» Articles » PMID: 22584139

Multicenter Evaluation of the LightCycler MRSA Advanced Test, the Xpert MRSA Assay, and MRSASelect Directly Plated Culture with Simulated Workflow Comparison for the Detection of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in Nasal Swabs

Overview
Journal J Mol Diagn
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2012 May 16
PMID 22584139
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Rapid detection of nasal colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) followed by appropriate infection control procedures reduces MRSA infection and transmission. We compared the performance and workflow of two Food and Drug Administration-approved nucleic acid amplification assays, the LightCycler MRSA Advanced Test and the Xpert MRSA test, with those of directly plated culture (MRSASelect) using 1202 nasal swabs collected at three U.S. sites. The sensitivity of the LightCycler test (95.2%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 98.4%) and Xpert assay (99%; 95% CI, 94.8% to 100%) did not differ compared with that of culture; the specificity of the two assays was identical (95.5%; 95% CI, 94.1% to 96.7%) compared with culture. However, sequencing performed on 71 samples with discordant results among the three methods confirmed the presence of MRSA in 40% of samples that were positive by both molecular methods but negative by culture. Workflow analysis from all sites including batch runs revealed average hands-on sample preparation times of 1.40, 2.35, and 1.44 minutes per sample for the LightCycler, Xpert, and MRSASelect methods, respectively. Discrete event simulation analysis of workflow efficiencies revealed that the LightCycler test used less hands-on time for the assay when greater than eight batched samples were run. The high sensitivity and specificity, low hands-on time, and efficiency gains using batching capabilities make the LightCycler test suitable for rapid batch screening of MRSA colonization.

Citing Articles

Clinical Relevance of Xpert MRSA/SA in Guiding Therapeutic Decisions for Staphylococcal Infections: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Analysis.

Ojha S, Chen K, Sun C, Ahmed S, Sheng Y, Deng C Infect Dis Ther. 2022; 11(3):1205-1227.

PMID: 35451743 PMC: 9124268. DOI: 10.1007/s40121-022-00632-w.


PCR-based Approaches for the Detection of Clinical Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Liu Y, Zhang J, Ji Y Open Microbiol J. 2016; 10:45-56.

PMID: 27335617 PMC: 4899539. DOI: 10.2174/1874285801610010045.


Multicenter Evaluation of MRSASelect II Chromogenic Agar for Identification of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus from Wound and Nasal Specimens.

Hernandez D, Newton D, Ledeboer N, Buchan B, Young C, Clark A J Clin Microbiol. 2015; 54(2):305-11.

PMID: 26582836 PMC: 4733205. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02410-15.


Rapid detection of carbapenemase activity through monitoring ertapenem hydrolysis in Enterobacteriaceae with LC-MS/MS.

Peaper D, Kulkarni M, Tichy A, Jarvis M, Murray T, Hodsdon M Bioanalysis. 2013; 5(2):147-57.

PMID: 23330558 PMC: 5753620. DOI: 10.4155/bio.12.310.


Comparison of two commercial PCR methods for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening in a tertiary care hospital.

Aydiner A, Lusebrink J, Schildgen V, Winterfeld I, Knuver O, Schwarz K PLoS One. 2012; 7(9):e43935.

PMID: 23028480 PMC: 3446963. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043935.