Antibiotics, Vol. 12, Pages 611: Teicoplanin-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci: Do the Current Susceptibility Testing Methods Reliably Detect This Elusive Phenotype?

Antibiotics, Vol. 12, Pages 611: Teicoplanin-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci: Do the Current Susceptibility Testing Methods Reliably Detect This Elusive Phenotype?

Antibiotics doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12030611

Authors: Adriana D. Balasiu Colin R. MacKenzie

Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), members of the skin commensal microbiota, are increasingly associated with local or systemic infections due to a shift in patient populations in recent decades. Subsequently, more CoNS strains have been subjected to antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST), thus leading to the increased detection of teicoplanin resistance. However, data concerning teicoplanin resistance among CoNS strains remain limited, heterogeneous, and inconclusive. We collected 162 consecutive CoNS strains identified using Vitek-2 as teicoplanin-resistant and tested them with a range of AST methods. The results of standard and high inoculum broth microdilution (sBMD; hBMD), agar dilution (AD) after 24 h and 48 h incubation, standard and macrogradient diffusion strip (sGDT, MET), screening agar, and disc diffusion were compared to assess their robustness and to establish a diagnostic algorithm to detect teicoplanin resistance. sBMD was used as the reference method, and the lowest number of strains were teicoplanin-resistant using this method. sGDT and disc diffusion generated similar results to sBMD. Compared with sBMD, AD-24 h generated the lowest number of false teicoplanin-resistant strains, followed by hBMD, AD-48 h, and Vitek-2. sGDT, a fast, easy, affordable method in diagnostic settings, generated the highest rate of false teicoplanin-susceptible strains. Vitek-2 testing produced the highest number of teicoplanin-resistant strains. Only in two strains was the initial Vitek-2 teicoplanin resistance confirmed using five other AST methods. In conclusion, the different antibiotic susceptibility testing methods generated inconsistent, inconclusive, and discrepant results, thus making it difficult to establish a diagnostic algorithm for suspected teicoplanin resistance. Teicoplanin testing proved to be challenging and easily influenced by technical factors. This study aimed not only to raise awareness of teicoplanin resistance testing but also of the need for future studies focusing on the clinical efficacy of teicoplanin in relation to its susceptibility results.