Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2011 May;49(5):1816-21.
doi: 10.1128/JCM.00242-11. Epub 2011 Mar 16.

Evaluation of four different diagnostic tests to detect Clostridium difficile in piglets

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Evaluation of four different diagnostic tests to detect Clostridium difficile in piglets

E C Keessen et al. J Clin Microbiol. 2011 May.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. Bidet P., et al. 2000. Comparison of PCR-ribotyping, arbitrarily primed PCR, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for typing Clostridium difficile. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38:2484–2487 - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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