Korean J Lab Med.  2011 Jul;31(3):185-190. 10.3343/kjlm.2011.31.3.185.

Evaluation of the MicroScan MICroSTREP Plus Antimicrobial Panel for Testing beta-Hemolytic Streptococci and Viridans Group Streptococci

• Kim SJ
• Uh Y
• Jang IH
• Lee KS
• Park SD
• Yoon KJ

• KMID: 1735852
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2011.31.3.185

Abstract

BACKGROUND
In order to determine the clinical usefulness of the MicroScan (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, USA) MICroSTREP plus antimicrobial panel (MICroSTREP) for testing antimicrobial susceptibility of beta-hemolytic streptococci (BHS) and viridans group streptococci (VGS), we compared the accuracy of MICroSTREP with that of the CLSI reference method.
METHODS
Seventy-five BHS and 59 VGS isolates were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility to ampicillin, penicillin, cefotaxime, meropenem, erythromycin, clindamycin, levofloxacin, and vancomycin by using MICroSTREP and the CLSI agar dilution method.
RESULTS
The overall essential agreement with regard to minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) (within +/-1 double dilution) between MICroSTREP and the CLSI reference method was 98.2%, and categorical agreement (CA) was 96.9%. For the BHS isolates, the CA for erythromycin was 96.0%, whereas that for cefotaxime, meropenem, levofloxacin, and vancomycin (for ampicillin, penicillin, and clindamycin; 98.7%) was 100%. For the VGS isolates, the CA for penicillin was 84.7% and that for erythromycin, clindamycin, and vancomycin (for meropenem, 86.5%; for ampicillin, 88.1%; and for cefotaxime and levofloxacin, 96.6%) was 100%. All categorical errors of penicillin and ampicillin in the VGS isolates were minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of MICroSTREP is comparable to that of the CLSI reference method, suggesting that this panel can be effective for testing antimicrobial susceptibility of BHS and VGS.

Keyword

Antimicrobial susceptibility test; Streptococcus; MICroSTREP; MicroScan

MeSH Terms

Anti-Bacterial Agents/*pharmacology
Drug Resistance, Bacterial
Humans
Microbial Sensitivity Tests
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
Streptococcal Infections/microbiology
Streptococcus/*drug effects/isolation & purification
Viridans Streptococci/*drug effects/isolation & purification

Reference

1. Uh Y, Hwang GY, Jang IH, Kwon O, Kim HY, Yoon KJ. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns and macrolide resistance genes of β-hemolytic viridans group streptococci in a tertiary Korean hospital. J Korean Med Sci. 2007; 22:791–794. PMID: 17982224.

2. Gillespie SH. Failure of penicillin in Streptococcus pyogenes pharyngeal infection. Lancet. 1998; 352:1954–1956. PMID: 9872242.

3. Schuchat A. Group B streptococcal disease: from trials and tribulations to triumph and trepidation. Clin Infect Dis. 2001; 33:751–756. PMID: 11512078.

4. Bisno AL, Gerber MA, Gwaltney JM Jr, Kaplan EL, Schwartz RH. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of group A streptococcal pharyngitis. Clin Infect Dis. 2002; 35:113–125. PMID: 12087516.

5. Gordon KA, Beach ML, Biedenbach DJ, Jones RN, Rhomberg PR, Mutnick AH. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of β-hemolytic and viridans group streptococci: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial surveillance program (1997-2000). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2002; 43:157–162. PMID: 12088624.

6. Jones RN, Sader HS. Update on the cefdinir spectrum and potency against pathogens isolated from uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infections in North America: are we evaluating the orally administered cephalosporins correctly? Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006; 55:351–356. PMID: 16765555.

7. Hindler JF, Patel JB. Murray PR, Baron EJ, editors. Susceptibility test methods: fastidious bacteria. Manual of clinical microbiology. 2007. 9th ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press;p. 1193–1213.

8. Doern GV, Ferraro MJ, Brueggemann AB, Ruoff KL. Emergence of high rates of antimicrobial resistance among viridans group streptococci in the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996; 40:891–894. PMID: 8849246.

9. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; Twentieth informational supplement, M100-S20. 2010. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.

10. Barenfanger J, Short MA, Groesch AA. Improved antimicrobial interventions have benefits. J Clin Microbiol. 2001; 39:2823–2828. PMID: 11473998.

11. Kerremans JJ, Verboom P, Stijnen T, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Goessens W, Verbrugh HA, et al. Rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing reduce antibiotic use and accelerate pathogen-directed antibiotic use. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008; 61:428–435. PMID: 18156278.

12. Guthrie LL, Banks S, Setiawan W, Waites KB. Comparison of MicroScan MICroSTREP, PASCO, and Sensititre MIC panels for determining antimicrobial susceptibilities of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999; 33:267–273. PMID: 10212754.

13. Mittman SA, Huard RC, Della-Latta P, Whittier S. Comparison of BD phoenix to Vitek 2, MicroScan MICroSTREP, and Etest for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Clin Microbiol. 2009; 47:3557–3561. PMID: 19741088.

14. Jorgensen JH, McElmeel ML, Crawford SA. Evaluation of the Dade MicroScan MICroSTREP antimicrobial susceptibility testing panel with selected Streptococcus pneumoniae challenge strains and recent clinical isolates. J Clin Microbiol. 1998; 36:788–791. PMID: 9508313.

15. Food and Drug Administration. Class II special controls guidance document: antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) systems. guidance for industry and FDA. 2007. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration.