4.7 Article

Evaluation of the Xpert methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) assay using the GeneXpert real-time PCR platform for rapid detection of MRSA from screening specimens

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 10, Pages 3285-3290

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02487-07

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The need for rapid methods to accurately detect methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is widely acknowledged, and a number of molecular assays are commercially available. This study evaluated the Xpert MRSA assay, which is run on the GeneXpert real-time PCR platform (Cepheid) for use in a clinical laboratory. The following parameters were investigated: (i) the limits of detection (LoDs) for four MRSA strains; (ii) the ability to detect isolates of MRSA from a collection representative of MRSA in Ireland since 1974 (n = 114) and the ability to detect control strains with staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec types IVa (IV.1.1.1), IVb (IV.2.1.1), IVc (IV.3.1.1), IVd (IV.4.1.1), V (V.1.1.1), V-T, and VI; and (iii) performance in a clinical trial with swabs from nose, throat, and groin/perineum sites from 204 patients, where results were compared with those obtained by direct and enrichment cultures. The average LoD of the four test strains was 610 CFU/ml (equivalent to 58 CFU/swab). All 114 MRSA isolates and 7 control strains tested were detected. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for clinical specimens from all sites investigated were 90%, 97%, 86%, and 98%, respectively, but throat specimens yielded poor sensitivity (75%). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for nasal specimens were 95%, 98%, 90%, and 99%, respectively. Overall, the assay was rapid and easy to perform, but performance might be enhanced by the inclusion of an equivocal interpretive category based on analysis of all available amplification data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available