Literature DB >> 22706512

Evaluation of three enzyme immunoassays and a loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

M J Bruins1, E Verbeek, J A Wallinga, L E S Bruijnesteijn van Coppenraet, E J Kuijper, P Bloembergen.   

Abstract

The laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) consists of the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile, and/or its toxins A or B in stool preferably in a two-step algorithm. In a prospective study, we compared the performance of three toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs)-ImmunoCard Toxins A & B, Premier Toxins A & B and C. diff Quik Chek Complete, which combines a toxins test and a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen EIA in one device -and the loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay Illumigene C. difficile. In total 986 stool samples were analyzed. Compared with toxigenic culture as the gold standard, sensitivities, specificities, PPV and NPV values of the toxin EIAs were 41.1-54.8 %, 98.9-100 %, 75.0-100 % and 95.5-96.5 % respectively, of the Illumigene assay 93.3 %, 99.7 %, 95.8 % and 99.5 %. Illumigene assays performed significantly better for non-014/020 PCR-ribotypes than for C. difficile isolates belonging to 014/020. Discrepant analysis of three culture-negative, but Illumigene-positive samples, revealed the presence of toxin genes using real-time PCRs. In addition to the GDH EIA (NPV of 99.8 %), the performance of Illumigene allows this test to be introduced as a first screening test for CDI- or as a confirmation test for GDH -positive samples, although the initial invalid Illumigene result of 4.4 % is a point of concern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22706512     DOI: 10.1007/s10096-012-1658-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis        ISSN: 0934-9723            Impact factor:   3.267


  31 in total

1.  Deletions in the repeating sequences of the toxin A gene of toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive Clostridium difficile strains.

Authors:  H Kato; N Kato; S Katow; T Maegawa; S Nakamura; D M Lyerly
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Lett       Date:  1999-06-15       Impact factor: 2.742

2.  Loop-mediated isothermal amplification of DNA.

Authors:  T Notomi; H Okayama; H Masubuchi; T Yonekawa; K Watanabe; N Amino; T Hase
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2000-06-15       Impact factor: 16.971

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Comparison of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin.

Authors:  Kimberle C Chapin; Roberta A Dickenson; Fongman Wu; Sarah B Andrea
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 5.568

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Impact of clinical symptoms on interpretation of diagnostic assays for Clostridium difficile infections.

Authors:  Erik R Dubberke; Zhuolin Han; Linda Bobo; Tiffany Hink; Brenda Lawrence; Susan Copper; Joan Hoppe-Bauer; Carey-Ann D Burnham; William Michael Dunne
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2011-06-22       Impact factor: 5.948

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.  New selective medium for isolating Clostridium difficile from faeces.

Authors:  S T Aspinall; D N Hutchinson
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 3.411

View more
  12 in total

1.  Reply to "Comparison of detection methods for Clostridium difficile".

Authors:  P Pancholi; C Kelly; M Raczkowski; J M Balada-Llasat
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Comparison of detection methods for Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Monica Ianosi-Irimie; Dawn Morong; Catherine Dragoni; Stanley Schofield
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  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

Review 4.  Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Karen C Carroll; Masako Mizusawa
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2020-02-25

5.  Evaluation of Clostridium difficile fecal load and limit of detection during a prospective comparison of two molecular tests, the illumigene C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi tests.

Authors:  Clare E Gyorke; Susan Wang; Jhansi L Leslie; Stuart H Cohen; Jay V Solnick; Christopher R Polage
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 6.  Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories.

Authors:  Carey-Ann D Burnham; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 26.132

7.  Evaluation of a Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel Immunoassay in Stool Testing of Patients with Suspected Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile Infection.

Authors:  Marcela Krutova; Ales Briksi; Jan Tkadlec; Miroslav Zajac; Jana Matejkova; Otakar Nyc; Pavel Drevinek
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Comparison of BD Max Cdiff and GenomEra C. difficile molecular assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from stools in conventional sample containers and in FecalSwabs.

Authors:  J J Hirvonen; S-S Kaukoranta
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2015-01-24       Impact factor: 3.267

9.  Economic evaluation of laboratory testing strategies for hospital-associated Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Lee F Schroeder; Elizabeth Robilotti; Lance R Peterson; Niaz Banaei; David W Dowdy
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Evaluation of a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Heejung Kim; Wan Hee Kim; Myungsook Kim; Seok Hoon Jeong; Kyungwon Lee
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 3.464

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.