Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2025

14:04
Biosensor for Detection of Antibiotic Resistant Staphylococcus Bacteria
Published on: May 8, 2013
24.5K
Teicoplanin-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci: Do the Current Susceptibility Testing Methods Reliably Detect
Adriana D Balasiu1, Colin R MacKenzie1
1Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hospital Hygiene, Heinrich-Heine University Hospital, 40225 Dusseldorf, Germany.
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)
|March 29, 2023
Summary
Antibiotic susceptibility testing for teicoplanin resistance in Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) yields inconsistent results across methods. Establishing a reliable diagnostic algorithm for teicoplanin resistance in CoNS remains challenging.
Area of Science:
- Medical Microbiology
- Infectious Diseases
- Antimicrobial Resistance
Background:
- Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) are emerging pathogens, leading to increased antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST).
- Detection of teicoplanin resistance in CoNS is rising, but data are limited and inconclusive.
- Standardized methods for accurate teicoplanin resistance detection in CoNS are lacking.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the performance of various AST methods for detecting teicoplanin resistance in CoNS.
- To evaluate the robustness of different AST techniques and identify potential diagnostic algorithms.
- To highlight the challenges and inconsistencies in current teicoplanin resistance testing for CoNS.
Main Methods:
- 162 consecutive CoNS strains initially identified as teicoplanin-resistant by Vitek-2 were tested.
- Methods included standard and high inoculum broth microdilution (sBMD; hBMD), agar dilution (AD) at 24h and 48h, standard and macrogradient diffusion strips (sGDT, MET), screening agar, and disc diffusion.
- sBMD served as the reference method for comparison.
Main Results:
- Significant discrepancies were observed among AST methods, with sBMD identifying the fewest resistant strains.
- Vitek-2 testing reported the highest number of resistant strains, but only 2 were confirmed by other methods.
- sGDT and disc diffusion showed good agreement with sBMD, while AD-24h, hBMD, and AD-48h showed varying rates of false resistance.
Conclusions:
- Current AST methods for teicoplanin resistance in CoNS produce inconsistent and inconclusive results.
- Teicoplanin susceptibility testing is highly sensitive to technical factors, complicating diagnostic algorithm development.
- Further research is needed to clarify clinical teicoplanin efficacy in relation to susceptibility testing outcomes.

