Literature DB >> 17918076

Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in stool samples by real-time polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated diarrhea.

Lance R Peterson1, Rebecca U Manson, Suzanne M Paule, Donna M Hacek, Ari Robicsek, Richard B Thomson, Karen L Kaul.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) is the major cause of health care-associated infectious diarrhea. Current laboratory testing lacks a single assay that is sensitive, specific, and rapid. The purpose of this work was to design and validate a sensitive and specific real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnostic test for CDAD.
METHODS: This observational validation study of a new real-time PCR assay occurred from July 2004 through April 2006 and involved the testing of 1368 stool samples. As the final validation portion of the investigation, 350 inpatients were prospectively interviewed for clinical findings for 365 episodes of diarrheal illness. Test results and clinical criteria were used to assess the performance of 4 assays.
RESULTS: Using clinical criteria requiring at least 3 loose stools in 1 day as part of the reference standard for a positive test result supporting CDAD, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 73.3%, 97.6%, 73.3%, and 97.6%, respectively, for enzyme immunoassay; 93.3%, 97.4%, 75.7%, and 99.4%, respectively, for real-time PCR; 76.7%, 97.1%, 69.7%, and 97.9%, respectively, for cell culture cytotoxin assay; and 100.0%, 95.9%, 68.2%, and 100.0%, respectively, for anaerobic culture (for toxigenic C. difficile strains). The real-time PCR and anaerobic culture assays were significantly more sensitive than the enzyme immunoassay (P<.01 to P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: With an assay turnaround time of <4 h, real-time PCR is a more sensitive and equally rapid test, compared with enzyme immunoassay, and is a feasible laboratory option to replace enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic C. difficile detection in clinical practice, as well as for use during the development of new therapeutic agents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17918076     DOI: 10.1086/522185

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Infect Dis        ISSN: 1058-4838            Impact factor:   9.079


  77 in total

Review 1.  Molecular techniques for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  John C O'Horo; Amy Jones; Matthew Sternke; Christopher Harper; Nasia Safdar
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 7.616

2.  Comparison of two commercial molecular assays to a laboratory-developed molecular assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Tess Karre; Lynne Sloan; Robin Patel; Jayawant Mandrekar; Jon Rosenblatt
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  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

4.  Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of the cell culture neutralization, Xpert C. difficile, Xpert C. difficile/Epi, and Illumigene C. difficile assays.

Authors:  P Pancholi; C Kelly; M Raczkowski; J M Balada-Llasat
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Rapid detection of toxigenic strains of Clostridium difficile in diarrheal stools by real-time PCR.

Authors:  Frédéric Barbut; Mylena Braun; Béatrice Burghoffer; Valérie Lalande; Catherine Eckert
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-02-25       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Impact of Prophylactic Levofloxacin on Rates of Bloodstream Infection and Fever in Neutropenic Patients with Multiple Myeloma Undergoing Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

Authors:  Michael J Satlin; Santosh Vardhana; Rosemary Soave; Tsiporah B Shore; Tomer M Mark; Samantha E Jacobs; Thomas J Walsh; Usama Gergis
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Comparison of a commercial real-time PCR assay for tcdB detection to a cell culture cytotoxicity assay and toxigenic culture for direct detection of toxin-producing Clostridium difficile in clinical samples.

Authors:  Paul D Stamper; Romina Alcabasa; Deborah Aird; Wisal Babiker; Jennifer Wehrlin; Ijeoma Ikpeama; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  A novel subtyping assay for detection of Clostridium difficile virulence genes.

Authors:  Stephanie L Angione; Aartik A Sarma; Aleksey Novikov; Leah Seward; Jennifer H Fieber; Leonard A Mermel; Anubhav Tripathi
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2014-01-13       Impact factor: 5.568

9.  Application of isothermal helicase-dependent amplification with a disposable detection device in a simple sensitive stool test for toxigenic Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Wing Huen A Chow; Cindy McCloskey; Yanhong Tong; Lin Hu; Qimin You; Ciarán P Kelly; Huimin Kong; Yi-Wei Tang; Wen Tang
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 5.568

10.  The A, B, BI, and Cs of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Erik R Dubberke
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 9.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.