A customer from the (b)(6) reported a false susceptible result for a (b)(6) strain associated with vitek®2 ast-p634 test kit 20 cards (lot 7340502403).The customer stated that during the initial testing of the impacted strain from a patient isolate (wound swab: abscess) using cos media from oxoid, they obtained results consistent with a (b)(6) strain.The strain was sent to the (b)(6) reference laboratory for pvl testing, and the result was (b)(6).After discussion with the reference laboratory it was discovered that on their initial vitek®2 testing the isolate appeared to be a (b)(6) strain but after a (b)(6) pcr test for meca gene and further testing (oxacillin mic value=(b)(6) ; cefoxitin mic value = 64 mg/l) the reference laboratory reported (b)(6).Repeat swabs from the same patient were requested two months later, and were cultured on (b)(6) media and routine columbia blood agar from oxoid.The s.Aureus strain isolated from the (b)(6) media when tested on vitek indicated (b)(6).The strain isolated from blood agar plate was tested on vitek and indicated a conflict between cefoxitin and oxacillin.A cefoxitin etest ® was performed with the result of (b)(6).This isolate when tested at the (b)(6) reference lab again and was found to be a (b)(6).The (b)(6) reference laboratory also performed etest for cefoxitin (b)(6) and oxacillin (b)(6).The customer stated that patient results were affected and wrong results reported to the physician that led to an inappropriate treatment by flucloxacillin and that there was a delay in reporting results.The customer stated that at the moment of the first test, the patient was maybe under flucloxacillin treatment , and it was not known if the swab was taken before antibiotic treatment started.The isolate was possibly subjected to various antibiotic treatments prior to vitek®2 testing that could have affected its growth and test results.Biomérieux recommended that the customer repeat testing using columbia agar without antibiotic addition.A biomérieux internal investigation will be initiated.
|
This investigation was initiated due to a customer reporting a discrepant cefoxitin screen test (oxsf) and a discrepant susceptible oxacillin (ox) result for a staphylococcus aureus patient isolate associated with vitek® 2 v7.01 software, ast-p634 card.The presence of an (b)(6) strain was confirmed by pcr meca positive and clonal complex cc5-(b)(6)-iv (pediatric clone).The reference method (agar dilution) for oxacillin (ox) gave resistant (r) results (ox mic = 4 mg/l r).The disc diffusion for cefoxitin (fox) gave : d=16 mm r.Tests performed on vitek 2 v7.01, ast-p634 card (aes parameters : global european based + phenotypic) : three ast-p634 cards (one from customer lot # 7340423203 (cl1), one from customer lot # 7340502403 (cl2) and one from a random lot # 7340690403 (rl)) were tested from cos subculture.Note: coh and brillance (b)(6) media are not recommended by biomerieux to test vt2 cards.- cl and rl: ox mic = 0.5 mg/l s, oxsf negative test with "acquired penicillinase" phenotype.- the vitek 2 ox values are discrepant compared to the reference mic.- the negative oxsf tests are not correlated with the disc diffusion result (fox kb r).Conclusion: * on vitek 2 system version 7.0, false susceptible oxacillin and negative oxsf results were reproduced internally, which lead to the non-detection of the mrsa isolate due to late growth in oxsf well.* the new software version 8.01 improves the detection of the (b)(6) phenotype since oxsf test is obtained (b)(6), and aes system gave "modification of pbp" phenotype (oxsf knowledge base was modified in this new version).
|