4.7 Article

Antibiotic susceptibility of methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS) of food origin: A comparison of agar disc diffusion method and a commercially available miniaturized test

Journal

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 72, Issue -, Pages 220-224

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2017.11.018

Keywords

Methicillin-resistant staphylococci; MRS; Antimicrobial resistance; Miniaturized test

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (INIA, Spain) [RTA2014-00045-C03-02]
  2. Universidad de Leon (ULE, Spain)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS) are a major concern to public and animal health. Thirty MRS (Staphylococcus aureus, S. cohnii, S. epidermidis, S. haemolyticus, S. hominis, S. lentus, S. lugdunensis, S. sciuri, and S. xylosus) isolates from meat and poultry preparations were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility to 11 antimicrobials (belonging to seven different categories) of clinical significance using both the standard agar disc diffusion method and a commercially available miniaturized system (Sensi Test Gram-positive). It is worth stressing that 16 isolates (53.33%) exhibited an extensively drug-resistant phenotype (XDR). The average number of resistances per strain was 4.67. These results suggest that retail meat and poultry preparations are a likely vehicle for the transmission of multi-drug resistant MRS. Resistance to erythromycin was the commonest finding (76.67% of strains), followed by tobramycin, ceftazidime (66.67%), ciprofloxacin (56.67%) and fosfomycin (53.33%). An agreement (kappa coefficient) of 0.64 was found between the two testing methods. Using the agar disc diffusion as the reference method, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the miniaturized test were 98.44%, 69.44% and 83.33%, respectively. Most discrepancies between the two methods were due to isolates that were susceptible according to the disc diffusion method but resistant according to the miniaturized test (false positives). (c) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available