Multicenter Clinical Evaluation of the Portrait Toxigenic C. difficile Assay for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile Strains in Clinical Stool Specimens

We compared the Portrait Toxigenic C. difficile Assay, a new semiautomated sample-to-result molecular test, to a toxigenic bacterial culture/cell cytotoxin neutralization assay (TBC/CCNA) for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in 549 stool specimens. Stool specimens were also tested by one of three alternative FDA-cleared molecular tests for toxigenic C. difficile (Xpert C. difficile, Illumigene C. difficile, or GeneOhm Cdiff). The sensitivities and specificities of the molecular tests compared to TBC/CCNA were as follows: 98.2% and 92.8% for the Portrait assay, 100% and 91.7% for the Xpert assay, 93.3% and 95.1% for the Illumigene assay, and 97.4% and 98.5% for the GeneOhm assay, respectively. The majority of Portrait false-positive results (20/31; 64.5%) were also positive for C. difficile by an alternative molecular test, suggesting an increased sensitivity compared to the culture-based “gold standard” method. The Portrait test detected an assay input of 30 CFU in 100% of spiked samples and detected an input of 10 CFU in 96.7% of samples tested.     

Comparison of strain typing results for Clostridium difficile isolates from North America

Accurate strain typing is critical for understanding the changing epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infections. We typed 350 isolates of toxigenic C. difficile from 2008 to 2009 from seven laboratories in the United States and Canada. Typing was performed by PCR-ribotyping, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and restriction endonuclease analysis (REA) of whole-cell DNA. The Cepheid Xpert C. difficile test for presumptive identification of 027/NAP1/BI isolates was also tested directly on original stool samples. Of 350 isolates, 244 (70%) were known PCR ribotypes, 224 (68%) were 1 of 8 common REA groups, and 187 (54%) were known PFGE types. Eighty-four isolates typed as 027, NAP1, and BI, and 83 of these were identified as presumptive 027/NAP1/BI by Xpert C. difficile. Eight additional isolates were called presumptive 027/NAP1/BI by Xpert C. difficile, of which three were ribotype 027. Five PCR ribotypes contained multiple REA groups, and three North American pulsed-field (NAP) profiles contained both multiple REA groups and PCR ribotypes. There was modest concordance of results among the three methods for C. difficile strains, including the J strain (ribotype 001 and PFGE NAP2), the toxin A-negative 017 strain (PFGE NAP9 and REA type CF), the 078 animal strain (PFGE NAP7 and REA type BK), and type 106 (PFGE NAP11 and REA type DH). PCR-ribotyping, REA, and PFGE provide different but overlapping patterns of strain clustering. Unlike the other methods, the Xpert C. difficile 027/NAP1/BI assay gave results directly from stool specimens, required only 45 min to complete, but was limited to detection of a single strain type.     

Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Clostridium difficile Epi assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection and typing of the NAP1 strain at a cancer hospital

Clostridium difficile is the most common cause of health care-associated diarrhea. Accurate and rapid diagnosis is essential to improve patient outcome and prevent disease spread. We compared our two-step diagnostic algorithm, an enzyme immunoassay for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) followed by the cytotoxin neutralization test (CYT) with a turnaround time of 24 to 48 h, versus the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile Epi assay, a PCR-based assay with a turnaround time of <1 h. In the first phase of the study, only GDH-positive stool samples were tested by both CYT and Xpert PCR. Discordant results were resolved by toxigenic culture. In the second phase, all stool samples were tested by GDH and Xpert PCR. Only GDH-positive stools were further tested by CYT. Genotypic characterization of 45 Xpert PCR-positive stools was performed by sequencing of the tcdC gene and PCR ribotyping. In phase 1, the agreement between the GDH-CYT and the GDH-Xpert PCR was 72%. The sensitivities and specificities of GDH-CYT and GDH-Xpert PCR were 57% and 97% and 100% and 97%, respectively. In phase 2, the agreement between GDH-CYT and Xpert PCR alone was 95%. As in phase 1, sensitivity of the Xpert PCR was higher than that of the GDH-CYT. The correlation between PCR-ribotyping, sequencing, and Xpert PCR for detection of NAP1 strains was excellent (>90%). The excellent sensitivity and specificity and the rapid turnaround time of the Xpert PCR assay as well as its strain-typing capability make it an attractive option for diagnosis of C. difficile infection.     

Yield of stool culture with isolate toxin testing versus a two-step algorithm including stool toxin testing for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile

We examined the incremental yield of stool culture (with toxin testing on isolates) versus our two-step algorithm for optimal detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Per the two-step algorithm, stools were screened for C. difficile-associated glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen and, if positive, tested for toxin by a direct (stool) cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA). In parallel, stools were cultured for C. difficile and tested for toxin by both indirect (isolate) CCNA and conventional PCR if the direct CCNA was negative. The "gold standard" for toxigenic C. difficile was detection of C. difficile by the GDH screen or by culture and toxin production by direct or indirect CCNA. We tested 439 specimens from 439 patients. GDH screening detected all culture-positive specimens. The sensitivity of the two-step algorithm was 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 84%), and that of culture was 87% (95% CI, 80 to 92%). PCR results correlated completely with those of CCNA testing on isolates (29/29 positive and 32/32 negative, respectively). We conclude that GDH is an excellent screening test and that culture with isolate CCNA testing detects an additional 23% of toxigenic C. difficile missed by direct CCNA. Since culture is tedious and also detects nontoxigenic C. difficile, we conclude that culture is most useful (i) when the direct CCNA is negative but a high clinical suspicion of toxigenic C. difficile remains, (ii) in the evaluation of new diagnostic tests for toxigenic C. difficile (where the best reference standard is essential), and (iii) in epidemiologic studies (where the availability of an isolate allows for strain typing and antimicrobial susceptibility testing).     

Impact of clinical symptoms on interpretation of diagnostic assays for Clostridium difficile infections

Asymptomatic Clostridium difficile colonization is common in hospitalized patients. Existing C. difficile assay comparisons lack data on severity of diarrhea or patient outcomes, limiting the ability to interpret their results in regard to the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI). The objective of this study was to measure how including patient presentation with the C. difficile assay result impacted assay performance to diagnose CDI. Stool specimens from 150 patients that met inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected. Nine methods to detect C. difficile in stool were evaluated. All patients were interviewed prospectively to assess diarrhea severity. We then assessed how different reference standards, with and without the inclusion of patient presentation, impact the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the assays to diagnose CDI. There were minimal changes in sensitivity; however, specificity was significantly lower for the assays Tox A/B II, C. diff Chek-60, BD GeneOhm Cdiff, Xpert C. difficile, and Illumigene C. difficile and for toxigenic culture (P was <0.01 for all except Tox A/B II from fresh stool, for which the P value was 0.016) when the reference standard was recovery of toxigenic C. difficile from stool plus the presence of clinically significant diarrhea compared to when the reference standard was having at least four assays positive while ignoring diarrhea severity. There were 15 patients whose assay result was reported as negative but subsequently found to be positive by at least four assays in the comparison. None suffered from any CDI-related adverse events. In conclusion, clinical presentation is important when interpreting C. difficile diagnostic assays.     

Comparison of Multilocus Sequence Typing and the Xpert C. difficile/Epi Assay for Identification of Clostridium difficile 027/NAP1/BI

Clostridium difficile 027/NAP1/BI is the most common C. difficile strain in the United States. The Xpert C. difficile/Epi assay allows rapid, presumptive identification of C. difficile NAP1. We compared Xpert C. difficile/Epi to multilocus sequence typing for identification of C. difficile NAP1 and found “very good” agreement at 97.9% (κ = 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.91).     

Comparison of real-time PCR techniques to cytotoxigenic culture methods for diagnosing Clostridium difficile infection

In the past decade, the incidence of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) with a more severe course has increased in Europe and North America. Assays that are capable of rapidly diagnosing CDI are essential. Two real-time PCRs (LUMC and LvI) targeting C. difficile toxin genes (tcdB, and tcdA and tcdB, respectively) were compared with the BD GeneOhm PCR (targeting the tcdB gene), using cytotoxigenic culture as a gold standard. In addition, a real-time PCR targeting the tcdC frameshift mutation at position 117 (Δ117 PCR) was evaluated for detecting toxigenic C. difficile and the presence of PCR ribotype 027 in stool samples. In total, 526 diarrheal samples were prospectively collected and included in the study. Compared with those for cytotoxigenic culture, sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (PPV), and negative predicted value (NPV) were for PCR LUMC 96.0%, 88.0%, 66.0%, and 98.9%, for PCR LvI 100.0%, 89.4%, 69.7%, and 100.0%, for PCR Δ117 98.0%, 90.7%, 71.9%, and 99.5%, and for PCR BD GeneOhm 88.3%, 96.9%, 86.5%, and 97.4%. Compared to those with feces samples cultured positive for C. difficile type 027, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Δ117 PCR were 95.2%, 96.2%, 87.0%, and 98.7%. We conclude that all real-time PCRs can be applied as a first screening test in an algorithm for diagnosing CDI. However, the low PPVs hinder the use of the assays as stand-alone tests. Furthermore, the Δ117 PCR may provide valuable information for minimizing the spread of the epidemic C. difficile PCR ribotype 027.     

Clostridium difficile testing algorithms using glutamate dehydrogenase antigen and C. difficile toxin enzyme immunoassays with C. difficile nucleic acid amplification testing increase diagnostic yield in a tertiary pediatric population

We evaluated the performance of the rapid C. diff Quik Chek Complete's glutamate dehydrogenase antigen (GDH) and toxin A/B (CDT) tests in two algorithmic approaches for a tertiary pediatric population: algorithm 1 entailed initial testing with GDH/CDT followed by loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), and algorithm 2 entailed GDH/CDT followed by cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) for adjudication of discrepant GDH-positive/CDT-negative results. A true positive (TP) was defined as positivity by CCNA or positivity by LAMP plus another test (GDH, CDT, or the Premier C. difficile toxin A and B enzyme immunoassay [P-EIA]). A total of 141 specimens from 141 patients yielded 27 TPs and 19% prevalence. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 56%, 100%, 100%, and 90% for P-EIA and 81%, 100%, 100%, and 96% for both algorithm 1 and algorithm 2. In summary, GDH-based algorithms detected C. difficile infections with superior sensitivity compared to P-EIA. The algorithms allowed immediate reporting of half of all TPs, but LAMP or CCNA was required to confirm the presence or absence of toxigenic C. difficile in GDH-positive/CDT-negative specimens.     

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection

Clostridium difficile infection is the primary cause of health care-associated diarrhea. While most laboratories have been using rapid antigen tests for detecting C. difficile toxins, they have poor sensitivity; newer molecular methods offer rapid results with high test sensitivity and specificity. This study was designed to compare the performances of two molecular assays (Meridian illumigene and BD GeneOhm) and two antigen assays (Wampole Quik Chek Complete and TechLab Tox A/B II) to detect toxigenic C. difficile. Fecal specimens from hospitalized patients (n = 139) suspected of having C. difficile infection were tested by the four assays. Nine specimens were positive and 109 were negative by all four methods. After discrepant analysis by toxigenic culture (n = 21), the total numbers of stool specimens classified as positive and negative for toxigenic C. difficile were 21 (15%) and 118 (85%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were as follows: GeneOhm (95.2%, 100%, 100%, and 99.2%), illumigene (95.2%, 96.6%, 83.3%, and 99.2%), Tox A/B II (52.4%, 97.5%, 78.6%, and 92.4%), and Quik Chek Complete (47.6%, 100%, 100%, and 91.9%). The illumigene assay performed comparably to the GeneOhm assay with a slight decrease in test specificity; the sensitivities of both far exceeded those of the antigen assays. The clinical characteristics of the concordant and discrepant study patients were similar, including stool consistency and frequency. In the era of rapid molecular-based tests for toxigenic C. difficile, toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) should no longer be considered the standard of care.     

Rapid and simple method for detecting the toxin B gene of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens by loop-mediated isothermal amplification

We applied the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay to the detection of the toxin B gene (tcdB) of Clostridium difficile for identification of toxin B (TcdB)-positive C. difficile strains and detection of tcdB in stool specimens. tcdB was detected in all toxin A (TcdA)-positive, TcdB-positive (A(+)B(+)) and TcdA-negative, TcdB-positive (A(-)B(+)) C. difficile strains but not from TcdA-negative, TcdB-negative strains. Of the 74 stool specimens examined, A(+)B(+) or A(-)B(+) C. difficile was recovered from 39 specimens, of which 38 specimens were LAMP positive and one was negative. Amplification was obtained in 10 specimens that were culture negative, indicating that LAMP is highly sensitive. The LAMP assay was applied to detection of tcdB in DNA extracted by a simple boiling method from 47 of those 74 specimens, which were cultured overnight in cooked-meat medium (CMM). Twenty-two of 24 culture-positive specimens were positive for LAMP on DNA from the culture in CMM. Four specimens were culture negative but positive by LAMP on DNA from CMM cultures. The LAMP assay is a reliable tool for identification of TcdB-positive C. difficile as well as for direct detection of tcdB in stool specimens with high sensitivity. Detection of tcdB by LAMP from overnight cultures in CMM could be an alternative method of diagnostic testing at clinical laboratories without special apparatus.     

Development of a rapid enzyme immunoassay for Clostridium difficile toxin A and its use in the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated disease.

A rapid (2.5 h) direct enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for Clostridium difficile toxin A was developed for clinical use. Specimen centrifugation and filtration were not required. The EIA detected toxin A levels in patient stool as low as 20 pg (2 ng/ml of stool). The test was 5,000 times more sensitive for toxin A than it was for toxin B and did not react with a panel of other bacterial species with the exception of one highly toxigenic strain of Clostridium sordellii. The EIA was compared with the cytotoxin assay, culture of toxigenic C. difficile (toxigenic culture), and latex agglutination by using 313 fresh stool specimens submitted from patients with suspected C. difficile-associated disease. Results read visually and with a plate reader were similar. Sixty-two specimens were positive by one or more tests, but only 22 (35%) were positive by all four laboratory methods. The EIA was 84.1% sensitive and 98.9% specific when it was compared with the cytotoxin assay. The use of toxigenic culture to referee discrepant results (EIA versus cytotoxin assay) showed the EIA sensitivity and specificity to be 95.1 and 99.3%, respectively, with respect to other laboratory methods. Patient charts were reviewed for antibiotic-associated diarrhea on 108 specimens, including all those that were positive by at least one test method. Of 34 patients determined to have C. difficile-associated disease, 29 (85.3%) were positive by EIA, 32 (94.1%) were positive by the cytotoxin assay, 27 (79.4%) were positive by toxigenic culture, and 20 (58.8%) were positive by latex agglutination. Seven patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhea had a positive latex result, but results were negative by EIA, the cytotoxin assay, and toxigenic culture. The EIA demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity for C. difficile-associated disease cases. The test can be used alone or in combination with the cytotoxin assay or toxigenic culture to provide rapid and sensitive results.     

Specific detection of toxigenic strains of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens.

Clostridium difficile is the infectious agent responsible for antibiotic-associated colitis. We report the use of the polymerase chain reaction technique to identify toxigenic strains of C. difficile in human stool specimens. A set of primers based on the nucleotide sequence of the toxin B gene, which amplified a 399-bp fragment from isolates producing toxin B, was designed. We examined 28 known toxigenic strains, which were all positive by this assay. DNAs from the nontoxigenic strains examined and from strains of Clostridium sordellii and C. bifermentans were not amplified with these primers. The sensitivity of this assay allowed us to identify as little as 10% toxigenic C. difficile cells in the presence of 90% nontoxigenic cells and to detect the toxin B gene in 1 pg of DNA from a toxigenic strain. DNAs extracted from 18 clinical stool specimens that were positive for toxin B by the tissue culture cytotoxicity assay were also positive by this assay. In addition, we detected toxin B sequences in DNA from 2 of 18 stool specimens that were negative for toxin B by the cytotoxicity assay. These two stool specimens were from patients who had a clinical pattern of colitis that was compatible with C. difficile causation. This rapid, sensitive assay will be useful for specific identification of toxigenic C. difficile and for revealing cases that are undetected by analysis of fecal samples for toxin B alone.     

Evaluation of the Qiagen artus C. difficile QS-RGQ Kit for Detection of Clostridium difficile Toxins A and B in Clinical Stool Specimens

We compared the Qiagen artus C. difficile QS-RGQ kit, a new nucleic acid amplification test for the detection of Clostridium difficile toxins in stool specimens, with the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile test. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the Qiagen artus C. difficile QS-RGQ test were 100%, 89.5%, 60.9%, and 100%, and those for the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile test were 100%, 90%, 62.2%, and 100%, respectively.     

Comparison of Illumigene,Simplexa, and AmpliVue Clostridium difficile Molecular Assays for Diagnosis of C. difficile Infection

We compared the performance of the Simplexa Universal Direct (Focus Diagnostics) and AmpliVue (Quidel Corporation) assays to that of the Illumigene assay (Meridian Bioscience, Inc.) for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Two hundred deidentified remnant diarrheal stool specimens were tested by the Simplexa, AmpliVue, and Illumigene methods. Specimens with discrepant results among the three assays and a representative number of concordant specimens were further evaluated by toxigenic culture. The sensitivity and specificity were 98 and 100% and 96 and 100% for the Simplexa Universal Direct and AmpliVue assays, respectively. Both assays are easy to perform, with rapid turn-around-times, supporting their utility in the clinical laboratory as routine diagnostic platforms.     

Multicenter Evaluation of the Quidel Lyra Direct C. difficile Nucleic Acid Amplification Assay

Clostridium difficile is a Gram-positive bacterium commonly found in health care and long-term-care facilities and is the most common cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Rapid detection of this bacterium can assist physicians in implementing contact precautions and appropriate antibiotic therapy in a timely manner. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of the Quidel Lyra Direct C. difficile assay (Lyra assay) (Quidel, San Diego, CA) to that of a direct cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) and enhanced toxigenic culture. This study was performed at three geographically diverse laboratories within the United States using residual stool specimens submitted for routine C. difficile testing. Residual samples were tested using the Lyra assay on three real-time PCR platforms, and results were compared to those for direct CCNA and enhanced toxigenic culture. The test results for all platforms were consistent across all three test sites. The sensitivity and specificity of the Lyra assay on the SmartCycler II, ABI 7500 Fast DX, and ABI QuantStudio DX instruments compared to CCNA were 90.0% and 93.3%, 95.0% and 94.2%, and 93.8% and 95.0%, respectively. Compared to enhanced toxigenic culture, the sensitivity and specificity of the Lyra assay on the SmartCycler II, ABI 7500, and QuantStudio instruments were 82.1% and 96.9%, 89.3% and 98.8%, and 85.7% and 99.0%, respectively. Overall, the Lyra assay is easy to use and versatile and compares well to C. difficile culture methods.     

Clostridium difficile prevalence rates in a large healthcare system stratified according to patient population, age, gender, and specimen consistency

We evaluated Clostridium difficile prevalence rates in 2,807 clinically indicated stool specimens stratified by inpatient (IP), nursing home patient (NH), outpatient (OP), age, gender, and specimen consistency using bacterial culture, toxin detection, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ribotyping. Rates were determined based on the detection of toxigenic C. difficile isolates. We identified significant differences in the rates between patient populations and with age. Specimens from NH had a higher rate (46%) for toxigenic C. difficile than specimens from IP (18%) and OP (17%). There were no gender-related differences in the rates. Liquid specimens had a lower rate (15%) than partially formed and soft specimens (25%) and formed specimens (18%) for the isolation of toxigenic C. difficile. The nontoxigenic rate was lowest for NH (4%) and highest for patients<20 years of age (23%). We identified 31 different toxigenic ribotypes from a sampling of 190 isolates that showed the lowest diversity in NH. Fluoroquinolone resistance was observed in 93% of the 027 isolates, all of the 053 isolates, and in four other ribotypes. We observed different rates for toxigenic C. difficile in stratified patient populations, with the highest rate for NH, a low overall nontoxigenic rate, and fluoroquinolone resistance.     

Effective detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile by a two-step algorithm including tests for antigen and cytotoxin

We evaluated a two-step algorithm for detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile: an enzyme immunoassay for glutamate dehydrogenase antigen (Ag-EIA) and then, for antigen-positive specimens, a concurrent cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA). Antigen-negative results were > or = 99% predictive of CCNA negativity. Because the Ag-EIA reduced cell culture workload by approximately 75 to 80% and two-step testing was complete in < or = 3 days, we decided that this algorithm would be effective. Over 6 months, our laboratories' expenses were US dollar 143,000 less than if CCNA alone had been performed on all 5,887 specimens.     

Evaluation of an Algorithmic Approach in Comparison with the Illumigene Assay for Laboratory Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection

The following three diagnostic algorithms were evaluated in comparison with the Illumigene assay as a stand-alone test for Clostridium difficile detection: glutamate dehydrogenase antigen screen (GDH) followed by toxin A/B antigen testing (Tox A/B) with the cell cytotoxicity assay for discordant specimens (algorithm 1), GDH followed by the Illumigene (algorithm 2), and GDH followed by Tox A/B with the Illumigene for discordant specimens (algorithm 3). A total of 428 stool specimens submitted to three clinical microbiology laboratories in Manitoba, Canada, for C. difficile detection between June 2011 and April 2012 were included in the study. The prevalence of C. difficile in the stool specimens was 14.7% (63/428) based on toxigenic culture (microbiologic reference standard). The sensitivity and specificity of the Illumigene for C. difficile detection were 73.0% and 99.7%, respectively. The corresponding sensitivities and specificities were 65.1% and 100.0% for algorithm 1, 68.3% and 100.0% for algorithm 2, and 69.8% and 100.0% for algorithm 3. Using algorithm 1, a cell cytotoxicity assay was required for toxin detection in 37% of positive tests, prolonging turnaround time. However, the predictive value of a positive test based on a clinical reference standard (all tests positive or cytotoxigenic culture positive and clinical disease on chart review) was slightly higher with algorithm 1 than with the Illumigene assay as a stand-alone test or as part of an algorithm (algorithms 2 and 3). Based on a reduction in turnaround time, simplicity, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity, we recommend algorithm 2 (screening with the GDH antigen test and confirmatory testing with the Illumigene).     

Rapid stool-based diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by real-time PCR in a children's hospital

Clostridium difficile is a major cause of nosocomial antibiotic-associated infectious diarrhea and pseudomembranous colitis. Detection of C. difficile by anaerobic bacterial culture and/or cytotoxicity assays has been largely replaced by rapid enzyme immunoassays (EIA). However, due to the lack of sensitivity of stool EIA, we developed a multiplex real-time PCR assay targeting the C. difficile toxin genes tcdA and tcdB. Stool samples from hospitalized pediatric patients suspected of having C. difficile-associated disease were prospectively cultured on cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar following alcohol shock. Six testing modalities were evaluated, including stool EIA, culture EIA, and real-time PCR (tcdA and tcdB) of cultured isolates and stool samples. Real-time PCR detection was performed with tcdA and tcdB gene-specific primers and hydrolysis probes using the LightCycler platforms (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN). A total of 157 samples from 96 pediatric patients were analyzed. The sensitivities of stool real-time PCR and stool EIA were 95% and 35%, respectively, with a specificity of 100% for both methods. The lower limit of detection of the stool real-time PCR was 30 CFU/ml of stool sample per reaction for tcdA and tcdB. This study highlights the poor performance of stool toxin EIAs in pediatric settings. Direct detection of C. difficile toxin genes in stool samples by real-time PCR showed sensitivity superior to that of stool and culture EIAs and performance comparable to that of real-time PCR assay of cultured isolates. Real-time PCR of DNA from stool samples is a rapid and cost-effective diagnostic modality for children that should facilitate appropriate patient management and halt the practice of serial testing by EIA.     

艰难梭菌分离株快速鉴定和毒素检测的多重PCR方法的建立

目的 建立可同时进行艰难梭菌分离株菌种鉴定和毒素检测的多重PCR方法。方法 用于多重PCR中的3对引物分别为艰难梭菌的种特异性的磷酸内糖异构酶(triose phosphate isomerase,tpi)基因、毒素A基因部分序列、毒素B基因部分序列。艰难梭菌ATCC 9689等21株标准菌株和47株临床分离艰难梭菌分别被应用于多重PCR最低检出限、特异性评估试验和验证试验。同时,应用ELISA对47株分离株进行毒素A/B检测。结果 该多重PCR方法可检测到最低DNA浓度为0.5 pg/μ l,特异性为100％。47株艰难梭菌分离株中tpi基因均为阳性,其中毒素基因A(+)/B(+)为37株,毒素基因A（-）/B（-）为10株,未检出毒素基因A（-）/B(+)菌株。47株毒素A/B检测结果为20株阳性、27株阴性。毒素A/B阳性的20株菌均为多重PCR检测毒素基因A(+)/B(+)。结论 成功建立用于艰难梭菌的菌种鉴定和毒素分析结合为一体的多重PCR方法,对临床诊断艰难梭菌感染有着重要应用价值。