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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)170-174
Number of pages5
JournalAnaerobe
Volume17
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2011

Fingerprint

Clostridium Infections
Clostridium difficile
Diarrhea
Pseudomembranous Enterocolitis
Glutamate Dehydrogenase
Immunoenzyme Techniques
Nucleic Acids
Disease Outbreaks
Hospitalization
Cell Culture Techniques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Costs and Cost Analysis
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Genes

Keywords

  • Cell culture neutralization assays
  • Clostridium difficile
  • Enzyme immunoassays
  • Nucleic acid amplification tests
  • Toxigenic culture

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Microbiology
  • Infectious Diseases

Cite this

Tests for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection : The next generation. / Carroll, Karen C.

In: Anaerobe, Vol. 17, No. 4, 08.2011, p. 170-174.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fea7dc4220c54414b6243fa55041bfd6,
title = "Tests for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: The next generation",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Cell culture neutralization assays, Clostridium difficile, Enzyme immunoassays, Nucleic acid amplification tests, Toxigenic culture",
author = "Carroll, {Karen C}",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.01.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "170--174",
journal = "Anaerobe",
issn = "1075-9964",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tests for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

T2 - The next generation

AU - Carroll, Karen C

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Cell culture neutralization assays

KW - Clostridium difficile

KW - Enzyme immunoassays

KW - Nucleic acid amplification tests

KW - Toxigenic culture

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051935450&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80051935450&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.01.002

DO - 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.01.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 21376826

AN - SCOPUS:80051935450

VL - 17

SP - 170

EP - 174

JO - Anaerobe

JF - Anaerobe

SN - 1075-9964

IS - 4

ER -