Literature DB >> 19348118

Laboratory diagnosis of clostridium difficile infection. An evaluation of tests for faecal toxin, glutamate dehydrogenase, lactoferrin and toxigenic culture in the diagnostic laboratory.

M W D Wren1, M Sivapalan, R Kinson, N R Shetty.   

Abstract

Faecal samples from 1007 patients suspected of having diarrhoea caused by Clostridium difficile infection are investigated for the presence of toxins A and B and for the presence of C. difficile-specific glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH). Toxigenic culture is performed on all samples and is used as the 'gold standard' for the purpose of the study. A marker for intestinal inflammation, faecal lactoferrin, is used on any samples that give a positive result in any of the above tests. Part of the study also involves an assessment of six commercial toxin kits to detect the presence of C. difficile toxins in faecal samples. This study revealed that the commercial toxin detection kits used can give rise to false-positive and false-negative results and that all demonstrated poor sensitivity when compared to the gold standard of toxigenic culture. Testing of faecal samples for GDH can be useful as a negative screening method as the results of this test show high correlation with culture. Faecal toxin testing can then be performed on all GDH-positive samples (GDH positivity is independent of toxigenicity in strains of C. difficile). The combined use of GDH and toxin testing, coupled with toxigenic culture, revealed that some patients with diarrhoea who harboured toxigenic strains of C. difficile were faecal toxin-negative. Lactoferrin appears to be a useful marker for the presence of inflammatory diarrhoea.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19348118     DOI: 10.1080/09674845.2009.11730235

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Biomed Sci        ISSN: 0967-4845            Impact factor:   3.829


  12 in total

1.  Evaluation of diagnostic tests for Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Jonathan Swindells; Nigel Brenwald; Nathan Reading; Beryl Oppenheim
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-12-23       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Combination of culture, antigen and toxin detection, and cytotoxin neutralization assay for optimal Clostridium difficile diagnostic testing.

Authors:  Michelle J Alfa; Shadi Sepehri
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.471

3.  Comparison of the Vidas C. difficile GDH Automated Enzyme-Linked Fluorescence Immunoassay (ELFA) with Another Commercial Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) (Quik Chek-60), Two Selective Media, and a PCR Assay for gluD for Detection of Clostridium difficile in Fecal Samples.

Authors:  K A Davies; C E Berry; K A Morris; R Smith; S Young; T E Davis; D D Fuller; R J Buckner; M H Wilcox
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 4.  Rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxins and laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections.

Authors:  Shuyi Chen; Huawei Gu; Chunli Sun; Haiying Wang; Jufang Wang
Journal:  Infection       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 3.553

5.  What is the current role of algorithmic approaches for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection?

Authors:  Mark H Wilcox; Tim Planche; Ferric C Fang; Peter Gilligan
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Comparison of nine commercially available Clostridium difficile toxin detection assays, a real-time PCR assay for C. difficile tcdB, and a glutamate dehydrogenase detection assay to cytotoxin testing and cytotoxigenic culture methods.

Authors:  Kerrie Eastwood; Patrick Else; André Charlett; Mark Wilcox
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Quantitative fecal lactoferrin in toxin-positive and toxin-negative Clostridium difficile specimens.

Authors:  P Rocco LaSala; Tariq Ekhmimi; A Kate Hill; Imran Farooqi; Peter L Perrotta
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection.

Authors:  Timothy D Planche; Kerrie A Davies; Pietro G Coen; John M Finney; Irene M Monahan; Kirsti A Morris; Lily O'Connor; Sarah J Oakley; Cassie F Pope; Mike W Wren; Nandini P Shetty; Derrick W Crook; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 25.071

9.  Ribotype 027 Clostridium difficile infections with measurable stool toxin have increased lactoferrin and are associated with a higher mortality.

Authors:  J H Boone; L R Archbald-Pannone; K N Wickham; R J Carman; R L Guerrant; C T Franck; D M Lyerly
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 3.267

10.  Can a toxin gene NAAT be used to predict toxin EIA and the severity of Clostridium difficile infection?

Authors:  Mark I Garvey; Craig W Bradley; Martyn A C Wilkinson; Elisabeth Holden
Journal:  Antimicrob Resist Infect Control       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 4.887

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.