Comparison of Five Assays for Detection of Clostridium difficile Toxin

被引:79
作者
Chapin, Kimberle C. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Dickenson, Roberta A. [1 ]
Wu, Fongman [1 ]
Andrea, Sarah B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Rhode Isl Hosp, Dept Pathol, Providence, RI 02903 USA
[2] Rhode Isl Hosp, Dept Med, Providence, RI 02903 USA
[3] Albert Brown Med Sch, Dept Med, Providence, RI USA
关键词
REAL-TIME PCR; DISEASE; MANAGEMENT; DIAGNOSIS; ALGORITHM; CULTURE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.03.004
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Performance characteristics of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin were compared using fresh stool samples from patients with C. difficile infection (CM). Assays were performed simultaneously and according to the manufacturers' instructions. Patients were included in the study if they exhibited clinical symptoms consistent with CDI. Nonmolecular assays included glutamate dehydrogenase antigen tests, with positive findings followed by the Premier Toxin A and B Enzyme Immunoassay (GDH/EIA), and the C. Diff Quik Chek Complete test. Molecular assays (PCR) included the BD GeneOhm Cdiff Assay, the Xpert C. difficile test, and the ProGastro Cd assay. Specimens were considered true positive if results were positive in two or more assays. For each method, the Youden index was calculated and cost-effectiveness was analyzed. Of 81 patients evaluated, 26 (32.1%) were positive for CDI. Sensitivity of the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, the Xpert C. difficile test, the ProGastro Cd assay, C. Diff Quik Chek Complete test, and two-step GDH/EIA was 96.2%, 96.2%, 88.5%, 61.5%, and 42.3%, respectively. Specificity of the Xpert C. difficile test was 96.4%, and for the other four assays was 100%. Compared with nonmolecular methods, molecular methods detected 34.7% more positive specimens. Assessment of performance characteristics and cost-effectiveness demonstrated that the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay yielded the best results. While costly, the Xpert C. difficile test required limited processing and yielded rapid results. Because of discordant results, specimen processing, and extraction equipment requirements, the ProGastro Cd assay was the least favored molecular assay. The GDH/EIA method lacked sufficient sensitivity to be recommended. (J Mol Diagn 2011, 13:395-400; DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.03.004)
引用
收藏
页码:395 / 400
页数:6
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], COST ANAL LEARNING T
[2]  
[Anonymous], EFFECTIVE CLIN PRACT
[3]  
[Anonymous], UTILIZATION RAPID PC
[4]   Narrative review: The new epidemic of clostridium difficile-associated enteric disease [J].
Bartlett, John G. .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2006, 145 (10) :758-764
[5]   Recognition and prevention of hospital-associated enteric infections in the intensive care unit [J].
Bobo, Linda D. ;
Dubberke, Erik R. .
CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2010, 38 (08) :S324-S334
[6]   Management of an outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated disease among geriatric patients [J].
Cherifi, S. ;
Delmee, M. ;
Van Broeck, J. ;
Beyer, I. ;
Byl, B. ;
Mascart, G. .
INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 27 (11) :1200-1205
[7]   Clostridium difficile [J].
Curry, Scott .
CLINICS IN LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2010, 30 (01) :329-+
[8]   Review of Current Literature on the Economic Burden of Clostridium difficile Infection [J].
Dubberke, Erik R. ;
Wertheimer, Albert I. .
INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2009, 30 (01) :57-66
[9]   Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of Clostridium difficile infection [J].
Durai, Rajaraman .
DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 2007, 52 (11) :2958-2962
[10]   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 [J].
Eastwood, Kerrie ;
Else, Patrick ;
Charlett, Andre ;
Wilcox, Mark .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2009, 47 (10) :3211-3217