Comparative performance of the GeneXpert C. difficile PCR assay and C. diff Quik Chek Complete kit assay for detection of Clostridium difficile antigen and toxins in symptomatic community-onset infections

Jamal, Wafaa; Pauline, Eunice M.; Rotimi, Vincent O.

doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2014.10.025

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We also showed that PCR-positive samples were split between toxin-negative and toxinpositive EIA results. This finding is similar to findings of other studies that showed toxin EIA testing to have decreased sensitivity compared to that of PCR testing (22)(23)(24).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Searching for a Potential Algorithm for Clostridium difficile Testing at a Tertiary Care Hospital: Does Toxin Enzyme Immunoassay Testing Help?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in the United States. Methods for identifying the organism in stool include molecular platforms, enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for toxin, and culture. Controversy persists over whether molecular tests are too sensitive at identifying , and there are questions about how additional laboratory information could inform clinical management and reduce over treatment. The aim of this study was to assess whether clinical factors are related to the toxin status of patients and whether information about toxin status could potentially inform clinical management of patients. A total of 201 PCR-positive stool samples from adult patients at our institution underwent EIA toxin testing. Clinical and laboratory data were collected, and the percentage of PCR-positive/EIA-positive (PCR/EIA) patients and PCR and EIA-negative (PCR/EIA) patients was calculated. Of the 201 samples, 47% were EIA positive and 53% were EIA negative. Although PCR/EIA patients were more likely to have had a prior infection ( = 0.015), there was no statistical difference between the additional data collected that correlated with a positive EIA result. We were unable to show that patients with an EIA result had worse clinical parameters than those with EIA results and concluded that establishing a testing algorithm that included both PCR and EIA testing would not change the clinical management of patients at our hospital.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Searching for a Potential Algorithm for Clostridium difficile Testing at a Tertiary Care Hospital: Does Toxin Enzyme Immunoassay Testing Help?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The samples were tested immediately upon arrival in the ARL by GDH test and for C. difficile toxin detection using GeneXpert [25]. All samples were then cultured on Cycloserine Cefoxitin Fructose Agar (CCFA) (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK).…”

Section: Microbiological Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A prospective study of community-associated Clostridium difficile infection in Kuwait: Epidemiology and ribotypes

Jamal¹,

Pauline²,

Rotimi³

2015

Anaerobe

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In contrast to our findings, previous reports suggest that C. difficile toxin EIA lacks sensitivity but shows better specificity compared to molecular test and the cell culture cytotoxin neutralization assay for detection of C. difficile toxin. [ 8 9 10 ] However, emerging data now indicate that sensitivity and specificity of the EIA assay might be related to the C. difficile ribotype present in the stool sample being tested. [ 11 ] We speculate that this might explain the differences in the sensitivity and specificity of the QCC-EIA assay observed in our study compared to other reports.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of clostridium difficile antigen and toxin in stool specimens: Comparison of the C. difficile quik chek complete enzyme immunoassay and GeneXpert C. difficile polymerase chain reaction assay

Senok

Aldosari

Alowaisheq

et al. 2017

Saudi J Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative performance of the GeneXpert C. difficile PCR assay and C. diff Quik Chek Complete kit assay for detection of Clostridium difficile antigen and toxins in symptomatic community-onset infections

Abstract: The GeneXpert assay was more sensitive than QCC for the detection of C. difficile toxin in stool, but both assays were highly specific.

Cited by 24 publications

References 26 publications

Searching for a Potential Algorithm for Clostridium difficile Testing at a Tertiary Care Hospital: Does Toxin Enzyme Immunoassay Testing Help?

Searching for a Potential Algorithm for Clostridium difficile Testing at a Tertiary Care Hospital: Does Toxin Enzyme Immunoassay Testing Help?

A prospective study of community-associated Clostridium difficile infection in Kuwait: Epidemiology and ribotypes

Detection of clostridium difficile antigen and toxin in stool specimens: Comparison of the C. difficile quik chek complete enzyme immunoassay and GeneXpert C. difficile polymerase chain reaction assay

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About