Evaluation of the Hologic Panther Fusion MRSA Assay for the detection of MRSA in ESwab specimens obtained from nose, throat, and perineum.

Enrichment culture (EC) remains gold standard for detecting MRSA colonisation, but molecular methods shorten turnaround time. The CE-marked automated Hologic Panther Fusion MRSA Assay (HPFM) is validated for nasal swabs. We compared HPFM with EC following an in-house PCR for detection of MRSA in nasal, pharyngeal, and perineal ESwabs. The same ESwabs were analysed using HPFM and inoculated in selective Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) for overnight incubation. TSBs were screened by a PCR targeting nuc, femA, mecA, and mecC. Only samples with PCR results compatible with MRSA presence were inoculated onto 5% blood agar and chromogenic MRSA plates. HPFM detected MRSA in 103 of 132 EC positive samples indicating a sensitivity of 78.0% across sample types. When paired TSBs of 29 EC positive/HPFM negative samples were re-analysed by HPFM, MRSA was detected in 17/29 TSBs indicating that enrichment will increase the sensitivity of HPFM. HPFM analyses of cultured isolates from the remaining 12 EC positive/HPFM negative samples failed to detect orfX. HPFM reported the presence of MRSA in 22 samples where EC failed to identify MRSA. Fifteen of these ESwabs had been kept and direct culture without enrichment identified MRSA in seven samples. HPFM was useful for all sample sites. Compared to EC, the sensitivity of HPFM was limited because of lack of analytical sensitivity and failure to detect all MRSA variants. Failure of some MRSA-containing samples to enrich in cefoxitin-containing TSB indicates an unappreciated limitation of EC, which may lead to underestimation of the specificity of molecular assays.

Evaluation of immuview RSV antigen test (SSI siagnostica) and BinaxNOW RSV card (alere) for rapid detection of respiratory syncytial virus in retrospectively and prospectively collected respiratory samples.

Human orthopneumovirus, formerly known as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), is a frequent cause of hospitalization among infants due to respiratory tract infection. Fast, reliable, and easy to perform tests are needed to optimize treatment and to identify children that should be contact isolated to avoid nosocomial outbreaks. We prospectively tested 200 respiratory samples with a new assay (ImmuView RSV Antigen Test, SSI Diagnostica) and compared the results to the Alere BinaxNOW RSV Card by using our laboratory-developed real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as reference. In addition, 300 retrospectively collected respiratory samples were included in the study. The sensitivities of both antigen kits were very low (<50%). Sensitivities were higher when samples came from children less than 6 years, when samples came from nasopharynx or lower respiratory airways, or when samples were positive for RSV serotype A compared to when samples came from adults, samples were throat swabs, or samples were positive for RSV serotype B. In conclusion, the ImmuView RSV antigen kit did not perform well and may at the most be used as a quick guidance for clinical decision. Thus, it cannot stand alone without reverse transcription PCR confirmation of negative results.