Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of three enzyme immunoassays and a loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

  • Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) consists of the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile, and/or its toxins A or B in stool preferably in a two-step algorithm. In a prospective study, we compared the performance of three toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs)—ImmunoCard Toxins A & B, Premier Toxins A & B and C. diff Quik Chek Complete, which combines a toxins test and a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen EIA in one device —and the loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay Illumigene C. difficile. In total 986 stool samples were analyzed. Compared with toxigenic culture as the gold standard, sensitivities, specificities, PPV and NPV values of the toxin EIAs were 41.1–54.8 %, 98.9–100 %, 75.0–100 % and 95.5–96.5 % respectively, of the Illumigene assay 93.3 %, 99.7 %, 95.8 % and 99.5 %. Illumigene assays performed significantly better for non-014/020 PCR-ribotypes than for C. difficile isolates belonging to 014/020. Discrepant analysis of three culture-negative, but Illumigene-positive samples, revealed the presence of toxin genes using real-time PCRs. In addition to the GDH EIA (NPV of 99.8 %), the performance of Illumigene allows this test to be introduced as a first screening test for CDI- or as a confirmation test for GDH -positive samples, although the initial invalid Illumigene result of 4.4 % is a point of concern.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aspinall ST, Hutchinson DN (1992) New selective medium for isolating Clostridium difficile from faeces. J Clin Pathol 45:812–814

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bauer MP, Notermans DW, van Benthem BH, Brazier JS, Wilcox MH, Rupnik M, Monnet DL, van Dissel JT, Kuijper EJ, ECDIS Study Group (2011) Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: a hospital-based survey. Lancet 377:63–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bidet P, Lalande V, Salauze B, Burghoffer B, Avesani V, Delmée M, Rossier A, Barbut F, Petit JC (2000) Comparison of PCR-ribotyping, arbitrarily primed PCR, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for typing Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 38:2484–2487

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buderer NM (1996) Statistical methodology. I. Incorporating the prevalence of disease into the sample size calculation for sensitivity and specificity. Acad Emerg Med 3:895–900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chapin KC, Dickenson RA, Wu F, Andrea SB (2011) Comparison of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin. J Mol Diagn 13:395–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Crobach MJ, Dekkers OM, Wilcox MH, Kuijper EJ (2009) European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID): data review and recommendations for diagnosing Clostridium difficile-infection (CDI). Clin Microbiol Infect 15:1053–1066

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Doing KM, Hintz MS (2012) Prospective evaluation of the Meridian Illumigene™ loop-mediated amplification assay and the Gen Probe ProGastro™ Cd polymerase chain reaction assay for the direct detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from fecal samples. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 72:8–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dubberke ER, Han Z, Bobo L, Hink T, Lawrence B, Copper S, Hoppe-Bauer J, Burnham CD, Dunne WM (2011) Impact of clinical symptoms on interpretation of diagnostic assays for Clostridium difficile infections. J Clin Microbiol 49:2887–2893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eastwood K, Else P, Charlett A, Wilcox M (2009) Comparison of nine commercially available Clostridium difficile toxin detection assays, a real-time PCR assay for C. difficile tcdB, and a glutamate dehydrogenase detection assay to cytotoxin testing and cytotoxigenic culture methods. J Clin Microbiol 47:3211–3217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Freeman J, Bauer MP, Baines SD, Corver J, Fawley WN, Goorhuis B, Kuijper EJ, Wilcox MH (2010) The changing epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infections. Clin Microbiol Rev 23:529–549

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Freeman J, Wilcox MH (2003) The effects of storage conditions on viability of Clostridium difficile vegetative cells and spores and toxin activity in human faeces. J Clin Pathol 56:126–128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goldenberg SD, Cliff PR, Smith S, Milner M, French GL (2010) Two-step glutamate dehydrogenase antigen real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. J Hosp Infect 74:48–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kato H, Kato N, Katow S, Maegawa T, Nakamura S, Lyerly DM (1999) Deletions in the repeating sequences of the toxin A gene of toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive Clostridium difficile strains. FEMS Microbiol Lett 175:197–203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kato H, Kato N, Watanabe K, Iwai N, Nakamura H, Yamamoto Y, Suzuki K, Kim SM, Chong Y, Wasito EB (1998) Identification of toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive Clostridium difficile by PCR. J Clin Microbiol 36:2178–2182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 17:807–811

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Knetsch CW, Bakker D, de Boer RF, Sanders I, Hofs S, Kooistra-Smid AM, Corver J, Eastwood K, Wilcox MH, Kuijper EJ (2011) Comparison of real-time PCR techniques to cytotoxigenic culture methods for diagnosing Clostridium difficile infection. J Clin Microbiol 49:227–231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kufelnicka AM, Kirn TJ (2011) Effective utilization of evolving methods for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 52:1451–1457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuijper EJ, van Dissel JT, Wilcox MH (2007) Clostridium difficile: changing epidemiology and new treatment options. Curr Opin Infect Dis 20:376–383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lalande V, Barrault L, Wadel S, Eckert C, Petit J, Barbut F (2011) Evaluation of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections. J Clin Microbiol 49:2714–2716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Niesters HG (2002) Clinical virology in real time. J Clin Virol 25(Suppl 3):S3–S12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Notomi T, Okayama H, Masubuchi H, Yonekawa T, Watanabe K, Amino N, Hase T (2000) Loop-mediated isothermal amplification of DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 28:E63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Paltansing S, van den Berg RJ, Guseinova RA, Visser CE, van der Vorm ER, Kuijper EJ (2007) Characteristics and incidence of Clostridium difficile-associated disease in The Netherlands, 2005. Clin Microbiol Infect 13:1058–1064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Quinn CD, Sefers SE, Babiker W, He Y, Albacasa R, Stratton CW, Carroll KC, Tang Y (2010) C.Diff Quik Chek Complete enzyme immunoassay provides a reliable first-line method for detection of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens. J Clin Microbiol 48:603–605

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rupnik M, Wilcox MH, Gerding DN (2009) Clostridium difficile infection: new developments in epidemiology and pathogenesis. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:526–536

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sharp SE, Ruden LO, Pohl JC, Hatcher PA, 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 48:2082–2086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sloan LM, Duresko BJ, Gustafson DR, Rosenblatt JE (2008) Comparison of real-time PCR for detection of the tcdC gene with four toxin immunoassays and culture in diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. J Clin Microbiol 46:1996–2001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Swindells J, Brenwald N, Reading N, Oppenheim B (2010) Evaluation of diagnostic tests for Clostridium difficile infection. J Clin Microbiol 48:606–608

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tenover FC, Baron EJ, Peterson LR, Persing DH (2011) Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection can molecular amplification methods move us out of uncertainty? J Mol Diagn 13:573–582

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tenover FC, Novak-Weekley S, Woods CW, Peterson LR, Davis T, Schreckenberger P, Fang FC, Dascal A, Gerding DN, Nomura JH, Goering RV, Akerlund T, Weissfeld AS, Baron EJ, Wong E, Marlowe EM, Whitmore J, Persing DH (2010) Impact of strain type on detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of molecular diagnostic and enzyme immunoassay approaches. J Clin Microbiol 48:3719–3724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 44:1145–1149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Van den Berg RJ, Kuijper EJ, van Coppenraet LE, Claas EC (2006) Rapid diagnosis of toxinogenic Clostridium difficile in faecal samples with internally controlled real-time PCR. Clin Microbiol Infect 12:184–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Isala klinieken, Stilobadstraat 3, 8021AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands

    M. J. Bruins, E. Verbeek, J. A. Wallinga, L. E. S. Bruijnesteijn van Coppenraet & P. Bloembergen

  2. Department of Medical Microbiology, Center of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    E. J. Kuijper

Authors
  1. M. J. Bruins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Verbeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. A. Wallinga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. E. S. Bruijnesteijn van Coppenraet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. J. Kuijper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Bloembergen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. J. Bruins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bruins, M.J., Verbeek, E., Wallinga, J.A. et al. Evaluation of three enzyme immunoassays and a loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 31, 3035–3039 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-012-1658-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-012-1658-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation