The role of glutamate dehydrogenase for the detection of Clostridium difficile in faecal samples: a meta-analysis

被引:105
作者
Shetty, N. [1 ]
Wren, M. W. D. [1 ]
Coen, P. G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Coll London Hosp, Dept Clin Microbiol, Hlth Protect Agcy Collaborating Ctr, London W1T 4JF, England
关键词
Clostridium difficile; Faeces; Glutamate dehydrogenase; Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) analysis; ENZYME-IMMUNOASSAY; RAPID DETECTION; STOOL SAMPLES; TOX-A/B; DIAGNOSIS; DIARRHEA; CYTOTOXIN; TESTS; INFECTION; SPECIMENS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jhin.2010.07.024
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Clostridium difficile causes a serious, occasionally fatal, hospital-acquired infection. The laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI) needs to be accurate to ensure optimal patient management, infection control and reliable surveillance. Commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for C. difficile toxins have poor sensitivity when compared with cell culture cytotoxin assay (CTA) and toxigenic culture (TC). We performed a meta-analysis of the role of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) in diagnosis of CDI. We analysed 21 papers, of which eight were excluded. We included publications of original research that used a 'gold standard' reference test (either CTA or TC). We also included publications that used culture without toxin testing of the isolate as a reference test even though this is not recognised as a gold standard. Exclusion criteria were failure to use a gold standard reference test and where the index test was used as the gold standard. Significant heterogeneity between study results justified the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy of GDH for the presence of C. difficile in faeces; when compared with culture it achieved a sensitivity and specificity of >90%. The SROC plot confirmed this finding. As a surrogate for toxigenic strains the GDH yields a specificity of 80-100% with a false positivity rate of similar to 20%, as it detects toxigenic and non-toxigenic strains of the organism. However, GDH test has high sensitivity and negative predictive value and would be a powerful test in a dual testing algorithm when combined with a test to detect toxin. (C) 2010 The Hospital Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 6
页数:6
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   The diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea:: comparison of Triage® C-difficile panel, EIA for Tox A/B and cytotoxin assays [J].
Alfa, MJ ;
Swan, B ;
VanDekerkhove, B ;
Pang, P ;
Harding, GKM .
DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 2002, 43 (04) :257-263
[2]   Usefulness of simultaneous detection of toxin A and glutamate dehydrogenase for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diseases [J].
Barbut, F ;
Lalande, V ;
Daprey, G ;
Cohen, P ;
Marle, N ;
Burghoffer, B ;
Petit, JC .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY & INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2000, 19 (06) :481-484
[3]   Clinical recognition and diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection [J].
Bartlett, John G. ;
Gerding, Dale N. .
CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2008, 46 :S12-S18
[4]   European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID): Data review and recommendations for diagnosing Clostridium difficile-infection (CDI) [J].
Crobach, M. J. T. ;
Dekkers, O. M. ;
Wilcox, M. H. ;
Kuijper, E. J. .
CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2009, 15 (12) :1053-1066
[5]   Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile associated diarrhoea:: a plea for culture [J].
Delmée, M ;
Van Broeck, J ;
Simon, A ;
Janssens, M ;
Avesani, V .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2005, 54 (02) :187-191
[6]   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
[7]   Rapid and reliable diagnostic algorithm for detection of Clostridium difficile [J].
Fenner, Lukas ;
Widmer, Andreas F. ;
Goy, Gisela ;
Rudin, Sonja ;
Frei, Reno .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2008, 46 (01) :328-330
[8]   GUIDELINES FOR METAANALYSES EVALUATING DIAGNOSTIC-TESTS [J].
IRWIG, L ;
TOSTESON, ANA ;
GATSONIS, C ;
LAU, J ;
COLDITZ, G ;
CHALMERS, TC ;
MOSTELLER, F .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1994, 120 (08) :667-676
[9]   Evaluation of biosite triage Clostridium difficile panel for rapid detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples [J].
Landry, ML ;
Topal, J ;
Ferguson, D ;
Giudetti, D ;
Tang, Y .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2001, 39 (05) :1855-1858
[10]  
LARSON HE, 1978, LANCET, V1, P1063