Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Staphylococcus lugdunensis

Joanne S. K. Teh, Ioanna Pantelis, Xiao Chen, Tania Sadlon, Kelly Papanaoum, David L. Gordon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


Evaluation of penicillin and oxacillin susceptibility testing was conducted on 200 Staphylococcus lugdunensis isolates. Disc diffusion with penicillin 1 IU (P1, EUCAST) and penicillin 10 IU (P10, CLSI) was compared with nitrocefin discs (Cefinase) and automated broth microdilution (Vitek 2). Oxacillin susceptibility was extrapolated from cefoxitin (FOX; 30 mg) disc diffusion and compared with Vitek 2 results. The reference methods were blaZ and mecA PCR. Penicillin zone diameter and zone edge correlated with blaZ PCR results in all except two P10-susceptible isolates (very major error [VME]) and one P1-resistant isolate (major error [ME]). A total of 148 isolates were blaZ negative, of which 146 and 149 isolates were susceptible by P1 and P10, respectively. A total of 127 were penicillin susceptible by Vitek 2. Vitek 2 overcalled resistance in 21 blaZ-negative, 20 P1-susceptible, and 22 P10-susceptible isolates (Vitek 2 ME rate, 14.2%). Two mecA-positive isolates were oxacillin resistant by FOX disc and Vitek 2 methods (categorical agreement). However, 18 FOX-susceptible mecA-negative isolates tested resistant by Vitek 2. In conclusion, Vitek 2 overestimated penicillin and oxacillin resistance compared with disc diffusion and PCR results. In our study, disc diffusion with zone edge interpretation was more accurate and specific than automated broth microdilution for S. lugdunensis.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere03202-20
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Microbiology
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 19 Jan 2022


  • antimicrobial susceptibility testing
  • blaZ
  • CLSI
  • mecA
  • Staphylococcus lugdunensis
  • Vitek 2


Dive into the research topics of 'Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Staphylococcus lugdunensis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this