Clostridioides difficile laboratory diagnostic techniques: a comparative approach of rapid and molecular methods
- PMID: 33459815
- DOI: 10.1007/s00203-020-02148-8
Clostridioides difficile laboratory diagnostic techniques: a comparative approach of rapid and molecular methods
Abstract
Clostridioides difficile infection is a public health problem because of it is easily spread; with harmful consequences, it is essential to reduce hospital costs and prevent its dissemination by having a precise diagnosis. The gold standard for its diagnosis is polymerase chain reaction (PCR); however, the technique is not available for all laboratories due to the high cost. New approaches using non-molecular tests to detect C. difficile and toxin A/B production has been proposed to improve cost benefits. The objective of this study is to compare molecular methods (PCR) and rapid methods (immunochromatographic test and enzymatic immunoassay). A series of tests comprising these diagnostic techniques was performed with 50 patients with a clinical diagnosis for Clostridioides difficile on GeneXpert® devices test; a calculation of the sensitivity was executed, followed by a comparison of the efficiency of all techniques. Greater sensitivity was observed in the PCR-based methods (BD MAX™ and BioFire FilmArray®) and the GDH-based assays (RIDASCREEN® and Alere Techlab®). The proposed algorithm represents minor monetary disadvantages but a significant temporal optimization of 10%. Future studies concerning both positive and negative results could be advantageous because of the possibility of calculating more method concordance indexes, such as the specificity and Kappa index, in addition to being able to indicate a monetary profit if the proposed algorithm was applied due to the nonproceeding PCR cases.
Keywords: Clostridioides difficile; Enzymatic immunoassay; Immunochromatographic test; Polymerase chain reaction.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of the STANDARD M10 C. difficile, Xpert C. difficile, and BD MAX Cdiff assays as confirmatory tests in a two-step algorithm for diagnosing Clostridioides difficile infection.Microbiol Spectr. 2025 Jan 7;13(1):e0166224. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01662-24. Epub 2024 Nov 29. Microbiol Spectr. 2025. PMID: 39611822 Free PMC article.
-
Clostridium difficile testing in the clinical laboratory by use of multiple testing algorithms.J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Mar;48(3):889-93. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01801-09. Epub 2010 Jan 13. J Clin Microbiol. 2010. PMID: 20071552 Free PMC article.
-
High Agreement Between an Ultrasensitive Clostridioides difficile Toxin Assay and a C. difficile Laboratory Algorithm Utilizing GDH-and-Toxin Enzyme Immunoassays and Cytotoxin Testing.J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jan 28;58(2):e01629-19. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01629-19. Print 2020 Jan 28. J Clin Microbiol. 2020. PMID: 31776192 Free PMC article.
-
Clostridium difficile testing algorithms: what is practical and feasible?Anaerobe. 2009 Dec;15(6):270-3. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2009.10.005. Epub 2009 Oct 22. Anaerobe. 2009. PMID: 19853666 Review.
-
Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection can molecular amplification methods move us out of uncertainty?J Mol Diagn. 2011 Nov;13(6):573-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.06.001. Epub 2011 Aug 18. J Mol Diagn. 2011. PMID: 21854871 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
An Update on Clostridioides difficile Binary Toxin.Toxins (Basel). 2022 Apr 27;14(5):305. doi: 10.3390/toxins14050305. Toxins (Basel). 2022. PMID: 35622552 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Clostridioides difficile Infection: Diagnosis and Treatment Challenges.Pathogens. 2024 Jan 27;13(2):118. doi: 10.3390/pathogens13020118. Pathogens. 2024. PMID: 38392856 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection in symptomatic patients: what can we do better?Braz J Microbiol. 2023 Jun;54(2):849-857. doi: 10.1007/s42770-023-00956-w. Epub 2023 Mar 29. Braz J Microbiol. 2023. PMID: 36991280 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Alcalá L et al (2008) Comparison of three commercial methods for rapid detection of clostridium difficile toxins A and B from fecal specimens. J clin Microbiol 46:3833–3835. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01060-08 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Alcalá L et al (2010) Comparison of ImmunoCard Toxins A&B and the new semiautomated Vidas Clostridium difficile Toxin A&B tests for diagnosis of C. difficile infection. J Clin Microbiol 48:1014–1015. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01642-09 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Babady NE et al (2010) Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Clostridium difficile Epi assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection and typing of the NAP1 strain at a cancer hospital. J Clin Microbiol 48:4519–4524. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01648-10 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Bartlett JG (2008) Historical perspectives on studies of Clostridium difficile and C. difficile Infection. Clin Infect Dis 46:S4–S11. https://doi.org/10.1086/521865 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Burnham C-AD, Carroll KC (2013) Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories. Clin Microbiol Rev 26:604–630. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00016-13 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources