Cargando…
2357. Toxin Detection Using Single Molecule Counting Technology: The Best of Both Worlds?
BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of CDI remains challenging as there is no standalone laboratory test with adequate clinical sensitivity and specificity. Thus, many clinical laboratories currently employ a multistep algorithm incorporating a sensitive screening test followed by a specific toxin test....
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810245/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2035 |
_version_ | 1783462203207188480 |
---|---|
author | Perry, Michael Graham, Lee Parida, Sweta Katzenbach, Phoebe Luis Baptista Baeza, Jose Estis, Joel Sandlund, Johanna Anderson, Bethan Copsey, Sarah Scotford, Selina Morris, Trefor |
author_facet | Perry, Michael Graham, Lee Parida, Sweta Katzenbach, Phoebe Luis Baptista Baeza, Jose Estis, Joel Sandlund, Johanna Anderson, Bethan Copsey, Sarah Scotford, Selina Morris, Trefor |
author_sort | Perry, Michael |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of CDI remains challenging as there is no standalone laboratory test with adequate clinical sensitivity and specificity. Thus, many clinical laboratories currently employ a multistep algorithm incorporating a sensitive screening test followed by a specific toxin test. An automated ultrasensitive toxin immunoassay (Singulex Clarity® C. difficile toxins A/B assay) has demonstrated excellent performance compared with cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA). In this study, the Clarity assay was evaluated relative to glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), toxin EIA, toxin B gene PCR, multistep algorithms, and C. difficile culture with ribotyping. METHODS: Residual clinical stool samples (n = 293) were collected from patients with suspected CDI. The samples were tested on-site with GDH (C. DIFF CHEK™-60), PCR (EntericBio realtime® C. difficile assay), a membrane-type toxin EIA (Tox A/B Quik Chek®), and culture and ribotyping. In total, 188 samples were tested with GDH and 239 samples were tested by PCR. All PCR-positive samples (n = 148) and prospectively tested GDH samples (n = 97) were tested with the toxin EIA. Culture and ribotyping information were available for 205 samples. RESULTS: Three of the samples tested gave no result using the Clarity assay and were excluded from the analysis. The Singulex Clarity C. difficile toxins A/B assay had high positive percent agreement (PPA) and low negative percent agreement (NPA) compared with toxin EIA and multistep algorithms ending with toxin EIA. The Clarity assay had high NPA and low PPA compared with PCR, GDH, and the multistep algorithm ending with PCR (figure). Less than 70% of the detected C. difficile PCR positive samples had toxins present. There was no difference in toxin concentration between the ribotypes. CONCLUSION: The Clarity assay had strong PPA compared with toxin EIA and strong NPA compared with PCR. The low NPA and PPA compared with toxin EIA and PCR, respectively, may reflect the poor sensitivity of current toxin EIAs and low specificity of PCR. The Clarity assay detected 30 different ribotype strains, and less than 70% of samples (by PCR) or strains (by ribotyping) had toxins present. The Clarity assay may be considered for use as a standalone test for CDI diagnosis. [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6810245 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68102452019-10-28 2357. Toxin Detection Using Single Molecule Counting Technology: The Best of Both Worlds? Perry, Michael Graham, Lee Parida, Sweta Katzenbach, Phoebe Luis Baptista Baeza, Jose Estis, Joel Sandlund, Johanna Anderson, Bethan Copsey, Sarah Scotford, Selina Morris, Trefor Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of CDI remains challenging as there is no standalone laboratory test with adequate clinical sensitivity and specificity. Thus, many clinical laboratories currently employ a multistep algorithm incorporating a sensitive screening test followed by a specific toxin test. An automated ultrasensitive toxin immunoassay (Singulex Clarity® C. difficile toxins A/B assay) has demonstrated excellent performance compared with cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA). In this study, the Clarity assay was evaluated relative to glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), toxin EIA, toxin B gene PCR, multistep algorithms, and C. difficile culture with ribotyping. METHODS: Residual clinical stool samples (n = 293) were collected from patients with suspected CDI. The samples were tested on-site with GDH (C. DIFF CHEK™-60), PCR (EntericBio realtime® C. difficile assay), a membrane-type toxin EIA (Tox A/B Quik Chek®), and culture and ribotyping. In total, 188 samples were tested with GDH and 239 samples were tested by PCR. All PCR-positive samples (n = 148) and prospectively tested GDH samples (n = 97) were tested with the toxin EIA. Culture and ribotyping information were available for 205 samples. RESULTS: Three of the samples tested gave no result using the Clarity assay and were excluded from the analysis. The Singulex Clarity C. difficile toxins A/B assay had high positive percent agreement (PPA) and low negative percent agreement (NPA) compared with toxin EIA and multistep algorithms ending with toxin EIA. The Clarity assay had high NPA and low PPA compared with PCR, GDH, and the multistep algorithm ending with PCR (figure). Less than 70% of the detected C. difficile PCR positive samples had toxins present. There was no difference in toxin concentration between the ribotypes. CONCLUSION: The Clarity assay had strong PPA compared with toxin EIA and strong NPA compared with PCR. The low NPA and PPA compared with toxin EIA and PCR, respectively, may reflect the poor sensitivity of current toxin EIAs and low specificity of PCR. The Clarity assay detected 30 different ribotype strains, and less than 70% of samples (by PCR) or strains (by ribotyping) had toxins present. The Clarity assay may be considered for use as a standalone test for CDI diagnosis. [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6810245/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2035 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Abstracts Perry, Michael Graham, Lee Parida, Sweta Katzenbach, Phoebe Luis Baptista Baeza, Jose Estis, Joel Sandlund, Johanna Anderson, Bethan Copsey, Sarah Scotford, Selina Morris, Trefor 2357. Toxin Detection Using Single Molecule Counting Technology: The Best of Both Worlds? |
title | 2357. Toxin Detection Using Single Molecule Counting Technology: The Best of Both Worlds? |
title_full | 2357. Toxin Detection Using Single Molecule Counting Technology: The Best of Both Worlds? |
title_fullStr | 2357. Toxin Detection Using Single Molecule Counting Technology: The Best of Both Worlds? |
title_full_unstemmed | 2357. Toxin Detection Using Single Molecule Counting Technology: The Best of Both Worlds? |
title_short | 2357. Toxin Detection Using Single Molecule Counting Technology: The Best of Both Worlds? |
title_sort | 2357. toxin detection using single molecule counting technology: the best of both worlds? |
topic | Abstracts |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810245/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2035 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT perrymichael 2357toxindetectionusingsinglemoleculecountingtechnologythebestofbothworlds AT grahamlee 2357toxindetectionusingsinglemoleculecountingtechnologythebestofbothworlds AT paridasweta 2357toxindetectionusingsinglemoleculecountingtechnologythebestofbothworlds AT katzenbachphoebe 2357toxindetectionusingsinglemoleculecountingtechnologythebestofbothworlds AT luisbaptistabaezajose 2357toxindetectionusingsinglemoleculecountingtechnologythebestofbothworlds AT estisjoel 2357toxindetectionusingsinglemoleculecountingtechnologythebestofbothworlds AT sandlundjohanna 2357toxindetectionusingsinglemoleculecountingtechnologythebestofbothworlds AT andersonbethan 2357toxindetectionusingsinglemoleculecountingtechnologythebestofbothworlds AT copseysarah 2357toxindetectionusingsinglemoleculecountingtechnologythebestofbothworlds AT scotfordselina 2357toxindetectionusingsinglemoleculecountingtechnologythebestofbothworlds AT morristrefor 2357toxindetectionusingsinglemoleculecountingtechnologythebestofbothworlds |