Evaluation of four different diagnostic tests to detect Clostridium difficile in piglets
- PMID: 21411571
- PMCID: PMC3122649
- DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00242-11
Evaluation of four different diagnostic tests to detect Clostridium difficile in piglets
Abstract
Clostridium difficile is emerging as pathogen in both humans and animals. In 2000 it was described as one of the causes of neonatal enteritis in piglets, and it is now the most common cause of neonatal diarrhea in the United States. In Europe, C. difficile infection (CDI) in both neonatal piglets and adult sows has also been reported. Diagnosis of this infection is based on detection of the bacterium C. difficile or its toxins A and B. Most detection methods, however, are only validated for diagnosing human infections. In this study three commercially available enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and a commercial real-time-PCR (Becton, Dickinson, and Company) were evaluated by testing 172 pig fecal specimens (139 diarrheic and 33 nondiarrheic piglets). The results of each test were compared to those of cytotoxicity assays (CTAs) and toxigenic culture as the "gold standards." Compared to CTAs, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were, respectively, as follows: for real-time PCR, 91.6, 37.1, 57.6, and 82.5%; for Premier Toxins A&B (Meridian), 83.1, 31.5, 53.1, and 66.7%; for ImmunoCard Toxins A&B kit (ICTAB; Meridian), 86.6, 56.8, 66.9, and 80.7%; and for VIDAS (bioMérieux), 54.8, 92.6, 85.0, and 72.8%. Compared to toxigenic culture, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were, respectively, as follows: for real-time PCR, 93.0, 34.7, 50.0, and 87.5%; for Premier Toxins A&B, 80.3, 27.7, 43.8, and 66.7%; and for ICTAB, 80.0, 46.2, 52.8, and 75.4%; and for VIDAS, 56.4, 89.8, 77.5, and 76.7%. We conclude that all tests had an unacceptably low performance as a single test for the detection of C. difficile in pig herds and that a two-step algorithm is necessary, similar to that in cases of human CDI. Of all of the assays, the real-time PCR had the highest NPV compared to both reference methods and is therefore the most appropriate test to screen for the absence of C. difficile in pigs as a first step in the algorithm. The second step would be a confirmation of the positive results by toxigenic culture.
Similar articles
-
Laboratory detection of Clostridium difficile in piglets in Australia.J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Nov;52(11):3856-62. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01225-14. Epub 2014 Aug 13. J Clin Microbiol. 2014. PMID: 25122859 Free PMC article.
-
Immunochromatographic test and ELISA for the detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and A/B toxins as an alternative for the diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile-associated diarrhea in foals and neonatal piglets.Braz J Microbiol. 2020 Sep;51(3):1459-1462. doi: 10.1007/s42770-020-00275-4. Epub 2020 May 3. Braz J Microbiol. 2020. PMID: 32363568 Free PMC article.
-
Determination of the performance of a novel diagnostic test for Clostridioides difficile toxins A and B using latent class analysis.J Clin Microbiol. 2025 May 14;63(5):e0180724. doi: 10.1128/jcm.01807-24. Epub 2025 Mar 31. J Clin Microbiol. 2025. PMID: 40162818 Free PMC article.
-
Laboratory Diagnostic Methods for Clostridioides difficile Infection: the First Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Korea.Ann Lab Med. 2021 Mar 1;41(2):171-180. doi: 10.3343/alm.2021.41.2.171. Ann Lab Med. 2021. PMID: 33063678 Free PMC article.
-
Clostridial diarrheas in piglets: A review.Vet Microbiol. 2023 May;280:109691. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2023.109691. Epub 2023 Feb 23. Vet Microbiol. 2023. PMID: 36870204 Review.
Cited by
-
Antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of human and piglet Clostridium difficile PCR-ribotype 078.Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2013 Apr 8;2:14. doi: 10.1186/2047-2994-2-14. eCollection 2013. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2013. PMID: 23566553 Free PMC article.
-
Mice with Inflammatory Bowel Disease are Susceptible to Clostridium difficile Infection With Severe Disease Outcomes.Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018 Feb 15;24(3):573-582. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izx059. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018. PMID: 29462386 Free PMC article.
-
Clostridioides (Clostridium) Difficile in Food-Producing Animals, Horses and Household Pets: A Comprehensive Review.Microorganisms. 2019 Dec 9;7(12):667. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms7120667. Microorganisms. 2019. PMID: 31835413 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Clostridioides difficile in Pigs and Dairy Cattle in Northern Italy: Prevalence, Characterization and Comparison between Animal and Human Strains.Microorganisms. 2023 Jul 2;11(7):1738. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11071738. Microorganisms. 2023. PMID: 37512910 Free PMC article.
-
Laboratory detection of Clostridium difficile in piglets in Australia.J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Nov;52(11):3856-62. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01225-14. Epub 2014 Aug 13. J Clin Microbiol. 2014. PMID: 25122859 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Alvarez-Perez S., Alba P., Blanco J. L., Garcia M. E. 2009. Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in pig faeces by PCR. Veterinarni Medicina 54:360–366
-
- Anderson M. A., Songer J. G. 2008. Evaluation of two enzyme immunoassays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxins A and B in swine. Vet. Microbiol. 128:204–206 - PubMed
-
- Arroyo L. G., Staempfli H., Weese J. S. 2007. Molecular analysis of Clostridium difficile isolates recovered from horses with diarrhea. Vet. Microbiol. 120:179–183 - PubMed
-
- Chouicha N., Marks S. L. 2006. Evaluation of five enzyme immunoassays compared with the cytotoxicity assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in dogs. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 18:182–188 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical