Literature DB >> 22424900

Comparison of eight commercial enzyme immunoassays for the detection of Clostridium difficile from stool samples and effect of strain type.

Pierre René1, Charles P Frenette, Ian Schiller, Nandini Dendukuri, Paul Brassard, Susan Fenn, Vivian G Loo.   

Abstract

We compared the performance of 8 Clostridium difficile enzyme immunoassays to cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay and toxigenic culture. The effect of strain type on assay performance was also examined. There were a total of 71 (14.4%) samples in which C. difficile was recovered; 58 (81.7%) of 71 were toxigenic. Compared to a composite reference standard of either C. difficile cytotoxin assay positive or toxigenic C. difficile culture positive, the sensitivities of these assays varied from 31.7% to 55.2%, while the specificities were excellent, ranging from 98.1% to 100%. Among the 57 C. difficile isolates, 30 (51.7%) were of the NAP1 genotype. Stool samples positive for the C. difficile NAP1 strain had a higher positivity rate for the toxin assays.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22424900     DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.01.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis        ISSN: 0732-8893            Impact factor:   2.803


  8 in total

1.  Molecular test based on isothermal helicase-dependent amplification for detection of the Clostridium difficile toxin A gene.

Authors:  Catherine Eckert; Eleonore Holscher; Amandine Petit; Valérie Lalande; Frédéric Barbut
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  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

3.  Rapid Quantification of C. difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxin B (TcdB) with a NanoBiT Split-Luciferase Assay.

Authors:  Hope Adamson; Modupe O Ajayi; Kate E Gilroy; Michael J McPherson; Darren C Tomlinson; Lars J C Jeuken
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2022-05-28       Impact factor: 8.008

4.  Quantitative fecal lactoferrin in toxin-positive and toxin-negative Clostridium difficile specimens.

Authors:  P Rocco LaSala; Tariq Ekhmimi; A Kate Hill; Imran Farooqi; Peter L Perrotta
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Molecular Characterization and Moxifloxacin Susceptibility of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Sarah Mizrahi; Zohar Hamo; Maya Azrad; Avi Peretz
Journal:  Antibiotics (Basel)       Date:  2019-08-12

6.  False Negative Results in Clostridium difficile Testing.

Authors:  Yanal M Murad; Justo Perez; Gustavo Ybazeta; Sarah Mavin; Sebastien Lefebvre; J Scott Weese; Joyce Rousseau; Francisco Diaz-Mitoma; Reza Nokhbeh
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 3.090

7.  Sensitivity of Single-Molecule Array Assays for Detection of Clostridium difficile Toxins in Comparison to Conventional Laboratory Testing Algorithms.

Authors:  Alice Banz; Aude Lantz; Brigitte Riou; Agnès Foussadier; Mark Miller; Kerrie Davies; Mark Wilcox
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 8.  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
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.