SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Teicoplanin Resistance Detected by Automated System in Coagulase Negative Staphylococci: A Comparison with Gradient Test and Broth Microdilution Methods

  • Published:
Current Microbiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Upon the observation of an increase in teicoplanin resistance rates in coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS) isolates determined by the automated system, we aimed to compare the automated system and gradient test methods with the gold standard broth microdilution method. In addition, the effect of standard antimicrobial susceptibility guidelines on teicoplanin susceptibility test results in CoNS was investigated. A total of 81 CoNS isolates, 52 resistant and 29 susceptible to teicoplanin determined by automated system (Phoenix, Becton Dickinson, USA), were tested. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values were determined by gradient test (M.I.C. Evaluators, OXOID, UK) and broth microdilution methods. Susceptibility categories were determined according to EUCAST and CLSI criteria and the results were compared. Among 29 isolates found to be susceptible by automated system, one isolate was found resistant by gradient and broth microdilution tests. Of the 52 resistant isolates determined by automated system, 12 (23%) were found to be resistant by gradient test and 22 (42.3%) were resistant by broth microdilution. According to CLSI criteria, no resistant isolates were detected by broth microdilution and six isolates were intermediately susceptible while, two isolates were detected to be resistant and five isolates were found to be intermediately susceptible by the gradient test. In conclusion, compared to microdilution, teicoplanin resistance was detected at a higher rate in CoNS isolates by the automated system used. On the other hand, the gradient test method which is frequently used for confirmation was not reliable in MIC values close to the EUCAST breakpoint values (4 μg/mL). In addition, lower resistance rates were observed when the CLSI breakpoints were used in gradient test and broth microdilution methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Becker K, von Eiff C (2011) Staphylococcus, Micrococcus and other catalase positive cocci that grow aerobically. In: Versalovic J, Carroll KC, Jorgensen JH, Funke G, Landry ML, Warnock DW (eds) Manual of clinical microbiology, 10th edn. ASM Press, Washington DC, pp 308–330

    Google Scholar 

  2. Archer GL, Climo MW (1994) Antimicrobial susceptibility of coagulase-negative Staphylococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 38(10):2231–2237. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.38.10.2231

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Endtz HP, Braak N, Verbrugh HA, Belkum A (1999) Vancomycin resistance: status quo and quo vadis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 18:683–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100960050379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tiwari HK, Sen MR (2006) Emergence of vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) from a tertiary care hospital from northern part of India. BMC Infect Dis 6:156. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-6-156

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wood MJ (1996) The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 37(2):209–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/37.2.209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 28th edn. CLSI Supplement M100, 2018. CLSI, Wayne, PA

  7. EUCAST: https://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Breakpoint_tables/v_10.0_Breakpoint_Tables.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2020

  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Laboratory Detection of Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species with Decreased Susceptibility to the Glycopeptides Vancomycin and Teicoplanin. CDC Updated 2010. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/settings/lab/labdetectioncoagulase_negative.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2019

  9. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically, Approved Standart. 10th edn. CLSI document M07-A10, 2015. CLSI, Wayne, PA

  10. Guidance for Industry and FDA. Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Systems. Document issued on: August 28, 2009. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm071462.pdf

  11. Menichetti F, Martino P, Bucaneve G, Gentile G, D'Antonio D, Liso V et al (1994) Effects of teicoplanin and those of vancomycin in initial empirical antibiotic regimen for febrile neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Gimema Infection Program. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 38:2041–2046. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.38.9.2041

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Greenberg RN (1990) Treatment of bone, joint and vascular-access-associated Gram-positive bacterial infections with teicoplanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 34:2392–2397. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.34.12.2392

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mohamad M, Deabate L, Belaieff W, Bouvet C, Zingg M, Kuczma P et al (2016) Prosthetic joint infections due to coagulase-negative Staphylococci. Int J Infect 3(1):e32883. https://doi.org/10.17795/iji-32883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tunçcan ÖG, Dizbay M, Keten DT, Özkurt ZN, Sucak G, Senol E (2014) Relationship between teicoplanin use and increase in minimal inhibitor concentrations of coagulase-negative Staphylococci. Gazi Med J. https://doi.org/10.12996/gmj.2014.28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bertin M, Muller A, Bertrand X, Cornette C, Thouverez M, Talon D (2004) Relationship between glycopeptide use and decreased susceptibility to teicoplanin in isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 23:375–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-004-1129-1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Biavasco F, Vignaroli C, Varaldo PE (2000) Glycopeptide resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 19:403–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100960000299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Blans M, Troelstra A (2001) Glycopeptide resistance in Staphylococcus haemolyticus during treatment with teicoplanin. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 22:263–264. https://doi.org/10.1086/503400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Natoli S, Fontana C, Favaro M, Bergamini A, Testore GP, Minelli S et al (2009) Characterization of coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates from blood with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptide and therapeutic options. BMC Infect Dis 9:83. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-9-83

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wijesooriya W, Kotsanas DN, Korman TM, Graham M (2017) Teicoplanin non-susceptible coagulase-negative staphylococci in a large Australian healthcare network: implications for treatment with vancomycin. Sri Lankan J Infect Dis 7(1):10–17. https://doi.org/10.4038/sljid.v7i1.8116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bernard L, Vaudaux P, Rohner P, Huggler E, Armanet M, Pittet D et al (2004) Comparative analysis and validation of different assays for glycopeptide susceptibility among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. J Microbiol Methods 57:231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2004.01.012

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cavenaghi LA, Biganzoli E, Danese A, Parenti F (1992) Diffusion of teicoplanin and vancomycin in agar. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 15:253–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-8893(92)90121-9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Giani T, Morosini MI, D'Andrea MM, García-Castillo M, Rossolini GM, Cantón R (2012) Assessment of the Phoenix™ automated system and EUCAST breakpoints for antimicrobial susceptibility testing against isolates expressing clinically relevant resistance mechanisms. Clin Microbiol Infect 18(11):E452–E458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03980.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu ZK, Ling TK, Cheng AF (2005) Evaluation of the BD Phoenix automated microbiology system for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of common clinical isolates. Med Princ Pract 14:250–254. https://doi.org/10.1159/000085744

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Charlesworth R, Warner M, Livermore DM, Wilson AP (2006) Comparison of four methods for detection of teicoplanin resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 58:186–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkl151

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Aktaş E, Saygılı N, Kalaycı Z, Bulut E. Increased teicoplanin resistance in coagulase negative staphylococci after transition to the EUCAST criteria. 12. Antimicrobial Chemotherapy Days, 01–03 April 2016, Istanbul. Congress Book, P62

  26. Lodise TP, Graves J, Evans A, Graffunder E, Helmecke M, Lomaestro BM et al (2008) Relationship between vancomycin MIC and failure among patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia treated with vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52(9):3315–3320. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00113-08

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Campana EH, Carvalhaes CG, Nonato B, Machado AMDO, Gales AC (2014) Comparison of M.I.C.E. and Etest with CLSI agar dilution for antimicrobial susceptibility testing against oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. PLoS ONE 9(4):e94627. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094627

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sesli Çetin E, Öztürk T, Çiftçi E, Aynalı A, Cicioğlu Arıdoğan B (2016) Do the method and/or the evaluation standards we use effect teicoplanin susceptibility test results of Staphylococcus strains? ANKEM Derg 30(2):42–47. https://doi.org/10.5222/ankem.2016.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Health Sciences, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Research and Training Hospital, Halaskargazi, Etfal Street, 34371, Sisli/İstanbul, Turkey

    Ayşe Barış, Ecem Büyükyanbolu, Feride Merve Aslan, Banu Bayraktar & Elif Aktaş

  2. Department of Medical Microbiology, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ayşe Barış

  3. Kocaeli Public Health Laboratory, Kocaeli, Turkey

    Gülşah Malkoçoğlu

Authors
  1. Ayşe Barış
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gülşah Malkoçoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ecem Büyükyanbolu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Feride Merve Aslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Banu Bayraktar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elif Aktaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayşe Barış.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest declared.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by University of Health Sciences, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital Ethics Committee, Decision number: 2089.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barış, A., Malkoçoğlu, G., Büyükyanbolu, E. et al. Evaluation of Teicoplanin Resistance Detected by Automated System in Coagulase Negative Staphylococci: A Comparison with Gradient Test and Broth Microdilution Methods. Curr Microbiol 77, 3355–3360 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-020-02144-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-020-02144-7

Search

Navigation