Abstract
Background Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a major infectious concern, accounting for substantial morbidity and resource utilization. Advances in microbiological and molecular techniques have resulted in an increasing number of testing options for CDI. A glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and a DNA amplification (DNA-A) test for the diagnosis of CDI have recently become commercially available. Aims The aim of this prospective study was to compare the test performance characteristics of the traditional diagnostic modality for CDI diagnosis, the toxin A/B (TOX) EIA, with those of the GDH EIA and DNA-A test, utilizing enriched toxigenic culture (TGC) as the gold standard. Clinical variables predictive of CDI were also studied. Methods Participants fulfilled one or more criteria placing them at increased risk for CDI. Each stool sample was tested by each of the methods mentioned above. Clinical data parameters were collected via a 12-month review of the electronic medical record prior to the index date of the first stool test. Results A total of 272 stool samples from 144 admissions of 139 patients were evaluated for CDI. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the TOX EIA were 86.1 and 58.4 %, respectively, whereas the sensitivity and PPV of the GDH EIA and DNA-A test were 100 %. 1.8 % of the GDH tests yielded inconclusive results. Using TGC as the gold standard, nosocomial exposure with emphasis on nursing home residence, history of previous CDI, and female gender were predictive of CDI. Conclusions Test performance characteristics of the DNA-A test and GDH EIA were superior to those of the traditional TOX EIA. The GDH test is limited by inconclusive test results and requires a multi-step diagnostic algorithm. Therefore, the DNA-A test should be implemented as the diagnostic method of choice for CDI. CDI clinical predictors are important for diagnostic decisionmaking.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2592-2599 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Digestive Diseases and Sciences |
| Volume | 57 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Oct 1 2012 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Clostridium difficile
- Diagnosis
- DNA amplification
- Immunoenzyme assays
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Gastroenterology
- Physiology
Cite this
Superiority of the DNA amplification assay for the diagnosis of c. difficile infection : A clinical comparison of fecal tests. / Barkin, Jodie A.; Nandi, Neilanjan; Miller, Nancimae; Grace, Alexandra; Barkin, Jamie S; Sussman, Daniel A.
In: Digestive Diseases and Sciences, Vol. 57, No. 10, 01.10.2012, p. 2592-2599.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Superiority of the DNA amplification assay for the diagnosis of c. difficile infection
T2 - A clinical comparison of fecal tests
AU - Barkin, Jodie A.
AU - Nandi, Neilanjan
AU - Miller, Nancimae
AU - Grace, Alexandra
AU - Barkin, Jamie S
AU - Sussman, Daniel A
PY - 2012/10/1
Y1 - 2012/10/1
N2 - Background Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a major infectious concern, accounting for substantial morbidity and resource utilization. Advances in microbiological and molecular techniques have resulted in an increasing number of testing options for CDI. A glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and a DNA amplification (DNA-A) test for the diagnosis of CDI have recently become commercially available. Aims The aim of this prospective study was to compare the test performance characteristics of the traditional diagnostic modality for CDI diagnosis, the toxin A/B (TOX) EIA, with those of the GDH EIA and DNA-A test, utilizing enriched toxigenic culture (TGC) as the gold standard. Clinical variables predictive of CDI were also studied. Methods Participants fulfilled one or more criteria placing them at increased risk for CDI. Each stool sample was tested by each of the methods mentioned above. Clinical data parameters were collected via a 12-month review of the electronic medical record prior to the index date of the first stool test. Results A total of 272 stool samples from 144 admissions of 139 patients were evaluated for CDI. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the TOX EIA were 86.1 and 58.4 %, respectively, whereas the sensitivity and PPV of the GDH EIA and DNA-A test were 100 %. 1.8 % of the GDH tests yielded inconclusive results. Using TGC as the gold standard, nosocomial exposure with emphasis on nursing home residence, history of previous CDI, and female gender were predictive of CDI. Conclusions Test performance characteristics of the DNA-A test and GDH EIA were superior to those of the traditional TOX EIA. The GDH test is limited by inconclusive test results and requires a multi-step diagnostic algorithm. Therefore, the DNA-A test should be implemented as the diagnostic method of choice for CDI. CDI clinical predictors are important for diagnostic decisionmaking.
AB - Background Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a major infectious concern, accounting for substantial morbidity and resource utilization. Advances in microbiological and molecular techniques have resulted in an increasing number of testing options for CDI. A glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and a DNA amplification (DNA-A) test for the diagnosis of CDI have recently become commercially available. Aims The aim of this prospective study was to compare the test performance characteristics of the traditional diagnostic modality for CDI diagnosis, the toxin A/B (TOX) EIA, with those of the GDH EIA and DNA-A test, utilizing enriched toxigenic culture (TGC) as the gold standard. Clinical variables predictive of CDI were also studied. Methods Participants fulfilled one or more criteria placing them at increased risk for CDI. Each stool sample was tested by each of the methods mentioned above. Clinical data parameters were collected via a 12-month review of the electronic medical record prior to the index date of the first stool test. Results A total of 272 stool samples from 144 admissions of 139 patients were evaluated for CDI. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the TOX EIA were 86.1 and 58.4 %, respectively, whereas the sensitivity and PPV of the GDH EIA and DNA-A test were 100 %. 1.8 % of the GDH tests yielded inconclusive results. Using TGC as the gold standard, nosocomial exposure with emphasis on nursing home residence, history of previous CDI, and female gender were predictive of CDI. Conclusions Test performance characteristics of the DNA-A test and GDH EIA were superior to those of the traditional TOX EIA. The GDH test is limited by inconclusive test results and requires a multi-step diagnostic algorithm. Therefore, the DNA-A test should be implemented as the diagnostic method of choice for CDI. CDI clinical predictors are important for diagnostic decisionmaking.
KW - Clostridium difficile
KW - Diagnosis
KW - DNA amplification
KW - Immunoenzyme assays
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867879612&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867879612&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10620-012-2200-x
DO - 10.1007/s10620-012-2200-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 22576711
AN - SCOPUS:84867879612
VL - 57
SP - 2592
EP - 2599
JO - Digestive Diseases and Sciences
JF - Digestive Diseases and Sciences
SN - 0163-2116
IS - 10
ER -