacillin) Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 55, 379-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dki017
[9]	CLSI (2013) Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; CLSI Approved Standard M100-S23. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne.
[10]	CLSI (2009) Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing M100-S19; Nineteenth Informational Supplement. Vol. 29, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne.
[11]	Mehrotra, M., Wang, G. and Johnson, W.M. (2000) Multiplex PCR for Detection of Genes for Staphylococcus aureus Enterotoxins, Exfoliative Toxins, Toxic Shock Syndrome Toxin 1, and Methicillin Resistance. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 38, 1032-10235.
[12]	Parshall, M. (2013) Unpacking the 2 × 2 Table. Heart & Lung, 42, 221-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2013.01.006
[13]	Deleo, F.R., Otto, M., Kreiswirth, B.N. and Chambers, H.F. (2010) Community-Associated Meticillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Lancet, 375, 1557-1568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61999-1
[14]	Kalra, L., Camacho, F., Whitener, C.J., Du, P., Miller, M., Zalonis, C. and Julian, K.G. (2013) Risk of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surgical Site Infection in Patients with Nasal MRSA Colonization. American Journal of Infection Control, 41, 1253-1257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2013.05.021
[15]	Cox, R.A., Conquest, C., Mallaghan, C. and Marples, R.R. (1995) A Major Outbreak of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Caused by a New Phage-Type (EMRSA-16). Journal of Hospital Infection, 29, 87-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0195-6701(95)90191-4
[16]	Boutiba-Ben Boubaker, I., Ben Abbes, R., Ben Abdallah, H., Mamlouk, K., Mahjoubi, F., Kammoun, A., Hammami, A. and Ben Redjeb, S. (2004) Evaluation of a Cefoxitin Disk Diffusion Test for the Routine Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 10, 762-765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.00919.x
[17]	Salimnia, H. and Brown, W.J. (2005) Detection of Oxacillin Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: Comparison of Phoenix Oxacillin and Cefoxitin MICs, MicroScan Oxacillin MIC, Oxacillin and Cefoxitin Disk Diffusion, and mecA Gene Detection. The Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC), Washington DC, 16-19 December 2005.
[18]	Brown, D.F., Edwards, D.I., Hawkey, P.M., Morrison, D., Ridgway, G.L., Towner, K.J., et al. (2005) Guidelines for the Laboratory Diagnosis and Susceptibility Testing of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 56, 1000-1018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dki372
[19]	Sakoulas, G., Gold, H.S., Venkataraman, L., DeGirolami, P.C., Eliopoulos, G.M. and Qian, Q.F. (2001) Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Comparison of Susceptibility Testing Methods and Analysis of mecA-Positive Susceptible Strains. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 39, 3946-3951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.39.11.3946-3951.2001
[20]	Sandle, T., Babenko, D., Lavrinenko, A., Azizov, I. and Chesca, A. (2014) The Current State of PCR Approach in Detection and Identification of Carbapanem Hydrolysis β-Lactamases Genes. European Journal of Parenteral & Pharmaceutical Sciences, 19, 153-164.