Li-Zhi Wang1, Li-Dan Chen, Bin Xiao, Yan-Ling Gan, Lin-Hai Li, Qian Wang. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China; 2Department of Laboratory Medicine, General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command of PLA, Guangzhou 510010, China. E-mail: 631193294@qq.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of real?time polymerase chain reaction (q?PCR) for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in comparison with routine culture and enzyme?linked fluorescent spectroscopy?based aprroaches. METHODS: Stool samples were collected from suspected CDI cases in General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command of PLA between May and December in 2016. All the samples were examined with 3 methods, namely enzyme?linked fluorescent spectroscopy for detecting Clostridium difficile toxin A/B (CDAB), detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), and q?PCR for amplification of Clostridium difficile?specific gene tpi and toxin gene (tcdA/tcdB), with the results of fecal culture as the reference for evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of the 3 methods. RESULTS: Of the total of 70 fecal samples, 13 (18.57%) were found to be positive for Clostridium difficile, including toxin?producing strains in 6 (8.57%) samples. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic coincidence rate of q?PCR for tpi were 92.31%, 91.23%, 70.59%, 98.11% and 91.43%, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of GDH test (84.62%, 84.21%, 55.00%, 96.00%, and 84.29%, respectively; Χ2=24.881, P<0.001). The sensitivity of q?PCR for tcdA/cdB was significantly higher than that of enzyme?linked fluorescent spectroscopy for CDAB in detecting CDI (66.67% vs 33.33%; Χ2=35.918, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Both CDAB detection and q?PCR have a high specificity in detecting CDI, but GDH detection has a good sensitivity, and all these 3 methods have a high negative predictive value. Compared with other detection methods, amplification of tpi and tcdA/tcdB using q?PCR allows more rapid, sensitive and specific detection of CDI.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of real?time polymerase chain reaction (q?PCR) for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in comparison with routine culture and enzyme?linked fluorescent spectroscopy?based aprroaches. METHODS: Stool samples were collected from suspected CDI cases in General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command of PLA between May and December in 2016. All the samples were examined with 3 methods, namely enzyme?linked fluorescent spectroscopy for detecting Clostridium difficile toxin A/B (CDAB), detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), and q?PCR for amplification of Clostridium difficile?specific gene tpi and toxin gene (tcdA/tcdB), with the results of fecal culture as the reference for evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of the 3 methods. RESULTS: Of the total of 70 fecal samples, 13 (18.57%) were found to be positive for Clostridium difficile, including toxin?producing strains in 6 (8.57%) samples. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic coincidence rate of q?PCR for tpi were 92.31%, 91.23%, 70.59%, 98.11% and 91.43%, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of GDH test (84.62%, 84.21%, 55.00%, 96.00%, and 84.29%, respectively; Χ2=24.881, P<0.001). The sensitivity of q?PCR for tcdA/cdB was significantly higher than that of enzyme?linked fluorescent spectroscopy for CDAB in detecting CDI (66.67% vs 33.33%; Χ2=35.918, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Both CDAB detection and q?PCR have a high specificity in detecting CDI, but GDH detection has a good sensitivity, and all these 3 methods have a high negative predictive value. Compared with other detection methods, amplification of tpi and tcdA/tcdB using q?PCR allows more rapid, sensitive and specific detection of CDI.
Authors: Haihui Huang; Shi Wu; Minggui Wang; Yingyuan Zhang; Hong Fang; Ann-Chatrin Palmgren; Andrej Weintraub; Carl Erik Nord Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Lucie Etienne-Mesmin; Benoit Chassaing; Oluwaseyi Adekunle; Lisa M Mattei; Frederic D Bushman; Andrew T Gewirtz Journal: Gut Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Katherine M Shea; Athena L V Hobbs; Theresa C Jaso; Jack D Bissett; Christopher M Cruz; Elizabeth T Douglass; Kevin W Garey Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: F A Uzal; S S Diab; P Blanchard; J Moore; L Anthenill; F Shahriar; J P Garcia; J G Songer Journal: Vet Microbiol Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 3.293
Authors: Amanda Nádia Diniz; Rodrigo Otávio Silveira Silva; Carlos Augusto Oliveira Junior; Felipe Pierezan; Francisco Carlos Faria Lobato Journal: Anaerobe Date: 2016-01-04 Impact factor: 3.331