Literature DB >> 19772927

Comparison of VIDAS CDAB and CDA immunoassay for the detection of Clostridium difficile in a tcdA- tcdB+ C. difficile prevalent area.

Bo-Moon Shin1, Eun-Joo Lee, Eun-Young Kuak, Soo Jin Yoo.   

Abstract

Enzyme immunoassays for TcdA and/or TcdB are widely used for diagnosis of C. difficile infection. This study compared the performance of the new VIDAS C. difficile Toxin A & B assay (CDAB) with that of the existing VIDAS C. difficile Toxin A II assay (CDA) in a tcdA(-)tcdB(+) prevalent area. A total of 555 fecal samples were cultured and tested using CDAB and CDA. C. difficile was isolated in 150 samples and the concordance rate was 81.8% (454/555) between CDAB and CDA. PCR assays for tcdA and/or tcdB were used as a confirmatory test on C. difficile strains recovered from culture positive cases (n=150) and on fecal specimens in culture negative/CDAB positive or equivocal cases (n=27). The number of tcdA(+)tcdB(+), tcdA(-)tcdB(+), and tcdA(-)tcdB(-) strains on culture positive isolates (n=150) were 75 (50.0%), 41 (27.3%), and 34 (22.7%), respectively. PCR assays for tcdB gene alone in stool specimens (n=27) showed positivity in five cases. The sensitivity of VIDAS CDAB was higher than that of VIDAS CDA (65.3% vs. 29.8%), by more than 2-fold. The specificity of CDAB was almost the same as CDA (93.8% vs. 94.5%). Toxigenic culture of C. difficile isolates in culture positive/VIDAS CDAB negative cases (n=62) additionally detected 22 VIDAS CDAB positive and 9 VIDAS CDAB equivocal cases. The VIDAS CDAB assay detects more tcdA(+)tcdB(+) strains (60% vs. 45.3%) and tcdA(-)tcdB(+) strains (70.7% vs. 0%) compared with VIDAS CDA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19772927     DOI: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2009.09.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaerobe        ISSN: 1075-9964            Impact factor:   3.331


  6 in total

Review 1.  Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Karen C Carroll; Masako Mizusawa
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2020-02-25

2.  [Efficacy of real-time PCR for detecting Clostridium difficile infection: comparison with enzyme-linked fluorescent spectroscopy-based approaches].

Authors:  Li-Zhi Wang; Li-Dan Chen; Bin Xiao; Yan-Ling Gan; Lin-Hai Li; Qian Wang
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2017-12-20

3.  Characterization of cases of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) presenting at an emergency room: molecular and clinical features differentiate community-onset hospital-associated and community-associated CDI in a tertiary care hospital.

Authors:  Bo-Moon Shin; Se Jin Moon; You Sun Kim; Won Chang Shin; Hyeon Mi Yoo
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2011-04-06       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Comparison of ImmunoCard Toxins A&B and the new semiautomated Vidas Clostridium difficile Toxin A&B tests for diagnosis of C. difficile infection.

Authors:  Luis Alcalá; Mercedes Marín; María Madrid; Esther Domínguez-García; Pilar Catalán; María Teresa Peláez; Mar Sánchez-Somolinos; Emilio Bouza
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Laboratory Diagnostic Methods for Clostridioides difficile Infection: the First Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Korea.

Authors:  Hae-Sun Chung; Jeong Su Park; Bo-Moon Shin
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.464

6.  Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection in Asia.

Authors:  Deirdre A Collins; Peter M Hawkey; Thomas V Riley
Journal:  Antimicrob Resist Infect Control       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 4.887

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.