Literature DB >> 21376826

Tests for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: the next generation.

Karen C Carroll1.   

Abstract

Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) causes 25-30% of cases of antibiotic associated diarrhea and most cases of pseudomembranous colitis. Patients presenting with diarrhea after hospitalization for 3 or more days should be tested for C. difficile. There are many options available for testing, each of which has inherent advantages and disadvantages. Most laboratories perform toxin testing using an enzyme immunoassay method. In general these tests have sensitivities ranging from 60 to 70% and specificities of 98%. When using these methods, symptomatic patients with negative tests should be tested by another more sensitive method. Until recently, cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assays (CCNAs) were considered the gold standard in the U.S. A two-step algorithm using an EIA for glutamate dehydrogenase detection followed by testing positives using CCNA, offered an improved alternative until the availability of molecular assays. Although early studies that compared the GDH assay to CCNA demonstrated high sensitivity and negative predictive values, more recent comparisons to toxigenic culture and PCR have shown the sensitivity to be in the mid to high 80's. When testing using a sensitive assay, repeat testing is not cost-effective. Outbreaks caused by a toxin variant epidemic strain have renewed interest in bacterial culture. Toxigenic culture has emerged as the new gold standard against which newer assays should be compared. However, there is no agreed upon standard method for culture performance. At least 4 FDA cleared nucleic acid amplification assays are available to clinical laboratories and several of these have been well evaluated in the literature. Because these assays detect a gene that encodes toxin and not the toxin itself it is important that laboratories test only patients with diarrhea. These molecular assays have been shown to be superior to toxin EIAs, CCNA and 2-step algorithms, but not to toxigenic culture. More studies are needed to assess the impact of molecular tests on treatment and nosocomial spread of Clostridium difficile infections.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21376826     DOI: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.01.002

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


  38 in total

1.  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

2.  Comparison of BD GeneOhm Cdiff and Seegene Seeplex ACE PCR assays using toxigenic Clostridium difficile culture for direct detection of tcdB from stool specimens.

Authors:  Bo-Moon Shin; Se Jin Mun; Soo Jin Yoo; Eun Young Kuak
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 3.  Clostridium difficile infection: new insights into management.

Authors:  Sahil Khanna; Darrell S Pardi
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 7.616

4.  Clostridium difficile: the emerging epidemic.

Authors:  Nasia Safdar
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 7.616

5.  Impact of change to molecular testing for Clostridium difficile infection on healthcare facility-associated incidence rates.

Authors:  Rebekah W Moehring; Eric T Lofgren; Deverick J Anderson
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 3.254

6.  A cost-effective approach for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: toxigenic culture using ChromID Clostridium difficile agar.

Authors:  Shik Luk; Wing Kin To; Tak Keung Ng; Wai Ting Hui; Wing Keung Lee; Florence Lau; Almond Man Wai Ching
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Multicenter evaluation of the BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal panel for etiologic diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis.

Authors:  Sarah N Buss; Amy Leber; Kimberle Chapin; Paul D Fey; Matthew J Bankowski; Matthew K Jones; Margarita Rogatcheva; Kristen J Kanack; Kevin M Bourzac
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 8.  Clostridium difficile infection: management strategies for a difficult disease.

Authors:  Sahil Khanna; Darrell S Pardi
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 9.  Clostridium Difficile Infection from a Surgical Perspective.

Authors:  Andreas M Kaiser; Rachel Hogen; Liliana Bordeianou; Karim Alavi; Paul E Wise; Ranjan Sudan
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 10.  Clostridium difficile infection: epidemiology, diagnosis and understanding transmission.

Authors:  Jessica S H Martin; Tanya M Monaghan; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 46.802

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.