Literature DB >> 18006252

Evaluation of two enzyme immunoassays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxins A and B in swine.

Michael A Anderson1, J Glenn Songer.   

Abstract

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD) in neonatal pigs is accomplished, in part, by detection of toxins A (TcdA) and B (TcdB) in feces or colonic contents. Samples (n=115) were tested simultaneously with two toxin assays (Clostridium difficile Tox A/B II, TechLab, Blacksburg, VA; Gastro-tect Clostridium difficile Toxin A+B, Medical Chemical Corporation). Previous comparison of the Tox A/B II assay to the reference method (toxicity in CHO cell monolayers) revealed an overall correlation of 88%, with 91% sensitivity and 86% specificity, a positive predictive value of 86 and a negative predictive value of 84. In comparing the two EIAs, a group of nine samples were positive in both assays and a group of 92 were negative in both. However, 14 samples positive in the Tox A/B II were negative in the Gastro-tect assay. Thus, in comparison to the Tox A/B II assay, the Gastro-tect assay was 100% specific but only 39% sensitive. Its negative predictive value was 87, but its positive predictive value was 100. Thus, the Tox A/B II kit is apparently superior to the Gastro-tect Toxin A+B test for diagnosis of CDAD in neonatal pigs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18006252     DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.09.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vet Microbiol        ISSN: 0378-1135            Impact factor:   3.293


  7 in total

1.  Clostridium difficile genotypes in piglet populations in Germany.

Authors:  Alexander Schneeberg; Heinrich Neubauer; Gernot Schmoock; Sylvia Baier; Jürgen Harlizius; Hendrik Nienhoff; Katja Brase; Stefan Zimmermann; Christian Seyboldt
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Immunochromatographic test and ELISA for the detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and A/B toxins as an alternative for the diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile-associated diarrhea in foals and neonatal piglets.

Authors:  Carolina Pantuzza Ramos; Emily Oliveira Lopes; Carlos Augusto Oliveira Júnior; Amanda Nádia Diniz; Francisco Carlos Faria Lobato; Rodrigo Otávio Silveira Silva
Journal:  Braz J Microbiol       Date:  2020-05-03       Impact factor: 2.476

3.  Laboratory detection of Clostridium difficile in piglets in Australia.

Authors:  Daniel R Knight; Michele M Squire; Thomas V Riley
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Evaluation of four different diagnostic tests to detect Clostridium difficile in piglets.

Authors:  E C Keessen; N E M Hopman; L A M G van Leengoed; A J A M van Asten; C Hermanus; E J Kuijper; L J A Lipman
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  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

6.  Bacterial probiotics as an aid in the control of Clostridium difficile disease in neonatal pigs.

Authors:  Paulo H E Arruda; Darin M Madson; Alejandro Ramirez; Eric W Rowe; J Glenn Songer
Journal:  Can Vet J       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.008

7.  Antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of human and piglet Clostridium difficile PCR-ribotype 078.

Authors:  Elisabeth C Keessen; Marjolein Pm Hensgens; Patrizia Spigaglia; Fabrizio Barbanti; Ingrid Mjg Sanders; Ed J Kuijper; Len Ja Lipman
Journal:  Antimicrob Resist Infect Control       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 4.887

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.