Tests for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: The next generation

被引:81
作者
Carroll, Karen C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Dept Pathol, Div Med Microbiol, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
关键词
Clostridium difficile; Enzyme immunoassays; Cell culture neutralization assays; Toxigenic culture; Nucleic acid amplification tests; REAL-TIME PCR; POLYMERASE-CHAIN-REACTION; 2-STEP ALGORITHM; GLUTAMATE-DEHYDROGENASE; ENZYME IMMUNOASSAYS; CYTOTOXIN ASSAY; TOXIN DETECTION; CULTURE; COMBINATION; ANTIGEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.01.002
中图分类号
Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Clostridium difficile (C difficile) causes 25-30% of cases of antibiotic associated diarrhea and most cases of pseudomembranous colitis. Patients presenting with diarrhea after hospitalization for 3 or more days should be tested for C difficile. There are many options available for testing, each of which has inherent advantages and disadvantages. Most laboratories perform toxin testing using an enzyme immunoassay method. In general these tests have sensitivities ranging from 60 to 70% and specificities of 98%. When using these methods, symptomatic patients with negative tests should be tested by another more sensitive method. Until recently, cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assays (CCNAs) were considered the gold standard in the U.S. A two-step algorithm using an EIA for glutamate dehydrogenase detection followed by testing positives using CCNA, offered an improved alternative until the availability of molecular assays. Although early studies that compared the GDH assay to CCNA demonstrated high sensitivity and negative predictive values, more recent comparisons to toxigenic culture and PCR have shown the sensitivity to be in the mid to high 80's. When testing using a sensitive assay, repeat testing is not cost-effective. Outbreaks caused by a toxin variant epidemic strain have renewed interest in bacterial culture. Toxigenic culture has emerged as the new gold standard against which newer assays should be compared. However, there is no agreed upon standard method for culture performance. At least 4 FDA cleared nucleic acid amplification assays are available to clinical laboratories and several of these have been well evaluated in the literature. Because these assays detect a gene that encodes toxin and not the toxin itself it is important that laboratories test only patients with diarrhea. These molecular assays have been shown to be superior to toxin EIAs, CCNA and 2-step algorithms, but not to toxigenic culture. More studies are needed to assess the impact of molecular tests on treatment and nosocomial spread of Clostridium difficile infections. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:170 / 174
页数:5
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   Nonutility of Repeat Laboratory Testing for Detection of Clostridium difficile by Use of PCR or Enzyme Immunoassay [J].
Aichinger, Elisabeth ;
Schleck, Cathy D. ;
Harmsen, William S. ;
Nyre, Lisa M. ;
Patel, Robin .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2008, 46 (11) :3795-3797
[2]  
[Anonymous], PRODESSE PRODUCT PAC
[3]  
[Anonymous], J CLIN MICROBIOL
[4]   Use of a selective enrichment broth to recover Clostridium difficile from stool swabs stored under different conditions [J].
Arroyo, LG ;
Rousseau, J ;
Willey, BM ;
Low, DE ;
Staempfli, H ;
McGeer, A ;
Weese, JS .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2005, 43 (10) :5341-5343
[5]   Rapid Detection of Toxigenic Strains of Clostridium difficile in Diarrheal Stools by Real-Time PCR [J].
Barbut, Frederic ;
Braun, Mylena ;
Burghoffer, Beatrice ;
Lalande, Valerie ;
Eckert, Catherine .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2009, 47 (04) :1276-1277
[6]   CLOSTRIDIUM-DIFFICILE - HISTORY OF ITS ROLE AS AN ENTERIC PATHOGEN AND THE CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE ORGANISM [J].
BARTLETT, JG .
CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 1994, 18 :S265-S272
[7]   'Second-look' cytotoxicity:: an evaluation of culture plus cytotoxin assay of Clostridium difficile isolates in the laboratory diagnosis of CDAD [J].
Bouza, E ;
Peláez, T ;
Alonso, R ;
Catalán, P ;
Muñoz, P ;
Créixems, MR .
JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION, 2001, 48 (03) :233-237
[8]   Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults: 2010 Update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) [J].
Cohen, Stuart H. ;
Gerding, Dale N. ;
Johnson, Stuart ;
Kelly, Ciaran P. ;
Loo, Vivian G. ;
McDonald, L. Clifford ;
Pepin, Jacques ;
Wilcox, Mark H. .
INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 31 (05) :431-455
[9]   Reevaluation of the Premier Clostridium difficile toxin A and B immunoassay with comparison to glutamate dehydrogenase common antigen testing evaluating Bartels cytotoxin and Prodesse ProGastro™ Cd polymerase chain reaction as confirmatory procedures [J].
Doing, Kirk M. ;
Hintz, Marilyn S. ;
Keefe, Calvin ;
Horne, Sarah ;
LeVasseur, Shelby ;
Kulikowski, Martha L. .
DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 2010, 66 (02) :129-134
[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