Clostridium difficile infection diagnosis in a paediatric population: comparison of methodologies
- 542 Downloads
The increasing incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in paediatric hospitalised populations, combined with the emergence of hypervirulent strains, community-acquired CDI and the need for prompt treatment and infection control, makes the rapid, accurate diagnosis of CDI crucial. We validated commonly used C. difficile diagnostic tests in a paediatric hospital population. From October 2011 to January 2012, 150 consecutive stools were collected from 75 patients at a tertiary paediatric hospital in Perth, Western Australia. Stools were tested using: C. Diff Quik Chek Complete, Illumigene C. difficile, GeneOhm Cdiff, cycloserine cefoxitin fructose agar (CCFA) culture, and cell culture cytotoxin neutralisation assay (CCNA). The reference standard was growth on CCFA or Cdiff Chromagar and PCR on isolates to detect tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, and cdtB. Isolates were PCR ribotyped. The prevalence of CDI was high (43 % of patients). Quik Chek Complete glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) demonstrated a low negative predictive value (NPV) (93 %). Both CCNA and Quik Chek Complete toxin A/B had poor sensitivity (33 % and 29 % respectively). Molecular methods both had 89 % sensitivity. Algorithms using GDH + Illumigene or GeneOhm reduced the sensitivity to 85 % and 83 % respectively. Ribotype UK014/20 predominated. GDH NPV and GeneOhm and Illumigene sensitivities were reduced compared with adult studies. Quik Chek Complete and CCNA cannot reliably detect toxigenic CDI. A GDH first algorithm showed reduced sensitivity. In a high prevalence paediatric population, molecular methods alone are recommended over the use of GDH algorithm or culture and CCNA, as they demonstrate the best test performance characteristics.
KeywordsNegative Predictive Value Clostridium Difficile Infection Taurocholic Acid Formed Stool Binary Toxin
We would like to thank the laboratory staff of the PathWest Laboratory Medicine Princess Margaret Hospital branch and the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre branch enteric laboratory.
As a laboratory-based, non-interventional study ethics committee review was not required.
Conflicts of interest
JH, PP, DK, LS and AK have no conflicts of interest to declare. TVR has received speaker fees, educational grants and travel assistance to attend scientific meetings from Bayer, bioMérieux, GlaxoSmithKine, Genenzyme, Becton Dickinson, Meridian Bioscience, Sanofi and Merck.
- 17.Ota KV, McGowan KL (2012) Clostridium difficile testing algorithms using glutamate dehydrogenase antigen and C. difficile toxin enzyme immunoassays with C. difficile nucleic acid amplification testing increase diagnostic yield in a tertiary pediatric population. J Clin Microbiol 50(4):1185–1188PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Selvaraju SB, Gripka M, Estes K, Nguyen A, Jackson MA, Selvarangan R (2011) Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in pediatric stool samples: an evaluation of Quik Chek Complete antigen assay, BD GeneOhm Cdiff PCR and ProGastro Cd PCR assays. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 71(3):224–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Sharp SE, Ruden LO, Pohl JC, Patricia A, Hatcher PA, Linda M, Jayne LM, Ivie WM (2010) Evaluation of the C.Diff Quik Chek Complete assay, a new glutamate dehydrogenase and A/B toxin combination lateral flow assay for use in rapid, simple diagnosis of Clostridium difficile disease. J Clin Microbiol 48(6):2082–2086PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Kawada M, Annaka M, Kato H, Shibasaki S, Hikosaka K, Mizuno H, Masuda Y, Inamatsu T (2011) Evaluation of a simultaneous detection kit for the glutamate dehydrogenase antigen and toxin A/B in feces for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. J Infect Chemother 17(6):807–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Planche TD, Davies KA, Coen PG, Finney JM, Monahan IM, Morris KA, O’Connor L, Oakley SJ, Pope CF, Wren MW, Shetty NP, Crook DW, Wilcox MH (2013) Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection. Lancet Infect Dis 13(11):936–945PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar