4.5 Article

Role of fecal Clostridium difficile load in discrepancies between toxin tests and PCR: is quantitation the next step in C-difficile testing?

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-012-1695-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Center for Research Resources [UL1 RR024146]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Direct tests for Clostridium difficile are 30-50 % more sensitive than tests for C. difficile toxins but the reasons for this discrepancy are incompletely understood. In addition to toxin degradation and strain differences, we hypothesized that C. difficile concentration could be important in determining whether toxins are detected in fecal samples. We performed standard curves on an FDA-approved real-time PCR test for the C. difficile tcdB gene (Xpert C. difficile/Epi, Cepheid) during a prospective comparison of a toxin immunoassay (Meridian Premier), PCR and toxigenic culture. Immunoassay-negative, PCR-positive samples were retested with a cell cytotoxin assay (TechLab). Among 107 PCR-positive samples, 46 (43.0 %) had toxins detected by immunoassay and an additional 18 (16.8 %) had toxin detected by the cytotoxin assay yielding 64 (59.8 %) toxin-positive and 43 (40.2 %) toxin-negative samples. Overall, toxin-negative samples with C. difficile had 10(1)-10(4) fewer DNA copies than toxin-positive samples and most discrepancies between toxin tests and PCR were associated with a significant difference in C. difficile quantity. Of the toxin-positive samples, 95 % had a parts per thousand yen4.1 log(10) C. difficile tcdB DNA copies/mL; 52 % of immunoassay-negative samples and 70 % of immunoassay and cytotoxin negative samples had < 4.1 log(10) C. difficile tcdB DNA copies/mL. These findings suggest that fecal C. difficile concentration is a major determinant of toxin detection and C. difficile quantitation may add to the diagnostic value of existing test methods. Future studies are needed to validate the utility of quantitation and determine the significance of low concentrations of C. difficile in the absence of detectable toxin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据