Literature DB >> 27323765

Comparison of enzyme immunoassays and rapid diagnostic tests for clostridium difficile glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin a + B to toxinogenic culture on a highly selective chromogenic medium.

A Olling1, H Leidinger1, R Hoffmann2.   

Abstract

To compare Clostridium. (C.) difficile toxin A/B and glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassays or rapid diagnostic tests to toxinogenic culture on recently described highly selective agar plates. Five hundred consecutive samples sent in for C. difficile diagnostics were tested by toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and rapid diagnostic test (RDT), GDH EIA and RDT, and culture on chromID C. difficile plates for 48 hrs, with toxin testing from culture if the toxin EIA from feces was negative. Samples with discordant results from EIA and RDT were submitted to C. difficile-specific 16S rRNA gene and tcdB PCR. Ninety-two, 88, 31, and 37 samples were positive by GDH EIA, GDH RDT, toxin A/B EIA, and toxin A/B RDT respectively. Seventy-four samples were positive by culture, 54 culture-positive samples were subjected to repeat toxin testing, with an additional 29 samples positive. Thus, there were 60 C. difficile toxin A/B positive samples in total (12 %). Single-step screening with GDH EIA, GDH RDT, toxin A/B EIA, and toxin A/B RDT would have missed seven (12 %), 11 (18 %), 29 (48 %) or 27 (45 %) of all positive samples respectively. Single-step screening with GDH or toxin A/B tests from feces misses a significant proportion of patients compared to toxinogenic culture, putting these patients at risk from undiagnosed C. difficile infection. More data are needed to establish the clinical significance of a positive toxinogenic culture result in the absence of detectable toxin A/B in feces.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27323765     DOI: 10.1007/s10096-016-2706-9

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


  16 in total

1.  Evaluation of a chromogenic culture medium for isolation of Clostridium difficile within 24 hours.

Authors:  John D Perry; Kerry Asir; Diane Halimi; Sylvain Orenga; Joanne Dale; Michelle Payne; Ruth Carlton; Jim Evans; F Kate Gould
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-08-25       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 2.  Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories.

Authors:  Carey-Ann D Burnham; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 26.132

3.  [Evaluation of growth of clinical Clostridium difficile strains belonging to different PCR-ribotypes on chromID C. difficile Agar].

Authors:  Paweł Karpiński; Hanna Pituch; Dominika Lachowicz; Michał Piotrowski; Piotr Obuch-Woszczatyński
Journal:  Med Dosw Mikrobiol       Date:  2015

Review 4.  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

5.  Rapid and reliable diagnostic algorithm for detection of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Lukas Fenner; Andreas F Widmer; Gisela Goy; Sonja Rudin; Reno Frei
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Performance of TechLab C. DIFF QUIK CHEK and TechLab C. DIFFICILE TOX A/B II for the detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples.

Authors:  Romina C Reyes; Michael A John; Diane L Ayotte; Alexia Covacich; Susan Milburn; Zafar Hussain
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2007-07-26       Impact factor: 2.803

7.  Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection in the Molecular Test Era.

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

8.  Comparison of ChromID C. difficile agar and cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar for the recovery of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Lusiana V Boseiwaqa; Niki F Foster; Sara K Thean; Michele M Squire; Thomas V Riley; Kerry C Carson
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 5.306

9.  Isolation of Clostridium difficile from faecal specimens--a comparison of chromID C. difficile agar and cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar.

Authors:  Kerry C Carson; Lusiana V Boseiwaqa; Sara K Thean; Niki F Foster; Thomas V Riley
Journal:  J Med Microbiol       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 2.472

10.  Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection.

Authors:  Timothy D Planche; Kerrie A Davies; Pietro G Coen; John M Finney; Irene M Monahan; Kirsti A Morris; Lily O'Connor; Sarah J Oakley; Cassie F Pope; Mike W Wren; Nandini P Shetty; Derrick W Crook; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 25.071

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  A Decade of Development of Chromogenic Culture Media for Clinical Microbiology in an Era of Molecular Diagnostics.

Authors:  John D Perry
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 26.132

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.