Search

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.

Background: Accurate measurement of the incidence of diarrhoeagenic E. coli in patients with diarrhoea is hindered by the current methods of detection and varies from country to country. In order to improve the diagnosis of diarrhoeagenic E. coli (DEC), we developed a set of multiplex TaqMan real-time PCRs designed to detect the respective pathogens from an overnight stool culture., Methods: Over the period Jan. 2006 to Dec. 2006 all stool specimens (n = 1981) received were investigated for EPEC and EAEC., Results: Of these, 371 specimens had no growth of Enterobacteriaceae. Of the remaining 1610 specimens 144 (8,9%) were positive for EPEC and 78 (4,8%) positive for EAEC. Among the EPEC positive stool specimens 28 (19,4%) were received from the tropical diseases unit, 49 (34%) from the paediatric dept. and 67 (46,5%) from the remainder of the wards. The EAEC were distributed as follows: 39 (50%) - tropical diseases, 19 (24,4%) -paediatrics and 20 (25,6%) other wards. Proportionately more EAEC and EPEC were found in children less than 3 years of age than other age groups. In only 22,2% of the detected EPEC and 23% of EAEC was the investigation requested by hospital staff., Conclusions: This is, to our knowledge, the first study using a multiplex TaqMan PCR for the successful detection of diarrhoeagenic E. coli. In conclusion, due to the high prevalence of DEC detected, investigation of EPEC and EAEC should be recommended as a routine diagnostic test for patients with infectious diarrhoea.