Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 14, 2026

Antimicrobial Synergy Testing by the Inkjet Printer-assisted Automated Checkerboard Array and the Manual Time-kill Method
Published on: April 18, 2019
Discrepancy in Vancomycin AUC/MIC Ratio Targeted Attainment Based upon the Susceptibility Testing in Staphylococcus
Seenae Eum1, Robert L Bergsbaken2, Craig L Harvey3
1Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. eumxx005@umn.edu.
Vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections showed significant differences between Vitek 2 and E-test methods. Achieving guideline targets required higher vancomycin exposure with E-test MICs compared to Vitek 2 MICs.
Area of Science:
- Clinical Microbiology
- Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics
- Infectious Diseases
Background:
- Accurate vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination is crucial for optimizing treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections.
- Discrepancies in MIC testing methods can impact therapeutic outcomes and guideline adherence.
- The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Society of Health System Pharmacists (ASHP), and Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) provide guidelines for vancomycin therapy.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare vancomycin MIC values for Staphylococcus aureus determined by the Vitek 2 automated system and the E-test method.
- To evaluate the impact of differing MIC results on achieving pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) targets in S. aureus bloodstream infections.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of vancomycin MICs for S. aureus bloodstream isolates using Vitek 2 and E-test.
- Calculation of target attainment based on area under the serum concentration time curve (AUC) to MIC ratio (AUC/MIC).
- Statistical comparison of target attainment rates between the two MIC testing methods.
Main Results:
- A statistically significant difference was observed in vancomycin MICs between Vitek 2 and E-test (p < 0.0001).
- Using Vitek 2 MICs, nearly 100% target attainment was achieved at an AUC threshold of 400 mg∙h/L, compared to only 40% with E-test MICs.
- An AUC of 450 mg∙h/L or greater was necessary to achieve 100% target attainment regardless of the MIC testing method.
Conclusions:
- The choice of vancomycin MIC testing method (Vitek 2 vs. E-test) significantly influences the assessment of target attainment in S. aureus bloodstream infections.
- E-test may underestimate vancomycin susceptibility, potentially leading to suboptimal dosing strategies.
- Clinical laboratories and clinicians should be aware of method-dependent discrepancies in vancomycin MICs to ensure effective patient management.
More Related Videos
08:30One-day Workflow Scheme for Bacterial Pathogen Detection and Antimicrobial Resistance Testing from Blood Cultures
Published on: July 9, 2012
06:36Improved Enzyme Protection Assay to Study Staphylococcus aureus Internalization and Intracellular Efficacy of Antimicrobial Compounds
Published on: September 8, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Pharmacodynamic Models: Overview
Estimation of k and VD of Aminoglycosides
Determination of Multiple Dosing Parameters: Steady-State, Minimum and Maximum Concentrations