Performance of Clostridium difficile Toxin Enzyme Immunoassay and Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests Stratified by Patient Disease Severity
- 1 March 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Society for Microbiology in Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Vol. 51 (3), 869-873
- https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02970-12
Abstract
Many clinical laboratories in the United States are transitioning from toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIA) to nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) as the primary diagnostic test for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). While it is known that the analytical sensitivity of the toxin EIA is poor, there are limited clinical data on the performance of these assays for patients with mild or severe CDI. Two hundred ninety-six hospital inpatients with diarrhea and clinical suspicion for CDI were tested prospectively by toxin EIA, by C. difficile NAAT, and with a reference standard toxigenic culture. Following completion of laboratory testing, retrospective chart reviews were performed to stratify patients into mild and severe disease groups based on clinical criteria using a standard point-based system. One hundred forty-three patients with CDI confirmed by toxigenic culture were evaluated in this study. Among the patients with mild CDI, 49% tested positive by toxin EIA and 98% tested positive by NAAT. Among patients with severe CDI, 58% tested positive by toxin EIA and 98% tested positive by NAAT. Increased CDI disease severity was not associated with an increased sensitivity of EIA (P = 0.31). These data demonstrate that toxin EIA performs poorly both for patients with severe CDI and for those with mild CDI and support the routine use of NAAT for the diagnosis of CDI. The presence of stool toxin measured by EIA does not correlate with disease severity.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Clinical impact of switching conventional enzyme immunoassay with nucleic acid amplification test for suspected Clostridium difficile-associated diarrheaAmerican Journal of Infection Control, 2013
- Is Repeat PCR Needed for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection?Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2010
- Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults: 2010 Update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 2010
- Clostridium difficile Testing in the Clinical Laboratory by Use of Multiple Testing AlgorithmsJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2010
- Health Care–AssociatedClostridium difficileInfection in Canada: Patient Age and Infecting Strain Type Are Highly Predictive of Severe Outcome and MortalityClinical Infectious Diseases, 2010
- Nonutility of Repeat Laboratory Testing for Detection of Clostridium difficile by Use of PCR or Enzyme ImmunoassayJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2008
- A Comparison of Vancomycin and Metronidazole for the Treatment of Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea, Stratified by Disease SeverityClinical Infectious Diseases, 2007
- tcdC Genotypes Associated with Severe TcdC Truncation in an Epidemic Clone and Other Strains of Clostridium difficileJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2007
- Lack of Value of Repeat Stool Testing for Clostridium difficile ToxinAmerican Journal Of Medicine, 2006
- Rapid and Simple Method for Detecting the Toxin B Gene of Clostridium difficile in Stool Specimens by Loop-Mediated Isothermal AmplificationJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2005