This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Snell, H. Articles by Hussain, Z. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Snell, H. Articles by Hussain, Z.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, October 2004, p. 4863-4865, Vol. 42, No. 10
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.10.4863-4865.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Performance of the TechLab C. DIFF CHEK-60 Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) in Combination with the C. difficile Tox A/B II EIA Kit, the Triage C. difficile Panel Immunoassay, and a Cytotoxin Assay for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea

Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infection Control, London Health Sciences Centre,¹ Division of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases,² Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada³

Received 24 March 2004/ Returned for modification 31 May 2004/ Accepted 11 July 2004

We compared a recently marketed enzyme immunoassay for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), TechLab's C. DIFF CHEK-60 (TL-GDH), in combination with the C. difficile Tox A/B II enzyme immunoassay (Tox-A/B) with (i) the Triage C. difficile test, which detects both GDH (TR-GDH) and toxin A (TR-Tox-A); (ii) an in-house cytotoxin assay (C-Tox); and (iii) stool cultures for C. difficile. All C. difficile isolates were tested for the presence of the toxin genes by PCR. If a toxin gene-positive strain of Clostridium difficile was recovered and a toxin was detected by any method, the result was considered to be truly positive. Eighty-seven of 93 and 79 of 93 C. difficile culture-positive samples were also TL-GDH and TR-GDH positive, respectively. No test was able to detect toxin in all samples with true-positive results. Tox-A/B and TR-Tox-A in combination with the GDH detection tests and C-Tox were able to identify 52 and 50 samples with true-positive results. Tox-A/B and TR-Tox-A would have missed 15 and 31% of cases of C. difficile-associated diarrhea, respectively, if used alone.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Gilligan, P. H. (2008). Is a Two-Step Glutamate Dehyrogenase Antigen-Cytotoxicity Neutralization Assay Algorithm Superior to the Premier Toxin A and B Enzyme Immunoassay for Laboratory Detection of Clostridium difficile?. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 1523-1525 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Fenner, L., Widmer, A. F., Goy, G., Rudin, S., Frei, R. (2008). Rapid and Reliable Diagnostic Algorithm for Detection of Clostridium difficile. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 328-330 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Reller, M. E., Lema, C. A., Perl, T. M., Cai, M., Ross, T. L., Speck, K. A., Carroll, K. C. (2007). Yield of Stool Culture with Isolate Toxin Testing versus a Two-Step Algorithm Including Stool Toxin Testing for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: 3601-3605 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ticehurst, J. R., Aird, D. Z., Dam, L. M., Borek, A. P., Hargrove, J. T., Carroll, K. C. (2006). Effective Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile by a Two-Step Algorithm Including Tests for Antigen and Cytotoxin.. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44: 1145-1149 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• van den Berg, R. J., Bruijnesteijn van Coppenraet, L. S., Gerritsen, H.-J., Endtz, H. P., van der Vorm, E. R., Kuijper, E. J. (2005). Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of a New Immunoassay and Real-Time PCR for Rapid Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea in Hospitalized Patients. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43: 5338-5340 [Abstract] [Full Text]