Evaluation of Phenotypic and Genotypic Test Methods to Detect Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
Authors/Creators
- 1. JR-3, Department of Microbiology, Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai, Bihar
- 2. Professor, Department of Microbiology, Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai, Bihar
- 3. Associate Professor and Head of Department, Department of Microbiology, Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai, Bihar
Description
Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a prevalent cause of nosocomial and community-acquired infections. Because of this, accurate MRSA detection is essential for both implementing control measures and lowering MRSA endemicity. The current study set out to evaluate the performance of various phenotypic methods with mecA-based PCR for MRSA detection. Methods: This investigation includes a total of 2000 S. aureus isolates. Oxacillin disc diffusion, oxacillin MIC, cefoxitin disc diffusion, and the oxacillin screen agar test were used to assess methicillin resistance, and they were compared to mecA-based PCR. Results: According to Cefoxitin and Oxacillin susceptibility tests, 530 (26.50%) and 302 (30.1%) of the 2000 isolates from our hospital were determined to be MRSA. The Cefoxitin disc diffusion test for MRSA identification has a better correlation with the gold standard PCR approach than any other phenotypic method. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that the cefoxitin disc diffusion method has a high sensitivity and specificity when compared to other phenotypic methodologies for MRSA detection. As an alternative to PCR for the detection of MRSA, cefoxitin disc diffusion test results for MRSA prevalence are compatible with PCR results for the mecA gene.
Abstract (English)
Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a prevalent cause of nosocomial and community-acquired infections. Because of this, accurate MRSA detection is essential for both implementing control measures and lowering MRSA endemicity. The current study set out to evaluate the performance of various phenotypic methods with mecA-based PCR for MRSA detection. Methods: This investigation includes a total of 2000 S. aureus isolates. Oxacillin disc diffusion, oxacillin MIC, cefoxitin disc diffusion, and the oxacillin screen agar test were used to assess methicillin resistance, and they were compared to mecA-based PCR. Results: According to Cefoxitin and Oxacillin susceptibility tests, 530 (26.50%) and 302 (30.1%) of the 2000 isolates from our hospital were determined to be MRSA. The Cefoxitin disc diffusion test for MRSA identification has a better correlation with the gold standard PCR approach than any other phenotypic method. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that the cefoxitin disc diffusion method has a high sensitivity and specificity when compared to other phenotypic methodologies for MRSA detection. As an alternative to PCR for the detection of MRSA, cefoxitin disc diffusion test results for MRSA prevalence are compatible with PCR results for the mecA gene.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue3,Article165.pdf
Files
(393.6 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:965733853a757a33b14a0e406a5ef877
|
393.6 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-03-21
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue3,Article165.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Manju M Pillai, Ragunathan Latha, Gautam Sarkar, Detection of Methicillin Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus by Polymerase Chain Reaction and Conventional Methods: A Comparative Study. Journal of laboratory physicians, 2012; 4(2): 83-88. 2. Jonas D, Speck M, Daschner FD, Grundmann H. Rapid PCR-Based Identification of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus from ScreeningSwabs. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002 Jan 5; 40(5):1821-3. 3. Mohanasundaram KM, Lalitha MK. Comparison of phenotypic versus genotypic methodsin the detection of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Indian J Med Res, 2008; 127:78- 84. 4. Ausubel FM, Brent R, Kingston R, Moore DE, Seidman JG, Smith JA, Struhl K. Short Protocols in Molecular Biology, 4th ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. 1999. 5. Unal S, Werner K, DeGirolami P, Barsanti F, Eliopoulos G. Comparison of tests for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a clinical microbiology laboratory. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994; 38: 345-7. 6. Chambers H. F., Methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1988;1: 173-186. 7. Stulens MJ, Denis O. Rapid molecular detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: cost effective tool for infection control in critical care. Crit Care, 2006; 10(2):128. 8. Geha DJ, Uhl J R, Gustaferro C A, Persing DH. Multiplex PCR for identification of Methicillin-resistant staphylococci in the clinical laboratory. J Clin Microbiol, 1994; 32:1768–72. 9. Echaniz-Aviles G, Velazquez-Meza ME, Aires-de-Sousa M, et al. Molecular characterisation of a dominant methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) clone in a Mexican hospital (1999-2003). Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006; 12:22–28. 10. Gerberding JL, Miick C, Liu HH, et al. Comparison of conventional susceptibility test with direct detection of penicillin binding protein 2a in borderline oxacillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991; 35:2574-2579. 11. Jonas D, Grundmann H, Hartung D, et al. Evaluation of the mecA femB duplex polymerase chain reaction for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999; 18:643–647. 12. Salisbury SM, Sabatini LM, Spiegel CA., Identification of methicillin-resistant staphylococci by multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay. Am J Clin Pathol. 1997; 107:368–73. 13. Swenson JM, Lonsway D, McAllister S, Thompson A, Jevitt L, Zhu W, et al. Detection of mecA-mediated resistance using reference and commercial testing methods in a collection of Staphylococcus aureus expressing borderline oxacillin MICs. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease. 2007 May;58(1):33-9. 14. CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. CLSI approved standard M100-S17. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA. 2007. 15. Krishanan U. M. K., Shetty N., Detection of methicilin and mupirocin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolates using conventional and molecular methods: descriptive study from a burns unit with high prevalence of MRSA. J. Clin Pathology. 2002; 55: 745-8. 16. Kocazog S, Unal S., Ractical use of PCR for rapid detection of methicillin resistance among Staphylococcal clinical isolates from Turkish Hospital. J. Clin Microbiol., 1997; 35:2188-2189. 17. Fleming D. W., Hegerson S. d., Mellery B, L., White M. C., Methicillin resistance Staphylococcus aureus. How reliable is laboratory repertory? Infect control; 1986;7: 164 - 7. 18. Cauwelier B, Gordts B, Descheemaecker P, Van Landuyt H. Evaluation of a disk diffusion method with cefoxitin (30 microg) for detection of methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004; 23:389- 92. 19. Anand KB, Agrawal P, Kumar S, Kapila K. Comparison of cefoxitin disc diffusion test, oxacillin screen agar, and PCR for mec A gene for detection of MRSA. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2009,27(1): 27- 9. 20. Sakoulas G, Gold HS, Venkataraman L, De Girolami PC, Eliopoulos GM, Qian Q. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Comparison of susceptibility testing methods and analysis of mecApositive susceptible strains. J Clin Microbiol. 2001; 39:3946-51. 21. Wallet F, Roussel-Devallez M, Courcol RJ. Choice of a routine method for detecting methicillin-resistance in staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996; 37:901-9. 22. Mathews AA, Thomas M, Appalaraju B, Jayalakshmi J. Evaluation and comparison of tests to detect methicillin resistant S. aureus. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2010; 53(1):79-82. 23. Rahbar M, Safadel N. Evaluation of cefoxitin disk diffusion test for routine detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Iran J Patholol. 2006; 1(4):145-8.