Literature DB >> 21411571

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

E C Keessen1, 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.   

Abstract

Clostridium difficile is emerging as pathogen in both humans and animals. In 2000 it was described as one of the causes of neonatal enteritis in piglets, and it is now the most common cause of neonatal diarrhea in the United States. In Europe, C. difficile infection (CDI) in both neonatal piglets and adult sows has also been reported. Diagnosis of this infection is based on detection of the bacterium C. difficile or its toxins A and B. Most detection methods, however, are only validated for diagnosing human infections. In this study three commercially available enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and a commercial real-time-PCR (Becton, Dickinson, and Company) were evaluated by testing 172 pig fecal specimens (139 diarrheic and 33 nondiarrheic piglets). The results of each test were compared to those of cytotoxicity assays (CTAs) and toxigenic culture as the "gold standards." Compared to CTAs, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were, respectively, as follows: for real-time PCR, 91.6, 37.1, 57.6, and 82.5%; for Premier Toxins A&B (Meridian), 83.1, 31.5, 53.1, and 66.7%; for ImmunoCard Toxins A&B kit (ICTAB; Meridian), 86.6, 56.8, 66.9, and 80.7%; and for VIDAS (bioMérieux), 54.8, 92.6, 85.0, and 72.8%. Compared to toxigenic culture, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were, respectively, as follows: for real-time PCR, 93.0, 34.7, 50.0, and 87.5%; for Premier Toxins A&B, 80.3, 27.7, 43.8, and 66.7%; and for ICTAB, 80.0, 46.2, 52.8, and 75.4%; and for VIDAS, 56.4, 89.8, 77.5, and 76.7%. We conclude that all tests had an unacceptably low performance as a single test for the detection of C. difficile in pig herds and that a two-step algorithm is necessary, similar to that in cases of human CDI. Of all of the assays, the real-time PCR had the highest NPV compared to both reference methods and is therefore the most appropriate test to screen for the absence of C. difficile in pigs as a first step in the algorithm. The second step would be a confirmation of the positive results by toxigenic culture.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21411571      PMCID: PMC3122649          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00242-11

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


  28 in total

1.  Prospective multicenter evaluation of a new immunoassay and real-time PCR for rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients.

Authors:  Renate J van den Berg; Lesla S Bruijnesteijn van Coppenraet; Hendrik-Jan Gerritsen; Hubert P Endtz; Eric R van der Vorm; Ed J Kuijper
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 078: an emerging strain in humans and in pigs?

Authors:  Abraham Goorhuis; Sylvia B Debast; Leo A M G van Leengoed; Celine Harmanus; Daan W Notermans; Aldert A Bergwerff; Edward J Kuijper
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Comparison of PCR-ribotyping, arbitrarily primed PCR, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for typing Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  P Bidet; V Lalande; B Salauze; B Burghoffer; V Avesani; M Delmée; A Rossier; F Barbut; J C Petit
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Survival of Clostridium difficile and its toxins in equine feces: implications for diagnostic test selection and interpretation.

Authors:  J S Weese; H R Staempfli; J F Prescott
Journal:  J Vet Diagn Invest       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.279

5.  Evaluation of a test for Clostridium difficile toxins A and B for the diagnosis of neonatal swine enteritis.

Authors:  Karen W Post; B Helen Jost; J Glenn Songer
Journal:  J Vet Diagn Invest       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 1.279

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

Authors:  Fred C Tenover; 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
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-08-11       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 7.  Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea: a plea for culture.

Authors:  Michel Delmée; Johan Van Broeck; Anne Simon; Michèle Janssens; Véronique Avesani
Journal:  J Med Microbiol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.472

8.  A prospective, case control study evaluating the association between Clostridium difficile toxins in the colon of neonatal swine and gross and microscopic lesions.

Authors:  Michael J Yaeger; Joann M Kinyon; J Glenn Songer
Journal:  J Vet Diagn Invest       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.279

Review 9.  European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID): data review and recommendations for diagnosing Clostridium difficile-infection (CDI).

Authors:  M J T Crobach; O M Dekkers; M H Wilcox; E J Kuijper
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 8.067

10.  Clostridium difficile ribotype 027, toxinotype III, the Netherlands.

Authors:  Ed J Kuijper; Renate J van den Berg; Sylvia Debast; Caroline E Visser; Dick Veenendaal; Annet Troelstra; Tjallie van der Kooi; Susan van den Hof; Daan W Notermans
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 6.883

View more
  10 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.  A retrospective study on the etiological diagnoses of diarrhea in neonatal piglets in Ontario, Canada, between 2001 and 2010.

Authors:  Gloria Chan; Abdolvahab Farzan; Josepha DeLay; Beverly McEwen; John F Prescott; Robert M Friendship
Journal:  Can J Vet Res       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.310

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Mice with Inflammatory Bowel Disease are Susceptible to Clostridium difficile Infection With Severe Disease Outcomes.

Authors:  Fenfen Zhou; Therwa Hamza; Ashley S Fleur; Yongrong Zhang; Hua Yu; Kevin Chen; Jonathon E Heath; Ye Chen; Haihui Huang; Hanping Feng
Journal:  Inflamm Bowel Dis       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 5.325

Review 6.  The Sensitivity and Specificity of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and PCR Methods in Detection of Foodborne Microorganisms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yasaman Sadeghi; Pegah Kananizadeh; Solmaz Ohadian Moghadam; Ahad Alizadeh; Mohammad Reza Pourmand; Neda Mohammadi; Davoud Afshar; Reza Ranjbar
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 1.429

Review 7.  Clostridioides difficile infection and One Health: an equine perspective.

Authors:  Natasza M R Hain-Saunders; Daniel R Knight; Mieghan Bruce; Thomas V Riley
Journal:  Environ Microbiol       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 5.476

8.  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

Review 9.  Clostridioides (Clostridium) Difficile in Food-Producing Animals, Horses and Household Pets: A Comprehensive Review.

Authors:  Melina Kachrimanidou; Eleni Tzika; George Filioussis
Journal:  Microorganisms       Date:  2019-12-09

10.  Performance of commercial PCR assays to detect toxigenic Clostridioides difficile in the feces of puppies.

Authors:  Eman Anis; Denise Barnart; Amanda Barnard; Donna J Kelly; Laurel E Redding
Journal:  Vet Med Sci       Date:  2021-07-03
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.