Skip Navigation


JAC Advance Access originally published online on April 26, 2006
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2006 58(1):186-189; doi:10.1093/jac/dkl151
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
58/1/186    most recent
dkl151v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Charlesworth, R.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, A. P. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Charlesworth, R.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, A. P. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparison of four methods for detection of teicoplanin resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

R. Charlesworth1, M. Warner2, D. M. Livermore2 and A. P. R. Wilson1,*

1 Department of Clinical Microbiology, University College London Hospitals, Windeyer Institute of Medical Sciences 46 Cleveland Street, London W1T 4JF, UK 2 Antibiotic Reference and Monitoring Reference Laboratory, Health Protection Agency, Centre for Infections Colindale, UK

Received 11 February 2006; returned 21 March 2006; revised 28 March 2006; accepted 30 March 2006

*Corresponding author. Tel: +44-207-380-9516; Fax: +44-207-636-6482; E-mail: peter.wilson{at}uclh.nhs.uk

Objectives: To determine which method of determining the MIC of teicoplanin produces a result closely related to outcome in the critically ill patient.

Methods: Four methods of teicoplanin susceptibility testing—disc diffusion, Etest, VITEK (Legacy and VITEK 2) and agar incorporation—were compared for 47 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates from invasive intensive care unit (ICU) infections and 83 isolates from ICU patients colonized with the organism. Clinical outcome was recorded prospectively for all the patients. Another 13 reference laboratory strains of MRSA with reduced susceptibility to teicoplanin were tested.

Results: Both VITEK systems failed to demonstrate resistance in the three isolates identified as resistant by Etest or agar incorporation, and disc testing detected only one resistant isolate. A higher MIC, as found by Etest or agar incorporation, was associated with lower survival (n = 130, 95% CI –0.082 to –0.006, P = 0.023, Etest; n = 130, 95% CI –0.156 to –0.020, P = 0.011, agar). The findings for the 13 reference strains were similar, with a ≥4-fold reduction in MIC between agar incorporation or Etest and VITEK2 for six isolates.

Conclusions: Neither disc diffusion nor the VITEK systems are reliable for detection of teicoplanin resistance in MRSA. Etest and agar incorporation remain the methods of choice.

Keywords: S. aureus , Etest , agar incorporation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
R. Hope, D. M. Livermore, G. Brick, M. Lillie, R. Reynolds, and on behalf of the BSAC Working Parties on Resistanc
Non-susceptibility trends among staphylococci from bacteraemias in the UK and Ireland, 2001-06
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., November 1, 2008; 62(suppl_2): ii65 - ii74.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.