Literature DB >> 27282799

Evaluation of the VIDAS glutamate dehydrogenase assay for the detection of Clostridium difficile.

Bo-Moon Shin1, Eun Joo Lee2, Jung Wha Moon2, Seon Yeong Lee3.   

Abstract

We evaluated the performance of the VIDAS GDH assay for the detection of Clostridium difficile. In total, 350 fecal specimens collected from patients clinically suspected of having CDI were analyzed by C. difficile culture and enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (VIDAS GDH); the results were compared with those of toxigenic C. difficile culture (TC), PCR (Xpert C. difficile assay), and toxin AB EIA (VIDAS CDAB). The numbers of culture-positive and culture-negative samples were 108 and 242, respectively. The concordance between the GDH assay and C. difficile culture was 90.3%. With PCR, 12 more samples were found to be positive in GDH-positive/C. difficile culture-negative specimens. Thus, the concordance between GDH assay and C. difficile culture/PCR was 93.7%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the VIDAS GDH assay were 97.2%, 87.2%, 77.2%, and 98.6%, respectively, based on the C. difficile culture, and 97.5%, 91.7%, 86.0%, and 98.6%, respectively, based on C. difficile culture/PCR. Positivity rates of the GDH assay were partially associated with those of semi-quantitative C. difficile cultures, which were maximized in grade 3 (>100 colony-forming unit [CFU]) compared with grade 1 (<10 CFU). We evaluated the two-step or three-step algorithm using GDH assay as a first step. No toxin EIA-positive case was found among GDH-negative samples, and 60.8% (48/79) were TC- and/or PCR-positive among the GDH-positive/toxin EIA-negative samples. Thus, approximately 25% of the 350 samples required a confirmatory test (TC or PCR) in the GDH-toxin EIA algorithm, whereas only 2.3% of the total samples in GDH-PCR algorithm was discrepant and required another confirmatory test like TC.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clostridium difficile; Culture; EIA; Glutamate dehydrogenase; PCR

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27282799     DOI: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.06.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaerobe        ISSN: 1075-9964            Impact factor:   3.331


  6 in total

1.  Detection of Clostridium difficile in Feces of Asymptomatic Patients Admitted to the Hospital.

Authors:  Elisabeth M Terveer; Monique J T Crobach; Ingrid M J G Sanders; Margreet C Vos; Cees M Verduin; Ed J Kuijper
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Comparison of Diagnostic Algorithms for Detecting Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Routine Practice at a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Korea.

Authors:  Hee-Won Moon; Hyeong Nyeon Kim; Mina Hur; Hee Sook Shim; Heejung Kim; Yeo-Min Yun
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Longitudinal investigation of carriage rates and genotypes of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in hepatic cirrhosis patients.

Authors:  Yunbo Chen; Hongqin Gu; Tao Lv; Dong Yan; Qiaomai Xu; Silan Gu; Ping Shen; Jiazheng Quan; Yunhui Fang; Lifeng Chen; Guangyong Ye; Lanjuan Li
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.451

4.  A Two-Step Approach for Diagnosing Glutamate Dehydrogenase Genes by Conventional Polymerase Chain Reaction from Clostridium difficile Isolates.

Authors:  Sepideh Khodaparast; Ashraf Mohabati Mobarez; Mehdi Saberifiroozi
Journal:  Middle East J Dig Dis       Date:  2019-05-15

5.  Laboratory Diagnostic Methods for Clostridioides difficile Infection: the First Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Korea.

Authors:  Hae-Sun Chung; Jeong Su Park; Bo-Moon Shin
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.464

6.  Comparative Study of Clostridium difficile Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea.

Authors:  Yanyan Xiao; Yong Liu; Xiaosong Qin
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 2.471

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.