TITLE

Comparison between the two-step and the three-step algorithms for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile

AUTHOR(S)
Qutub, MO; AlBaz, N; Hawken, P; Anoos, A
PUB. DATE
July 2011
SOURCE
Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology;Jul2011, Vol. 29 Issue 3, p293
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To evaluate usefulness of applying either the two-step algorithm (Ag-EIAs and CCNA) or the three-step algorithm (all three assays) for better confirmation of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. The antigen enzyme immunoassays (Ag-EIAs) can accurately identify the glutamate dehydrogenase antigen of toxigenic and nontoxigenic Clostridium difficile. Therefore, it is used in combination with a toxin-detecting assay [cell line culture neutralization assay (CCNA), or the enzyme immunoassays for toxins A and B (TOX-A/BII EIA)] to provide specific evidence of Clostridium difficileassociated diarrhoea. Materials and Methods: A total of 151 nonformed stool specimens were tested by Ag EIAs, TOX-A/BII EIA, and CCNA. All tests were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions and the results of Ag-EIAs and TOX-A/BII EIA were read using a spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 450 nm. Results: A total of 61 (40.7%), 38 (25.3%), and 52 (34.7%) specimens tested positive with Ag-EIA, TOX-A/BII EIA, and CCNA, respectively. Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value for Ag-EIA were 94%, 87%, 96.6%, and 80.3%, respectively. Whereas for TOX-A/BII EIA, the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 73.1%, 100%, 87.5%, and 100%, respectively. With the two-step algorithm, all 61 Ag-EIAs-positive cases required 2 days for confirmation. With the three-step algorithm, 37 (60.7%) cases were reported immediately, and the remaining 24 (39.3%) required further testing by CCNA. By applying the two-step algorithm, the workload and cost could be reduced by 28.2% compared with the three-step algorithm. Conclusions: The two-step algorithm is the most practical for accurately detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile, but it is time consuming.
ACCESSION #
65286927

 

Related Articles

  • Laboratory Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infections: There Is Light at the End of the Colon. Brecher, Stephen M.; Novak-Weekley, Susan M.; Nagy, Elisabeth // Clinical Infectious Diseases;Oct2013, Vol. 57 Issue 8, p1175 

    Single molecular or multi-step assays (glutamate dehydrogenase, toxin A/B, +/− molecular) are recommended for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections in patients with clinically significant diarrhea. Rapid and accurate tests can improve resource allocations and improve patient...

  • Diagnostic Testing of Clostridium difficile. Baron, Ellen Jo // Infectious Disease Alert;Sep2008, Vol. 27 Issue 12, p136 

    The article focuses on the need for an adjustment in diagnostic testing algorithms in relation to Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD). Based on the College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey results, enzyme-immunoassay (EIA) tests were easier and faster to perform...

  • Comparative Study of Clostridium difficile Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea. Xiao, Yanyan; Liu, Yong; Qin, Xiaosong // Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases & Medical Microbiology;1/22/2020, p1 

    Objectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical application of three methods for detecting Clostridium difficile in fecal samples. Methods. One hundred and fifty fecal specimens were collected and tested for C. difficile using three methods: (1) the toxigenic culture (TC); (2) the...

  • Evaluation of three enzyme immunoassays and a loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Bruins, M.; Verbeek, E.; Wallinga, J.; Bruijnesteijn van Coppenraet, L.; Kuijper, E.; Bloembergen, P. // European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases;Nov2012, Vol. 31 Issue 11, p3035 

    The laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) consists of the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile, and/or its toxins A or B in stool preferably in a two-step algorithm. In a prospective study, we compared the performance of three toxin enzyme immunoassays...

  • Superiority of the DNA Amplification Assay for the Diagnosis of C. difficile Infection: A Clinical Comparison of Fecal Tests. Barkin, Jodie; Nandi, Neilanjan; Miller, Nancimae; Grace, Alexandra; Barkin, Jamie; Sussman, Daniel // Digestive Diseases & Sciences;Oct2012, Vol. 57 Issue 10, p2592 

    Background: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a major infectious concern, accounting for substantial morbidity and resource utilization. Advances in microbiological and molecular techniques have resulted in an increasing number of testing options for CDI. A glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)...

  • Clinical Recognition and Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection. Bartlett, John G.; Gerding, Dale N. // Clinical Infectious Diseases;1/15/2008 Supplement 1, Vol. 46 Issue 1, pS12 

    Prompt and precise diagnosis is an important aspect of effective management of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). CDI causes 15%-25% of all cases of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, the severity of which ranges from mild diarrhea to fulminant pseudomembranous colitis. Several factors,...

  • Diagnostic Value of Repeated Enzyme Immunoassays in Clostridium difficile Infection. Nemat, Hashim; Khan, Rabia; Ashraf, Muhammad Salman; Matta, Mandeep; Ahmed, Shahin; Edwards, Barbara T; Hussain, Roshan; Lesser, Martin; Pekmezaris, Renee; Dlugacz, Yosef; Wolf-Klein, Gisele // American Journal of Gastroenterology;Aug2009, Vol. 104 Issue 8, p2035 

    OBJECTIVES:There has been a significant increase in the prevalence, severity, and mortality of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), with an estimated three million new cases per year in the United States. Yet diagnosing CDI remains problematic. The most commonly used test is stool enzyme...

  • Utility of Perirectal Swab Specimens for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection. Kundrapu, Sirisha; Sunkesula, Venkata C. K.; Jury, Lucy A.; Sethi, Ajay K.; Donskey, Curtis J. // Clinical Infectious Diseases;Dec2012, Vol. 55 Issue 11, p1527 

    For 139 patients tested for Clostridium difficile infection by polymerase chain reaction, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of testing perirectal swabs vs stool specimens were 95.7%, 100%, 100%, and 99.1%, respectively. For selected patients,...

  • Diagnosing C. Diff. a growing challenge. Bakshis, Brett // McKnight's Long-Term Care News;Sep2009, Vol. 30 Issue 9, p6 

    The article discusses the challenges of evaluating possible cases of clostridium difficile infections in the U.S. Researchers at Northwestern University stated that the glutamate dehydrogenase test is not sensitive enough for accurate initial testing. The researchers noted clinicians should...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics