» Articles » PMID: 24226924

Comparison of Simplexa Universal Direct PCR with Cytotoxicity Assay for Diagnosis of Clostridium Difficile Infection: Performance, Cost, and Correlation with Disease

Overview
Specialty Microbiology
Date 2013 Nov 15
PMID 24226924
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Simplexa Clostridium difficile universal direct PCR, a real-time PCR assay for the detection of the C. difficile toxin B (tcdB) gene using the 3M integrated cycler, was compared with a two-step algorithm which includes the C. Diff Chek-60 glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen assay followed by cytotoxin neutralization. Three hundred forty-two liquid or semisolid stools submitted for diagnostic C. difficile testing, 171 GDH antigen positive and 171 GDH antigen negative, were selected for the study. All samples were tested by the C. Diff Chek-60 GDH antigen assay, cytotoxin neutralization, and Simplexa direct PCR. Of 171 GDH-positive samples, 4 were excluded (from patients on therapy or from whom duplicate samples were obtained) and 88 were determined to be true positives for toxigenic C. difficile. Of the 88, 67 (76.1%) were positive by the two-step method and 86 (97.7%) were positive by PCR. Seventy-nine were positive by the GDH antigen assay only. Of 171 GDH antigen-negative samples, none were positive by PCR. One antigen-negative sample positive by the cytotoxin assay only was deemed a false positive based on chart review. Simplexa C. difficile universal direct PCR was significantly more sensitive for detecting toxigenic C. difficile bacteria than cytotoxin neutralization (P = 0.0002). However, most PCR-positive/cytotoxin-negative patients did not have clear C. difficile disease. The estimated cost avoidance provided by a more rapid molecular diagnosis was outweighed by the cost of isolating and treating PCR-positive/cytotoxin-negative patients. The costs, clinical consequences, and impact on nosocomial transmission of treating and/or isolating patients positive for toxigenic C. difficile by PCR but negative for in vivo toxin production merit further study.

Citing Articles

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.


Evaluation of Copan FecalSwab as Specimen Type for Use in Xpert C. difficile Assay.

Mashock M, Faron M, Buchan B, Ledeboer N J Clin Microbiol. 2017; 55(10):3123-3129.

PMID: 28794179 PMC: 5625397. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00369-17.


Rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxins and laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections.

Chen S, Gu H, Sun C, Wang H, Wang J Infection. 2016; 45(3):255-262.

PMID: 27601055 DOI: 10.1007/s15010-016-0940-9.


False Negative Results in Clostridium difficile Testing.

Murad Y, Perez J, Ybazeta G, Mavin S, Lefebvre S, Weese J BMC Infect Dis. 2016; 16(1):430.

PMID: 27543102 PMC: 4992222. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-016-1741-6.


References
1.
Ludwig A, Sato K, Schirmer P, Maniar A, Lucero-Obusan C, Fleming C . Concurrent outbreaks with co-infection of norovirus and Clostridium difficile in a long-term-care facility. Epidemiol Infect. 2013; 141(8):1598-603. PMC: 9151590. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268813000241. View

2.
Shetty N, Wren M, Coen P . The role of glutamate dehydrogenase for the detection of Clostridium difficile in faecal samples: a meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect. 2010; 77(1):1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2010.07.024. 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.
Burnham C, Carroll K . Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013; 26(3):604-30. PMC: 3719497. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00016-13. View

5.
Polage C, Solnick J, Cohen S . Nosocomial diarrhea: evaluation and treatment of causes other than Clostridium difficile. Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 55(7):982-9. PMC: 3657522. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis551. View