Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic clostridium difficile detection

Bobby L. Boyanton, Preethi Sural, Caroline R. Loomis, Christine Pesta, Laura Gonzalez-Krellwitz, Barbara Robinson-Dunn, Paul F. Riska

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection is the primary cause of health care-associated diarrhea. While most laboratories have been using rapid antigen tests for detecting C. difficile toxins, they have poor sensitivity; newer molecular methods offer rapid results with high test sensitivity and specificity. This study was designed to compare the performances of two molecular assays (Meridian illumigene and BD GeneOhm) and two antigen assays (Wampole Quik Chek Complete and TechLab Tox A/B II) to detect toxigenic C. difficile. Fecal specimens from hospitalized patients (n = 139) suspected of having C. difficile infection were tested by the four assays. Nine specimens were positive and 109 were negative by all four methods. After discrepant analysis by toxigenic culture (n = 21), the total numbers of stool specimens classified as positive and negative for toxigenic C. difficile were 21 (15%) and 118 (85%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were as follows: GeneOhm (95.2%, 100%, 100%, and 99.2%), illumigene (95.2%, 96.6%, 83.3%, and 99.2%), Tox A/B II (52.4%, 97.5%, 78.6%, and 92.4%), and Quik Chek Complete (47.6%, 100%, 100%, and 91.9%). The illumigene assay performed comparably to the GeneOhm assay with a slight decrease in test specificity; the sensitivities of both far exceeded those of the antigen assays. The clinical characteristics of the concordant and discrepant study patients were similar, including stool consistency and frequency. In the era of rapid molecular-based tests for toxigenic C. difficile, toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) should no longer be considered the standard of care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)640-645
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Microbiology
Volume50
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2012

Fingerprint

Clostridium difficile
Immunoenzyme Techniques
Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
Clostridium Infections
Antigens
Sensitivity and Specificity
Meridians
Standard of Care
Diarrhea
Primary Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Microbiology (medical)

Cite this

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic clostridium difficile detection. / Boyanton, Bobby L.; Sural, Preethi; Loomis, Caroline R.; Pesta, Christine; Gonzalez-Krellwitz, Laura; Robinson-Dunn, Barbara; Riska, Paul F.

In: Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Vol. 50, No. 3, 03.2012, p. 640-645.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Boyanton, Bobby L. ; Sural, Preethi ; Loomis, Caroline R. ; Pesta, Christine ; Gonzalez-Krellwitz, Laura ; Robinson-Dunn, Barbara ; Riska, Paul F. / Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic clostridium difficile detection. In: Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2012 ; Vol. 50, No. 3. pp. 640-645.
@article{d51015d331274a7d8942fc558764940e,
title = "Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic clostridium difficile detection",
abstract = "Clostridium difficile infection is the primary cause of health care-associated diarrhea. While most laboratories have been using rapid antigen tests for detecting C. difficile toxins, they have poor sensitivity; newer molecular methods offer rapid results with high test sensitivity and specificity. This study was designed to compare the performances of two molecular assays (Meridian illumigene and BD GeneOhm) and two antigen assays (Wampole Quik Chek Complete and TechLab Tox A/B II) to detect toxigenic C. difficile. Fecal specimens from hospitalized patients (n = 139) suspected of having C. difficile infection were tested by the four assays. Nine specimens were positive and 109 were negative by all four methods. After discrepant analysis by toxigenic culture (n = 21), the total numbers of stool specimens classified as positive and negative for toxigenic C. difficile were 21 (15{\%}) and 118 (85{\%}), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were as follows: GeneOhm (95.2{\%}, 100{\%}, 100{\%}, and 99.2{\%}), illumigene (95.2{\%}, 96.6{\%}, 83.3{\%}, and 99.2{\%}), Tox A/B II (52.4{\%}, 97.5{\%}, 78.6{\%}, and 92.4{\%}), and Quik Chek Complete (47.6{\%}, 100{\%}, 100{\%}, and 91.9{\%}). The illumigene assay performed comparably to the GeneOhm assay with a slight decrease in test specificity; the sensitivities of both far exceeded those of the antigen assays. The clinical characteristics of the concordant and discrepant study patients were similar, including stool consistency and frequency. In the era of rapid molecular-based tests for toxigenic C. difficile, toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) should no longer be considered the standard of care.",
author = "Boyanton, {Bobby L.} and Preethi Sural and Loomis, {Caroline R.} and Christine Pesta and Laura Gonzalez-Krellwitz and Barbara Robinson-Dunn and Riska, {Paul F.}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1128/JCM.01014-11",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "640--645",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Microbiology",
issn = "0095-1137",
publisher = "American Society for Microbiology",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic clostridium difficile detection

AU - Boyanton, Bobby L.

AU - Sural, Preethi

AU - Loomis, Caroline R.

AU - Pesta, Christine

AU - Gonzalez-Krellwitz, Laura

AU - Robinson-Dunn, Barbara

AU - Riska, Paul F.

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - Clostridium difficile infection is the primary cause of health care-associated diarrhea. While most laboratories have been using rapid antigen tests for detecting C. difficile toxins, they have poor sensitivity; newer molecular methods offer rapid results with high test sensitivity and specificity. This study was designed to compare the performances of two molecular assays (Meridian illumigene and BD GeneOhm) and two antigen assays (Wampole Quik Chek Complete and TechLab Tox A/B II) to detect toxigenic C. difficile. Fecal specimens from hospitalized patients (n = 139) suspected of having C. difficile infection were tested by the four assays. Nine specimens were positive and 109 were negative by all four methods. After discrepant analysis by toxigenic culture (n = 21), the total numbers of stool specimens classified as positive and negative for toxigenic C. difficile were 21 (15%) and 118 (85%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were as follows: GeneOhm (95.2%, 100%, 100%, and 99.2%), illumigene (95.2%, 96.6%, 83.3%, and 99.2%), Tox A/B II (52.4%, 97.5%, 78.6%, and 92.4%), and Quik Chek Complete (47.6%, 100%, 100%, and 91.9%). The illumigene assay performed comparably to the GeneOhm assay with a slight decrease in test specificity; the sensitivities of both far exceeded those of the antigen assays. The clinical characteristics of the concordant and discrepant study patients were similar, including stool consistency and frequency. In the era of rapid molecular-based tests for toxigenic C. difficile, toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) should no longer be considered the standard of care.

AB - Clostridium difficile infection is the primary cause of health care-associated diarrhea. While most laboratories have been using rapid antigen tests for detecting C. difficile toxins, they have poor sensitivity; newer molecular methods offer rapid results with high test sensitivity and specificity. This study was designed to compare the performances of two molecular assays (Meridian illumigene and BD GeneOhm) and two antigen assays (Wampole Quik Chek Complete and TechLab Tox A/B II) to detect toxigenic C. difficile. Fecal specimens from hospitalized patients (n = 139) suspected of having C. difficile infection were tested by the four assays. Nine specimens were positive and 109 were negative by all four methods. After discrepant analysis by toxigenic culture (n = 21), the total numbers of stool specimens classified as positive and negative for toxigenic C. difficile were 21 (15%) and 118 (85%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were as follows: GeneOhm (95.2%, 100%, 100%, and 99.2%), illumigene (95.2%, 96.6%, 83.3%, and 99.2%), Tox A/B II (52.4%, 97.5%, 78.6%, and 92.4%), and Quik Chek Complete (47.6%, 100%, 100%, and 91.9%). The illumigene assay performed comparably to the GeneOhm assay with a slight decrease in test specificity; the sensitivities of both far exceeded those of the antigen assays. The clinical characteristics of the concordant and discrepant study patients were similar, including stool consistency and frequency. In the era of rapid molecular-based tests for toxigenic C. difficile, toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) should no longer be considered the standard of care.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84857432713&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84857432713&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1128/JCM.01014-11

DO - 10.1128/JCM.01014-11

M3 - Article

C2 - 22189114

AN - SCOPUS:84857432713

VL - 50

SP - 640

EP - 645

JO - Journal of Clinical Microbiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Microbiology

SN - 0095-1137

IS - 3

ER -