Literature DB >> 20702676

Impact of strain type on detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of molecular diagnostic and enzyme immunoassay approaches.

Fred C Tenover1, Susan Novak-Weekley, Christopher W Woods, Lance R Peterson, Thomas Davis, Paul Schreckenberger, Ferric C Fang, Andre Dascal, Dale N Gerding, Jim H Nomura, Richard V Goering, Thomas Akerlund, Alice S Weissfeld, Ellen Jo Baron, Edith Wong, Elizabeth M Marlowe, Joseph Whitmore, David H Persing.   

Abstract

A multicenter clinical trial assessed the performance of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay on stool specimens collected from patients suspected of having Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). A total of 2,296 unformed stool specimens, collected from seven study sites, were tested by Xpert C. difficile enrichment culture followed by cell culture cytotoxicity testing of the isolates (i.e., toxigenic culture with enrichment) and the study sites' standard C. difficile test methods. The methods included enzyme immunoassay (EIA), direct cytotoxin testing, and two- and three-step algorithms using glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) screening followed by either EIA or EIA and an in-house PCR assay. All C. difficile strains were typed by PCR-ribotyping. Compared to results for toxigenic culture with enrichment, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Xpert assay were 93.5, 94.0, 73.0, and 98.8%, respectively. The overall sensitivity of the EIAs compared to that of enrichment culture was 60.0%, and the sensitivity of combined GDH algorithms was 72.9%; both were significantly lower than that of Xpert C. difficile (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). The sensitivity of the EIA was significantly lower than that of the Xpert C. difficile assay for detection of ribotypes 002, 027, and 106 (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.004, respectively, Fisher's exact test), and the sensitivity of GDH algorithms for ribotypes other than 027 was lower than that for Xpert C. difficile (P < 0.001). The Xpert C. difficile assay is a simple, rapid, and accurate method for detection of toxigenic C. difficile in unformed stool specimens and is minimally affected by strain type compared to EIA and GDH-based methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20702676      PMCID: PMC2953097          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00427-10

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  36 in total

1.  An epidemic, toxin gene-variant strain of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  L Clifford McDonald; George E Killgore; Angela Thompson; Robert C Owens; Sophia V Kazakova; Susan P Sambol; Stuart Johnson; Dale N Gerding
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Effective detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile by a two-step algorithm including tests for antigen and cytotoxin.

Authors:  John R Ticehurst; Deborah Z Aird; Lisa M Dam; Anita P Borek; John T Hargrove; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  PCR targeted to the 16S-23S rRNA gene intergenic spacer region of Clostridium difficile and construction of a library consisting of 116 different PCR ribotypes.

Authors:  S L Stubbs; J S Brazier; G L O'Neill; B I Duerden
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Commercial latex test for Clostridium difficile toxin A does not detect toxin A.

Authors:  D M Lyerly; T D Wilkins
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Epidemics of diarrhea caused by a clindamycin-resistant strain of Clostridium difficile in four hospitals.

Authors:  S Johnson; M H Samore; K A Farrow; G E Killgore; F C Tenover; D Lyras; J I Rood; P DeGirolami; A L Baltch; M E Rafferty; S M Pear; D N Gerding
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-11-25       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 6.  Emergence of Clostridium difficile-associated disease in North America and Europe.

Authors:  E J Kuijper; B Coignard; P Tüll
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 8.067

7.  Clostridium difficile ribotypes 027 and 106: clinical outcomes and risk factors.

Authors:  F Sundram; A Guyot; I Carboo; S Green; M Lilaonitkul; A Scourfield
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2009-04-21       Impact factor: 3.926

8.  Specific detection of toxigenic strains of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens.

Authors:  P H Gumerlock; Y J Tang; J B Weiss; J Silva
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Identification of the latex test-reactive protein of Clostridium difficile as glutamate dehydrogenase.

Authors:  D M Lyerly; L A Barroso; T D Wilkins
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Epidemiology and molecular characterization of Clostridium difficile strains from patients with diarrhea: low disease incidence and evidence of limited cross-infection in a Swedish teaching hospital.

Authors:  Bo Svenungsson; Lars G Burman; Kirsti Jalakas-Pörnull; Asa Lagergren; Johan Struwe; Thomas Akerlund
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.948

View more
  73 in total

1.  Comparison of GenomEra C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile as confirmatory tests in a multistep algorithm for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Luis Alcalá; Elena Reigadas; Mercedes Marín; Antonia Fernández-Chico; Pilar Catalán; Emilio Bouza
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 2.  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

3.  Evaluation of a new molecular test, the BD Max Cdiff, for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal samples.

Authors:  Rémi Le Guern; Stéphanie Herwegh; Bruno Grandbastien; René Courcol; Frédéric Wallet
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 4.  Clostridium difficile infection in 2010: advances in pathogenesis, diagnosis and management of CDI.

Authors:  Dale N Gerding; Stuart Johnson
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  Hospital epidemiology and infection control in acute-care settings.

Authors:  Emily R M Sydnor; Trish M Perl
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 26.132

7.  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

Review 8.  Host response to Clostridium difficile infection: Diagnostics and detection.

Authors:  Elena A Usacheva; Jian-P Jin; Lance R Peterson
Journal:  J Glob Antimicrob Resist       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 4.035

9.  Premarket evaluations of the IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 Assay and the BD Max Cdiff Assay.

Authors:  K A Stellrecht; A A Espino; V P Maceira; S M Nattanmai; S A Butt; D Wroblewski; G E Hannett; K A Musser
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Trends in U.S. Burden of Clostridioides difficile Infection and Outcomes.

Authors:  Alice Y Guh; Yi Mu; Lisa G Winston; Helen Johnston; Danyel Olson; Monica M Farley; Lucy E Wilson; Stacy M Holzbauer; Erin C Phipps; Ghinwa K Dumyati; Zintars G Beldavs; Marion A Kainer; Maria Karlsson; Dale N Gerding; L Clifford McDonald
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 91.245

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.