BACKGROUND: With the emergence of antimicrobial resistance among Streptococcus pneumoniae, a more accurate and automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing method is essential. We evaluated the BD Phoenix Automated Microbiology System (Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Systems, USA) SMIC/ID-2 panel for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of S. pneumoniae. METHODS: A total of 113 clinical strains of S. pneumoniae (88 penicillin susceptible strains, 8 intermediate strains, and 17 resistant strains by 2008 CLSI criteria) were tested. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for penicillin, cefotaxime, clindamycin, erythromycin, levofloxacin, trimethoprim/ sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline, and vancomycin were determined by Etest (AB Biodisk, Sweden) and Phoenix System. The results obtained by Phoenix system were compared to those obtained by Etest. RESULTS: The overall essential agreement of MICs (within one dilution of MICs) defined by the Phoenix and Etest was 92.3%. Neither very major errors nor major errors were produced, and minor errors were 6.5%. Minor errors were frequently observed in susceptibility testings for penicillin (22.1%), cefotaxime (12.4%), and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (11.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The Phoenix SMIC/ID-2 panel provided a simple and rapid susceptibility testing for S. pneumoniae, and the results were in a good agreement with those of Etest. The Phoenix system appears to be an effective automated system in clinical microbiology laboratories.
Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology ; Bacterial Typing Techniques/instrumentation/methods ; Drug Resistance, Bacterial ; Microbial Sensitivity Tests/*methods ; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic ; Streptococcus pneumoniae/*drug effects/growth & development/isolation & purification

BACKGROUND: Acinetobacter species are the leading cause of bloodstream infection (BSI), but their correct identification is challenging. We evaluated the matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS)-based VITEK MS (bioMerieux, France), and two automated systems, VITEK 2 (bioMerieux) and MicroScan (Siemens, USA) for identification of Acinetobacter BSI isolates. METHODS: A total of 187 BSI isolates recovered at a university hospital in Korea between 2010 and 2012 were analyzed. The identification results obtained using VITEK MS and two automated systems were compared with those of rpoB sequencing. RESULTS: Of 187 isolates analyzed, 176 were identified to the species level by rpoB sequencing: the Acinetobacter baumannii group (ABG; 101 A. baumannii, 43 A. nosocomialis, 10 A. pittii isolates) was most commonly identified (82.4%), followed by Acinetobacter genomic species 13BJ/14TU (5.3%), A. ursingii (2.1%), A. soli (2.1%), A. bereziniae (1.1%), and A. junii (1.1%). Correct identification rates to the species group (ABG) level or the species level was comparable among the three systems (VITEK MS, 90.3%; VITEK 2, 89.2%; MicroScan, 86.9%). However, VITEK MS generated fewer misidentifications (0.6%) than VITEK 2 (10.8%) and MicroScan (13.1%) (P<0.001). In addition, VITEK MS demonstrated higher specificity (100%) for discrimination between ABG and non-ABG isolates than the other systems (both, 31.8%) (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The VITEK MS system is superior to the VITEK 2 and MicroScan systems for identification of Acinetobacter BSI isolates, with fewer misidentifications and better discrimination between the ABG and non-ABG isolates.
Acinetobacter/*genetics/isolation & purification ; Acinetobacter Infections/diagnosis/microbiology ; Bacterial Proteins/genetics ; Bacterial Typing Techniques/*instrumentation/*methods ; Blood/*microbiology ; DNA, Bacterial/*analysis/metabolism ; Databases, Genetic ; Humans ; *Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization

BACKGROUND: By conventional methods, the identification of anaerobic bacteria is more time consuming and requires more expertise than the identification of aerobic bacteria. Although the matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) systems are relatively less studied, they have been reported to be a promising method for the identification of anaerobes. We evaluated the performance of the VITEK MS in vitro diagnostic (IVD; 1.1 database; bioMerieux, France) in the identification of anaerobes. METHODS: We used 274 anaerobic bacteria isolated from various clinical specimens. The results for the identification of the bacteria by VITEK MS were compared to those obtained by phenotypic methods and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. RESULTS: Among the 249 isolates included in the IVD database, the VITEK MS correctly identified 209 (83.9%) isolates to the species level and an additional 18 (7.2%) at the genus level. In particular, the VITEK MS correctly identified clinically relevant and frequently isolated anaerobic bacteria to the species level. The remaining 22 isolates (8.8%) were either not identified or misidentified. The VITEK MS could not identify the 25 isolates absent from the IVD database to the species level. CONCLUSIONS: The VITEK MS showed reliable identifications for clinically relevant anaerobic bacteria.
Bacteria, Anaerobic/*genetics/isolation & purification ; Bacterial Typing Techniques/*instrumentation/*methods ; Body Fluids/microbiology ; Databases, Genetic ; Humans ; RNA, Ribosomal, 16S/*analysis/metabolism ; Sequence Analysis, DNA ; *Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization

BACKGROUND: Procedures for rapid identification and susceptibility testing by direct inoculation (DI) from positive blood culture bottles into an automated system have not been standardized. This study was purposed to evaluate DI from BACTEC 9240 blood culture system (BD, USA) into MicroScan (Dade Behring, USA) or Phoenix (BD, USA). METHODS: From May to June 2006, bacterial pellets from positive aerobic bottles showing gram-positive cocci (GPC) or gram-negative rods (GNR) of single morphology were directly inoculated to MicroScan PosCombo1A and NegCombo32 and to Phoenix PMIC/ID-107 and NMIC/ID-53. In addition, the automated instruments were also inoculated from subcultures (standard inoculations, SI). Species identification and susceptibilities were compared between DI and SI and between MicroScan and Phoenix. RESULTS: A total of 108, 104, and 78 specimens were tested with MicroScan, Phoenix, and both, respectively. When DI and SI were matched, 94.8% of GPC were correctly identified with MicroScan, compared to 80.7% with Phoenix, and 93.9% of GNR were correctly identified with MicroScan, compared to 95.7% with Phoenix. DI with MicroScan and Phoenix showed correct susceptibilities in 94.6% of 1,150 and 96.5% of 660 tests (with very major error [VME] of 1.1% and 1.1%), respectively, among GPC and in 94.4% of 942 and 96.3% of 781 tests (with VME of 0.6% and 0%), respectively, of GNR. Correlation of identification/susceptibilities between MicroScan and Phoenix using DI were 81.8%/98.0% for Staphylococcus aureus and 100.0%/95.6% for Escherichia coli. CONCLUSIONS: DI warrants a reliable method for identification and susceptibility testing of both GPC and GNR in MicroScan, and those of only GNR in Phoenix.
Automation ; Bacterial Typing Techniques/instrumentation/*methods ; Culture Media ; Gram-Negative Bacteria/*classification/drug effects/isolation & purification ; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/blood/*microbiology ; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections/blood/*microbiology ; Gram-Positive Cocci/*classification/drug effects/isolation & purification ; Humans ; Microbial Sensitivity Tests/instrumentation/*methods ; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic ; Sensitivity and Specificity