Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Bacteriology

Multicenter Evaluation of the BD Max GBS Assay for Detection of Group B Streptococci in Prenatal Vaginal and Rectal Screening Swab Specimens from Pregnant Women

Jennifer Riedlinger, Safedin H. Beqaj, Marsha A. Milish, Stephen Young, Rebecca Smith, Monique Dodd, Rosemary E. Hankerd, William D. LeBar, Duane W. Newton
Jennifer Riedlinger
1BD-HandyLab, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Safedin H. Beqaj
2DCL Medical Laboratories, Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marsha A. Milish
2DCL Medical Laboratories, Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen Young
3TriCore Reference Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
4Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebecca Smith
3TriCore Reference Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Monique Dodd
3TriCore Reference Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rosemary E. Hankerd
5Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William D. LeBar
5Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Duane W. Newton
5Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: dnewton@med.umich.edu
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00947-10
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

A new integrated extraction and real-time PCR-based system for the detection of group B streptococci in antepartum screening samples enriched in Lim broth was compared to the CDC-recommended culture method. The BD Max GBS assay exhibited acceptable sensitivity (95%) and specificity (96.7%) compared to those of the culture method in this multisite evaluation.

The number of neonatal group B streptococcus (GBS) infections has decreased significantly over the past 4 decades; however, GBS still remains one of the most common causes of neonatal sepsis in the United States (3). Current management guidelines recommend that all pregnant women be screened for vaginal/rectal GBS colonization at 35 to 37 weeks of gestation, with those found to be colonized receiving intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.

While culture-based methods have historically been the gold standard for demonstrating GBS colonization, several recent studies have demonstrated the utility of PCR-based detection as a sensitive and specific alternative (1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9). The BD Max GBS assay (BDM) implemented using the BD Max system (previously known as the HandyLab Jaguar system; BD-HandyLab, Ann Arbor, MI) is one such PCR-based alternative. The BD Max system is a benchtop molecular diagnostic system, which provides fully automated clinical sample preparation, cell lysis, nucleic acid extraction, and mixing of nucleic acid with master mix reagents. With no user intervention, the system then dispenses the sample into a microfluidic chamber where real-time PCR amplification and detection are performed.

The goal of this three-site investigational study was to compare the results obtained by BDM to those obtained by the CDC-recommended culture procedure, which served as the reference method (3). This study was designed to generate the data necessary for 510(k) submission to the FDA, so the study design, reference method, and evaluation criteria were performed as required by the FDA. Performance characteristics of the assay were derived from the results of 601 compliant specimens collected from antepartum women presenting for routine prenatal screenings at clinical locations within the United States (site 1, University of Michigan Health System [UM], Ann Arbor, MI, collected 184 specimens; site 2, DCL Medical Laboratories [DCL], Indianapolis, IN, collected 198 specimens; and site 3, TriCore Reference Laboratories [TRL], Albuquerque, NM, collected 219 specimens). The vaginal/rectal swab specimens were inoculated in Lim broth (DCL and UM obtained broth from Thermo Fisher-Remel, Lenexa, KS; TRL obtained broth from Becton-Dickinson, Sparks, MD) and incubated for 18 to 24 h (as per protocol) prior to testing by either method. The growth obtained with each Lim broth was subcultured onto a sheep blood agar plate and incubated for up to 48 h. Colonies with morphology and color suggestive of GBS (both hemolytic and nonhemolytic) were Gram stained, tested for catalase production, and confirmed as GBS using latex agglutination (DCL and TRL used PathoDX Strep Grouping reagents, Thermo Fisher-Remel; UM used Slidex, bioMérieux, Durham, NC) and/or CAMP testing. BDM (cfb gene target and limit of detection of 200 CFU of GBS/ml of sample preparation reagent) (data not shown) was performed using a residual 15-μl aliquot of Lim broth, and when possible, an alternate, validated PCR method was performed at each site (at DCL, the IDI-Strep B assay was performed on the Cepheid SmartCycler system with a cfb gene target; at TRL, the Roche analyte-specific reagent was used on the Roche LightCycler system with a pstI gene target; and at UM, the Cepheid Smart GBS assay was performed on the Cepheid SmartCycler system, with a proprietary GBS-specific target) and used to resolve discrepancies between BDM and the culture method. This alternate PCR method was performed only using the discrepant specimens. Lim broths were stored at 4°C for up to 7 days prior to BDM testing. Stability studies demonstrated no loss of analytic performance in samples stored in this manner (data not shown). In addition to the alternate PCR assay, “false-negative” specimens were retested at each site using BDM, and “false-positive” specimens were resubcultured from the original Lim broth at each site. The repeat PCR and culture testing was performed for informational purposes only and was not used to adjust the observed performance characteristics. This study was approved by Institutional Review Boards, as appropriate, of the performance sites.

Table 1 shows a summary of the combined site results obtained using BDM and the culture-based method. Overall agreement was 96.3%. A total of 13 of the 15 BDM-positive, culture-negative specimens (“false positives”) were available for testing by the alternate PCR assay, and 8 tested positive. A total of 12 of the 15 “false positives” were also recultured, and 10 of the 12 again yielded negative results. The two culture-positive specimens in this subset were also positive when tested by the alternate PCR assay. These results are consistent with those from previous studies that have demonstrated an increased rate of GBS detection with broth-enriched specimens using PCR compared to that with culture (7), likely reflecting the detection of bacteria present at levels below the limits of detection for culture. Furthermore, there is a low probability that “false positives” were due to nonspecific amplification, as no significant cross-reactivity was demonstrated against a panel of 127 nontarget pathogens in which 119 viable bacteria, fungi, and viruses and 8 genomic DNA samples were tested (see the supplemental material for a complete list of organisms tested). Five of the seven culture-positive, BDM-negative specimens (“false negatives”) were retested by the alternate PCR assay, and three tested negative. Four of the seven “false negatives” were also retested using BDM, and three yielded a negative result for a second time. It is unlikely that these “false-negative” BDM results are the result of sample degradation or overgrowth of competing organisms during storage, as the stability studies mentioned above demonstrated the maintenance of integrity of positive signals for specimens stored under these conditions. The “false negatives” are most likely a result of sampling error due to low levels of the organism in the sample, as evidenced by the fluctuation in results following repeat testing by both culture and PCR. Although the BDM “false-negative” rate might be reduced by increasing the volume of the input sample from 15 μl, this volume of sample was found by BD-HandyLab through internal development studies to be optimal for BDM processing in the context of the biological amplification of the target from Lim broth enrichment (data not shown).

Table 2 shows the site-specific and overall performance characteristics of BDM compared to those of the culture-based method. Importantly, the prevalences of disease were very similar among the sites, and there did not appear to be substantial differences in performance of the assay among the sites. Overall, BDM performed well compared to culture, exhibiting 95% sensitivity and 96.7% specificity.

The screening and detection method currently considered the gold standard for assessing GBS colonization status is the culture procedure, recommended by the CDC in 2002. This technique includes a variety of confirmatory tests that are to be performed on suspected colonies following inoculation and incubation of vaginal/rectal swab specimens into a selective broth medium (3). One benefit of this method is that the GBS isolate is readily available for the susceptibility testing often ordered by health care providers; however, there are also limitations. The culture technique requires hands-on time by trained laboratory personnel; technologists must be qualified to set up and examine the plates for suspected GBS colonies, which may or may not be present among other bacterial growth. Culture is also slow to yield results, often requiring 48 to 72 h for GBS identification (7). Although this standard has recognized limitations, it was necessary to use in this evaluation, as it was required by the FDA for the 510(k) submission.

Although modifications to the CDC-recommended testing method have improved the sensitivity of culture-based methods, molecular testing methods utilizing nucleic acid amplification have emerged as alternative approaches to diagnostic testing. Several PCR assays used to determine GBS colonization status in pregnant women have demonstrated substantial improvements in time to detection, without compromising performance characteristics. Studies evaluating the performance of PCR for GBS detection using direct patient specimens have demonstrated rates of GBS detection equivalent to those of broth-enriched cultures (4, 5, 8, 9). In addition, studies evaluating the performance of PCR using broth-enriched specimens have exhibited variability in the detection rates of GBS compared to broth-enriched cultures. Block et al. showed similar detection rates between PCR and culture (2), while Goodrich and Miller showed that improved detection with PCR depended on the method used (6). However, Rallu et al. demonstrated 1.5- to 2.5-fold enhanced detection by PCR compared to that by the broth-enriched culture method (7).

Cost differences between conventional and molecular methods can be a barrier for many laboratories desiring to implement molecular testing. Although specific pricing information is not yet available for the BD Max GBS assay, reagent costs are expected to be approximately $25/test, whereas the list prices for the culture reagents used in this study totaled approximately $9/test. While there is a substantial difference in these costs, the final cost to the user will be impacted by the volume and workload differences for each method. Ultimately, these costs, in addition to reimbursement rates, test performance, and workflow differences, will all need to be considered by the user in making a final decision regarding the appropriate method/platform to utilize for testing.

Nevertheless, based on the data generated in this multicenter study, the clinical performance of the BD Max GBS assay, as implemented on the BD Max platform, demonstrated acceptable sensitivity (95.0%) and specificity (96.7%), with a slightly increased detection rate with PCR compared to that of culture (148/601 [25%] compared to 140/601 [23%], respectively), which is consistent with the findings of the studies mentioned above. The self-contained workstation is designed to accommodate on-demand and batch workflows. In addition, the level of technical expertise required to operate this system is lower than those required for most other currently available molecular platforms. Finally, it requires minimal laboratory space and can generate up to 24 real-time PCR results in approximately 2 h. As new guidelines from the CDC emerge and include molecular testing as an alternative to culture for the detection of GBS, the assay and platform described here could serve as an efficient, sensitive, and specific option for laboratories desiring to utilize a molecular method.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Summary comparison of BDM and culture from all performance sites

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Site-specific and overall performance characteristics of BDM compared to those of culture

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Judy Stempien, Ben Berg, and Jessica Soper for their expert technical assistance in the performance of this study. In support of this evaluation, BD-HandyLab provided reagents, supplies, instrumentation, and reimbursement for labor and travel expenses for each site to attend a meeting. The BD Max GBS assay received FDA 510(k) clearance in May 2010.

J.R. is an employee of BD-HandyLab.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 11 May 2010.
    • Returned for modification 14 June 2010.
    • Accepted 26 August 2010.
  • Copyright © 2010 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Bergeron, M. G., D. Ke, C. Menard, F. J. Picard, M. Gagnon, M. Bernier, M. Ouellette, P. H. Roy, S. Marcoux, and W. D. Fraser. 2000. Rapid detection of group B streptococci in pregnant women at delivery. N. Engl. J. Med. 343 : 175-179.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    Block, T., E. Munson, A. Culver, K. Vaughan, and J. E. Hryciuk. 2008. Comparison of carrot broth- and selective Todd-Hewitt broth-enhanced PCR protocols for real-time detection of Streptococcus agalactiae in prenatal vaginal/anorectal specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46 : 3615-3620.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. Prevention of perinatal group B streptococcal disease. Revised guidelines from CDC. MMWR Recommend. Rep. 51(RR-11): 1-22.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Davies, H. D., M. A. Miller, S. Faro, D. Gregson, S. C. Kehl, and J. A. Jordan. 2004. Multicenter study of a rapid molecular-based assay for the diagnosis of group B streptococcus colonization in pregnant women. Clin. Infect. Dis. 39 : 1129-1135.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    El Helali, N., J. C. Nguyen, A. Ly, Y. Giovangrandi, and L. Trinquart. 2009. Diagnostic accuracy of a rapid real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for universal intrapartum group B streptococcus screening. Clin. Infect. Dis. 49 : 417-423.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Goodrich, J. S., and M. B. Miller. 2007. Comparison of culture and 2 real-time polymerase chain reaction assays to detect group B streptococcus during antepartum screening. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 59 : 17-22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Rallu, F., P. Barriga, C. Scrivo, V. Martel-Laferriere, and C. Laferriere. 2006. Sensitivities of antigen detection and PCR assays greatly increased compared to that of the standard culture method for screening for group B streptococcus carriage in pregnant women. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44 : 725-728.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Uhl, J. R., E. A. Vetter, K. L. Boldt, B. W. Johnston, K. D. Ramin, M. J. Adams, P. Ferrieri, U. Reischl, and F. R. Cockerill III. 2005. Use of the Roche LightCycler Strep B assay for detection of group B streptococcus from vaginal and rectal swabs. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43 : 4046-4051.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Wernecke, M., C. Mullen, V. Sharma, J. Morrison, T. Barry, M. Maher, and T. Smith. 2009. Evaluation of a novel real-time PCR test based on the ssrA gene for the identification of group B streptococci in vaginal swabs. BMC Infect. Dis. 9 : 148.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Multicenter Evaluation of the BD Max GBS Assay for Detection of Group B Streptococci in Prenatal Vaginal and Rectal Screening Swab Specimens from Pregnant Women
Jennifer Riedlinger, Safedin H. Beqaj, Marsha A. Milish, Stephen Young, Rebecca Smith, Monique Dodd, Rosemary E. Hankerd, William D. LeBar, Duane W. Newton
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Oct 2010, 48 (11) 4239-4241; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00947-10

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Multicenter Evaluation of the BD Max GBS Assay for Detection of Group B Streptococci in Prenatal Vaginal and Rectal Screening Swab Specimens from Pregnant Women
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Multicenter Evaluation of the BD Max GBS Assay for Detection of Group B Streptococci in Prenatal Vaginal and Rectal Screening Swab Specimens from Pregnant Women
Jennifer Riedlinger, Safedin H. Beqaj, Marsha A. Milish, Stephen Young, Rebecca Smith, Monique Dodd, Rosemary E. Hankerd, William D. LeBar, Duane W. Newton
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Oct 2010, 48 (11) 4239-4241; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00947-10
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

bacteriological techniques
Carrier State
Mass Screening
Pregnancy Complications, Infectious
Streptococcal Infections
Streptococcus agalactiae

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X