Second report of a comparative study of two immunoassays for the detection of <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> toxins and glutamate dehydrogenase in stool specimens

DOI Web Site
  • NISHIO Mitsuru
    Department of Clinical Laboratory, Komaki City Hospital
  • MIYAKI Yuki
    Department of Clinical Laboratory, Komaki City Hospital
  • SEKI Yoshie
    Department of Clinical Laboratory, Komaki City Hospital
  • OSUGI Takato
    Department of Clinical Laboratory, Komaki City Hospital
  • OBA Airi
    Department of Clinical Laboratory, Komaki City Hospital

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> Toxin/GDH抗原同時検出試薬の検出性能に関する比較検討　第2報―C. DIFF QUIK CHEKコンプリートとクイックチェイサーCD GDH/TOXの比較―
  • Clostridioides difficile Toxin/GDH抗原同時検出試薬の検出性能に関する比較検討(第2報)C. DIFF QUIK CHEKコンプリートとクイックチェイサーCD GDH/TOXの比較
  • Clostridioides difficile Toxin/GDH コウゲン ドウジ ケンシュツ シヤク ノ ケンシュツ セイノウ ニ カンスル ヒカク ケントウ(ダイ2ホウ)C. DIFF QUIK CHEK コンプリート ト クイックチェイサー CD GDH/TOX ノ ヒカク

Search this article

Abstract

<p>We evaluated the usefulness of two rapid immunoassays, C. DIFF QUIK CHEK Complete (Abbott Diagnostics Medical, QUIK CHEK) and Quick Chaser CD GDH/TOX (Mizuho Medy, Quick Chaser), for the detection of Clostridioides difficile toxins and glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) in stool specimens. In comparison with the toxigenic culture, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of toxin detection were 35.3, 100, 100, and 90.7 for QUIK CHEK and Quick Chaser, respectively. On the other hand, in comparison with the toxigenic culture, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of GDH detection were 79.2, 100, 100, and 95.3 for QUIK CHEK and 87.5, 100, 100, and 97.1 for Quick Chaser, respectively. The sensitivity of Quick Chaser was about 8.3% higher than that of QUIK CHEK. However, the results of the detection limit test for GDH using C. difficile clinical isolates were superior in QUIK CHEK. In QUIK CHEK, specimens are aspirated using a dropper. In contrast, Quick Chaser uses a cotton swab to wipe the specimen. Therefore, Quick Chaser is less susceptible to bias in fecal specimens, which may be the reason for the difference in GDH detection sensitivity in clinical specimens. It is important to sample and test multiple areas of feces. We conclude that QUIK CHEK and Quick Chaser are almost equivalent in performance, and Quick Chaser, for which there are few data from previous studies, is also useful as the first screening immunoassay in the diagnosis of C. difficile infection.</p>

Journal

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top