Literature DB >> 26116599

Laboratory and Clinical features of EIA Toxin-positive and EIA Toxin-negative Community-acquired Clostridium difficile Infection.

Hiren Patel1, Jeewanjot Randhawa1, Sushant Nanavati2, L Randy Marton3, Walid J Baddoura4, Vincent A DeBari5.   

Abstract

Studies have described the clinical course of patients with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) with positive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for toxins A and B. Limited information is available for the patients with negative EIA but positive for the toxin B gene (TcdB) by the PCR. The aim of our study is to determine if there are any differences that exist among the clinical and laboratory parameters in the patients tested to be positive by EIA for toxin and those who were negative. This is a retrospective cohort study conducted in a 700-bed teaching hospital. We reviewed charts of the patients with presumptive CDI between January 2006 and July 2013. We divided these patients into two groups, EIA-positive and EIA-negative, based on result of EIA for toxins A and B and the requirement for a positive PCR analysis of the TcdB gene. The EIA-positive group had significantly higher white blood cell counts (p<0.001), with a significantly greater percentage of bands (p<0.0001). Albumin and total protein both exhibit significantly (p<0.0001, both comparisons) lower values in the EIA-positive group. Among clinical findings, the EIA-positive group had significantly longer length of hospital stay (p=0.010). These data suggest that an infection with an EIA-negative strain of C. difficile presents laboratory markers closer to those of healthy subjects and clinical features suggesting considerably less severe than infection with EIA-positive C. difficile.
© 2015 by the Association of Clinical Scientists, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clostridium difficile; biomarkers; non-toxigenic C. difficile; toxin A; toxin B

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26116599

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Clin Lab Sci        ISSN: 0091-7370            Impact factor:   1.256


  4 in total

1.  Point-Counterpoint: What Is the Optimal Approach for Detection of Clostridium difficile Infection?

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; Christopher R Polage; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Clinical heterogeneity of patients with stool samples testing PCR+/Tox- from a two-step Clostridium difficile diagnostic algorithm.

Authors:  Jason Zou; Victor Leung; Sylvie Champagne; Michelle Hinch; Anna Wong; Elisa Lloyd-Smith; Trong Tien Nguyen; Marc G Romney; Azra Sharma; Michael Payne; Christopher F Lowe
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 3.267

3.  Changes in the Association Between Diagnostic Testing Method, Polymerase Chain Reaction Ribotype, and Clinical Outcomes From Clostridioides difficile Infection: One Institution's Experience.

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

4.  Diagnosing Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea using enzyme immunoassay: the clinical significance of toxin negativity in glutamate dehydrogenase-positive patients.

Authors:  Kazuhito Yuhashi; Yuka Yagihara; Yoshiki Misawa; Tomoaki Sato; Ryoichi Saito; Shu Okugawa; Kyoji Moriya
Journal:  Infect Drug Resist       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 4.003

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.