Clostridioides difficile laboratory diagnostic techniques: a comparative approach of rapid and molecular methods
- 18 January 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Archiv für Mikrobiologie
- Vol. 203 (4), 1683-1690
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-020-02148-8
Abstract
Clostridioides difficile infection is a public health problem because of it is easily spread; with harmful consequences, it is essential to reduce hospital costs and prevent its dissemination by having a precise diagnosis. The gold standard for its diagnosis is polymerase chain reaction (PCR); however, the technique is not available for all laboratories due to the high cost. New approaches using non-molecular tests to detect C. difficile and toxin A/B production has been proposed to improve cost benefits. The objective of this study is to compare molecular methods (PCR) and rapid methods (immunochromatographic test and enzymatic immunoassay). A series of tests comprising these diagnostic techniques was performed with 50 patients with a clinical diagnosis for Clostridioides difficile on GeneXpert® devices test; a calculation of the sensitivity was executed, followed by a comparison of the efficiency of all techniques. Greater sensitivity was observed in the PCR-based methods (BD MAX™ and BioFire FilmArray®) and the GDH-based assays (RIDASCREEN® and Alere Techlab®). The proposed algorithm represents minor monetary disadvantages but a significant temporal optimization of 10%. Future studies concerning both positive and negative results could be advantageous because of the possibility of calculating more method concordance indexes, such as the specificity and Kappa index, in addition to being able to indicate a monetary profit if the proposed algorithm was applied due to the nonproceeding PCR cases.This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infectionClinical Microbiology & Infection, 2016
- Multicenter Evaluation of the BioFire FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel for Etiologic Diagnosis of Infectious GastroenteritisJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2015
- Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection: an Ongoing Conundrum for Clinicians and for Clinical LaboratoriesClinical Microbiology Reviews, 2013
- Evaluation of the Fully Automated BD MAX Cdiff and Xpert C. difficile Assays for Direct Detection of Clostridium difficile in Stool SpecimensJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2013
- Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Clostridium difficile Epi Assay for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection and Typing of the NAP1 Strain at a Cancer HospitalJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2010
- Comparison of Immuno Card Toxins A&B and the New Semiautomated Vidas Clostridium difficile Toxin A&B Tests for Diagnosis of C. difficile InfectionJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2010
- 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 MethodsJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2009
- Comparison of Three Commercial Methods for Rapid Detection of Clostridium difficile Toxins A and B from Fecal SpecimensJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2008
- Historical Perspectives on Studies ofClostridium difficileandC. difficileInfectionClinical Infectious Diseases, 2008
- Rapid and Reliable Diagnostic Algorithm for Detection of Clostridium difficileJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2008