Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Diagnostic Guidance for C. difficile Infections.
van Prehn, Joffrey; Crobach, Monique J T; Baktash, Amoe; Duszenko, Nikolas; Kuijper, Ed J.
Afiliación
  • van Prehn J; Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Centre for Infectious Diseases (LU-CID), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. J.van_Prehn@lumc.nl.
  • Crobach MJT; ESCMID Study Group for C. difficile (ESGCD) and Study Group for Host and Microbiota Interaction (ESGHAMI), Basel, Switzerland. J.van_Prehn@lumc.nl.
  • Baktash A; Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Centre for Infectious Diseases (LU-CID), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
  • Duszenko N; Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Centre for Infectious Diseases (LU-CID), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
  • Kuijper EJ; Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Centre for Infectious Diseases (LU-CID), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Adv Exp Med Biol ; 1435: 33-56, 2024.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38175470
ABSTRACT
Diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) can be challenging. First of all, there has been debate on which of the two reference assays, cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) or toxigenic culture (TC), should be considered the gold standard for CDI detection. Although the CCNA suffers most from suboptimal storage conditions and subsequent toxin degradation, TC is reported to falsely increase CDI detection rates as it cannot differentiate CDI patients from patients asymptomatically colonised by toxigenic C. difficile. Several rapid assays are available for CDI detection and fall into three broad categories (1) enzyme immunoassays for glutamate dehydrogenase, (2) enzyme immunoassays or single-molecule array assays for toxins A/B and (3) nucleic acid amplification tests detecting toxin genes. All three categories have their own limitations, being suboptimal specificity and/or sensitivity or the inability to discern colonised patients from CDI patients. In light of these limitations, multi-step algorithmic testing has been advocated by international guidelines (IDSA/SHEA and ESCMID) in order to optimize diagnostic accuracy. As a result, a survey performed in 2018-2019 in Europe revealed that most of all hospital sites reported using more than one test to diagnose CDI. CDI incidence rates are also influenced by sample selection criteria, as several studies have shown that if not all unformed stool samples are tested for CDI, many cases may be missed due to an absence of clinical suspicion. Since methods for diagnosing CDI remain imperfect, there has been a growing interest in alternative testing strategies like faecal microbiota biomarkers, immune modulating interleukins, cytokines and imaging methods. At the moment, these alternative methods might play an adjunctive role, but they are not suitable to replace conventional CDI testing strategies.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Clostridioides difficile Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Qualitative_research País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Adv Exp Med Biol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Clostridioides difficile Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Qualitative_research País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Adv Exp Med Biol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article