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

Abstract

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.

In-Vitro Activity of Teicoplanin against Clinical Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolates

“…Several studies have demonstrated the relationship between teicoplanin MICs values and treatment outcome in patients with MRSA infections. A study by Charlesworth et al showed that a higher teicoplanin MIC was associated with a lower survival rate in critically ill patients [13]. The present study confirms the good in vitro activity of teicoplanin against MRSA as the mean MIC values of teicoplanin in our study was 1.00 mg/L.…”

Vancomycin MIC creep in MRSA isolates from 1997 to 2008 in a healthcare region in Hong Kong

“…In this regard, the disc diffusion method and some automated susceptibility systems have been shown to be inadequate. 7,32 …”

The problem with glycopeptides

“…Disk testing is only of use for glycopeptideresistant S. aureus detection. Standard broth microdilution MIC testing will miss many GISA and hGISA as currently defined, although agar incorporation screening may be a compromise [34]. But, what concentration of glycopeptide (and which glycopeptide) should be used in this screen?…”

“…But, what concentration of glycopeptide (and which glycopeptide) should be used in this screen? Etest looks a promising and user-friendly method [34]-but should it be the normal or the macro method? The latter is certainly more sensitive but may be too non-specific.…”