Loading…

Algorithm Combining Toxin Immunoassay and Stool Culture for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection

Enzyme immunoassays (EIA) to detect glutamate dehydrogenase or toxins A (TcdA) and B (TcdB), a cytotoxicity assay, and bacteriologic culture have disadvantages when applied individually to diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections. Stool specimens (n = 1,596) were subjected to toxin detection vi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2009-09, Vol.47 (9), p.2952-2956
Main Authors: Shin, Bo-Moon, Kuak, Eun Young, Lee, Eun Joo, Songer, J. Glenn
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-4168b37f9bb058941981a05a78569eb58c5648a04966cf4a510bfb55877c19fb3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-4168b37f9bb058941981a05a78569eb58c5648a04966cf4a510bfb55877c19fb3
container_end_page 2956
container_issue 9
container_start_page 2952
container_title Journal of Clinical Microbiology
container_volume 47
creator Shin, Bo-Moon
Kuak, Eun Young
Lee, Eun Joo
Songer, J. Glenn
description Enzyme immunoassays (EIA) to detect glutamate dehydrogenase or toxins A (TcdA) and B (TcdB), a cytotoxicity assay, and bacteriologic culture have disadvantages when applied individually to diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections. Stool specimens (n = 1,596) were subjected to toxin detection via an enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (ELFA; Vidas CDAB assay) and bacteriologic culture for toxigenic C. difficile in a three-step algorithm with additional toxigenic culture. Isolates (n = 163) from ELFA-negative stool specimens were examined via ELFA for toxin production. We amplified tcdA and tcdB from C. difficile isolates and tcdB from stool specimens that were ELFA positive or equivocal and culture negative, and we compared the results to those obtained with the three-step algorithm. More than 26% of stool specimens (419/1,596) were culture positive, yielding 248 isolates (59.2%) with both toxin genes (tcdA- and tcdB-positive isolates), 88 isolates (21.0%) with either tcdA or tcdB, and 83 (19.8%) that had no toxin genes (tcdA- and tcdB-negative isolates). Among 49 (culture-negative/ELFA-positive or -equivocal) stool specimens, 53.1% (26/49) represented tcdB-positive isolates. Therefore, the total number of PCR-positive cases was 362, and 27.1% (98/362) of these were detected through toxigenic culture. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 63.3%, 96.7%, 90.5%, and 92.4% (ELFA alone); 92.8%, 93.3%, 80.2%, and 97.8% (culture); and 70.7%, 91.4%, 95.5%, and 100% (three-step algorithm ELFA and bacterial culture with toxigenic culture), respectively, with culture and PCR for tcdA and tcdB as the standards. Thus, sensitivity and specificity were highest using culture and ELFA, respectively, but we recommend the three-step algorithm comprising EIA to detect both toxins and toxigenic culture for C. difficile as a practical method for achieving better PPV and NPV.
doi_str_mv 10.1128/JCM.00609-09
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_19625481</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>21503235</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-4168b37f9bb058941981a05a78569eb58c5648a04966cf4a510bfb55877c19fb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpV0U1v1DAQBmALgehSuHEGc-FEyjixHfuCVKV8LCri0FbiZjleO3EV262dFPrvCeyKj9Mc5tE7I70IPSdwQkgt3n7uvpwAcJAVyAdoQ0CKinP49hBtACSrCGnaI_SklGsAQiljj9ERkbxmVJANGk-nIWU_jwF3KfQ--jjgy_TDR7wNYYlJl6LvsY47fDGnNOFumeYlW-xSxmdeDzEVX3ByuJtSmbPf-SXgnXfOGz9ZvI3Omtmn-BQ9cnoq9tlhHqOrD-8vu0_V-deP2-70vDKUN3NFCRd90zrZ98CEpEQKooHpVjAubc-EYZwKDVRybhzVjEDvesZE2xoiXd8co3f73JulD3ZnbJyzntRN9kHne5W0V_9voh_VkO5U3TaCEFgDXh8CcrpdbJlV8MXYadLRpqWomjBo6oat8M0empxKydb9OUJA_apGrdWo39UokCt_8e9jf_GhixW82oPRD-N3n63SJahrExRtlVS1ZPVqXu6N00npIfuiri5qIA0Q3rJWyOYnHO-flQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>21503235</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Algorithm Combining Toxin Immunoassay and Stool Culture for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>American Society for Microbiology Journals</source><creator>Shin, Bo-Moon ; Kuak, Eun Young ; Lee, Eun Joo ; Songer, J. Glenn</creator><creatorcontrib>Shin, Bo-Moon ; Kuak, Eun Young ; Lee, Eun Joo ; Songer, J. Glenn</creatorcontrib><description>Enzyme immunoassays (EIA) to detect glutamate dehydrogenase or toxins A (TcdA) and B (TcdB), a cytotoxicity assay, and bacteriologic culture have disadvantages when applied individually to diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections. Stool specimens (n = 1,596) were subjected to toxin detection via an enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (ELFA; Vidas CDAB assay) and bacteriologic culture for toxigenic C. difficile in a three-step algorithm with additional toxigenic culture. Isolates (n = 163) from ELFA-negative stool specimens were examined via ELFA for toxin production. We amplified tcdA and tcdB from C. difficile isolates and tcdB from stool specimens that were ELFA positive or equivocal and culture negative, and we compared the results to those obtained with the three-step algorithm. More than 26% of stool specimens (419/1,596) were culture positive, yielding 248 isolates (59.2%) with both toxin genes (tcdA- and tcdB-positive isolates), 88 isolates (21.0%) with either tcdA or tcdB, and 83 (19.8%) that had no toxin genes (tcdA- and tcdB-negative isolates). Among 49 (culture-negative/ELFA-positive or -equivocal) stool specimens, 53.1% (26/49) represented tcdB-positive isolates. Therefore, the total number of PCR-positive cases was 362, and 27.1% (98/362) of these were detected through toxigenic culture. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 63.3%, 96.7%, 90.5%, and 92.4% (ELFA alone); 92.8%, 93.3%, 80.2%, and 97.8% (culture); and 70.7%, 91.4%, 95.5%, and 100% (three-step algorithm ELFA and bacterial culture with toxigenic culture), respectively, with culture and PCR for tcdA and tcdB as the standards. Thus, sensitivity and specificity were highest using culture and ELFA, respectively, but we recommend the three-step algorithm comprising EIA to detect both toxins and toxigenic culture for C. difficile as a practical method for achieving better PPV and NPV.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0095-1137</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1098-660X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00609-09</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19625481</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Society for Microbiology</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Bacterial Proteins - analysis ; Bacterial Proteins - genetics ; Bacterial Toxins - analysis ; Bacterial Toxins - genetics ; Bacteriology ; Clostridium difficile ; Clostridium difficile - growth &amp; development ; Clostridium difficile - isolation &amp; purification ; Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous - diagnosis ; Enterotoxins - analysis ; Enterotoxins - genetics ; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - methods ; Feces - chemistry ; Feces - microbiology ; Humans ; Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods ; Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><ispartof>Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2009-09, Vol.47 (9), p.2952-2956</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-4168b37f9bb058941981a05a78569eb58c5648a04966cf4a510bfb55877c19fb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-4168b37f9bb058941981a05a78569eb58c5648a04966cf4a510bfb55877c19fb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738110/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738110/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,3188,3189,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19625481$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shin, Bo-Moon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuak, Eun Young</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Eun Joo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Songer, J. Glenn</creatorcontrib><title>Algorithm Combining Toxin Immunoassay and Stool Culture for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection</title><title>Journal of Clinical Microbiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Microbiol</addtitle><description>Enzyme immunoassays (EIA) to detect glutamate dehydrogenase or toxins A (TcdA) and B (TcdB), a cytotoxicity assay, and bacteriologic culture have disadvantages when applied individually to diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections. Stool specimens (n = 1,596) were subjected to toxin detection via an enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (ELFA; Vidas CDAB assay) and bacteriologic culture for toxigenic C. difficile in a three-step algorithm with additional toxigenic culture. Isolates (n = 163) from ELFA-negative stool specimens were examined via ELFA for toxin production. We amplified tcdA and tcdB from C. difficile isolates and tcdB from stool specimens that were ELFA positive or equivocal and culture negative, and we compared the results to those obtained with the three-step algorithm. More than 26% of stool specimens (419/1,596) were culture positive, yielding 248 isolates (59.2%) with both toxin genes (tcdA- and tcdB-positive isolates), 88 isolates (21.0%) with either tcdA or tcdB, and 83 (19.8%) that had no toxin genes (tcdA- and tcdB-negative isolates). Among 49 (culture-negative/ELFA-positive or -equivocal) stool specimens, 53.1% (26/49) represented tcdB-positive isolates. Therefore, the total number of PCR-positive cases was 362, and 27.1% (98/362) of these were detected through toxigenic culture. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 63.3%, 96.7%, 90.5%, and 92.4% (ELFA alone); 92.8%, 93.3%, 80.2%, and 97.8% (culture); and 70.7%, 91.4%, 95.5%, and 100% (three-step algorithm ELFA and bacterial culture with toxigenic culture), respectively, with culture and PCR for tcdA and tcdB as the standards. Thus, sensitivity and specificity were highest using culture and ELFA, respectively, but we recommend the three-step algorithm comprising EIA to detect both toxins and toxigenic culture for C. difficile as a practical method for achieving better PPV and NPV.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Bacterial Proteins - analysis</subject><subject>Bacterial Proteins - genetics</subject><subject>Bacterial Toxins - analysis</subject><subject>Bacterial Toxins - genetics</subject><subject>Bacteriology</subject><subject>Clostridium difficile</subject><subject>Clostridium difficile - growth &amp; development</subject><subject>Clostridium difficile - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous - diagnosis</subject><subject>Enterotoxins - analysis</subject><subject>Enterotoxins - genetics</subject><subject>Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - methods</subject><subject>Feces - chemistry</subject><subject>Feces - microbiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><issn>0095-1137</issn><issn>1098-660X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpV0U1v1DAQBmALgehSuHEGc-FEyjixHfuCVKV8LCri0FbiZjleO3EV262dFPrvCeyKj9Mc5tE7I70IPSdwQkgt3n7uvpwAcJAVyAdoQ0CKinP49hBtACSrCGnaI_SklGsAQiljj9ERkbxmVJANGk-nIWU_jwF3KfQ--jjgy_TDR7wNYYlJl6LvsY47fDGnNOFumeYlW-xSxmdeDzEVX3ByuJtSmbPf-SXgnXfOGz9ZvI3Omtmn-BQ9cnoq9tlhHqOrD-8vu0_V-deP2-70vDKUN3NFCRd90zrZ98CEpEQKooHpVjAubc-EYZwKDVRybhzVjEDvesZE2xoiXd8co3f73JulD3ZnbJyzntRN9kHne5W0V_9voh_VkO5U3TaCEFgDXh8CcrpdbJlV8MXYadLRpqWomjBo6oat8M0empxKydb9OUJA_apGrdWo39UokCt_8e9jf_GhixW82oPRD-N3n63SJahrExRtlVS1ZPVqXu6N00npIfuiri5qIA0Q3rJWyOYnHO-flQ</recordid><startdate>20090901</startdate><enddate>20090901</enddate><creator>Shin, Bo-Moon</creator><creator>Kuak, Eun Young</creator><creator>Lee, Eun Joo</creator><creator>Songer, J. Glenn</creator><general>American Society for Microbiology</general><general>American Society for Microbiology (ASM)</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090901</creationdate><title>Algorithm Combining Toxin Immunoassay and Stool Culture for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection</title><author>Shin, Bo-Moon ; Kuak, Eun Young ; Lee, Eun Joo ; Songer, J. Glenn</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-4168b37f9bb058941981a05a78569eb58c5648a04966cf4a510bfb55877c19fb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Bacterial Proteins - analysis</topic><topic>Bacterial Proteins - genetics</topic><topic>Bacterial Toxins - analysis</topic><topic>Bacterial Toxins - genetics</topic><topic>Bacteriology</topic><topic>Clostridium difficile</topic><topic>Clostridium difficile - growth &amp; development</topic><topic>Clostridium difficile - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous - diagnosis</topic><topic>Enterotoxins - analysis</topic><topic>Enterotoxins - genetics</topic><topic>Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - methods</topic><topic>Feces - chemistry</topic><topic>Feces - microbiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shin, Bo-Moon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuak, Eun Young</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Eun Joo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Songer, J. Glenn</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of Clinical Microbiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shin, Bo-Moon</au><au>Kuak, Eun Young</au><au>Lee, Eun Joo</au><au>Songer, J. Glenn</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Algorithm Combining Toxin Immunoassay and Stool Culture for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Clinical Microbiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Microbiol</addtitle><date>2009-09-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2952</spage><epage>2956</epage><pages>2952-2956</pages><issn>0095-1137</issn><eissn>1098-660X</eissn><abstract>Enzyme immunoassays (EIA) to detect glutamate dehydrogenase or toxins A (TcdA) and B (TcdB), a cytotoxicity assay, and bacteriologic culture have disadvantages when applied individually to diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections. Stool specimens (n = 1,596) were subjected to toxin detection via an enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (ELFA; Vidas CDAB assay) and bacteriologic culture for toxigenic C. difficile in a three-step algorithm with additional toxigenic culture. Isolates (n = 163) from ELFA-negative stool specimens were examined via ELFA for toxin production. We amplified tcdA and tcdB from C. difficile isolates and tcdB from stool specimens that were ELFA positive or equivocal and culture negative, and we compared the results to those obtained with the three-step algorithm. More than 26% of stool specimens (419/1,596) were culture positive, yielding 248 isolates (59.2%) with both toxin genes (tcdA- and tcdB-positive isolates), 88 isolates (21.0%) with either tcdA or tcdB, and 83 (19.8%) that had no toxin genes (tcdA- and tcdB-negative isolates). Among 49 (culture-negative/ELFA-positive or -equivocal) stool specimens, 53.1% (26/49) represented tcdB-positive isolates. Therefore, the total number of PCR-positive cases was 362, and 27.1% (98/362) of these were detected through toxigenic culture. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 63.3%, 96.7%, 90.5%, and 92.4% (ELFA alone); 92.8%, 93.3%, 80.2%, and 97.8% (culture); and 70.7%, 91.4%, 95.5%, and 100% (three-step algorithm ELFA and bacterial culture with toxigenic culture), respectively, with culture and PCR for tcdA and tcdB as the standards. Thus, sensitivity and specificity were highest using culture and ELFA, respectively, but we recommend the three-step algorithm comprising EIA to detect both toxins and toxigenic culture for C. difficile as a practical method for achieving better PPV and NPV.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Society for Microbiology</pub><pmid>19625481</pmid><doi>10.1128/JCM.00609-09</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0095-1137
ispartof Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2009-09, Vol.47 (9), p.2952-2956
issn 0095-1137
1098-660X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmed_primary_19625481
source Open Access: PubMed Central; American Society for Microbiology Journals
subjects Algorithms
Bacterial Proteins - analysis
Bacterial Proteins - genetics
Bacterial Toxins - analysis
Bacterial Toxins - genetics
Bacteriology
Clostridium difficile
Clostridium difficile - growth & development
Clostridium difficile - isolation & purification
Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous - diagnosis
Enterotoxins - analysis
Enterotoxins - genetics
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - methods
Feces - chemistry
Feces - microbiology
Humans
Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods
Sensitivity and Specificity
title Algorithm Combining Toxin Immunoassay and Stool Culture for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T22%3A21%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Algorithm%20Combining%20Toxin%20Immunoassay%20and%20Stool%20Culture%20for%20Diagnosis%20of%20Clostridium%20difficile%20Infection&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Clinical%20Microbiology&rft.au=Shin,%20Bo-Moon&rft.date=2009-09-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2952&rft.epage=2956&rft.pages=2952-2956&rft.issn=0095-1137&rft.eissn=1098-660X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1128/JCM.00609-09&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E21503235%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-4168b37f9bb058941981a05a78569eb58c5648a04966cf4a510bfb55877c19fb3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=21503235&rft_id=info:pmid/19625481&rfr_iscdi=true