This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Louie, L.
Right arrow Articles by Simor, A. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Louie, L.
Right arrow Articles by Simor, A. E.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, December 2006, p. 4561-4563, Vol. 44, No. 12
0095-1137/06/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01763-06
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of a New Chromogenic Medium, MRSA Select, for Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus{triangledown}

Lisa Louie,1* Deirdre Soares,1 Helen Meaney,1 Mary Vearncombe,1,2 and Andrew E. Simor1,2

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre,1 University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada2

Received 25 August 2006/ Returned for modification 4 October 2006/ Accepted 5 October 2006


arrow
ABSTRACT
 
We compared MRSA Select to mannitol-salt agar with 8 µg/ml cefoxitin for the detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from 6,199 clinical samples submitted for MRSA screening. The sensitivities and specificities of MRSA Select and mannitol-salt agar with cefoxitin were 98% and 92% versus 90% and 78%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Most (96%) MRSA were detected after overnight incubation using MRSA Select.


arrow
TEXT
 
The clinical burden and costs associated with infection due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitalized patients can be substantial (2, 10). It is now recognized that screening high-risk hospitalized patients to detect MRSA colonization is an effective infection control measure to reduce the risk of transmission of the organism within health care facilities (1, 14, 17). Traditional methods for the detection of MRSA from surveillance and screening specimens have included the use of a variety of selective and differential solid media (3, 12, 18, 19, 23). The use of broth culture enhancement may improve the yield of MRSA, but it is more laborious and may delay identification of the organism (7, 18, 22). The addition of the cephamycin antibiotic cefoxitin into mannitol-salt agar appears to improve the sensitivity for isolation of MRSA (20, 21; L. Louie, D. Soares, M. Vearncombe, H. Meaney, and A. Simor, Abstr. 105th Gen. Meet. Am. Soc. Microbiol., abstr. C105, p. 123, 2005).

More recently, chromogenic media incorporating chromogenic enzymatic substrates and a variety of antimicrobial agents have become available for detection of S. aureus, including methicillin-resistant strains (4-6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 21). Some of the evaluations of these media involved only stored collections of isolates, while others included a relatively small number of clinical specimens. We evaluated a new, commercially available chromogenic medium, MRSA Select (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Marnes-la-Coquette, France) and compared it to mannitol-salt agar with 8 µg/ml cefoxitin (MRSA MSA modified agar; Quelab Laboratories, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada) for its ability to detect MRSA from patient specimens submitted for MRSA screening. The objectives of this evaluation were as follows: (i) to determine the sensitivities of the two culture media for detecting MRSA, (ii) to determine the abilities of the media to detect MRSA after overnight and 48-h incubation, and (iii) to determine which screening culture medium requires less workup of isolates subsequently determined not to be MRSA (specificities of the media).

A total of 6,199 specimens submitted for MRSA screening (surveillance) from 1,883 hospitalized patients were included in the study, consisting of nares swabs (n = 2,483), perianal/rectal swabs (n = 2,312), samples from vascular catheter exit sites (n = 647), and skin/soft tissue (n = 632), sputum (n = 58), and urine (n = 67) samples. All specimens were plated onto MRSA Select and mannitol-salt agar with 8 µg/ml cefoxitin (MSFOX) using the Isoplater 180 (Vista Technologies Inc., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada). The order of which plates were plated first alternated between the two media every 100 specimens. All plates were incubated at 35°C in ambient air; MRSA Select plates were stored and incubated in the dark. The plates were read independently at 18 to 24 h and at 48 h by experienced technologists, blinded to results obtained by each other. Suspicious colonies (small pink colonies on MRSA Select; yellow or pale yellow colonies on MSFOX) were identified as MRSA using conventional methods, including Gram staining, Pastorex Staph latex (Bio-Rad), tube coagulase (BD BBL coagulase plasma; Becton Dickinson Company, Sparks, MD), and latex agglutination for PBP2a (MRSA-Screen; Denka Seiken, Tokyo, Japan).

MRSA was isolated from 181 (3%) of the 6,199 specimens and from 77 (4%) of the 1,883 patients that were screened. The numbers of MRSA isolated from each medium after overnight and 48-h incubations are summarized in Table 1. MRSA Select detected a total of 177 (98%) MRSA compared to 163 (90%) isolates that grew on MSFOX (P = 0.003). Although MRSA Select failed to recover MRSA from four specimens, this did not result in misdiagnosis of any of these patients, as other specimens from these patients collected concurrently yielded MRSA using MRSA Select. Of the 177 MRSA recovered on MRSA Select, 169 (96%) grew after overnight incubation, whereas only 125 (77%) MRSA were isolated with MSFOX after overnight incubation (P < 0.0001). The yields of MRSA from various anatomic sites were similar for the two media, except for perianal/rectal swabs, where MRSA Select detected 64 MRSA and MSFOX detected only 55 (P = 0.003). The sensitivities and specificities for all specimens and by specimen type after overnight and 48-h incubations are summarized in Table 2.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Summary of screening culture results of MRSA Select and mannitol-salt agar with cefoxitin for 6,199 specimens


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2. Sensitivities and specificities of MRSA Select and mannitol-salt agar with cefoxitin for all specimens by specimen type after 18 to 24 h and 48 h of incubation

The number of specimens with suspicious colonies requiring further investigation that turned out not to be MRSA differed substantially between the two media, with 1,360 of 6,199 (23%) for MSFOX compared to only 470 of 6,199 (8%) for MRSA Select (P < 0.0001) (Table 1). The vast majority of pink colonies that were not MRSA on MRSA Select appeared at 48 h of incubation and were infrequently found after overnight incubation.

Traditional methods for detection of MRSA from screening and surveillance specimens have used a variety of broth-based or selective and differential solid media. Mannitol-salt agar with oxacillin has been available for many years and is commonly used (7, 12). However, some strains of S. aureus may be inhibited by the salt component of the medium, and this may reduce its sensitivity (9). Mannitol-salt agar with cefoxitin appears to be superior for MRSA screening, probably because cephamycins are better inducers of PBP2a (15, 20, 21). Several other medium formulations have also been evaluated, with variable results and often delayed identification of MRSA (3, 7, 19, 22, 23).

The present study adds to available information describing the performance and utility of screening media incorporating chromogenic enzyme substrates for the isolation and detection of MRSA (4-6, 8, 11, 13, 21). We found that MRSA Select has improved sensitivity and specificity for the recovery of MRSA from screening specimens regardless of the body site sampled, with reduced time to detection. The majority (96%) of the MRSA isolates could be detected on MRSA Select after 18 to 24 h of incubation, suggesting that more prolonged incubation of these plates would provide only a small increase in yield. In a recent evaluation of MRSA Select for MRSA screening, Stoakes et al. found that only 3% of pink colonies at 24 h gave false-positive results (were not MRSA) (21). In the current study, 28 (14%) of the 197 specimens that yielded suspicious pink colonies after 18 to 24 h were not MRSA, although this represented only 0.5% of all the specimens cultured. Most of these organisms were subsequently found to be enterococci or diphtheroids, although there were a few members of the family Enterobacteriaceae and coagulase-negative staphylococci. On the basis of these results, we suggest that pink colonies growing on MRSA Select should be examined by Gram staining and latex agglutination, if appropriate.

Even though the cost of MRSA Select plates is greater than that of MSFOX or other nonchromogenic media, the total costs of materials, reagent, and processing of screening specimens for MRSA using MRSA Select in our laboratory during this evaluation were nearly equivalent ($9,758 Canadian) to the cost of using MSFOX ($9,106 Canadian). This is because there was a much greater number of suspicious colonies growing on MSFOX, which required subculture and additional testing (tube coagulase and latex agglutination tests) to exclude the presence of MRSA. In addition, work flow efficiency in the laboratory was improved, as less technologist time was required to examine and process the MRSA Select plates.

In conclusion, MRSA Select is a chromogenic culture medium with improved sensitivity and specificity for isolation of MRSA from surveillance and screening specimens compared to other currently available culture media. Almost all isolates can be detected after overnight incubation, with decreased laboratory technologist workload and associated cost savings. The reduced time to detection of MRSA could facilitate more rapid implementation of recommended infection control barrier precautions (1, 14).


arrow
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This study was supported, in part, by Bio-Rad Laboratories Ltd.


arrow
FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Microbiology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, B121-2075 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4N 3M5. Phone: (416) 480-4242. Fax: (416) 480-6845. E-mail: lisa.louie{at}sunnybrook.ca. Back

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 18 October 2006. Back


arrow
REFERENCES
 
    1
  1. Arnold, M. S., J. M. Dempsey, M. Fishman, P. J. McAuley, C. Tibert, and N. C. Vallande. 2002. The best hospital practices for controlling methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: on the cutting edge. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 23:69-76.[CrossRef][Medline]
    2. 2
  2. Cosgrove, S. E., Y. Qi, K. S. Kaye, S. Harbarth, A. W. Karchmer, and Y. Carmeli. 2005. The impact of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia on patient outcomes: mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 26:166-174.[CrossRef][Medline]
    3. 3
  3. Davies, S., P. M. Zadik, C. M. Mason, and S. J. Whittaker. 2000. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: evaluation of five selective media. Br. J. Biomed. Sci. 57:269-272.[Medline]
    4. 4
  4. Diederen, B., I. van Duijn, A. van Belkum, P. Willemse, P. van Keulen, and J. Kluytmans. 2005. Performance of CHROMagar MRSA medium for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:1925-1927.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    5. 5
  5. Diederen, B. M. W., M.-L. van Leest, I. van Diujn, P. Willemse, P. H. J. van Keulen, and J. A. J. W. Kluytmans. 2006. Performance of MRSA ID, a new chromogenic medium for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:586-588.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    6. 6
  6. Flayhart, D., J. F. Hindler, D. A. Bruckner, G. Hall, R. K. Shrestha, S. A. Vogel, S. S. Richter, W. Howard, R. Walther, and K. C. Carroll. 2005. Multicenter evaluation of BBL CHROMagar MRSA medium for direct detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from surveillance cultures of the anterior nares. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:5536-5540.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    7. 7
  7. Gardam, M., J. Brunton, B. Willey, A. McGeer, D. Low, and J. Conly. 2001. A blinded comparison of three laboratory protocols for the identification of patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 22:152-156.[CrossRef][Medline]
    8. 8
  8. Hedin, G., and H. Fang. 2005. Evaluation of two new chromogenic media, CHROMagar MRSA and S. aureus ID, for identifying Staphylococcus aureus and screening methicillin-resistant S. aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:4242-4244.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    9. 9
  9. Jones, E. M., K. E. Bowker, R. Cooke, R. J. Marshall, D. S. Reeves, and A. P. MacGowan. 1997. Salt tolerance of EMRSA-16 and its effect on the sensitivity of screening cultures. J. Hosp. Infect. 35:59-62.[CrossRef][Medline]
    10. 10
  10. Kim, T., P. I. Oh, and A. E. Simor. 2001. The economic impact of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Canadian hospitals. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 22:99-104.[CrossRef][Medline]
    11. 11
  11. Kluytmans, J., A. van Griethuysen, P. Willemse, and P. van Keulen. 2002. Performance of CHROMagar selective medium and oxacillin resistance screening agar base for identifying Staphylococcus aureus and detecting methicillin resistance. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:2480-2482.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    12. 12
  12. Lally, R. T., M. N. Ederer, and B. F. Woolfrey. 1985. Evaluation of mannitol salt agar with oxacillin as a screening medium for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 22:501-504.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    13. 13
  13. Loulergue, J., C. de Gialluly, V. Morange, A. Holstein, N. Mee-Marquet, and R. Quentin. 2006. Evaluation of a new chromogenic medium for isolation and presumptive identification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from human clinical specimens. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 25:407-409.[CrossRef][Medline]
    14. 14
  14. Muto, C. A., J. A. Jernigan, B. E. Ostrowsky, H. M. Richet, W. R. Jarvis, J. M. Boyce, and B. M. Farr. 2003. SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 24:362-386.[CrossRef][Medline]
    15. 15
  15. Okonogi, K., Y. Noji, M. Kondo, A. Imada, and T. Yokota. 1989. Emergence of methicillin-resistant clones from cephamycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 24:637-645.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    16. 16
  16. Perry, J. D., A. Davies, L. A. Butterworth, A. L. J. Hopley, A. Nicholson, and F. K. Gould. 2004. Development and evaluation of a chromogenic agar medium for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:4519-4523.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    17. 17
  17. Rubinovitch, B., and D. Pittet. 2001. Screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the endemic hospital: what have we learned? J. Hosp. Infect. 47:9-18.[CrossRef][Medline]
    18. 18
  18. Safdar, N., L. Narans, B. Gordon, and D. G. Maki. 2003. Comparison of culture screening methods for detection of nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a prospective study comparing 32 methods. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:3163-3166.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    19. 19
  19. Simor, A. E., J. Goodfellow, L. Louie, and M. Louie. 2001. Evaluation of a new medium, oxacillin resistance screening agar base, for the detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from clinical specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:3422.[Free Full Text]
    20. 20
  20. Smyth, R. W., and G. Kahlmeter. 2005. Mannitol salt agar-cefoxitin combination as a screening medium for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:3797-3799.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    21. 21
  21. Stoakes, L., R. Reyes, J. Daniel, G. Lennox, M. A. John, R. Lannigan, and Z. Hussain. 2006. Prospective comparison of a new chromogenic medium, MRSASelect, to CHROMagar MRSA and mannitol-salt medium supplemented with oxacillin or cefoxitin for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:637-639.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    22. 22
  22. Wertheim, H., H. A. Verbrugh, C. van Pelt, P. de Man, A. van Belkum, and M. C. Vos. 2001. Improved detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus using phenyl mannitol broth containing aztreonam and ceftizoxime. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:2660-2662.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    23. 23
  23. Zadik, P. M., S. Davies, S. Whittaker, and C. Mason. 2001. Evaluation of a new selective medium for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Med. Microbiol. 50:476-479.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, December 2006, p. 4561-4563, Vol. 44, No. 12
0095-1137/06/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01763-06
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Paule, S. M., Mehta, M., Hacek, D. M., Gonzalzles, T.-M., Robicsek, A., Peterson, L. R. (2009). Chromogenic Media vs Real-Time PCR for Nasal Surveillance of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Impact on Detection of MRSA-Positive Persons. Am J Clin Pathol 131: 532-539 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Carson, J., Lui, B., Rosmus, L., Rennick, H., Fuller, J. (2009). Interpretation of MRSASelect Screening Agar at 24 Hours of Incubation. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 566-568 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Malhotra-Kumar, S., Haccuria, K., Michiels, M., Ieven, M., Poyart, C., Hryniewicz, W., Goossens, H., on behalf of the MOSAR WP2 Study Team, (2008). Current Trends in Rapid Diagnostics for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Glycopeptide-Resistant Enterococcus Species. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 1577-1587 [Full Text]  
  • van Hal, S. J., Stark, D., Lockwood, B., Marriott, D., Harkness, J. (2007). Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Detection: Comparison of Two Molecular Methods (IDI-MRSA PCR Assay and GenoType MRSA Direct PCR Assay) with Three Selective MRSA Agars (MRSA ID, MRSASelect, and CHROMagar MRSA) for Use with Infection-Control Swabs. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: 2486-2490 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Zhang, S. X., Drews, S. J., Tomassi, J., Katz, K. C. (2007). Comparison of Two Versions of the IDI-MRSA Assay Using Charcoal Swabs for Prospective Nasal and Nonnasal Surveillance Samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: 2278-2280 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Louie, L.
Right arrow Articles by Simor, A. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Louie, L.
Right arrow Articles by Simor, A. E.

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»