i Diarrhea due to enteric bacterial pathogens causes significant morbidity and mortality in the United States and worldwide. However, bacterial pathogens may be infrequently identified. Currently, culture and enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) are the primary methods used by clinical laboratories to detect enteric bacterial pathogens. We conducted a multicenter evaluation of the BD Max enteric bacterial panel (EBP) PCR assay in comparison to culture for the detection of Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Campylobacter jejuni, and Campylobacter coli and an EIA for Shiga toxins 1 and 2. A total of 4,242 preserved or unpreserved stool specimens, including 3,457 specimens collected prospectively and 785 frozen, retrospective samples, were evaluated. Compared to culture or EIA, the positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) values for the BD Max EBP assay for all specimens combined were as follows: 97.1% and 99.2% for Salmonella spp., 99.1% and 99.7% for Shigella spp., 97.2% and 98.4% for C. jejuni and C. coli, and 97.4% and 99.3% for Shiga toxins, respectively. Discrepant results for prospective samples were resolved with alternate PCR assays and bidirectional sequencing of amplicons. Following discrepant analysis, PPA and NPA values were as follows: 97.3% and 99.8% for Salmonella spp., 99.2% and 100% for Shigella spp., 97.5% and 99.0% for C. jejuni and C. coli, and 100% and 99.7% for Shiga toxins, respectively. No differences in detection were observed for samples preserved in Cary-Blair medium and unpreserved samples. In this large, multicenter study, the BD Max EBP assay showed superior sensitivity compared to conventional methods and excellent specificity for the detection of enteric bacterial pathogens in stool specimens. The World Health Organization reports that, worldwide, there are nearly 1.7 billion cases of diarrheal disease every year and that diarrheal disease is the second leading cause of death of children Ͻ5 years old. Each year, diarrhea kills ϳ760,000 children under the age of 5 years, and most importantly, it is preventable and treatable. Diarrhea is also a leading cause of malnutrition in this same age group. Most of this disease is related to unsafe drinking water, inadequate sanitation, and poor hygiene (1, 2).Acute gastroenteritis is caused by a number of bacterial, viral, and parasitic agents (3). In the United States, noroviruses cause most cases of self-limited, acute gastroenteritis. However, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shigella, and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are the most common diarrheagenic bacteria, and they are usually associated with foodborne illness (4). Furthermore, Shigella is more frequently transmitted from person to person due to the low infectious dose. Importantly, agents of gastroenteritis may not be distinguished clinically. Identifying the cause of diarrhea is important for both the treatment of individual patients and public health intervention through outbreak management (5).Conventional microbiological cultures remain the gold standard...

Common causes of chronic diarrhea among travelers worldwide include protozoan parasites. The majority of parasitic infections are caused by Giardia duodenalis, Entamoeba histolytica, Cryptosporidium parvum, and Cryptosporidium hominis. Similarly, these species cause the majority of parasitic diarrhea acquired in the United States. Detection of parasites by gold standard microscopic methods is time-consuming and requires considerable expertise; enzyme immunoassays and direct fluorescent-antibody (DFA) stains have lowered hands-on time for testing, but improvements in sensitivity and technical time may be possible with a PCR assay. We performed a clinical evaluation of a multiplex PCR panel, the enteric parasite panel (EPP), for the detection of these common parasites using the BD Max instrument, which performs automated extraction and amplification. A total of 2,495 compliant specimens were enrolled, including 2,104 (84%) specimens collected prospectively and 391 (16%) specimens collected retrospectively. Approximately equal numbers were received in 10% formalin (1,273 specimens) and unpreserved (1,222 specimens). The results from the EPP were compared to those from alternate PCR and bidirectional sequencing (APCR), as well as DFA (G. duodenalis and C. parvum or C. hominis) or trichrome stain (E. histolytica). The sensitivity and specificity for prospective and retrospective specimens combined were 98.2% and 99.5% for G. duodenalis, 95.5% and 99.6 for C. parvum or C. hominis, and 100% and 100% for E. histolytica, respectively. The performance of the FDA-approved BD Max EPP compared well to the reference methods and may be an appropriate substitute for microscopic examination or immunoassays.

The persistence of symptoms in Lyme disease patients following antibiotic therapy, and their causes, continue to be a matter of intense controversy. The studies presented here explore antibiotic efficacy using nonhuman primates. Rhesus macaques were infected with B. burgdorferi and a portion received aggressive antibiotic therapy 4-6 months later. Multiple methods were utilized for detection of residual organisms, including the feeding of lab-reared ticks on monkeys (xenodiagnosis), culture, immunofluorescence and PCR. Antibody responses to the B. burgdorferi-specific C6 diagnostic peptide were measured longitudinally and declined in all treated animals. B. burgdorferi antigen, DNA and RNA were detected in the tissues of treated animals. Finally, small numbers of intact spirochetes were recovered by xenodiagnosis from treated monkeys. These results demonstrate that B. burgdorferi can withstand antibiotic treatment, administered postdissemination, in a primate host. Though B. burgdorferi is not known to possess resistance mechanisms and is susceptible to the standard antibiotics (doxycycline, ceftriaxone) in vitro, it appears to become tolerant post-dissemination in the primate host. This finding raises important questions about the pathogenicity of antibiotic-tolerant persisters and whether or not they can contribute to symptoms post-treatment.

BackgroundThe testing strategy for Pneumocystis at the Cleveland Clinic changed from toluidine blue staining to polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We studied the differences in positivity rates for these assays and compared each with the detection of Pneumocystis in companion specimens by cytology and surgical pathology.MethodsWe reviewed the results of all Pneumocystis test orders 1 year before and 1 year after the implementation of a Pneumocystis-specific PCR. We also reviewed the corresponding cytology and surgical pathology results, if performed. Finally, we reviewed the medical records of patients with rare Pneumocystis detected by PCR in an effort to differentiate colonization vs true disease.ResultsToluidine blue staining and surgical pathology had similar sensitivities and negative predictive values, both of which were superior to cytology. There was a >4-fold increase in the annual detection of Pneumocystis by PCR compared with toluidine blue staining (toluidine blue staining: 11/1583 [0.69%] vs PCR: 44/1457 [3.0%]; chi-square P < .001). PCR detected 1 more case than surgical pathology and was far more sensitive than cytology. Chart review demonstrated that the vast majority of patients with rare Pneumocystis detected were immunosuppressed, had radiologic findings supportive of this infection, had no other pathogens detected, and were treated for pneumocystosis by the clinical team.ConclusionPCR was the most sensitive method for the detection of Pneumocystis and should be considered the diagnostic test of choice. Correlation with clinical and radiologic findings affords discrimination of early true disease from the far rarer instances of colonization.

We describe broad-range salmonellae (ie, Salmonella) and Salmonella serotype Typhi-specific LightCycler (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) real-time polymerase chain reaction assays. We validated these with a battery of 280 bacteria, 108 of which were salmonellae representing 20 serotypes. In addition, 298 isolates from 170 clinical specimens that were suspected to possibly represent Salmonella were tested with the pan- Salmonella assay. Finally, the pan-Salmonella assay also was used to test DNA extracts from 101 archived, frozen stool specimens, 55 of which were culture-positive for salmonellae. Both assays were 100% sensitive and specific when cultured isolates of the battery were tested. The pan- Salmonella assay also characterized correctly all salmonellae on the primary isolation agar and was 96% sensitive (53/55) and 96% specific (49/51) when nucleic acid extracts from direct stool specimens were tested. These assays represent potential tools the clinical microbiologist could use to screen suspect isolates or stool specimens for Salmonella.