18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comprehensive evaluation of chemiluminescent immunoassays for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          For the microbiological diagnosis of a Clostridium (C.) difficile infection (CDI), a two-test algorithm consisting of a C. difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)-immunoassay followed by a toxin-immunoassay in positive cases is widely used. In this study, two chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs), one for GDH and the other for the toxins A and B, have been evaluated systematically using appropriate reference methods. Three-hundred diarrhoeal stool specimens submitted for CDI diagnosis were analysed by the LIAISON CLIAs (DiaSorin). Toxigenic culture (TC) and cell cytotoxicity assay (CCTA) were used as “gold standard” reference methods. In addition, GDH and toxin A and B enzyme immunoassays (EIAs), C. diff Chek-60 and toxin A/B II (TechLab), and the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were performed. C. difficile was grown in 42 (14%), TC was positive in 35 (11.7%) and CCTA in 25 (8.3%) cases. CLIAs were more sensitive but less specific than the respective EIAs. Using culture as reference, the sensitivity of the GDH CLIA was 100%. In comparison to CCTA sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the two-test algorithm were 88, 99.3, 91.7 and 98.9% by CLIAs and 72, 99.6, 94.7 and 97.5% by EIAs. Discrepant results by CLIAs were more frequent than that by EIAs (9% vs. 6.3%); in those cases, PCR allowed for the accurate detection of toxigenic strains. Due to performance characteristics and testing comfort, CLIAs in combination with PCR represent a favourable option for the rapid laboratory C. difficile diagnostics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

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

          Summary Background Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is controversial because of many laboratory methods, compounded by two reference methods. Cytotoxigenic culture detects toxigenic C difficile and gives a positive result more frequently (eg, because of colonisation, which means that individuals can have the bacterium but no free toxin) than does the cytotoxin assay, which detects preformed toxin in faeces. We aimed to validate the reference methods according to clinical outcomes and to derive an optimum laboratory diagnostic algorithm for C difficile infection. Methods In this prospective, multicentre study, we did cytotoxigenic culture and cytotoxin assays on 12 420 faecal samples in four UK laboratories. We also performed tests that represent the three main targets for C difficile detection: bacterium (glutamate dehydrogenase), toxins, or toxin genes. We used routine blood test results, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality to clinically validate the reference methods. Data were categorised by reference method result: group 1, cytotoxin assay positive; group 2, cytotoxigenic culture positive and cytotoxin assay negative; and group 3, both reference methods negative. Findings Clinical and reference assay data were available for 6522 inpatient episodes. On univariate analysis, mortality was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (72/435 [16·6%] vs 20/207 [9·7%], p=0·044) and in group 3 (503/5880 [8·6%], p<0·001), but not in group 2 compared with group 3 (p=0·4). A multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders confirmed the mortality differences between groups 1 and 3 (OR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12–2·31). Multistage algorithms performed better than did standalone assays. Interpretation We noted no increase in mortality when toxigenic C difficile alone was present. Toxin (cytotoxin assay) positivity correlated with clinical outcome, and so this reference method best defines true cases of C difficile infection. A new diagnostic category of potential C difficile excretor (cytotoxigenic culture positive but cytotoxin assay negative) could be used to characterise patients with diarrhoea that is probably not due to C difficile infection, but who can cause cross-infection. Funding Department of Health and Health Protection Agency, UK.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Primary symptomless colonisation by Clostridium difficile and decreased risk of subsequent diarrhoea.

            Little is known about whether patients who develop Clostridium-difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD) are culture-positive or culture-negative before illness. The most important risk factor is antibiotic exposure. We aimed to find out whether patients identified as primary symptom-free C difficile carriers are at higher risk of developing CDAD than patients who are culture-negative. We reviewed four longitudinal studies in which 810 patients admitted to hospital were followed up by prospective rectal-swab culture. At least two consecutive weekly cultures were obtained. We calculated the difference in risk of CDAD between colonised and non-colonised patients in each study and combined the results of the four studies in a random-effects model. Of 618 non-colonised patients (mean follow-up 1.7 weeks [SD 1.3]), 22 (3.6%) developed CDAD, whereas only two (1.0%) of 192 primary symptom-free carriers (1.5 [1.5]) developed CDAD (pooled risk difference -2.3% [95% CI 0.3-4.3], p=0.021). Of patients who received antibiotics, the risk difference was increased: 22 (4.5%) of 491 non-colonised patients compared with two (1.1%) of 176 colonised patients developed CDAD (-3.2% [0.4-6.0], p=0.024). Of the primary symptom-free C difficile carriers, 95 were colonised with toxigenic strains, 76 with non-toxigenic strains, 12 with both toxigenic and non-toxigenic strains (non-concurrently), and nine with strains of undetermined toxigenicity. Nine of the 12 toxogenic strains of C difficile isolates that cause CDAD were also recovered from stools of symptom-free patients. Primary symptomless C difficile colonisation is associated with a decreased risk of CDAD. Although the mechanism is unknown, risk reduction is found in colonisation with non-toxigenic and toxigenic strains.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID): data review and recommendations for diagnosing Clostridium difficile-infection (CDI).

              The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the available evidence on laboratory diagnosis of CDI and to formulate recommendations to optimize CDI testing. In comparison with cell culture cytotoxicity assay (CCA) and toxigenic culture (TC) of stools, we analyzed the test characteristics of 13 commercial available enzyme immunoasssays (EIA) detecting toxins A and/or B, 4 EIAs detecting Clostridium difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), and a real-time PCR for C. difficile toxin B gene. In comparison with CCA and TCA and assuming a prevalence of CDI of 5%, PPV and NPV varied between 0.28-0.77, 0.12-0.65 and 0.98-1.00, 0.97-1.00, respectively. Only if the tests were performed in a population with a CDI prevalence of 50 percent, would PPVs be acceptable (ranging from 0.71 to 1.00).To overcome the problem of a low PPV, we propose a two step approach, with a second test or a reference method in case of a positive first test. Further reducing the number of false negative results would require either retesting of all subjects with a negative first test, or re-testing all subjects with a negative second test, after an initially positive test. This approach resulted in non-significant improvements, and emphasizes the need for better diagnostic tests. Further studies to validate the applicability of two-step testing, including assessment of clinical features, are required.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +43-1-40400-51570 , athanasios.makristathis@meduniwien.ac.at
                Journal
                Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis
                Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis
                European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0934-9723
                1435-4373
                8 February 2017
                8 February 2017
                2017
                : 36
                : 7
                : 1253-1259
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9259 8492, GRID grid.22937.3d, Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, , Medical University Vienna, ; Vienna, Austria
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9259 8492, GRID grid.22937.3d, Department of Environmental Hygiene, , Medical University Vienna, ; Vienna, Austria
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1593-571X
                Article
                2916
                10.1007/s10096-017-2916-9
                5495843
                28181032
                0b5a143c-3ea5-412c-9c38-cca6031d87c0
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 6 December 2016
                : 24 January 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: DiaSorin
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article