Poor yield of Clostridium difficile testing algorithms using glutamate dehydrogenase antigen and C. difficile toxin enzyme immunoassays in a pediatric population with declining prevalence of clostridium difficile strain BI/NAP1/027

Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018 Jul;91(3):229-232. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2018.02.016. Epub 2018 Feb 25.

Abstract

We compared the performance of algorithmic Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) diagnosis with four molecular tests in children. Stool samples in patients 1-18 years old were tested with an algorithm (C. Diff Quik Chek Complete (QCC) reflexed to illumigene C. difficile); AmpliVue C. difficile (ACD); Lyra Direct C. difficile (Lyra); BD MAX C diff (BDM); and Xpert C. difficile (XCD). The gold standard was positivity by two tests. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 85%, 99%, 93%, 97% for the algorithm; 21%, 99%, 78%, 87% for QCC's toxin component; 94%, 99%, 94%, 99% for ACD; 88%, 99%, 94%, 98% for Lyra; 94%, 100%, 100%, 99% for BDM, and 94%, 99%, 94% and 99% for XCD. 9.6% of samples were ribotype 027. Algorithms may detect CDI with lower sensitivity compared to molecular methods in children. This may be related to low prevalence of NAP-1/ribotype 027.

Keywords: Clostridium difficile; pediatric.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Evaluation Study

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Algorithms*
  • Antigens, Bacterial / analysis*
  • Bacterial Toxins / analysis*
  • Child
  • Child, Preschool
  • Clostridioides difficile / enzymology*
  • Clostridioides difficile / genetics
  • Clostridium Infections / diagnosis*
  • Female
  • Glutamate Dehydrogenase / analysis*
  • Humans
  • Immunoenzyme Techniques / methods*
  • Infant
  • Male
  • Molecular Diagnostic Techniques / methods
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Prospective Studies
  • Sensitivity and Specificity

Substances

  • Antigens, Bacterial
  • Bacterial Toxins
  • Glutamate Dehydrogenase