We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Real-time polymerase chain reaction correlates well with clinical diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.
Journal of Hospital Infection 2014 June
AIM: To determine the clinical utility of a rapid molecular assay for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in an acute hospital setting.
METHODS: From March to September 2011, stool specimens from inpatients in two acute hospitals with suspected CDI were tested prospectively by routine cell culture cytotoxin neutralization assay (CCNA), real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using the GeneXpert (Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), and a dual testing algorithm [glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)/toxin enzyme immuno-assay, Premier, Launch Diagnostics, Longfield, UK]. All patients with positive PCR, CCNA or discrepant results were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team (treating clinician, gastroenterologist, microbiologist and infection control nurse).
RESULTS: C. difficile detection rates were 11.7% (PCR), 6% (CCNA) and 13.8% (GDH). Out of 1034 stool specimens included in the study, 974 (94.1%) had concordant CCNA and PCR results. Eighty-nine percent (886/985) had concordant CCNA, PCR and GDH results, and 94.4% (930/985) had concordant GDH and PCR results. Using clinical diagnosis as the reference, PCR had sensitivity of 99.1%, specificity of 98.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 91.9% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.9%. CCNA on a single sample had sensitivity of 51%, specificity of 99.4%, PPV of 91.9% and NPV of 94.3%. GDH had sensitivity of 83.8%, specificity of 94.5%, PPV of 64.7% and NPV of 97.9%. Almost twice as many patients were positive by PCR compared with CCNA (121 vs 62); 54/59 of those with discrepant results were clinically confirmed as CDI.
CONCLUSION: Rapid diagnosis of CDI using PCR was timely, accurate and correlated well with clinical diagnosis.
METHODS: From March to September 2011, stool specimens from inpatients in two acute hospitals with suspected CDI were tested prospectively by routine cell culture cytotoxin neutralization assay (CCNA), real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using the GeneXpert (Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), and a dual testing algorithm [glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)/toxin enzyme immuno-assay, Premier, Launch Diagnostics, Longfield, UK]. All patients with positive PCR, CCNA or discrepant results were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team (treating clinician, gastroenterologist, microbiologist and infection control nurse).
RESULTS: C. difficile detection rates were 11.7% (PCR), 6% (CCNA) and 13.8% (GDH). Out of 1034 stool specimens included in the study, 974 (94.1%) had concordant CCNA and PCR results. Eighty-nine percent (886/985) had concordant CCNA, PCR and GDH results, and 94.4% (930/985) had concordant GDH and PCR results. Using clinical diagnosis as the reference, PCR had sensitivity of 99.1%, specificity of 98.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 91.9% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.9%. CCNA on a single sample had sensitivity of 51%, specificity of 99.4%, PPV of 91.9% and NPV of 94.3%. GDH had sensitivity of 83.8%, specificity of 94.5%, PPV of 64.7% and NPV of 97.9%. Almost twice as many patients were positive by PCR compared with CCNA (121 vs 62); 54/59 of those with discrepant results were clinically confirmed as CDI.
CONCLUSION: Rapid diagnosis of CDI using PCR was timely, accurate and correlated well with clinical diagnosis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app