Low sensitivity of fecal toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection in immunocompromised patients

被引:41
|
作者
Erb, S. [1 ,2 ]
Frei, R. [3 ]
Stranden, A. M. [1 ,2 ]
Dangel, M. [1 ,2 ]
Tschudin-Sutter, S. [1 ,2 ]
Widmer, A. F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Basel Hosp, Div Infect Dis, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland
[2] Univ Basel Hosp, Hosp Epidemiol, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland
[3] Univ Basel Hosp, Div Clin Microbiol, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland
关键词
Clostridium difficile; enzyme immunoassay; fecal toxin A/B; immunocompromised; toxigenic culture; STEM-CELL TRANSPLANTATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY; EUROPEAN-SOCIETY; DISEASE; DIARRHEA; RATES; EPIDEMIOLOGY; RECOMMENDATIONS; COLONIZATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.cmi.2015.07.016
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
The optimal approach in laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is still not well defined. Toxigenic culture (TC) or alternatively fecal toxin assay by cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay are considered to be the reference standard, but these methods are time-consuming and labor intensive. In many medical centers, diagnosis of CDI is therefore still based on fecal toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay (EIA) directly from stool alone, balancing cost and speed against limited diagnostic sensitivity. The aim of the study was to assess in which patient population the additional workload of TC is justified. All consecutive stool specimens submitted for diagnosis of suspected CDI between 2004 and 2011 at a tertiary-care center were examined by toxin EIA and TC. Clinical data of patients with established diagnosis of CDI were collected in a standardized case-report form. From 12 481 stool specimens submitted to the microbiologic laboratory, 480 (3.8%) fulfilled CDI criteria; 274 (57.1%) were diagnosed by toxin EIA; and an additional 206 (42.9%) were diagnosed by TC when toxin EIA was negative. Independent predictors for negative toxin EIA but positive TC were high-dose corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 2.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50-5.90, p 0.002), leukocytopenia < 1000/mu L (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.22-5.23, p 0.013) and nonsevere CDI (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.39-3.50, p 0.001). There was no difference in outcomes such as in-hospital mortality and recurrence between both groups. In conclusion, negative toxin EIA does not rule out CDI in immunocompromised patients in the setting of relevant clinical symptoms. Methods with improved sensitivity such as TC or PCR should be used, particularly in this patient population. Clinical Microbiology and Infection (C) 2015 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:998.e9 / 998.e15
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of Two Enzyme Immunoassay for Detection of Clostridium difficile Toxin A and Toxin B
    Shin, Bo-Moon
    Yoo, Soo-Fin
    Oh, Hye Jun
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2009, 29 (02): : 122 - 126
  • [2] Fecal Microbiota Transplant for Treatment of Clostridium difficile Infection in Immunocompromised Patients
    Kelly, Colleen R.
    Ihunnah, Chioma
    Fischer, Monika
    Khoruts, Alexander
    Surawicz, Christina
    Afzali, Anita
    Aroniadis, Olga
    Barto, Amy
    Borody, Thomas
    Giovanelli, Andrea
    Gordon, Shelley
    Gluck, Michael
    Hohmann, Elizabeth L.
    Kao, Dina
    Kao, John Y.
    McQuillen, Daniel P.
    Mellow, Mark
    Rank, Kevin M.
    Rao, Krishna
    Ray, Arnab
    Schwartz, Margot A.
    Singh, Namita
    Stollman, Neil
    Suskind, David L.
    Vindigni, Stephen M.
    Youngster, Ilan
    Brandt, Lawrence
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2014, 109 (07): : 1065 - 1071
  • [3] Fecal Biotherapy as Treatment for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection in Immunocompromised Patients
    Newton, David
    Hewlett, Alex
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2013, 108 : S178 - S178
  • [4] Clinical and Infection Control Implications of Clostridium difficile Infection With Negative Enzyme Immunoassay for Toxin
    Guerrero, Dubert M.
    Chou, Christina
    Jury, Lucy A.
    Nerandzic, Michelle M.
    Cadnum, Jennifer C.
    Donskey, Curtis J.
    CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2011, 53 (03) : 287 - 290
  • [5] Diagnosis and outcome of Clostridium difficile infection by toxin enzyme immunoassay and polymerase chain reaction in an island population
    Kumar, Shankar
    Pollok, Richard
    Muscat, Ivan
    Planche, Timothy
    JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2017, 32 (02) : 415 - 419
  • [6] Toxigenic Clostridium difficile Infection in Children: Performance of Toxin A/B Immunoassay
    Mardaneh, Jalal
    Mohammadzadeh, Alireza
    Bagheri, Saeede
    Baniasadi, Maryam
    Yousefi, Masoud
    Pouladfar, Gholamreza
    Anvarinejad, Mojtaba
    CRESCENT JOURNAL OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2021, 8 (02): : 122 - 126
  • [7] Evaluation of a new enzyme immunoassay for Clostridium difficile toxin A
    Vargas, SO
    Horensky, D
    Onderdonk, AB
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 1997, 50 (12) : 996 - 1000
  • [8] Detection of Clostridium difficile toxin A and B from culture suspensions by enzyme immunoassay
    Ebermann, K.
    Pfuller, R.
    Porstmann, S.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2008, 298 : 11 - 12
  • [9] Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for Clostridium difficile infection: Focus on immunocompromised patients
    Di Bella, Stefano
    Gouliouris, Theodore
    Petrosillo, Nicola
    JOURNAL OF INFECTION AND CHEMOTHERAPY, 2015, 21 (3-4) : 230 - 237
  • [10] Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Clostridium difficile Infection in Immunocompromised Patients - Safe or Risky?
    Abu-Sbeih, Hamzah
    Ali, Faisal S.
    Hicklen, Rachel
    Wang, Yinghong
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2018, 113 : S115 - S117