Practical guidance for clinical microbiology laboratories: Viruses causing acute respiratory tract infections

Respiratory viral infections are associated with a wide range of acute syndromes and infectious disease processes in children and adults worldwide. Many viruses are implicated in these infections, and these viruses are spread largely via respiratory means between humans but also occasionally from animals to humans. This article is an American Society for Microbiology (ASM)-sponsored Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology (PGCM) document identifying best practices for diagnosis and characterization of viruses that cause acute respiratory infections and replaces the most recent prior version of the ASM-sponsored Cumitech 21 document, Laboratory Diagnosis of Viral Respiratory Disease, published in 1986. The scope of the original document was quite broad, with an emphasis on clinical diagnosis of a wide variety of infectious agents and laboratory focus on antigen detection and viral culture. The new PGCM document is designed to be used by laboratorians in a wide variety of diagnostic and public health microbiology/virology laboratory settings worldwide. The article provides guidance to a rapidly changing field of diagnostics and outlines the epidemiology and clinical impact of acute respiratory viral infections, including preferred methods of specimen collection and current methods for diagnosis and characterization of viral pathogens causing acute respiratory tract infections. Compared to the case in 1986, molecular techniques are now the preferred diagnostic approaches for the detection of acute respiratory viruses, and they allow for automation, high-throughput workflows, and near-patient testing. These changes require quality assurance programs to prevent laboratory contamination as well as strong preanalytical screening approaches to utilize laboratory resources appropriately. Appropriate guidance from laboratorians to stakeholders will allow for appropriate specimen collection, as well as correct test ordering that will quickly identify highly transmissible emerging pathogens

Clostridium difficile ribotype diversity at six health care institutions in the United States

Capillary-based PCR ribotyping was used to quantify the presence/absence and relative abundance of 98 Clostridium difficile ribotypes from clinical cases of disease at health care institutions in six states of the United States. Regionally important ribotypes were identified, and institutions in close proximity did not necessarily share more ribotype diversity than institutions that were farther apart

Comparison of the Premier Toxin A and B Assay and the TOX A/B II Assay for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection▿

Clostridium difficile causes nosocomial diarrhea and is responsible for complications such as pseudomembranous colitis, megacolon, and perforation. Using 442 stool specimens, we compared the sensitivities and specificities of the Premier toxin A and B (Meridian Bioscience, Inc.) and C. difficile TOX A/B II (TechLab, Inc., Blacksburg, VA) immunoassays in the Virology Department of the Kaiser Permanente Regional Reference Laboratories. The Premier toxin A and B assay demonstrated a higher sensitivity (97.44%) and a higher positive predictive value (79.17%) than the C. difficile TOX A/B II assay (87.18% and 75.56%, respectively), while assay specificities and negative predictive values were similar. We also performed experiments using serially diluted, purified toxin A and B antigens to understand the basis for assay differences. The two assays’ toxin A antibodies detected toxin A at comparable levels. Preliminary results indicated that the toxin B antibody in the Premier toxin A and B assay could detect toxin B at a concentration of 125 pg/100 μl, while the toxin B antibody in the C. difficile TOX A/B II assay could not detect toxin B below a concentration of 250 pg/100 μl. Therefore, the Premier toxin A and B assay provides greater sensitivity than the C. difficile TOX A/B II assay, perhaps due to a superior detection ability of its toxin B antibody

Performance of a Cytomegalovirus IgG Enzyme Immunoassay Kit Modified To Measure Avidity

NY 96A, Geneva, NYexterior, pedimented central portic

Multicenter Evaluation of a New Shortened Peptide Nucleic Acid Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Procedure for Species Identification of Select Gram-Negative Bacilli from Blood Cultures▿

A shortened protocol for two peptide nucleic acid fluorescence in situ hybridization (PNA FISH) assays for the detection of Gram-negative bacilli from positive blood cultures was evaluated in a multicenter trial. There was 100% concordance between the two protocols for each assay (368 of 368 and 370 of 370 results) and 99.7% (367 of 368 and 369 of 370 results) agreement with routine laboratory techniques

Comparison of Premier CAMPY Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA), ProSpecT Campylobacter EIA, and ImmunoCard STAT! CAMPY Tests with Culture for Laboratory Diagnosis of Campylobacter Enteric Infections ▿ †

Campylobacter enteritis is a food-borne or waterborne illness caused almost exclusively by Campylobacter jejuni and, to a lesser extent, by Campylobacter coli. These organisms produce indistinguishable clinical diseases and together represent the second most common cause of bacterial diarrhea in the United States and the leading cause of enteric infection throughout the world. The conventional approach to the laboratory diagnosis of Campylobacter enteritis is based on the recovery of the organism from a stool specimen, which requires the use of a specialized medium incubated at 42°C for several days in an artificially created microaerophilic environment. Recently, several commercially available enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) have been developed for the direct detection of C. jejuni and C. coli in stool specimens. This study compared conventional culture with three EIA methods, the Premier CAMPY EIA (Meridian Bioscience, Cincinnati, OH), the ProSpecT Campylobacter EIA (Remel, Lenexa, KS), and the ImmunoCard STAT! CAMPY test (Meridian Bioscience, Cincinnati, OH), for the detection of C. jejuni and C. coli in 485 patient stool samples. Discordant results were arbitrated by using an in-house, real-time PCR assay that was developed and validated by a public health reference laboratory. Following analyses of the discrepant specimens by PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of both the Premier CAMPY and ProSpecT Campylobacter EIAs were 99.3% and 98%, respectively, while the ImmunoCard STAT! CAMPY test had a sensitivity of 98.5% and a specificity of 98.2%. By use of the PCR test as the reference standard, culture detected 127 of 135 Campylobacter-positive stool specimens, yielding a sensitivity of 94.1%. These results showed that the three EIAs evaluated in this study provide a rapid and reliable alternative for the laboratory diagnosis of enteric infections with C. jejuni and C. coli and that conventional culture may no longer be recognized as the “gold standard” for diagnosis

Clostridium difficile Testing in the Clinical Laboratory by Use of Multiple Testing Algorithms ▿

The incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has risen almost 3-fold in the United States over the past decade, emphasizing the need for rapid and accurate tests for CDI. The Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay is an integrated, closed, nucleic acid amplification system that automates sample preparation and real-time PCR detection of the toxin B gene (tcdB). A total of 432 stool specimens from symptomatic patients were tested by a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assay, a toxin A and B enzyme immunoassay (EIA), the Xpert C. difficile assay, and a cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCN). The results of these methods, used individually and in combination, were compared to those of toxigenic culture. Results for the Xpert C. difficile assay alone showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.4, 96.3, 84.0, and 98.8%, while the EIA alone gave corresponding values of 58.3, 94.7, 68.9, and 91.9%, respectively. An algorithm using the GDH assay and the EIA (plus the CCCN if the EIA was negative) showed corresponding values of 83.1, 96.7, 83.1, and 96.1%. The Xpert C. difficile assay was statistically superior to the EIA (P, <0.001 by Fisher's exact test) and to the GDH-EIA-CCCN algorithm (P, 0.0363). Combining the GDH and Xpert C. difficile assays lowered both the sensitivity and the NPV of the Xpert assay. The GDH-EIA-CCCN procedure required, on average, 2 days to complete testing on GDH-positive results, while testing by the Xpert C. difficile assay was completed, on average, in less than 1 h. Xpert C. difficile testing yielded the highest sensitivity and NPV, in the least amount of time, of the individual- and multiple-test algorithms evaluated in this study