N Berry1, B Sewell2, S Jafri3, C Puli3, S Vagia4, A M Lewis4, D Davies5, E Rees4, C L Ch'ng3. 1. Public Health Wales Microbiology Abertawe Bro Morgannwg, Singleton Hospital, Swansea, UK. Electronic address: nidhika.berry@wales.nhs.uk. 2. College of Human and Health Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK. 3. Gastroenterology Department, Singleton Hospital, Swansea, UK. 4. Public Health Wales Microbiology Abertawe Bro Morgannwg, Singleton Hospital, Swansea, UK. 5. Infection Control, Morriston Hospital, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, Swansea, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To determine the clinical utility of a rapid molecular assay for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in an acute hospital setting. METHODS: From March to September 2011, stool specimens from inpatients in two acute hospitals with suspected CDI were tested prospectively by routine cell culture cytotoxin neutralization assay (CCNA), real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using the GeneXpert (Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), and a dual testing algorithm [glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)/toxin enzyme immuno-assay, Premier, Launch Diagnostics, Longfield, UK]. All patients with positive PCR, CCNA or discrepant results were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team (treating clinician, gastroenterologist, microbiologist and infection control nurse). RESULTS: C. difficile detection rates were 11.7% (PCR), 6% (CCNA) and 13.8% (GDH). Out of 1034 stool specimens included in the study, 974 (94.1%) had concordant CCNA and PCR results. Eighty-nine percent (886/985) had concordant CCNA, PCR and GDH results, and 94.4% (930/985) had concordant GDH and PCR results. Using clinical diagnosis as the reference, PCR had sensitivity of 99.1%, specificity of 98.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 91.9% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.9%. CCNA on a single sample had sensitivity of 51%, specificity of 99.4%, PPV of 91.9% and NPV of 94.3%. GDH had sensitivity of 83.8%, specificity of 94.5%, PPV of 64.7% and NPV of 97.9%. Almost twice as many patients were positive by PCR compared with CCNA (121 vs 62); 54/59 of those with discrepant results were clinically confirmed as CDI. CONCLUSION: Rapid diagnosis of CDI using PCR was timely, accurate and correlated well with clinical diagnosis.
AIM: To determine the clinical utility of a rapid molecular assay for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in an acute hospital setting. METHODS: From March to September 2011, stool specimens from inpatients in two acute hospitals with suspected CDI were tested prospectively by routine cell culture cytotoxin neutralization assay (CCNA), real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using the GeneXpert (Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), and a dual testing algorithm [glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)/toxin enzyme immuno-assay, Premier, Launch Diagnostics, Longfield, UK]. All patients with positive PCR, CCNA or discrepant results were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team (treating clinician, gastroenterologist, microbiologist and infection control nurse). RESULTS:C. difficile detection rates were 11.7% (PCR), 6% (CCNA) and 13.8% (GDH). Out of 1034 stool specimens included in the study, 974 (94.1%) had concordant CCNA and PCR results. Eighty-nine percent (886/985) had concordant CCNA, PCR and GDH results, and 94.4% (930/985) had concordant GDH and PCR results. Using clinical diagnosis as the reference, PCR had sensitivity of 99.1%, specificity of 98.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 91.9% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.9%. CCNA on a single sample had sensitivity of 51%, specificity of 99.4%, PPV of 91.9% and NPV of 94.3%. GDH had sensitivity of 83.8%, specificity of 94.5%, PPV of 64.7% and NPV of 97.9%. Almost twice as many patients were positive by PCR compared with CCNA (121 vs 62); 54/59 of those with discrepant results were clinically confirmed as CDI. CONCLUSION: Rapid diagnosis of CDI using PCR was timely, accurate and correlated well with clinical diagnosis.
Authors: L Clifford McDonald; Dale N Gerding; Stuart Johnson; Johan S Bakken; Karen C Carroll; Susan E Coffin; Erik R Dubberke; Kevin W Garey; Carolyn V Gould; Ciaran Kelly; Vivian Loo; Julia Shaklee Sammons; Thomas J Sandora; Mark H Wilcox Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Ioannis M Zacharioudakis; Fainareti N Zervou; Elina Eleftheria Pliakos; Panayiotis D Ziakas; Eleftherios Mylonakis Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 10.864
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
Authors: Christopher R Polage; Clare E Gyorke; Michael A Kennedy; Jhansi L Leslie; David L Chin; Susan Wang; Hien H Nguyen; Bin Huang; Yi-Wei Tang; Lenora W Lee; Kyoungmi Kim; Sandra Taylor; Patrick S Romano; Edward A Panacek; Parker B Goodell; Jay V Solnick; Stuart H Cohen Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Anitha Menon; D Alex Perry; Jonathan Motyka; Shayna Weiner; Alexandra Standke; Aline Penkevich; Micah Keidan; Vincent B Young; Krishna Rao Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 9.079