Literature DB >> 22654928

The value of repeat Clostridium difficile toxin testing during and after an outbreak of C difficile-associated diarrhea.

Joseph Dylewski1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The recent increase in Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) has led to questions about the reproducibility and sensitivity of C difficile toxin testing (CDTT). While there have been recommendations to repeat CDTT following a negative result, previous studies have failed to show a benefit. However, no studies were performed during an outbreak of CDAD. The value of repeat CDTT after an initial negative result in patients tested during and after an outbreak of CDAD is reported in the present study, as well as the reproducibility of CDTT when multiple samples are received and tested on the same day.
METHODS: The results of CDTT, performed using a cell cytotoxicity assay between April 1, 2001, and March 31, 2008, were retrieved and searched for patients who had repeat samples tested after an initial negative result. The result and the number of days after a negative result were determined using the date of the most recent negative test. The cumulative positivity rate was calculated by adding all of the repeat positive test results for the days in question and dividing by the total number of tests performed during that time.
RESULTS: A total of 8661 patients submitted 14,991 stool specimens for CDTT during the study period. There were 3095 samples that tested positive (20.6%) for the toxin. The results were divided into two time periods to reflect the CDAD outbreak, which began in April 2002: period 1 (outbreak) was from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2006, and period 2 was from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2008. The rate of positivity was 24.2% during period 1, and 11.6% during period 2 (P<0.001). Repeat CDTT was performed 619 times on samples received on the same day as the initial specimen, and only three (0.5%) were discordant. A total of 1630 samples were retested within one to seven days of a negative result, and 103 (6.3%) tested positive (7.8% period 1 and 2.9% period 2; P=0.002). The likelihood of a positive result on repeat testing in the first three days after a negative result was low (0.9%, 7% and 4%, respectively). The cumulative positivity for repeat testing performed in the first three days was 0.9%, 3.3% and 3.5%, respectively, and did not differ significantly at day 3 during the period of high CDTT positivity (P=0.110).
CONCLUSIONS: The value of repeat CDTT, performed using a cell cytotoxicity assay, was low in the first three days after an initial negative result and was unchanged during a CDAD outbreak.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clostridium difficile; Toxin testing

Year:  2011        PMID: 22654928      PMCID: PMC3142596          DOI: 10.1155/2011/591239

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol        ISSN: 1712-9532            Impact factor:   2.471


  15 in total

1.  Frequency of sample submission for optimal utilization of the cell culture cytotoxicity assay for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin.

Authors:  Anita P Borek; Deborah Z Aird; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 2.  Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by toxin detection kits: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tim Planche; Adamma Aghaizu; Richard Holliman; Peter Riley; Jan Poloniecki; Aodhán Breathnach; Sanjeev Krishna
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2008-11-01       Impact factor: 25.071

Review 3.  Clostridium difficile--more difficult than ever.

Authors:  Ciarán P Kelly; J Thomas LaMont
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Lack of value of repeat stool testing for Clostridium difficile toxin.

Authors:  Sowjanya S Mohan; Brian P McDermott; Subha Parchuri; Burke A Cunha
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in a region of Quebec from 1991 to 2003: a changing pattern of disease severity.

Authors:  Jacques Pépin; Louis Valiquette; Marie-Eve Alary; Philippe Villemure; Annick Pelletier; Karine Forget; Karine Pépin; Daniel Chouinard
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-08-31       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Nonutility of repeat laboratory testing for detection of Clostridium difficile by use of PCR or enzyme immunoassay.

Authors:  Elisabeth Aichinger; Cathy D Schleck; William S Harmsen; Lisa M Nyre; Robin Patel
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Yield of stool culture with isolate toxin testing versus a two-step algorithm including stool toxin testing for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Megan E Reller; Clara A Lema; Trish M Perl; Mian Cai; Tracy L Ross; Kathleen A Speck; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2007-09-05       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  The lack of value of repeated Clostridium difficile cytotoxicity assays.

Authors:  A A Renshaw; J M Stelling; M H Doolittle
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 5.534

9.  Repeated enzyme immunoassays have limited utility in diagnosing Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  M Drees; D R Snydman; C E O'Sullivan
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 3.267

10.  Clostridium difficile colitis: an efficient clinical approach to diagnosis.

Authors:  Y C Manabe; J M Vinetz; R D Moore; C Merz; P Charache; J G Bartlett
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1995-12-01       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  1 in total

1.  The simple predictors of pseudomembranous colitis in patients with hospital-acquired diarrhea: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Bo Kyung Yang; Byung Ju Do; Eun Jung Kim; Ji Un Lee; Mi Hee Kim; Jin Gu Kang; Hyoung Su Kim; Kyung Ho Kim; Myoung Kuk Jang; Jin Heon Lee; Hak Yang Kim; Woon Geon Shin
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 4.519

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.