» Articles » PMID: 22189114

Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification Compared to Real-time PCR and Enzyme Immunoassay for Toxigenic Clostridium Difficile Detection

Overview
Specialty Microbiology
Date 2011 Dec 23
PMID 22189114
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection is the primary cause of health care-associated diarrhea. While most laboratories have been using rapid antigen tests for detecting C. difficile toxins, they have poor sensitivity; newer molecular methods offer rapid results with high test sensitivity and specificity. This study was designed to compare the performances of two molecular assays (Meridian illumigene and BD GeneOhm) and two antigen assays (Wampole Quik Chek Complete and TechLab Tox A/B II) to detect toxigenic C. difficile. Fecal specimens from hospitalized patients (n = 139) suspected of having C. difficile infection were tested by the four assays. Nine specimens were positive and 109 were negative by all four methods. After discrepant analysis by toxigenic culture (n = 21), the total numbers of stool specimens classified as positive and negative for toxigenic C. difficile were 21 (15%) and 118 (85%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were as follows: GeneOhm (95.2%, 100%, 100%, and 99.2%), illumigene (95.2%, 96.6%, 83.3%, and 99.2%), Tox A/B II (52.4%, 97.5%, 78.6%, and 92.4%), and Quik Chek Complete (47.6%, 100%, 100%, and 91.9%). The illumigene assay performed comparably to the GeneOhm assay with a slight decrease in test specificity; the sensitivities of both far exceeded those of the antigen assays. The clinical characteristics of the concordant and discrepant study patients were similar, including stool consistency and frequency. In the era of rapid molecular-based tests for toxigenic C. difficile, toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) should no longer be considered the standard of care.

Citing Articles

The Current Knowledge on Infection in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

Boeriu A, Roman A, Fofiu C, Dobru D Pathogens. 2022; 11(7).

PMID: 35890064 PMC: 9323231. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11070819.


Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection: An official clinical practice guideline of the Spanish Society of Chemotherapy (SEQ), Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) and the working group of....

Bouza E, Aguado J, Alcala L, Almirante B, Alonso-Fernandez P, Borges M Rev Esp Quimioter. 2020; 33(2):151-175.

PMID: 32080996 PMC: 7111242. DOI: 10.37201/req/2065.2020.


Predictors of Clostridioides difficile Infection-Related Complications and Treatment Patterns among Nucleic Acid Amplification Test-Positive/Toxin Enzyme Immunoassay-Negative Patients.

Miller R, Morillas J, Brizendine K, Fraser T J Clin Microbiol. 2020; 58(3).

PMID: 31896665 PMC: 7041579. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01764-19.


Performance Evaluation of the Luminex Aries C. difficile Assay in Comparison to Two Other Molecular Assays within a Multihospital Health Care Center.

Juretschko S, Manji R, Khare R, Das S, Dunbar S J Clin Microbiol. 2019; 57(11).

PMID: 31413082 PMC: 6813007. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01092-19.


A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs) and Algorithms Including NAATs for the Diagnosis of () in Adults.

Kraft C, Parrott J, Cornish N, Rubinstein M, Weissfeld A, McNult P Clin Microbiol Rev. 2019; 32(3).

PMID: 31142497 PMC: 6589859. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00032-18.


References
1.
Larson A, Fung A, Fang F . Evaluation of tcdB real-time PCR in a three-step diagnostic algorithm for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol. 2009; 48(1):124-30. PMC: 2812255. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00734-09. View

2.
Planche T, Aghaizu A, Holliman R, Riley P, Poloniecki J, Breathnach A . Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by toxin detection kits: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008; 8(12):777-84. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70233-0. View

3.
Reller M, Lema C, Perl T, Cai M, Ross T, Speck K . Yield of stool culture with isolate toxin testing versus a two-step algorithm including stool toxin testing for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol. 2007; 45(11):3601-5. PMC: 2168505. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01305-07. View

4.
Noren T, Alriksson I, Andersson J, Akerlund T, Unemo M . Rapid and sensitive loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for Clostridium difficile detection challenges cytotoxin B cell test and culture as gold standard. J Clin Microbiol. 2010; 49(2):710-1. PMC: 3043499. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01824-10. View

5.
Terhes G, Urban E, Soki J, Nacsa E, Nagy E . Comparison of a rapid molecular method, the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, to the most frequently used laboratory tests for detection of toxin-producing Clostridium difficile in diarrheal feces. J Clin Microbiol. 2009; 47(11):3478-81. PMC: 2772624. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01133-09. View