Literature DB >> 21846912

Laboratory testing for Clostridium difficile infection: light at the end of the tunnel.

Lance R Peterson1, Maitry S Mehta, Parul A Patel, Donna M Hacek, Maureen Harazin, Payal P Nagwekar, Richard B Thomson, Ari Robicsek.   

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is changing as evidenced by increasing virulence, rising incidence, unresponsiveness to metronidazole therapy, and worse outcomes. Thus, it is critical that CDI diagnosis be accurate so ongoing epidemiology, disease prevention, and treatment remain satisfactory. We tested 10 diagnostic assays, including 1 commercial real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) test for the laboratory detection of toxigenic C difficile on 1,000 stool samples. Sensitive culture for toxigenic C difficile using 2 types of media with broth enrichment defined the reference standard. For the study, 1,000 tests were performed on samples from 919 patients. Of the samples, 146 contained evidence for toxigenic C difficile and represented the true-positive results. Only the US Food and Drug Administration-cleared qPCR assay (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) and 1 glutamate dehydrogenase test (TechLab, Blacksburg, VA) were not statistically inferior to culture in sensitivity. The common enzyme immunoassay tests all had sensitivity values less than 50%. Clinical laboratory professionals need to seriously consider their diagnostic testing and use the assays that perform best for the detection of CDI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21846912     DOI: 10.1309/AJCPTP5XKRSNXVIL

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0002-9173            Impact factor:   2.493


  20 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.  Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of the cell culture neutralization, Xpert C. difficile, Xpert C. difficile/Epi, and Illumigene C. difficile assays.

Authors:  P Pancholi; C Kelly; M Raczkowski; J M Balada-Llasat
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Evaluation of the cobas Cdiff Test for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Stool Samples.

Authors:  Lance R Peterson; Stephen A Young; Thomas E Davis; Zi-Xuam Wang; John Duncan; Christopher Noutsios; Oliver Liesenfeld; John C Osiecki; Michael A Lewinski
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 4.  Clostridium difficile infection: new insights into management.

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

Review 5.  Emerging technologies for the clinical microbiology laboratory.

Authors:  Blake W Buchan; Nathan A Ledeboer
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 26.132

6.  Validation of Active Surveillance Testing for Clostridium difficile Colonization Using the cobas Cdiff Test.

Authors:  Parul A Patel; Donna M Schora; Kamaljit Singh; Lance R Peterson
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Evolution of testing algorithms at a university hospital for detection of Clostridium difficile infections.

Authors:  Karissa Culbreath; Edward Ager; Ronald J Nemeyer; Alan Kerr; Peter H Gilligan
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile: real-time PCR detection of toxin genes in faecal samples is more sensitive compared to toxigenic culture.

Authors:  M B F Jensen; K E P Olsen; X C Nielsen; A M Hoegh; R B Dessau; T Atlung; J Engberg
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 3.267

Review 9.  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

10.  Impact of changes in Clostridium difficile testing practices on stool rejection policies and C. difficile positivity rates across multiple laboratories in the United States.

Authors:  Jessica Cohen; Brandi Limbago; Ghinwa Dumyati; Stacy Holzbauer; Helen Johnston; Rebecca Perlmutter; John Dunn; Joelle Nadle; Carol Lyons; Erin Phipps; Zintars Beldavs; Leigh Ann Clark; Fernanda C Lessa
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 5.948

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.