Literature DB >> 29237788

Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Quantitation as Predictor of Toxin Presence in Clostridium difficile Infection.

M J T Crobach1, N Duszenko2, E M Terveer2, C M Verduin3, E J Kuijper2.   

Abstract

Multistep algorithmic testing in which a sensitive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) is followed by a specific toxin A and toxin B enzyme immunoassay (EIA) is among the most accurate methods for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) diagnosis. The obvious shortcoming of this approach is that multiple tests must be performed to establish a CDI diagnosis, which may delay treatment. Therefore, we sought to determine whether a preliminary diagnosis could be made on the basis of the quantitative results of the first test in algorithmic testing, which provide a measure of organism burden. To do so, we retrospectively analyzed two large collections of samples (n = 2,669 and n = 1,718) that were submitted to the laboratories of two Dutch hospitals for CDI testing. Both hospitals apply a two-step testing algorithm in which a NAAT is followed by a toxin A/B EIA. Of all samples, 208 and 113 samples, respectively, tested positive by NAAT. Among these NAAT-positive samples, significantly lower mean quantification cycle (Cq ) values were found for patients whose stool eventually tested positive for toxin, compared with patients who tested negative for toxin (mean Cq values of 24.4 versus 30.4 and 26.8 versus 32.2; P < 0.001 for both cohorts). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to investigate the ability of Cq values to predict toxin status and yielded areas under the curve of 0.826 and 0.854. Using the optimal Cq cutoff values, prediction of the eventual toxin A/B EIA results was accurate for 78.9% and 80.5% of samples, respectively. In conclusion, Cq values can serve as predictors of toxin status but, due to the suboptimal correlation between the two tests, additional toxin testing is still needed.
Copyright © 2018 American Society for Microbiology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clostridium difficile; NAAT quantitation; diagnostic

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29237788      PMCID: PMC5824036          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01316-17

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  25 in total

1.  Clostridium difficile PCR Cycle Threshold Predicts Free Toxin.

Authors:  Fiona Senchyna; Rajiv L Gaur; Saurabh Gombar; Cynthia Y Truong; Lee F Schroeder; Niaz Banaei
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Clinical and infection control implications of Clostridium difficile infection with negative enzyme immunoassay for toxin.

Authors:  Dubert M Guerrero; Christina Chou; Lucy A Jury; Michelle M Nerandzic; Jennifer C Cadnum; Curtis J Donskey
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 9.079

3.  European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  M J T Crobach; T Planche; C Eckert; F Barbut; E M Terveer; O M Dekkers; M H Wilcox; E J Kuijper
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 8.067

4.  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

5.  Organism burden, toxin concentration, and lactoferrin concentration do not distinguish between clinically significant and nonsignificant diarrhea in patients with Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Victoria Emma Anikst; Rajiv Lochan Gaur; Lee Frederick Schroeder; Niaz Banaei
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 2.803

6.  Performance of Clostridium difficile toxin enzyme immunoassay and nucleic acid amplification tests stratified by patient disease severity.

Authors:  Romney M Humphries; Daniel Z Uslan; Zachary Rubin
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-12-26       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Does a rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection impact on quality of patient management?

Authors:  F Barbut; L Surgers; C Eckert; B Visseaux; M Cuingnet; C Mesquita; N Pradier; A Thiriez; N Ait-Ammar; A Aifaoui; E Grandsire; V Lalande
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 8.067

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Antibiotic-Induced Alterations of the Gut Microbiota Alter Secondary Bile Acid Production and Allow for Clostridium difficile Spore Germination and Outgrowth in the Large Intestine.

Authors:  Casey M Theriot; Alison A Bowman; Vincent B Young
Journal:  mSphere       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 4.389

View more
  14 in total

1.  Ultrasensitive Detection of Clostridium difficile Toxins Reveals Suboptimal Accuracy of Toxin Gene Cycle Thresholds for Toxin Predictions.

Authors:  Johanna Sandlund; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 2.  Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Karen C Carroll; Masako Mizusawa
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2020-02-25

3.  Ultrasensitive Detection of Clostridioides difficile Toxins A and B by Use of Automated Single-Molecule Counting Technology.

Authors:  Johanna Sandlund; Amelita Bartolome; Anna Almazan; Stanley Tam; Sheryl Biscocho; Salina Abusali; Jeffrey J Bishop; Niamh Nolan; Joel Estis; John Todd; Stephen Young; Fiona Senchyna; Niaz Banaei
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Evaluation of Cycle Threshold, Toxin Concentration, and Clinical Characteristics of Clostridioides difficile Infection in Patients with Discordant Diagnostic Test Results.

Authors:  Megan D Shah; Joan-Miquel Balada-Llasat; Kelci Coe; Erica Reed; Johanna Sandlund; Preeti Pancholi
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Comparison of Clostridioides difficile Stool Toxin Concentrations in Adults With Symptomatic Infection and Asymptomatic Carriage Using an Ultrasensitive Quantitative Immunoassay.

Authors:  Nira R Pollock; Alice Banz; Xinhua Chen; David Williams; Hua Xu; Christine A Cuddemi; Alice X Cui; Matthew Perrotta; Eaman Alhassan; Brigitte Riou; Aude Lantz; Mark A Miller; Ciaran P Kelly
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 9.079

6.  Dual Reporting of Clostridioides difficile PCR and Predicted Toxin Result Based on PCR Cycle Threshold Reduces Treatment of Toxin-Negative Patients without Increases in Adverse Outcomes.

Authors:  Matthew M Hitchcock; Marisa Holubar; Catherine A Hogan; Lucy S Tompkins; Niaz Banaei
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Ultrasensitive Detection of Clostridioides difficile Toxins in Stool by Use of Single-Molecule Counting Technology: Comparison with Detection of Free Toxin by Cell Culture Cytotoxicity Neutralization Assay.

Authors:  Glen Hansen; Stephen Young; Alan H B Wu; Emily Herding; Vickie Nordberg; Ray Mills; Christen Griego-Fullbright; Aaron Wagner; Chui Mei Ong; Shawna Lewis; Joseph Yoon; Joel Estis; Johanna Sandlund; Emily Friedland; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Rapid Quantification of C. difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxin B (TcdB) with a NanoBiT Split-Luciferase Assay.

Authors:  Hope Adamson; Modupe O Ajayi; Kate E Gilroy; Michael J McPherson; Darren C Tomlinson; Lars J C Jeuken
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2022-05-28       Impact factor: 8.008

9.  Prospective Evaluation of the mariPOC Test for Detection of Clostridioides difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxins A/B.

Authors:  Roosa Savolainen; Juha M Koskinen; Silja Mentula; Janne O Koskinen; Suvi-Sirkku Kaukoranta
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-03-25       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  The predictive value of quantitative nucleic acid amplification detection of Clostridium difficile toxin gene for faecal sample toxin status and patient outcome.

Authors:  Kerrie A Davies; Tim Planche; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.