Literature DB >> 25616552

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.

J J Hirvonen1, S-S Kaukoranta.   

Abstract

In this study, the usability and performance of GenomEra™ C. difficile and BD Max™ Cdiff nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile were investigated in comparison with toxigenic culture and C. difficile toxin A- and toxin B-detecting immunochromatographic antigen (IA) test, the Tox A/B QuikChek®. In total, 302 faecal specimens were collected, 113 of which were in parallel to conventional sample containers and FecalSwab liquid-based microbiology (LBM) tubes. Seventy-nine specimens were considered true-positives for toxigenic C. difficile. The sensitivity and specificity were 97.5 % and 99.6 % and 93.7 % and 98.7 % for the GenomEra and BD Max assays respectively. Toxigenic culture and Tox A/B QuikChek had sensitivity and specificity of 91.1 % and 100 % and 34.2 % and 100 % respectively. Hands-on time for analysing 1 to 24 specimens using NAATs was 1 to 15 min. The rate of PCR inhibition was 0 % for both NAATs with faeces in LBM tubes, while with faeces in conventional sample containers the respective inhibition rates were 5.3 % and 4.4 % for the GenomEra and the BD Max assays. The NAATs demonstrated an excellent analytical performance, reducing significantly the overall workload of laboratory personnel compared with culture and IA test.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25616552     DOI: 10.1007/s10096-015-2320-2

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


  37 in total

Review 1.  A review of mortality due to Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  J A Karas; D A Enoch; S H Aliyu
Journal:  J Infect       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 6.072

2.  C. Diff Quik Chek complete enzyme immunoassay provides a reliable first-line method for detection of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens.

Authors:  Criziel D Quinn; Susan E Sefers; Wisal Babiker; Ying He; Romina Alcabasa; Charles W Stratton; Karen C Carroll; Yi-Wei Tang
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 5.948

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.  Multicenter clinical evaluation of the portrait toxigenic C. difficile assay for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile strains in clinical stool specimens.

Authors:  Blake W Buchan; Tami-Lea A Mackey; Judy A Daly; Garrison Alger; Gerald A Denys; Lance R Peterson; Sue C Kehl; Nathan A Ledeboer
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  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

6.  Comparison of cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar (CCFA) and taurocholate-CCFA for recovery of Clostridium difficile during surveillance of hospitalized patients.

Authors:  D Z Bliss; S Johnson; C R Clabots; K Savik; D N Gerding
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.803

7.  Premarket evaluations of the IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 Assay and the BD Max Cdiff Assay.

Authors:  K A Stellrecht; A A Espino; V P Maceira; S M Nattanmai; S A Butt; D Wroblewski; G E Hannett; K A Musser
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 8.  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

9.  Comparison of a rapid molecular method, the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, to the most frequently used laboratory tests for detection of toxin-producing Clostridium difficile in diarrheal feces.

Authors:  Gabriella Terhes; Edit Urbán; József Sóki; Eniko Nacsa; Elisabeth Nagy
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Toxin B is essential for virulence of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Dena Lyras; Jennifer R O'Connor; Pauline M Howarth; Susan P Sambol; Glen P Carter; Tongted Phumoonna; Rachael Poon; Vicki Adams; Gayatri Vedantam; Stuart Johnson; Dale N Gerding; Julian I Rood
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  2 in total

1.  Novel portable platform for molecular detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in faeces: a diagnostic accuracy study.

Authors:  J J Hirvonen; P Matero; C Siebert; J Kauppila; R Vuento; H Tuokko; S Boisset
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2016-12-17       Impact factor: 3.267

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.