Literature DB >> 24421808

Combination of culture, antigen and toxin detection, and cytotoxin neutralization assay for optimal Clostridium difficile diagnostic testing.

Michelle J Alfa1, Shadi Sepehri2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing interest in developing an appropriate laboratory diagnostic algorithm for Clostridium difficile, mainly as a result of increases in both the number and severity of cases of C difficile infection in the past decade. A C difficile diagnostic algorithm is necessary because diagnostic kits, mostly for the detection of toxins A and B or glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen, are not sufficient as stand-alone assays for optimal diagnosis of C difficile infection. In addition, conventional reference methods for C difficile detection (eg, toxigenic culture and cytotoxin neutralization [CTN] assays) are not routinely practiced in diagnostic laboratory settings.
OBJECTIVE: To review the four-step algorithm used at Diagnostic Services of Manitoba sites for the laboratory diagnosis of toxigenic C difficile. RESULT: One year of retrospective C difficile data using the proposed algorithm was reported. Of 5695 stool samples tested, 9.1% (n=517) had toxigenic C difficile. Sixty per cent (310 of 517) of toxigenic C difficile stools were detected following the first two steps of the algorithm. CTN confirmation of GDH-positive, toxin A- and B-negative assays resulted in detection of an additional 37.7% (198 of 517) of toxigenic C difficile. Culture of the third specimen, from patients who had two previous negative specimens, detected an additional 2.32% (12 of 517) of toxigenic C difficile samples. DISCUSSION: Using GDH antigen as the screening and toxin A and B as confirmatory test for C difficile, 85% of specimens were reported negative or positive within 4 h. Without CTN confirmation for GDH antigen and toxin A and B discordant results, 37% (195 of 517) of toxigenic C difficile stools would have been missed. Following the algorithm, culture was needed for only 2.72% of all specimens submitted for C difficile testing.
CONCLUSION: The overview of the data illustrated the significance of each stage of this four-step C difficile algorithm and emphasized the value of using CTN assay and culture as parts of an algorithm that ensures accurate diagnosis of toxigenic C difficile.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laboratory diagnostic algorithm; Optimal laboratory diagnosis; Toxigenic Clostridium difficile

Year:  2013        PMID: 24421808      PMCID: PMC3720004          DOI: 10.1155/2013/934945

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


  19 in total

1.  Clinical usefulness of components of the Triage immunoassay, enzyme immunoassay for toxins A and B, and cytotoxin B tissue culture assay for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile diarrhea.

Authors:  Viki Massey; Daniel B Gregson; Abdul H Chagla; Miriam Storey; Michael A John; Zafar Hussain
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.493

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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Comparison of nine commercially available Clostridium difficile toxin detection assays, a real-time PCR assay for C. difficile tcdB, and a glutamate dehydrogenase detection assay to cytotoxin testing and cytotoxigenic culture methods.

Authors:  Kerrie Eastwood; Patrick Else; André Charlett; Mark Wilcox
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Rapid and reliable diagnostic algorithm for detection of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Lukas Fenner; Andreas F Widmer; Gisela Goy; Sonja Rudin; Reno Frei
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Laboratory diagnosis of clostridium difficile infection. An evaluation of tests for faecal toxin, glutamate dehydrogenase, lactoferrin and toxigenic culture in the diagnostic laboratory.

Authors:  M W D Wren; M Sivapalan; R Kinson; N R Shetty
Journal:  Br J Biomed Sci       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 3.829

8.  Evaluation of the fully automated BD MAX Cdiff and Xpert C. difficile assays for direct detection of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens.

Authors:  Alexander H Dalpke; Marjeta Hofko; Markus Zorn; Stefan Zimmermann
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  The diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: comparison of Triage C. difficile panel, EIA for Tox A/B and cytotoxin assays.

Authors:  M J Alfa; B Swan; B VanDekerkhove; P Pang; G K M Harding
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.803

Review 10.  Clostridium difficile 30 years on: what has, or has not, changed and why?

Authors:  Dale N Gerding
Journal:  Int J Antimicrob Agents       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 5.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.