Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T00:22:55.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High Proportion of False-Positive Clostridium difficile Enzyme Immunoassays for Toxin A and B in Pediatric Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Philip Toltzis ,
Michelle M. Nerandzic ,
Elie Saade ,
Mary Ann O'Riordan ,
Sarah Smathers ,
Theoklis Zaoutis ,
Jason Kim  and
Curtis J. Donskey
Philip Toltzis*
Affiliation:
Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio
Michelle M. Nerandzic
Affiliation:
Research Service, Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Elie Saade
Affiliation:
Research Service, Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Mary Ann O'Riordan
Affiliation:
Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio
Sarah Smathers
Affiliation:
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Theoklis Zaoutis
Affiliation:
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Jason Kim
Affiliation:
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Curtis J. Donskey
Affiliation:
Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
*
Division of Pharmacology and Critical Care, Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives.

To determine the frequency of false-positive Clostridium difficile toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA) results in hospitalized children and to examine potential reasons for this false positivity.

Design.

Nested case-control.

Setting.

Two tertiary care pediatric hospitals.

Methods.

As part of a natural history study, prospectively collected EIA-positive stools were cultured for toxigenic C. difficile, and characteristics of children with false-positive and true-positive EIA results were compared. EIA-positive/culture-negative samples were recultured after dilution and enrichment steps, were evaluated for presence of the tcdB gene by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and were further cultured for Clostridium sordellii, a cause of false-positive EIA toxin assays.

Results.

Of 112 EIA-positive stools cultured, 72 grew toxigenic C. difficile and 40 did not, indicating a positive predictive value of 64% in this population. The estimated prevalence of C. difficile infection (CDI) in the study sites among children tested for this pathogen was 5%–7%. Children with false-positive EIA results were significantly younger than those with true-positive tests but did not differ in other characteristics. No false-positive specimens yielded C. difficile when cultured after enrichment or serial dilution, 1 specimen was positive for tcdB by PCR, and none grew C. sordellii.

Conclusions.

Approximately one-third of EIA tests used to evaluate pediatric inpatients for CDI were falsely positive. This finding was likely due to the low prevalence of CDI in pediatric hospitals, which diminishes the test's positive predictive value. These data raise concerns about the use of EIA assays to diagnosis CDI in children.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(2):175-179

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , February 2012 , pp. 175 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.McDonald, LC, Killgore, GE, Thompson, A, et al. An epidemic, toxin gene-variant strain of Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2433–2441.Google Scholar
2.Kim, J, Smathers, SA, Prasad, P, Leckerman, KH, Coffin, S, Zaoutis, T. Epidemiological features of Clostridium difficile–associated disease among inpatients at children's hospitals in the United States, 2001–2006. Pediatrics 2008;122:1266–1270.Google Scholar
3.Nylund, CM, Goudie, A, Garza, JM, Fairbrother, G, Cohen, MB. Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalized children in the United States. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011;165:451–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Zilberberg, MD, Tillotson, GS, McDonald, C. Clostridium difficile infections among hospitalized children, United States, 1997–2006. Emerg Infect Dis 2010;16:604–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Loo, VG, Poirier, L, Miller, MA, et al. A predominantly clonal multi-institutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2442–2449.Google Scholar
6.Muto, CA, Blank, MK, Marsh, JW, et al. Control of an outbreak of infection with the hypervirulent Clostridium difficile BI strain in a university hospital using a comprehensive “bundle” approach. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:1266–1273.Google Scholar
7.Toltzis, P, Kim, J, Dul, M, Zoltanski, J, Smathers, S, Zaoutis, T. Presence of the epidemic North American pulsed-field type 1 Clostridium difficile strain in hospitalized children. J Pediatr 2009;154:607–608.Google Scholar
8.Luna, RA, Boyanton, BL Jr, Mehta, S, et al. Rapid stool-based diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by real-time PCR in a children's hospital. J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:851–857.Google Scholar
9.Peterson, LR, Robicsek, A. Does my patient have Clostridium difficile infection? Ann Intern Med 2009;151:176–179.Google Scholar
10.Kim, J, Shaklee, JF, Smathers, S, et al. Risk factors and outcomes associated with severe Clostridium difficile infection in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J (forthcoming).Google Scholar
11.Nerandzic, MM, Donskey, CJ. Effective and reduced-cost modified selective medium for isolation of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 2009;47:397–400.Google Scholar
12.Aldape, MJ, Bryant, AE, Stevens, DL. Clostridium sordellii infection: epidemiology, clinical findings, and current perspectives on diagnosis and treatment. Clin Infect Dis 2006;43:1436–1446.Google Scholar
13.Fischer, M, Bhatnagar, J, Guarner, J, et al. Fatal toxic shock syndrome associated with Clostridium sordellii after medical abortion. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2352–2360.Google Scholar
14.Planche, T, Aghaizu, A, Holliman, R, et al. Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by toxin detection kits: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:777–784.Google Scholar
15.Donta, ST, Myers, MG. Clostridium difficile toxin in asymptomatic neonates. J Pediatr 1982;100:431–434.Google Scholar
16.Larson, HE, Barclay, FE, Honour, P, Hill, ID. Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile in infants. J Infect Dis 1982;146:727–733.Google Scholar
17.Sherertz, RJ, Sarubbi, FA. The prevalence of Clostridium difficile and toxin in a nursery population: a comparison between patients with necrotizing enterocolitis and an asymptomatic group. J Pediatr 1982;100:435–439.Google Scholar
18.Al-Nassir, WN, Sethi, AK, Li, Y, Pultz, MJ, Riggs, MM, Donskey, CJ. Both oral metronidazole and oral vancomycin promote persistent overgrowth of vancomycin-resistant enterococci during treatment of Clostridium difficile–associated disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:2403–2406.Google Scholar
19.Cardona, DM, Rand, KH. Evaluation of repeat Clostridium difficile enzyme immunoassay testing. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:3686–3689.Google Scholar
20.Cohen, SH, Gerding, DN, Johnson, S, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:431–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Mohan, SS, McDermott, BP, Parchuri, S, Cunha, BA. Lack of value of repeat stool testing for Clostridium difficile toxin. Am J Med 2006;119:356.Google Scholar
22.Aichinger, E, Schleck, CD, Harmsen, WS, Nyre, LM, Patel, R. Non-utility of repeat laboratory testing for detection of Clostridium difficile by use of PCR or enzyme immunoassay. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:3795–3797.Google Scholar
23.Litvin, M, Reske, KA, Mayfield, J, et al. Identification of a pseudo-outbreak of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and the effect of repeated testing, sensitivity, and specificity on perceived prevalence of CDI. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30:1166–1171.Google Scholar
24.Mayer, J, South, B, Mooney, B, et al. Surveillance of Clostridium difficile–associated disease (CDAD) based on toxin enzyme immunoassay (EI) results: did a problem with testing lead to a pseudo-outbreak? In: Programs and Abstracts of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Annual Meeting; Orlando, FL: SHEA; 2008. Abstract 56.Google Scholar
25.Bobulsky, GS, Al-Nassir, WN, Riggs, MM, Sethi, AK, Donskey, CJ. Clostridium difficile skin contamination in patients with C. difficile–associated disease. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:447–450.Google Scholar
26.Eastwood, K, Else, P, Charlett, A, Wilcox, M. Comparison of nine commercially available Clostridium difficile toxin detection assays, a real-time PCR assay for C. difficile tcdB, and a glutamate dehydrogenase detection assay to cytotoxin testing and cyto-toxigenic culture methods. J Clin Microbiol 2009;47:3211–3217.Google Scholar
27.Ticehurst, JR, Aird, DZ, Dam, LM, Borek, AP, Hargrove, JT, Carroll, KC. Effective detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile by a two-step algorithm including tests for antigen and cytotoxin. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:1145–1149.Google Scholar