OBJECTIVES: Studies of meningococcal carriage are important in understanding the epidemiology of meningococcal disease and the impact of vaccination programmes. However, microbiological sampling methods to determine pharyngeal carriage are not consistent between studies and the optimal method is uncertain. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken using Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library (Feb 2008) to identify studies comparing isolation rates using different sampling methods. RESULTS: Four studies compared isolation of meningococci from different pharyngeal sites. Nasopharyngeal swabs taken through the nose were less likely to yield meningococcal cultures than pharyngeal swabs taken through the mouth. One study investigated different sampling sites using swabs taken through the mouth and found higher yields from the posterior pharyngeal wall compared to the tonsils (32.2% cf 19.4%, p=0.001). Four studies compared the yield obtained using transport medium to direct plating. Loss of yield in transport medium ranged from 5.7% to 16.4% after storage for >5h. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to date suggests that meningococcal carriage should be assessed by swabbing the posterior pharyngeal wall through the mouth, and that swabs should be plated directly on site or placed in transport medium for <5h. SUMMARY: The current literature suggests meningococcal carriage is best assessed by swabbing the posterior pharyngeal wall through the mouth with direct plating or keeping transport time to below 5h. Whether a swab taken from both the posterior pharynx and the tonsils improves yield further needs evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: Studies of meningococcal carriage are important in understanding the epidemiology of meningococcal disease and the impact of vaccination programmes. However, microbiological sampling methods to determine pharyngeal carriage are not consistent between studies and the optimal method is uncertain. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken using Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library (Feb 2008) to identify studies comparing isolation rates using different sampling methods. RESULTS: Four studies compared isolation of meningococci from different pharyngeal sites. Nasopharyngeal swabs taken through the nose were less likely to yield meningococcal cultures than pharyngeal swabs taken through the mouth. One study investigated different sampling sites using swabs taken through the mouth and found higher yields from the posterior pharyngeal wall compared to the tonsils (32.2% cf 19.4%, p=0.001). Four studies compared the yield obtained using transport medium to direct plating. Loss of yield in transport medium ranged from 5.7% to 16.4% after storage for >5h. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to date suggests that meningococcal carriage should be assessed by swabbing the posterior pharyngeal wall through the mouth, and that swabs should be plated directly on site or placed in transport medium for <5h. SUMMARY: The current literature suggests meningococcal carriage is best assessed by swabbing the posterior pharyngeal wall through the mouth with direct plating or keeping transport time to below 5h. Whether a swab taken from both the posterior pharynx and the tonsils improves yield further needs evaluation.
Authors: Ulla Jounio; Annika Saukkoriipi; Holly B Bratcher; Aini Bloigu; Raija Juvonen; Sylvi Silvennoinen-Kassinen; Ari Peitso; Terttu Harju; Olli Vainio; Markku Kuusi; Martin C J Maiden; Maija Leinonen; Helena Käyhty; Maija Toropainen Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Eric J Knudtson; Mike L Lytle; Beverly A Vavricka; Valerie S Skaggs; Jennifer D Peck; Andrew E Elimian Journal: J Negat Results Biomed Date: 2010-08-11
Authors: S Esposito; A Zampiero; L Terranova; V Montinaro; W Peves Rios; A Scala; V Ansuini; C Galeone; N Principi Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2013-03-17 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Guro K Bårnes; Paul A Kristiansen; Demissew Beyene; Bereket Workalemahu; Paulos Fissiha; Behailu Merdekios; Jon Bohlin; Marie-Pierre Préziosi; Abraham Aseffa; Dominique A Caugant Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Maria Drayß; Heike Claus; Kerstin Hubert; Katrin Thiel; Anja Berger; Andreas Sing; Mark van der Linden; Ulrich Vogel; Thiên-Trí Lâm Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mark McMillan; Luke Walters; Turra Mark; Andrew Lawrence; Lex E X Leong; Thomas Sullivan; Geraint B Rogers; Ross M Andrews; Helen S Marshall Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Nicole E Basta; James M Stuart; Maria C Nascimento; Olivier Manigart; Caroline Trotter; Musa Hassan-King; Daniel Chandramohan; Samba O Sow; Abdoulaye Berthe; Ahmed Bedru; Yenenesh K Tekletsion; Jean-Marc Collard; Jean-François Jusot; Aldiouma Diallo; Hubert Basséne; Doumagoum M Daugla; Khadidja Gamougam; Abraham Hodgson; Abudulai A Forgor; Babatunji A Omotara; Galadima B Gadzama; Eleanor R Watkins; Lisa S Rebbetts; Kanny Diallo; Noel S Weiss; M Elizabeth Halloran; Martin C J Maiden; Brian Greenwood Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 3.240