INTRODUCTION: Despite the known importance of Clostridium difficile as a nosocomial pathogen, few studies regarding Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in Brazil have been conducted. To date, the diagnostic tests that are available on the Brazilian market for the diagnosis of CDI have not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare the performances of four commercial methods for the diagnosis of CDI in patients from a university hospital in Brazil. METHODS: Three enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and one nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) were evaluated against a cytotoxicity assay (CTA) and toxigenic culture (TC). Stool samples from 92 patients with suspected CDI were used in this study. RESULTS: Twenty-five (27.2%) of 92 samples were positive according to the CTA, and 23 (25%) were positive according to the TC. All EIAs and the NAAT test demonstrated sensitivities between 59 and 68% and specificities greater than 91%. CONCLUSIONS: All four methods exhibited low sensitivities for the diagnosis of CDI, which could lead to a large number of false-negative results, an increased risk of cross-infection to other patients, and overtreatment with empirical antibiotics.
INTRODUCTION: Despite the known importance of Clostridium difficile as a nosocomial pathogen, few studies regarding Clostridium difficileinfection (CDI) in Brazil have been conducted. To date, the diagnostic tests that are available on the Brazilian market for the diagnosis of CDI have not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare the performances of four commercial methods for the diagnosis of CDI in patients from a university hospital in Brazil. METHODS: Three enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and one nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) were evaluated against a cytotoxicity assay (CTA) and toxigenic culture (TC). Stool samples from 92 patients with suspected CDI were used in this study. RESULTS: Twenty-five (27.2%) of 92 samples were positive according to the CTA, and 23 (25%) were positive according to the TC. All EIAs and the NAAT test demonstrated sensitivities between 59 and 68% and specificities greater than 91%. CONCLUSIONS: All four methods exhibited low sensitivities for the diagnosis of CDI, which could lead to a large number of false-negative results, an increased risk of cross-infection to other patients, and overtreatment with empirical antibiotics.
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