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

Rapid Identification of Staphylococcus aureus Directly from Bactec Blood Culture Broth by the BinaxNOW S. aureus Test

Qinfang Qian, Karen Eichelberger, James E. Kirby
B. A. Forbes, Editor
Qinfang Qian
Division of Laboratory and Transfusion Medicine, Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen Eichelberger
Division of Laboratory and Transfusion Medicine, Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James E. Kirby
Division of Laboratory and Transfusion Medicine, Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. A. Forbes
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02291-13
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The BinaxNOW Staphylococcus aureus testing showed sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predicative values of 97.6%, 100%, 100%, and 98.4%, respectively, for identification of S. aureus from Bactec blood culture broth. Importantly, the test performed equally well on aerobic and anaerobic culture broth.

TEXT

Staphylococcus aureus is a major cause of bacteremia (1). Bloodstream infection is often associated with serious complications, such as endocarditis and osteomyelitis (2–4). The complication rates rise with duration of untreated bacteremia (2). Therefore, to expedite the use of appropriate antibiotic therapy and reduce morbidity, mortality, and length of hospitalization, early differentiation of S. aureus from coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) is crucial. Various tests have been developed or adapted to rapidly identify S. aureus directly from positive blood culture broth, including use of fluorescence in situ hybridization (85 to 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity) (5, 6), PCR (93.8 to 100% sensitivity and 98.6 to 100% specificity) (7–9), the enzyme-based RAPIDEC Staph test (90.5 to 100% sensitivity and 96.6 to 100% specificity) (10–12), and the direct tube coagulase test (65 to 84.1% sensitivity and 98.7 to 100% specificity) (10, 13). However, these tests either are expensive, are labor-intensive, and/or have suboptimal sensitivity and specificity. Recently, a rapid and simple immunochromatographic BinaxNOW Staphylococcus aureus (BNSA) test (Alere, Scarborough, ME) was FDA approved for direct identification of S. aureus from BacT/Alert-positive blood culture broth. In considering this assay for off-label use in our clinical laboratory, we performed an evaluation of the BNSA test on Bactec 9240 (Becton, Dickinson BioSciences, Sparks, MD) blood culture media and also compared the performance of this BNSA test on aerobic versus anaerobic culture broth.

During our evaluation, blood culture broth from Bactec Standard 10 Aerobic/F or LYTIC/10 Anaerobic/F bottles was evaluated by the BNSA test when Gram stain suggested staphylococci (positive cocci in pairs and clusters). The test was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Briefly, positive blood culture broth was mixed with kit reagent A in two simple-addition, centrifugation steps. After removal of the remaining supernatant, kit reagents B and C were added and mixed with the pellet. A total of 50 μl of this resuspended pellet was added to the test card, followed by 5 drops of kit reagent D. The test card was read 10 min later. The card shows both a pink-purple control line that confirms activity of the antistaphylococcal antibody and a sample line which turns positive in the presence of S. aureus. The identification of the bacteria from positive blood cultures was confirmed by a Staphaurex latex agglutination test on subcultures (Remel Inc., Lenexa, KS). Discordant results were resolved by a tube coagulase test and Vitek 2 identification (BioMeriéux, Marcy l'Etoile, France).

From 2012 to 2013, 104 positive blood cultures from 104 patients were tested by BNSA test, including 41 S. aureus cultures (27 aerobic and 14 anaerobic bottles), 60 coagulase-negative staphylococcus (CoNS) cultures (40 aerobic and 20 anaerobic bottles), and 3 other bacterial cultures which were reported as Gram-positive cocci in pairs and clusters (1 Micrococcus species, 1 anaerobic Gram-positive coccus, and 1 Gemella species). For 41 S. aureus cultures, 14 (34%) were methicillin resistant (MRSA) and 27 (66%) were methicillin sensitive (MSSA). Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predicative value (PPV), and negative predicative value (NPV) were 97.6%, 100%, 100%, and 98.4%, respectively. Importantly, we also showed that the BNSA test performed equally well on both aerobic and anaerobic blood culture broth. Among 17 blood culture sets evaluated in which both aerobic and anaerobic bottles flagged simultaneously and were therefore tested contemporaneously by BNSA (including 12 S. aureus and 5 CoNS cultures), aerobic and anaerobic broth results were identical. Furthermore, according to the manufacturer's instruction, the results are read at 10 min after adding the last reagent to the card. However, we found that all results could be read reliably at 5 min. The one false-negative test was performed on a blood culture collected from a patient already treated for several days for known S. aureus bacteremia. We speculate that the false-negative result may relate to antibiotic treatment-associated reduction in the level of the antigen detected by the test. Notably, our findings were similar to the performance of PCR-based methods (7–9), unpublished package insert data for BNSA on BacT/Alert bottles (98.8% sensitivity, 100% specificity), and a recent evaluation of BNSA on VersaTREK bottles (95.8% sensitivity, 99.6% specificity). Notably, several samples needed to be excluded from the last study because of pellet loss during assay preparative steps. In our study, no pellets were lost, perhaps because we removed most of the supernatant by using a 1-ml plastic transfer pipette (Samco Scientific, San Fernando, CA) and then aspirated the remaining supernatant carefully using a 200-μl-capacity micropipette.

We believe that the BSNA assay will prove useful in clinical practice. When Gram-positive cocci in clusters are identified in positive blood cultures, doctors usually treat empirically with vancomycin to cover potential infection with MRSA. However, this approach may not be used by all doctors (14), especially when only one bottle flags positive and clinical suspicion is low (15), since CoNS is a frequent blood culture contaminant (16). In these cases, early identification of S. aureus directly from blood culture broth will prevent delay of therapy (14, 16). Alternatively, because of the high negative predictive value of BSNA, earlier deescalation of therapy and avoidance of unnecessary follow-up studies would be possible because of the ability to distinguish S. aureus from organisms such as CoNS that may be blood culture contaminants. The limitation of the BNSA assay is that it does not differentiate MRSA from MSSA. However, it may be used in combination with a rapid detection method for methicillin resistance, such as the penicillin binding protein 2a latex agglutination test (17), to establish optimal antibiotic therapy. Specifically, a change from empirical vancomycin to a more effective β-lactam agent may be instituted earlier in patients determined to have MSSA using this testing strategy (18–22). Because the BNSA test is simple, rapid (30 min), and inexpensive (approximately $10), with very high sensitivity and specificity, we believe it will serve an important role for early diagnosis of S. aureus bacteremia in laboratories which can neither afford nor implement expensive and/or complex all-shift molecular testing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank Alere Inc. for kindly supplying us with BinaxNOW S. aureus test kits for our evaluation.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 21 August 2013.
    • Returned for modification 17 September 2013.
    • Accepted 18 October 2013.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 23 October 2013.
  • Copyright © 2014, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Annane D,
    2. Bellissant E,
    3. Cavaillon JM
    . 2005. Septic shock. Lancet 365:63–78. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17667-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Khatib R,
    2. Johnson LB,
    3. Fakih MG,
    4. Riederer K,
    5. Khosrovaneh A,
    6. Shamse Tabriz M,
    7. Sharma M,
    8. Saeed S
    . 2006. Persistence in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: incidence, characteristics of patients and outcome. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 38:7–14. doi:10.1080/00365540500372846.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lodise TP,
    2. McKinnon PS,
    3. Swiderski L,
    4. Rybak MJ
    . 2003. Outcomes analysis of delayed antibiotic treatment for hospital-acquired Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin. Infect. Dis. 36:1418–1423. doi:10.1086/375057.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Mitchell DH,
    2. Howden BP
    . 2005. Diagnosis and management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Intern. Med. J. 35(Suppl 2):S17–S24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Peters RP,
    2. Savelkoul PH,
    3. Simoons-Smit AM,
    4. Danner SA,
    5. Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM,
    6. van Agtmael MA
    . 2006. Faster identification of pathogens in positive blood cultures by fluorescence in situ hybridization in routine practice. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:119–123. doi:10.1128/JCM.44.1.119-123.2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Marlowe EM,
    2. Hogan JJ,
    3. Hindler JF,
    4. Andruszkiewicz I,
    5. Gordon P,
    6. Bruckner DA
    . 2003. Application of an rRNA probe matrix for rapid identification of bacteria and fungi from routine blood cultures. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:5127–5133. doi:10.1128/JCM.41.11.5127-5133.2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Sakai H,
    2. Procop GW,
    3. Kobayashi N,
    4. Togawa D,
    5. Wilson DA,
    6. Borden L,
    7. Krebs V,
    8. Bauer TW
    . 2004. Simultaneous detection of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci in positive blood cultures by real-time PCR with two fluorescence resonance energy transfer probe sets. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:5739–5744. doi:10.1128/JCM.42.12.5739-5744.2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Ratnayake L,
    2. Olver WJ
    . 2011. Rapid PCR detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus samples from charcoal-containing blood culture bottles. J. Clin. Microbiol. 49:2382. doi:10.1128/JCM.00106-11.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Wolk DM,
    2. Struelens MJ,
    3. Pancholi P,
    4. Davis T,
    5. Della-Latta P,
    6. Fuller D,
    7. Picton E,
    8. Dickenson R,
    9. Denis O,
    10. Johnson D,
    11. Chapin K
    . 2009. Rapid detection of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) in wound specimens and blood cultures: multicenter preclinical evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert MRSA/SA skin and soft tissue and blood culture assays. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47:823–826. doi:10.1128/JCM.01884-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Chapin K,
    2. Musgnug M
    . 2003. Evaluation of three rapid methods for the direct identification of Staphylococcus aureus from positive blood cultures. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:4324–4327. doi:10.1128/JCM.41.9.4324-4327.2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Speers DJ,
    2. Olma TR,
    3. Gilbert GL
    . 1998. Evaluation of four methods for rapid identification of Staphylococcus aureus from blood cultures. J. Clin. Microbiol. 36:1032–1034.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. van Griethuysen A,
    2. Buiting A,
    3. Goessens W,
    4. van Keulen P,
    5. Wintermans R,
    6. Kluytmans J
    . 1998. Multicenter evaluation of a modified protocol for the RAPIDEC staph system for direct identification of Staphylococcus aureus in blood cultures. J. Clin. Microbiol. 36:3707–3709.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Qian Q,
    2. Eichelberger K,
    3. Kirby JE
    . 2007. Rapid identification of Staphylococcus aureus in blood cultures by use of the direct tube coagulase test. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45:2267–2269. doi:10.1128/JCM.00369-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Dryden M,
    2. Andrasevic AT,
    3. Bassetti M,
    4. Bouza E,
    5. Chastre J,
    6. Cornaglia G,
    7. Esposito S,
    8. French G,
    9. Glamarellou H,
    10. Gyssens IC,
    11. Nathwani D,
    12. Unal S,
    13. Voss A
    . 2010. A European survey of antibiotic management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: current opinion and practice. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 16:3–30. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03135.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Chiu CH,
    2. Michelow IC,
    3. Cronin J,
    4. Ringer SA,
    5. Ferris TG,
    6. Puopolo KM
    . 2010. Effectiveness of a guideline to reduce vancomycin use in the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 30:273–278. doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e3182011d12.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Bates DW,
    2. Lee TH
    . 1992. Rapid classification of positive blood cultures. Prospective validation of a multivariate algorithm. JAMA 267:1962–1966.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Qian Q,
    2. Venkataraman L,
    3. Kirby JE,
    4. Gold HS,
    5. Yamazumi T
    . 2010. Direct detection of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus in blood culture broth by use of a penicillin binding protein 2a latex agglutination test. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:1420–1421. doi:10.1128/JCM.01517-09.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Schweizer ML,
    2. Furuno JP,
    3. Harris AD,
    4. Johnson JK,
    5. Shardell MD,
    6. McGregor JC,
    7. Thom KA,
    8. Cosgrove SE,
    9. Sakoulas G,
    10. Perencevich EN
    . 2011. Comparative effectiveness of nafcillin or cefazolin versus vancomycin in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. BMC Infect. Dis. 11:279. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-11-279.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Small P,
    2. Chambers HF
    . 2003. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 34:1227–1231. doi:10.1128/AAC.34.6.1227.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    1. Chang FY,
    2. Peacock JE Jr,
    3. Musher DM,
    4. Triplett P,
    5. MacDonald BB,
    6. Mylotte JM,
    7. O'Donnell A,
    8. Wagener MM,
    9. Yu VL
    . 2003. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine 82:333–339. doi:10.1097/01.md.0000091184.93122.09.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    1. Chan KE,
    2. Warren HS,
    3. Thadhani RI,
    4. Steele DJ,
    5. Hymes JL,
    6. Maddux FW,
    7. Hakim RM
    . 2012. Prevalence and outcomes of antimicrobial treatment for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in outpatients with ESRD. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 23:1551–1559. doi:10.1681/ASN.2012010050.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kim SH,
    2. Kim KH,
    3. Kim HB,
    4. Kim NJ,
    5. Kim EC,
    6. Oh MD,
    7. Choe KW
    . 2008. Outcome of vancomycin treatment in patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52:192–197. doi:10.1128/AAC.00700-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Rapid Identification of Staphylococcus aureus Directly from Bactec Blood Culture Broth by the BinaxNOW S. aureus Test
Qinfang Qian, Karen Eichelberger, James E. Kirby
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 2013, 52 (1) 319-320; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02291-13

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.
Rapid Identification of Staphylococcus aureus Directly from Bactec Blood Culture Broth by the BinaxNOW S. aureus Test
(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
Rapid Identification of Staphylococcus aureus Directly from Bactec Blood Culture Broth by the BinaxNOW S. aureus Test
Qinfang Qian, Karen Eichelberger, James E. Kirby
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 2013, 52 (1) 319-320; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02291-13
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

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