Comparative Study of Clostridium difficile Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea

Objectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical application of three methods for detecting Clostridium difficile in fecal samples. Methods. One hundred and fifty fecal specimens were collected and tested for C. difficile using three methods: (1) the toxigenic culture (TC); (2) the VID...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yanyan Xiao, Yong Liu, Xiaosong Qin
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2020-01-01
Series:Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8753284
id doaj-c70f8bbc969d425382f0354435ec1128
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c70f8bbc969d425382f0354435ec11282021-07-02T06:25:28ZengHindawi LimitedCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology1712-95321918-14932020-01-01202010.1155/2020/87532848753284Comparative Study of Clostridium difficile Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with DiarrhoeaYanyan Xiao0Yong Liu1Xiaosong Qin2Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, ChinaDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, ChinaDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, ChinaObjectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical application of three methods for detecting Clostridium difficile in fecal samples. Methods. One hundred and fifty fecal specimens were collected and tested for C. difficile using three methods: (1) the toxigenic culture (TC); (2) the VIDAS enzyme immunoassay (EIA): the VIDAS glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assay and toxin A/B assay were used to detect GDH antigen and A/B toxin; and (3) the GeneXpert PCR assay. The toxigenic culture was used as a reference to evaluate the performance of the VIDAS EIA and the GeneXpert PCR assay. Results. Of 150 specimens, 26 carried both A and B toxin genes, and none of the samples were positive for the binary toxin gene. Toxin-producing C. difficile was found in 17.3% (26/150) of the samples. Thirty-seven GDH-positive samples were detected using the VIDAS GDH assay, and 15 toxin-positive samples were detected using the VIDAS toxin A/B assay. The GeneXpert PCR assay was used to detect C. difficile in 79 specimens simultaneously, and a total of 18 positive specimens were detected. Conclusion. The VIDAS GDH assay is useful for initial screening of C. difficile. The GeneXpert PCR assay is a simple and quick method.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8753284
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Yanyan Xiao
Yong Liu
Xiaosong Qin
spellingShingle Yanyan Xiao
Yong Liu
Xiaosong Qin
Comparative Study of Clostridium difficile Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea
Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology
author_facet Yanyan Xiao
Yong Liu
Xiaosong Qin
author_sort Yanyan Xiao
title Comparative Study of Clostridium difficile Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea
title_short Comparative Study of Clostridium difficile Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea
title_full Comparative Study of Clostridium difficile Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea
title_fullStr Comparative Study of Clostridium difficile Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Study of Clostridium difficile Clinical Detection Methods in Patients with Diarrhoea
title_sort comparative study of clostridium difficile clinical detection methods in patients with diarrhoea
publisher Hindawi Limited
series Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology
issn 1712-9532
1918-1493
publishDate 2020-01-01
description Objectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical application of three methods for detecting Clostridium difficile in fecal samples. Methods. One hundred and fifty fecal specimens were collected and tested for C. difficile using three methods: (1) the toxigenic culture (TC); (2) the VIDAS enzyme immunoassay (EIA): the VIDAS glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assay and toxin A/B assay were used to detect GDH antigen and A/B toxin; and (3) the GeneXpert PCR assay. The toxigenic culture was used as a reference to evaluate the performance of the VIDAS EIA and the GeneXpert PCR assay. Results. Of 150 specimens, 26 carried both A and B toxin genes, and none of the samples were positive for the binary toxin gene. Toxin-producing C. difficile was found in 17.3% (26/150) of the samples. Thirty-seven GDH-positive samples were detected using the VIDAS GDH assay, and 15 toxin-positive samples were detected using the VIDAS toxin A/B assay. The GeneXpert PCR assay was used to detect C. difficile in 79 specimens simultaneously, and a total of 18 positive specimens were detected. Conclusion. The VIDAS GDH assay is useful for initial screening of C. difficile. The GeneXpert PCR assay is a simple and quick method.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8753284
work_keys_str_mv AT yanyanxiao comparativestudyofclostridiumdifficileclinicaldetectionmethodsinpatientswithdiarrhoea
AT yongliu comparativestudyofclostridiumdifficileclinicaldetectionmethodsinpatientswithdiarrhoea
AT xiaosongqin comparativestudyofclostridiumdifficileclinicaldetectionmethodsinpatientswithdiarrhoea
_version_ 1721337295431270400