Superiority of the DNA amplification assay for the diagnosis of c. difficile infection: A clinical comparison of fecal tests

Jodie A. Barkin, Neilanjan Nandi, Nancimae Miller, Alexandra Grace, Jamie S Barkin, Daniel A Sussman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2592-2599
Number of pages8
JournalDigestive Diseases and Sciences
Volume57
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2012

Fingerprint

Clostridium Infections
Clostridium difficile
Glutamate Dehydrogenase
Immunoenzyme Techniques
DNA
Infection
Microbiological Techniques
Electronic Health Records
Patient Admission
Nursing Homes

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 journalArticle

@article{aaa738dd1e2c44e3ae23293c99edac59,
title = "Superiority of the DNA amplification assay for the diagnosis of c. difficile infection: A clinical comparison of fecal tests",
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.",
keywords = "Clostridium difficile, Diagnosis, DNA amplification, Immunoenzyme assays",
author = "Barkin, {Jodie A.} and Neilanjan Nandi and Nancimae Miller and Alexandra Grace and Barkin, {Jamie S} and Sussman, {Daniel A}",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10620-012-2200-x",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "2592--2599",
journal = "Digestive Diseases and Sciences",
issn = "0163-2116",
publisher = "Plenum Publishers",
number = "10",

}

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 -