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

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

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

Impact of Strain Type on Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile: Comparison of Molecular Diagnostic and Enzyme Immunoassay Approaches ▿

A multicenter clinical trial assessed the performance of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay on stool specimens collected from patients suspected of having Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). A total of 2,296 unformed stool specimens, collected from seven study sites, were tested by Xpert C. difficile enrichment culture followed by cell culture cytotoxicity testing of the isolates (i.e., toxigenic culture with enrichment) and the study sites' standard C. difficile test methods. The methods included enzyme immunoassay (EIA), direct cytotoxin testing, and two- and three-step algorithms using glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) screening followed by either EIA or EIA and an in-house PCR assay. All C. difficile strains were typed by PCR-ribotyping. Compared to results for toxigenic culture with enrichment, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Xpert assay were 93.5, 94.0, 73.0, and 98.8%, respectively. The overall sensitivity of the EIAs compared to that of enrichment culture was 60.0%, and the sensitivity of combined GDH algorithms was 72.9%; both were significantly lower than that of Xpert C. difficile (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). The sensitivity of the EIA was significantly lower than that of the Xpert C. difficile assay for detection of ribotypes 002, 027, and 106 (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.004, respectively, Fisher's exact test), and the sensitivity of GDH algorithms for ribotypes other than 027 was lower than that for Xpert C. difficile (P < 0.001). The Xpert C. difficile assay is a simple, rapid, and accurate method for detection of toxigenic C. difficile in unformed stool specimens and is minimally affected by strain type compared to EIA and GDH-based methods