Literature DB >> 33459815

Clostridioides difficile laboratory diagnostic techniques: a comparative approach of rapid and molecular methods.

Thais Simões Camargo1, Moacyr Silva Junior1, Luis Fernando Aranha Camargo1, Veronica Pivetta Biotto1, André Mario Doi2, Paula Celia Mariko Koga1, Carolina Nunes França3, Marines Dalla Valle Martino1.   

Abstract

Clostridioides difficile infection is a public health problem because of it is easily spread; with harmful consequences, it is essential to reduce hospital costs and prevent its dissemination by having a precise diagnosis. The gold standard for its diagnosis is polymerase chain reaction (PCR); however, the technique is not available for all laboratories due to the high cost. New approaches using non-molecular tests to detect C. difficile and toxin A/B production has been proposed to improve cost benefits. The objective of this study is to compare molecular methods (PCR) and rapid methods (immunochromatographic test and enzymatic immunoassay). A series of tests comprising these diagnostic techniques was performed with 50 patients with a clinical diagnosis for Clostridioides difficile on GeneXpert® devices test; a calculation of the sensitivity was executed, followed by a comparison of the efficiency of all techniques. Greater sensitivity was observed in the PCR-based methods (BD MAX™ and BioFire FilmArray®) and the GDH-based assays (RIDASCREEN® and Alere Techlab®). The proposed algorithm represents minor monetary disadvantages but a significant temporal optimization of 10%. Future studies concerning both positive and negative results could be advantageous because of the possibility of calculating more method concordance indexes, such as the specificity and Kappa index, in addition to being able to indicate a monetary profit if the proposed algorithm was applied due to the nonproceeding PCR cases.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clostridioides difficile; Enzymatic immunoassay; Immunochromatographic test; Polymerase chain reaction

Year:  2021        PMID: 33459815     DOI: 10.1007/s00203-020-02148-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Microbiol        ISSN: 0302-8933            Impact factor:   2.552


  23 in total

1.  Multicenter evaluation of the BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal panel for etiologic diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis.

Authors:  Sarah N Buss; Amy Leber; Kimberle Chapin; Paul D Fey; Matthew J Bankowski; Matthew K Jones; Margarita Rogatcheva; Kristen J Kanack; Kevin M Bourzac
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  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

Review 3.  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

4.  Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Clostridium difficile Epi assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection and typing of the NAP1 strain at a cancer hospital.

Authors:  N Esther Babady; Jeffrey Stiles; Phyllis Ruggiero; Perminder Khosa; David Huang; Susan Shuptar; Mini Kamboj; Timothy E Kiehn
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Comparison of ImmunoCard Toxins A&B and the new semiautomated Vidas Clostridium difficile Toxin A&B tests for diagnosis of C. difficile infection.

Authors:  Luis Alcalá; Mercedes Marín; María Madrid; Esther Domínguez-García; Pilar Catalán; María Teresa Peláez; Mar Sánchez-Somolinos; Emilio Bouza
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Comparison of three commercial methods for rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxins A and B from fecal specimens.

Authors:  L Alcalá; L Sánchez-Cambronero; M P Catalán; M Sánchez-Somolinos; M T Peláez; M Marín; E Bouza
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Comparison of nine commercially available Clostridium difficile toxin detection assays, a real-time PCR assay for C. difficile tcdB, and a glutamate dehydrogenase detection assay to cytotoxin testing and cytotoxigenic culture methods.

Authors:  Kerrie Eastwood; Patrick Else; André Charlett; Mark Wilcox
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  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

Review 9.  Historical perspectives on studies of Clostridium difficile and C. difficile infection.

Authors:  John G Bartlett
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 9.079

10.  Evaluation of the fully automated BD MAX Cdiff and Xpert C. difficile assays for direct detection of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens.

Authors:  Alexander H Dalpke; Marjeta Hofko; Markus Zorn; Stefan Zimmermann
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 5.948

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  An Update on Clostridioides difficile Binary Toxin.

Authors:  Adrián Martínez-Meléndez; Flora Cruz-López; Rayo Morfin-Otero; Héctor J Maldonado-Garza; Elvira Garza-González
Journal:  Toxins (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 5.075

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.