Literature DB >> 24088862

Multicenter evaluation of the Verigene Clostridium difficile nucleic acid assay.

Karen C Carroll1, Blake W Buchan, Sokha Tan, Paul D Stamper, Katherine M Riebe, Preeti Pancholi, Cheryl Kelly, Arundhati Rao, Robert Fader, Robert Cavagnolo, Wendy Watson, Richard V Goering, Ernest A Trevino, Alice S Weissfeld, Nathan A Ledeboer.   

Abstract

The Verigene Clostridium difficile Nucleic Acid test (Verigene CDF test) (Nanosphere, Northbrook, IL) is a multiplex qualitative PCR assay that utilizes a nanoparticle-based array hybridization method to detect C. difficile tcdA and tcdB in fecal specimens. In addition, the assay detects binary toxin gene sequences and the single base pair deletion at nucleotide 117 (Δ 117) in tcdC to provide a presumptive identification of the epidemic strain 027/NAP1/BI (referred to here as ribotype 027). This study compared the Verigene CDF test with anaerobic direct and enriched toxigenic culture on stool specimens from symptomatic patients among five geographically diverse laboratories within the United States. The Verigene CDF test was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions, and the reference methods performed by a central laboratory included direct culture onto cycloserine cefoxitin fructose agar (CCFA) and enriched culture using cycloserine cefoxitin mannitol broth with taurocholate and lysozyme. Recovered isolates were identified as C. difficile using gas liquid chromatography and were tested for toxin using a cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay. Strains belonging to ribotype 027 were determined by PCR ribotyping and bidirectional sequencing for Δ 117 in tcdC. A total of 1,875 specimens were evaluable. Of these, 275 specimens (14.7%) were culture positive by either direct or enriched culture methods. Compared to direct culture alone, the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the Verigene CDF test were 98.7%, 87.5%, 42%, and 99.9%, respectively. Compared to combined direct and enriched culture results, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values of the Verigene CDF test were 90.9%, 92.5%, 67.6%, and 98.3%, respectively. Of the 250 concordantly culture-positive specimens, 59 (23.6%) were flagged as "hypervirulent"; 53 were confirmed as ribotype 027, and all 59 possessed Δ 117 in tcdC. Time to results was approximately 2.5 h per specimen. The Verigene CDF test is a novel nucleic acid microarray that reliably detects both C. difficile toxins A and B in unformed stool specimens and appears to adequately identify ribotype 027 isolates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24088862      PMCID: PMC3838056          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01690-13

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  23 in total

1.  Rapid and sensitive loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for Clostridium difficile detection challenges cytotoxin B cell test and culture as gold standard.

Authors:  Torbjörn Norén; Ingegärd Alriksson; Josefin Andersson; Thomas Akerlund; Magnus Unemo
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-11-24       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Thomas J Louie; Mark A Miller; Kathleen M Mullane; Karl Weiss; Arnold Lentnek; Yoav Golan; Sherwood Gorbach; Pamela Sears; Youe-Kong Shue
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-02-03       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Cost-effectiveness of a modified two-step algorithm using a combined glutamate dehydrogenase/toxin enzyme immunoassay and real-time PCR for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Shawn Vasoo; Jane Stevens; Lena Portillo; Ruby Barza; Debra Schejbal; May May Wu; Christina Chancey; Kamaljit Singh
Journal:  J Microbiol Immunol Infect       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 4.399

Review 4.  Economic healthcare costs of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review.

Authors:  S S Ghantoji; K Sail; D R Lairson; H L DuPont; K W Garey
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2010-02-12       Impact factor: 3.926

5.  Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the society for healthcare epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the infectious diseases society of America (IDSA).

Authors:  Stuart H Cohen; Dale N Gerding; Stuart Johnson; Ciaran P Kelly; Vivian G Loo; L Clifford McDonald; Jacques Pepin; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.254

6.  Comparison of a commercial real-time PCR assay for tcdB detection to a cell culture cytotoxicity assay and toxigenic culture for direct detection of toxin-producing Clostridium difficile in clinical samples.

Authors:  Paul D Stamper; Romina Alcabasa; Deborah Aird; Wisal Babiker; Jennifer Wehrlin; Ijeoma Ikpeama; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Rapid detection of Clostridium difficile in feces by real-time PCR.

Authors:  Simon D Bélanger; Maurice Boissinot; Natalie Clairoux; François J Picard; Michel G Bergeron
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  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

9.  Evaluation of a new commercial TaqMan PCR assay for direct detection of the clostridium difficile toxin B gene in clinical stool specimens.

Authors:  Paul D Stamper; Wisal Babiker; Romina Alcabasa; Deborah Aird; Jennifer Wehrlin; Ijeoma Ikpeama; Linda Gluck; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-10-21       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  A simple 3-step algorithm for improved laboratory detection of Clostridium difficile toxin without the need for tissue culture cytotoxicity neutralization assays.

Authors:  Susan E Sharp; W Michael Ivie; Misti R Buckles; Diane M Coover; Julie C Pohl; Patricia A Hatcher
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2009-04-18       Impact factor: 2.803

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Clinical Utility of Laboratory Detection of Clostridium difficile Strain BI/NAP1/027.

Authors:  Larry K Kociolek; Dale N Gerding
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile.

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

4.  Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) in Solid Organ and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients.

Authors:  Carolyn D Alonso; Mini Kamboj
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.725

5.  Simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic Clostridium difficile directly from clinical stool specimens.

Authors:  Hanjiang Lai; Chen Huang; Jian Cai; Julian Ye; Jun She; Yi Zheng; Liqian Wang; Yelin Wei; Weijia Fang; Xianjun Wang; Yi-Wei Tang; Yun Luo; Dazhi Jin
Journal:  Front Med       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 4.592

Review 6.  Current knowledge on the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Adrián Martínez-Meléndez; Adrián Camacho-Ortiz; Rayo Morfin-Otero; Héctor Jesús Maldonado-Garza; Licet Villarreal-Treviño; Elvira Garza-González
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs) and Algorithms Including NAATs for the Diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile in Adults.

Authors:  Colleen S Kraft; J Scott Parrott; Nancy E Cornish; Matthew L Rubinstein; Alice S Weissfeld; Peggy McNult; Irving Nachamkin; Romney M Humphries; Thomas J Kirn; Jennifer Dien Bard; Joseph D Lutgring; Jonathan C Gullett; Cassiana E Bittencourt; Susan Benson; April M Bobenchik; Robert L Sautter; Vickie Baselski; Michel C Atlas; Elizabeth M Marlowe; Nancy S Miller; Monika Fischer; Sandra S Richter; Peter Gilligan; James W Snyder
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 26.132

Review 8.  Sample-to-result molecular infectious disease assays: clinical implications, limitations and potential.

Authors:  Stacy G Beal; Naziheh Assarzadegan; Kenneth H Rand
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 5.225

9.  Evaluation of an automated rapid diagnostic test for detection of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Masayoshi Tojo; Maki Nagamatsu; Kayoko Hayakawa; Kazuhisa Mezaki; Teruo Kirikae; Norio Ohmagari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.