Literature DB >> 17662566

Performance of TechLab C. DIFF QUIK CHEK and TechLab C. DIFFICILE TOX A/B II for the detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples.

Romina C Reyes1, Michael A John, Diane L Ayotte, Alexia Covacich, Susan Milburn, Zafar Hussain.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Two membrane-bound enzyme immunoassays by TechLab, Blacksburg, VA, were evaluated and compared with the Triage Micro C. difficile Panel (Biosite Diagnostics, San Diego, CA), with culture, and with cytotoxic assay. The TechLab panels were C. DIFF QUIK CHEK (QC-GDH) and C. DIFFICILE TOX A/B II (QC-toxinA/B), which detect glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and Clostridium difficile toxins A and B, respectively. The Triage Panel detects GDH (TR-GDH) and toxin A (TR-toxinA).
METHODS: Stool samples were inoculated onto CCFA plates (Q-Labs, Quebec, Canada) after alcohol shock, and suspected colonies were identified by the MicroScreen C. difficile latex slide agglutination test (Microgen Bioproducts, Surrey, UK). TR-GDH, TR-toxinA, QC-GDH, and QC-toxinA/B tests were performed according to the manufacturers' instructions on all the samples. Samples positive for GDH or culture but negative for TR-toxinA and QC-toxinA/B were further tested by cytotoxin assay (CTA). CTA was also performed on samples that caused blackening of the Triage Micro C. difficile Panel.
RESULTS: A total of 313 of 401 stool samples were negative for GDH and toxins (78%). Eighty-eight samples were positive either for GDH or culture or both. Thirteen of these could not be evaluated for C. difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) because CTA test was not performed. Toxin/s was detected at least by one method in 46 (11.8%) of 388 samples that were positive for culture or GDH and were considered diagnostic of CDAD. The QC-GDH was more sensitive than culture and TR-GDH for the detection of C. difficile. However, in 18GDH-positive samples positive for either of the Triage or TechLab immunoassays, the culture remained negative. Ten (2%) results of the Triage immunoassays could not be evaluated because of discoloration of the panels. QC-GDH (93.5%) was more sensitive for detecting the presence of toxin-producing C. difficile than TR-GDH (79.5%). TR-toxinA was more specific for detecting the presence of toxin-producing C. difficile than QC-toxinA/B (100% and 96.9%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The GDH tests had a faster turnaround time than the traditional culture methods. QC-GDH was most sensitive for the detection C. difficile-positive stools and was easy to use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17662566     DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2007.04.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis        ISSN: 0732-8893            Impact factor:   2.803


  10 in total

1.  Assessment of Clostridium difficile infections by quantitative detection of tcdB toxin by use of a real-time cell analysis system.

Authors:  Alex B Ryder; Ying Huang; Haijing Li; Min Zheng; Xiaobo Wang; Charles W Stratton; Xiao Xu; Yi-Wei Tang
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  C. Diff Quik Chek complete enzyme immunoassay provides a reliable first-line method for detection of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens.

Authors:  Criziel D Quinn; Susan E Sefers; Wisal Babiker; Ying He; Romina Alcabasa; Charles W Stratton; Karen C Carroll; Yi-Wei Tang
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 3.  Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection can molecular amplification methods move us out of uncertainty?

Authors:  Fred C Tenover; Ellen Jo Baron; Lance R Peterson; David H Persing
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 5.568

4.  Comparison of enzyme immunoassays and rapid diagnostic tests for clostridium difficile glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin a + B to toxinogenic culture on a highly selective chromogenic medium.

Authors:  A Olling; H Leidinger; R Hoffmann
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 3.267

5.  Clostridium difficile infection diagnosis in a paediatric population: comparison of methodologies.

Authors:  J Hart; P Putsathit; D R Knight; L Sammels; T V Riley; A Keil
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 3.267

Review 6.  Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories.

Authors:  Carey-Ann D Burnham; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 26.132

7.  Algorithm combining toxin immunoassay and stool culture for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Bo-Moon Shin; Eun Young Kuak; Eun Joo Lee; J Glenn Songer
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-07-22       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Evaluation of tcdB real-time PCR in a three-step diagnostic algorithm for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Ann M Larson; Angela M Fung; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-11-18       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Economic evaluation of laboratory testing strategies for hospital-associated Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Lee F Schroeder; Elizabeth Robilotti; Lance R Peterson; Niaz Banaei; David W Dowdy
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Comprehensive evaluation of chemiluminescent immunoassays for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  A Makristathis; I Zeller; D Mitteregger; M Kundi; A M Hirschl
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 3.267

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.