Reller Megan E, Lema Clara A, Perl Trish M, Cai Mian, Ross Tracy L, Speck Kathleen A, Carroll Karen C
Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Nov;45(11):3601-5. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01305-07. Epub 2007 Sep 5.
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).
我们比较了粪便培养(对分离株进行毒素检测)与我们的两步算法在最佳检测产毒艰难梭菌方面的增量收益。根据两步算法,对粪便进行艰难梭菌相关谷氨酸脱氢酶(GDH)抗原筛查,若结果为阳性,则通过直接(粪便)细胞培养细胞毒性中和试验(CCNA)检测毒素。同时,对粪便进行艰难梭菌培养,若直接CCNA检测为阴性,则通过间接(分离株)CCNA和常规PCR检测毒素。产毒艰难梭菌的“金标准”是通过GDH筛查或培养检测到艰难梭菌,并通过直接或间接CCNA检测到毒素产生。我们对439例患者的439份标本进行了检测。GDH筛查检测出了所有培养阳性的标本。两步算法的敏感性为77%(95%置信区间[CI],70%至84%),培养的敏感性为87%(95%CI,80%至92%)。PCR结果与分离株CCNA检测结果完全相关(分别为29/29阳性和32/32阴性)。我们得出结论,GDH是一种出色的筛查试验,通过培养并进行分离株CCNA检测可额外检测出直接CCNA遗漏的23%的产毒艰难梭菌。由于培养操作繁琐且还会检测到非产毒艰难梭菌,我们得出结论,培养在以下情况最有用:(i)直接CCNA检测为阴性但临床高度怀疑产毒艰难梭菌时;(ii)在评估产毒艰难梭菌的新诊断试验时(此时最佳参考标准至关重要);(iii)在流行病学研究中(此时有分离株可进行菌株分型和抗菌药物敏感性测试)。