Evaluation of MicroScan Synergies plus Positive Combo 3 Panels for Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus Species.
10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.4.373
- Author:
Haiyoung JUNG
1
;
Nam Yong LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. micro.lee@samsung.com
- Publication Type:Original Article ; English Abstract ; Evaluation Studies
- Keywords:
Staphylococcus aureus;
Enterococcus;
MicroScan Synergies plus Positive Combo 3 Panels
- MeSH:
Anti-Bacterial Agents/*pharmacology;
Clindamycin/pharmacology;
Drug Resistance, Bacterial;
Enterococcus/*drug effects/isolation & purification;
Erythromycin/pharmacology;
Microbial Sensitivity Tests/instrumentation/*methods;
Oxacillin/pharmacology;
Penicillins/pharmacology;
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic;
Staphylococcus aureus/*drug effects/isolation & purification;
Tetracycline/pharmacology
- From:The Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine
2010;30(4):373-380
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the performance of the recently introduced MicroScan Synergies plus Positive Combo 3 Panels (SIPC3) (Dade Behring Inc., USA). We evaluated the clinical efficacy of the panels in identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of Staphylococcusaureus and enterococci. METHODS: To evaluate the panels' accuracy of identification, the results obtained using the test panels were compared with those obtained by using conventional biochemical tests in conjunction with VITEK 2 system (bio-Merieux, USA). In addition, the AST results obtained using the panels were compared with those obtained by performing CLSI broth microdilution. RESULTS: The overall agreement between the approaches for the ID of S. aureus and enterococci was 100% and 96%, respectively. The categorical and essential agreements (CA and EA) for S. aureus were 98%, each. Very major errors (VME), major errors (ME), and minor error (mE) for S. aureus were 0.45%, 0.3%, and 4.2%, respectively. The majority of VMEs were for oxacillin (8.6%), penicillin (2.0%), erythromycin (7.9%), clindamycin (3.8%), and tetracycline (4.1%). For enterococci, the CA, EA, VME, ME, and mE were 88.8%, 93.7%, 4.4%, 0%, and 2.8%, respectively. The 80.5% (29/36) of Enterococcus faecium had concordant ID with the reference. Most of the categorical errors (3 VMEs and 14 mEs) were observed for quinupristin/dalfopristin (Synercid; Catalytica Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA). CONCLUSIONS: The panels compared favorably with conventional methods for the ID and AST of S. aureus. However, we expected a better performance for ID of E. faecium and AST using Synercid.
