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

Arcenas, Rodney; Spadoni, Stacey; Mohammad, Amin A.; Kiechle, Frederick L.; Walker, Kimberly; Fader, Robert; Perdreau-Remington, Françoise; Osiecki, J; Liesenfeld, Oliver; Hendrickson, Shelby; Rao, Arundhati

doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2012.01.015

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…LightCycler® MRSA Advanced Test was more sensitive for the detection of MRSA (84.38%) than Detect-Ready® MRSA Kit, but both tests had poorer sensitivities in our real-life study setting than reported in previous studies [36]. Especially the Detect-Ready® MRSA Kit had a surprisingly low clinical sensitivity (57.69%).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Two Commercial PCR Methods for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Screening in a Tertiary Care Hospital

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nose/throat-swabs from 1049 patients were screened for MRSA using CHROMagar MRSA, LightCycler Advanced MRSA, and Detect-Ready MRSA. Results were compared to the CHROMagar MRSA results, which was set as reference system. MRSA was detected in 3.05% of the patients with CHROMagar MRSA. LightCycler MRSA Advanced showed a higher clinical sensitivity (84.38%) than Detect-Ready MRSA (57.69%).The negative predictive values were high for both tests (>98%). The specificity and the positive predictive value were higher for the Detect-Ready MRSA test than for the LightCycler MRSA test (99.59% and 78.95% versus 98.52% and 64.29%). For routine screening LightCycler MRSA Advanced proved to be more efficient in our clinical setting as the clinical sensitivity was much higher than the sensitivity of Detect-Ready MRSA. CHROMagar MRSA detected more MRSA positive samples than both PCR methods, leading to the conclusion that the combination of PCR with cultural screening is still the most reliable way for the detection of MRSA. LightCycler MRSA Advanced was faster and needed less hands-on time. The advantage of Detect-Ready MRSA was the additional identification of methicillin-sensitive S.aureus (here in 34.63% of the samples), an information which can be possibly used for reducing the risk of postoperative infections in surgical patients in future.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…More expensive molecular-based test systems show more interesting turn-over-times but only few studies estimating accuracy values in a routine diagnostic setting are available so far [36]. Data of the Detect-Ready® MRSA Kit concerning these questions are still lacking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Two Commercial PCR Methods for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Screening in a Tertiary Care Hospital

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If positive, the specimen is assigned positive screen status. [99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114] This methodology (called "partial verification") introduces bias in favor of PCR. 115 For MRSA, Yam et al 99 tested 1,246 nares swab specimens with the Lightcycler MRSA Advanced (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Basel Switzerland), a laboratory developed test (LDT) PCR and, in parallel, cultured all specimens.…”

Section: Shedding Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Duration of Contact Precautions for Acute-Care Settings

Banach

Bearman

Barnden³

et al. 2018

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

purposeThis expert guidance document (EG) provides recommendations regarding discontinuation of contact precautions (CP) at the individual patient level in acute-care hospitals employing CP for 1 or more of the following organisms: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), Clostridium difficile, and multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (MDR-E), including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing organisms. This document also provides a review of the role of molecular testing in guiding decisions pertaining to duration of CP for patients with these organisms. The guidance does not address decisions regarding the initiation of CP for any specific organism.Previously published guidelines describe components of CP and identify situations in which CP should be used; currently, however, few publications address the issue of how long CP should be maintained. At the time of publication, decisions related to implementation of CP for select, endemic organisms are made by individual facilities based on factors such as institutional epidemiology, resources, organizational priorities, and previously published guidance, and these vary widely. The SHEA Guidelines Committee (GLC) selected this topic to address when CP should be discontinued for individual patients in acute-care settings that employ CP for the aforementioned organisms.Although the organisms addressed are frequently encountered in other settings (eg, nursing homes, long-term acute-care facilities, rehabilitation centers, outpatient medical care settings), additional considerations may affect the application of these recommendations outside the acute-care hospital environment. authorsThe authors consist of current and past members of the SHEA Guidelines Committee (GLC), who serve as volunteers. All authors are involved at their respective institutions in the development of policies pertaining to CP, either directly or in an advisory role. intended useSpecial-topic EG documents are developed to address areas of relatively narrow scope that lack the level of evidence required for a formal guideline but are important for the provision of safe and effective healthcare. As such, systematic grading of evidence level is not provided for individual recommendations. Each EG is based on a synthesis of limited evidence, theoretical rationale, current practices, practical considerations, the opinion of the writing group, and consideration of potential harms where applicable. Within the EG, a summary list of recommendations is provided, along with their respective rationales. We also conducted a survey of the SHEA Research Network (SRN).No EG can anticipate all situations and this EG is not meant to be a substitute for individual judgment by qualified professionals. methods Expert Guidance DevelopmentThis EG follows the process outlined in the Handbook for SHEA-Sponsored Guidelines and Expert Guidance Documents. 10 The topic of duration of CP was among those proposed and ...

show abstract

“…Roche Diagnostics has developed a LightCycler MRSA Advanced Test system for RT-PCR detection of MRSA directly from nasal swabs with overall 83.3% sensitivity and 99% specificity [ 64 ]. It was found that the sensitivity and specificity are similar between the LightCycler MRSA Advanced Teat and the Xpert MRSA assay for detection of MRSA from human swab specimens [ 65 ].…”

Section: Identification Of Mrsa Using Different Automated Mrsa Rt-pcrmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Liu¹,

Zhang²,

Ji³

2016

TOMICROJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Staphylococcus aureus is an important pathogen that can cause a variety of infections, including superficial and systematic infections, in humans and animals. The persistent emergence of multidrug resistant S. aureus, particularly methicillin-resistant S. aureus, has caused dramatically economic burden and concerns in the public health due to limited options of treatment of MRSA infections. In order to make a correct choice of treatment for physicians and understand the prevalence of MRSA, it is extremely critical to precisely and timely diagnose the pathogen that induces a specific infection of patients and to reveal the antibiotic resistant profile of the pathogen. In this review, we outlined different PCR-based approaches that have been successfully utilized for the rapid detection of S. aureus, including MRSA and MSSA, directly from various clinical specimens. The sensitivity and specificity of detections were pointed out. Both advantages and disadvantages of listed approaches were discussed. Importantly, an alternative approach is necessary to further confirm the detection results from the molecular diagnostic assays.

show abstract

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

Cited by 12 publications

References 32 publications

Comparison of Two Commercial PCR Methods for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Screening in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Comparison of Two Commercial PCR Methods for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Screening in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Duration of Contact Precautions for Acute-Care Settings

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About