Optimal Media for Use in Air Sampling To Detect Cultivable Bacteria and Fungi in the Pharmacy

Current guidelines for air sampling for bacteria and fungi in compounding pharmacies require the use of a medium for each type of organism. U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) chapter <797> (http://www.pbm.va.gov/linksotherresources/docs/USP797PharmaceuticalCompoundingSterileCompounding.pdf) calls for tryptic soy agar with polysorbate and lecithin (TSApl) for bacteria and malt extract agar (MEA) for fungi. In contrast, the Controlled Environment Testing Association (CETA), the professional organization for individuals who certify hoods and clean rooms, states in its 2012 certification application guide (http://www.cetainternational.org/reference/CAG-009v3.pdf?sid=1267) that a single-plate method is acceptable, implying that it is not always necessary to use an additional medium specifically for fungi. In this study, we reviewed 5.5 years of data from our laboratory to determine the utility of TSApl versus yeast malt extract agar (YMEA) for the isolation of fungi. Our findings, from 2,073 air samples obtained from compounding pharmacies, demonstrated that the YMEA yielded >2.5 times more fungal isolates than TSApl

Impact of Strain Type on Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile: Comparison of Molecular Diagnostic and Enzyme Immunoassay Approaches ▿

A multicenter clinical trial assessed the performance of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay on stool specimens collected from patients suspected of having Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). A total of 2,296 unformed stool specimens, collected from seven study sites, were tested by Xpert C. difficile enrichment culture followed by cell culture cytotoxicity testing of the isolates (i.e., toxigenic culture with enrichment) and the study sites' standard C. difficile test methods. The methods included enzyme immunoassay (EIA), direct cytotoxin testing, and two- and three-step algorithms using glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) screening followed by either EIA or EIA and an in-house PCR assay. All C. difficile strains were typed by PCR-ribotyping. Compared to results for toxigenic culture with enrichment, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Xpert assay were 93.5, 94.0, 73.0, and 98.8%, respectively. The overall sensitivity of the EIAs compared to that of enrichment culture was 60.0%, and the sensitivity of combined GDH algorithms was 72.9%; both were significantly lower than that of Xpert C. difficile (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). The sensitivity of the EIA was significantly lower than that of the Xpert C. difficile assay for detection of ribotypes 002, 027, and 106 (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.004, respectively, Fisher's exact test), and the sensitivity of GDH algorithms for ribotypes other than 027 was lower than that for Xpert C. difficile (P < 0.001). The Xpert C. difficile assay is a simple, rapid, and accurate method for detection of toxigenic C. difficile in unformed stool specimens and is minimally affected by strain type compared to EIA and GDH-based methods