Literature DB >> 21704273

Comparison of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin.

Kimberle C Chapin1, Roberta A Dickenson, Fongman Wu, Sarah B Andrea.   

Abstract

Performance characteristics of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin were compared using fresh stool samples from patients with C. difficile infection (CDI). Assays were performed simultaneously and according to the manufacturers' instructions. Patients were included in the study if they exhibited clinical symptoms consistent with CDI. Nonmolecular assays included glutamate dehydrogenase antigen tests, with positive findings followed by the Premier Toxin A and B Enzyme Immunoassay (GDH/EIA), and the C. Diff Quik Chek Complete test. Molecular assays (PCR) included the BD GeneOhm Cdiff Assay, the Xpert C. difficile test, and the ProGastro Cd assay. Specimens were considered true positive if results were positive in two or more assays. For each method, the Youden index was calculated and cost-effectiveness was analyzed. Of 81 patients evaluated, 26 (32.1%) were positive for CDI. Sensitivity of the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, the Xpert C. difficile test, the ProGastro Cd assay, C. Diff Quik Chek Complete test, and two-step GDH/EIA was 96.2%, 96.2%, 88.5%, 61.5%, and 42.3%, respectively. Specificity of the Xpert C. difficile test was 96.4%, and for the other four assays was 100%. Compared with nonmolecular methods, molecular methods detected 34.7% more positive specimens. Assessment of performance characteristics and cost-effectiveness demonstrated that the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay yielded the best results. While costly, the Xpert C. difficile test required limited processing and yielded rapid results. Because of discordant results, specimen processing, and extraction equipment requirements, the ProGastro Cd assay was the least favored molecular assay. The GDH/EIA method lacked sufficient sensitivity to be recommended.
Copyright © 2011 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21704273      PMCID: PMC3123782          DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.03.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Diagn        ISSN: 1525-1578            Impact factor:   5.568


  24 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.  Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients.

Authors:  N E Hawass
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Diagnostic features of clindamycin-associated pseudomembranous colitis.

Authors:  F J Tedesco; R J Stanley; D H Alpers
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1974-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Evaluation of the C.Diff Quik Chek Complete Assay, a new glutamate dehydrogenase and A/B toxin combination lateral flow assay for use in rapid, simple diagnosis of clostridium difficile disease.

Authors:  Susan E Sharp; Lila O Ruden; Julie C Pohl; Patricia A Hatcher; Linda M Jayne; W Michael Ivie
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-04-07       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 5.  Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Scott Curry
Journal:  Clin Lab Med       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.935

6.  Management of an outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated disease among geriatric patients.

Authors:  S Cherifi; M Delmee; J Van Broeck; I Beyer; B Byl; G Mascart
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2006-10-23       Impact factor: 3.254

7.  Clostridium difficile testing in the clinical laboratory by use of multiple testing algorithms.

Authors:  Susan M Novak-Weekley; Elizabeth M Marlowe; John M Miller; Joven Cumpio; Jim H Nomura; Paula H Vance; Alice Weissfeld
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Comparison of BD GeneOhm Cdiff real-time PCR assay with a two-step algorithm and a toxin A/B enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for diagnosis of toxigenic Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Kvach; David Ferguson; Paul F Riska; Marie L Landry
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Comparison of a rapid molecular method, the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, to the most frequently used laboratory tests for detection of toxin-producing Clostridium difficile in diarrheal feces.

Authors:  Gabriella Terhes; Edit Urbán; József Sóki; Eniko Nacsa; Elisabeth Nagy
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Clostridium difficile Infections: What Every Clinician Should Know.

Authors:  James Yoo; Amy Lee Lightner
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2010
View more
  29 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.  An unusual cause of false-positive results with the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay.

Authors:  Lisa Louie; Henry Wong; Samira Mubareka; Andrew E Simor
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Evaluation of a new automated homogeneous PCR assay, GenomEra C. difficile, for rapid detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal specimens.

Authors:  Jari J Hirvonen; Silja Mentula; Suvi-Sirkku Kaukoranta
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 5.948

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.  Clinical characteristics of patients who test positive for Clostridium difficile by repeat PCR.

Authors:  Daniel A Green; Brie Stotler; Dana Jackman; Susan Whittier; Phyllis Della-Latta
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  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

8.  Rapid, label-free genetic detection of enteropathogens in stool without genetic isolation or amplification.

Authors:  Song Han; Mehmet C Soylu; Ceyhun E Kirimli; Wei Wu; Bhaswati Sen; Suresh G Joshi; Christopher L Emery; Giang Au; Xiaomin Niu; Richard Hamilton; Kyle Krevolin; Wei-Heng Shih; Wan Y Shih
Journal:  Biosens Bioelectron       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 10.618

9.  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

10.  Similar outcomes of IBD inpatients with Clostridium difficile infection detected by ELISA or PCR assay.

Authors:  Yinghong Wang; Ashish Atreja; Xianrui Wu; Bret A Lashner; Aaron Brzezinski; Bo Shen
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-03-24       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.