Repeated enzyme immunoassays have limited utility in diagnosing Clostridium difficile

Brief Report

Abstract

Many clinical laboratories use enzyme immunoassays (EIA) to diagnose Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD). Clinicians frequently order three EIAs to “rule out” CDAD. We performed a retrospective cohort study to determine the clinical utility of repeating EIA testing to diagnose CDAD. We reviewed all EIAs performed by our laboratory during 2005, determined the total number of tests per patient and per testing episode, and calculated the relative negative predictive value (NPV) of one EIA compared to ≥2 EIAs. The laboratory performed 2,938 EIAs, of which 253 (8.6%) tests were positive. Most patients (85%) were diagnosed by the first EIA performed. Of >1,000 testing episodes that included ≥2 EIAs within 7 days, only 15 patients had a positive second or third test after negative initial testing. The relative NPV of the first EIA was 97.4%. These data suggest that using newer generation EIAs, repeated testing is of limited benefit in diagnosing CDAD.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Drees was supported by NRSA grant 5 T32 HS 000060–13. There was no external funding for this study.

The authors would like to thank Linda Perry, Director, Tufts-New England Medical Center Microbiology Laboratory, for her assistance with this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Loo VG, Poirier L, Miller MA, Oughton M, Libman MD, Michaud S, Bourgault AM, Nguyen T, Frenette C, Kelly M, Vibien A, Brassard P, Fenn S, Dewar K, Hudson TJ, Horn R, Rene P, Monczak Y, Dascal A (2005) A predominantly clonal multi-institutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality. N Engl J Med 353:2442–2449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McDonald LC, Owings M, Jernigan DB (2006) Clostridium difficile infection in patients discharged from US short-stay hospitals, 1996–2003. Emerging Infect Dis 12:409–415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Connor D, Hynes P, Cormican M, Collins E, Corbett-Feeney G, Cassidy M (2001) Evaluation of methods for detection of toxins in specimens of feces submitted for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. J Clin Microbiol 39:2846–2849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerding DN, Johnson S, Peterson LR, Mulligan ME, Silva J Jr (1995) Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 16:459–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aldeen WE, Bingham M, Aiderzada A, Kucera J, Jense S, Carroll KC (2000) Comparison of the TOX A/B test to a cell culture cytotoxicity assay for the detection of Clostridium difficile in stools. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 36:211–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mohan SS, McDermott BP, Parchuri S, Cunha BA (2006) Lack of value of repeat stool testing for Clostridium difficile toxin. Am J Med 119:356–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manabe YC, Vinetz JM, Moore RD, Merz C, Charache P, Bartlett JG (1995) Clostridium difficile colitis: an efficient clinical approach to diagnosis. Ann Intern Med 123:835–840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van den Berg RJ, Vaessen N, Endtz HP, Schulin T, van d V, Kuijper EJ (2007) Evaluation of real-time PCR and conventional diagnostic methods for the detection of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea in a prospective multicentre study. J Med Microbiol 56:36–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gleaves C, Aldeen R, Schwartz K, CampbellM, Carroll K (2000) Evaluation of the Premier Toxins A & B EIA for the Detection of C. difficile from clinical stool specimens. In: Program and abstracts of the 100th American Society of Microbiology General Meeting. Abstract C-252Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Renshaw AA, Stelling JM, Doolittle MH (1996) The lack of value of repeated Clostridium difficile cytotoxicity assays. Arch Pathol Lab Med 120:49–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borek AP, Aird DZ, Carroll KC (2005) Frequency of sample submission for optimal utilization of the cell culture cytotoxicity assay for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin. J Clin Microbiol 43:2994–2995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taylor Z, Nolan CM, Blumberg HM (2005) Controlling tuberculosis in the United States. Recommendations from the American Thoracic Society, CDC, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. MMWR Recomm Rep 54:1–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ticehurst JR, Aird DZ, Dam LM, Borek AP, Hargrove JT, Carroll KC (2006) Effective detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile by a two-step algorithm including tests for antigen and cytotoxin. J Clin Microbiol 44:1145–1149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Drees
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • D. R. Snydman
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. E. O’Sullivan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Geographic Medicine and Infectious DiseasesTufts-New England Medical CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical SciencesTufts UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Christiana Care Health SystemCenter for Outcomes ResearchNewarkUSA
  4. 4.Barts and The Royal London TrustPathology and Pharmacy BuildingLondonUK

Personalised recommendations