For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
13
views
16
references
 Top references
cited by
2
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      186
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Simultaneous Detection of Clostridioides difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxin A/B: Comparison of the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE and RIDASCREEN Assays

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Various commercial assays have recently been developed for detecting glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and/or toxin A/B to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). We compared the performance of two assays for the simultaneous detection of C. difficile GDH and toxin A/B, using 150 stool samples: C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC; TechLab, Blacksburg, VA, USA) and RIDASCREEN Clostridium difficile GDH (RC-GDH) and Toxin A/B (RC-Toxin A/B; R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany). For GDH detection, QCC and RC-GDH showed satisfactory sensitivity (95.7% and 94.3%, respectively) and specificity (92.5% and 93.8%, respectively) compared with C. difficile culture. For toxin A/B detection, QCC showed higher sensitivity than RC-Toxin A/B (60.0% vs 33.3%, P<0.001) compared with toxigenic C. difficile culture. When the results of QCC or RC-GDH+RC-Toxin A/B were used as the first step of a two-step algorithm for diagnosing CDI, QCC permitted more accurate discrimination than RC of positive or negative results for CDI (77.3% and 65.3%, respectively). QCC is useful for the simultaneous detection of C. difficile GDH and toxin A/B as a part of the two-step algorithm for diagnosing CDI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: 2017 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA)

          Dale Gerding, Karen C Carroll, Stuart Johnson … (2018)
          A panel of experts was convened by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) to update the 2010 clinical practice guideline on Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults. The update, which has incorporated recommendations for children (following the adult recommendations for epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment), includes significant changes in the management of this infection and reflects the evolving controversy over best methods for diagnosis. Clostridium difficile remains the most important cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea and has become the most commonly identified cause of healthcare-associated infection in adults in the United States. Moreover, C. difficile has established itself as an important community pathogen. Although the prevalence of the epidemic and virulent ribotype 027 strain has declined markedly along with overall CDI rates in parts of Europe, it remains one of the most commonly identified strains in the United States where it causes a sizable minority of CDIs, especially healthcare-associated CDIs. This guideline updates recommendations regarding epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, infection prevention, and environmental management.
          Article 0 comments Cited 383 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Multiplex PCR targeting tpi (triose phosphate isomerase), tcdA (Toxin A), and tcdB (Toxin B) genes for toxigenic culture of Clostridium difficile.

            Jean-Louis Pons, J Lemeland, Sabrina Testelin … (2004)
            A multiplex PCR toxigenic culture approach was designed for simultaneous identification and toxigenic type characterization of Clostridium difficile isolates. Three pairs of primers were designed for the amplification of (i) a species-specific internal fragment of the tpi (triose phosphate isomerase) gene, (ii) an internal fragment of the tcdB (toxin B) gene, and (iii) an internal fragment of the tcdA (toxin A) gene allowing distinction between toxin A-positive, toxin B-positive (A+B+) strains and toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive (A-B+) variant strains. The reliability of the multiplex PCR was established by using a panel of 72 C. difficile strains including A+B+, A-B-, and A-B+ toxigenic types and 11 other Clostridium species type strains. The multiplex PCR assay was then included in a toxigenic culture approach for the detection, identification, and toxigenic type characterization of C. difficile in 1,343 consecutive human and animal stool samples. Overall, 111 (15.4%) of 721 human samples were positive for C. difficile; 67 (60.4%) of these samples contained A+B+ toxigenic isolates, and none of them contained A-B+ variant strains. Fifty (8%) of 622 animal samples contained C. difficile strains, which were toxigenic in 27 (54%) cases, including 1 A-B+ variant isolate. Eighty of the 721 human stool samples (37 positive and 43 negative for C. difficile culture) were comparatively tested by Premier Toxins A&B (Meridian Bioscience) and Triage C. difficile Panel (Biosite) immunoassays, the results of which were found concordant with toxigenic culture for 82.5 and 92.5% of the samples, respectively. The multiplex PCR toxigenic culture scheme described here allows combined diagnosis and toxigenic type characterization for human and animal C. difficile intestinal infections.
            Article 0 comments Cited 103 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              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.

              P Else, Mark Wilcox, Andre Charlett … (2009)
              The continuing rise in the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection is a cause for concern, with implications for patients and health care systems. Laboratory diagnosis largely relies on rapid toxin detection kits, although assays detecting alternative targets, including glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin genes, are now available. Six hundred routine diagnostic diarrheal samples were tested prospectively using nine commercial toxin detection assays, cytotoxin assay (CYT), and cytotoxigenic culture (CYTGC) and retrospectively using a GDH detection assay and PCR for the toxin B gene. The mean sensitivity and specificity for toxin detection assays were 82.8% (range, 66.7 to 91.7%) and 95.4% (range, 90.9 to 98.8%), respectively, in comparison with CYT and 75.0% (range, 60.0 to 86.4%) and 96.1% (91.4 to 99.4%), respectively, in comparison with CYTGC. The sensitivity and specificity of the GDH assay were 90.1% and 92.9%, respectively, compared to CYT and 87.6% and 94.3%, respectively, compared to CYTGC. The PCR assay had the highest sensitivity of all the tests in comparison with CYT (92.2%) and CYTGC (88.5%), and the specificities of the PCR assay were 94.0% and 95.4% compared to CYT and CYTGC, respectively. All kits had low positive predictive values (range, 48.6 to 86.8%) compared with CYT, assuming a positive sample prevalence of 10% (representing the hospital setting), which compromises the clinical utility of single tests for the laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection. The optimum rapid single test was PCR for toxin B gene, as this had the highest negative predictive value. Diagnostic algorithms that optimize test combinations for the laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection need to be defined.
              Article 0 comments Cited 65 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Ann Lab Med
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Ann Lab Med
                Journal ID (publisher-id): ALM
                Title: Annals of Laboratory Medicine
                Publisher: The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine
                ISSN (Print): 2234-3806
                ISSN (Electronic): 2234-3814
                Publication date (Print): March 2019
                Publication date (Electronic): 13 November 2018
                Volume: 39
                Issue: 2
                Pages: 214-217
                Affiliations
                Department of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Nam Yong Lee, M.D. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea. Tel: +82-2-3410-2706, Fax: +82-2-3410-2719, micro.lee@ 123456samsung.com
                Co-corresponding author: Hee Jae Huh., M.D. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea. Tel: +82-2-3410-1836, Fax: +82-2-3410-2719, pmhhj77@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8999-7561
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3688-0145
                Article
                DOI: 10.3343/alm.2019.39.2.214
                PMC ID: 6240517
                PubMed ID: 30430786
                SO-VID: b2b2674a-c117-4bfe-a87e-1fd9e2c8ede2
                Copyright © © The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 15 May 2018
                Date revision received : 16 July 2018
                Date accepted : 27 September 2018
                Categories
                Subject: Brief Communication
                Subject: Clinical Microbiology

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Clinical chemistry
                Keywords: clostridioides difficile,glutamate dehydrogenase,toxin a/b,performance,algorithm
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Clinical chemistry
                Keywords: clostridioides difficile, glutamate dehydrogenase, toxin a/b, performance, algorithm

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content186

                See all similar

                Cited by2

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors356

                See all reference authors