Diagnosis of Clostridiodes difficile infection: Assessing the performance of Quik Chek complete kit assay versus the GeneXpert PCR assay at a major tertiary care center in Lebanon

dc.contributor.authorJaffal, Hoda
dc.contributor.authorAchram, Robert
dc.contributor.authorAraj, George F.
dc.contributor.authorMahfouz, Rami A.R.
dc.contributor.departmentPathology and Laboratory Medicine
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Medicine (FM)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T12:10:06Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T12:10:06Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractAims: To evaluate the performance of the C. difficile Quik Chek Complete (QCC) (TechLab, USA) versus the GeneXpert C. difficile polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay (Cepheid, CA, USA). Methods: A retrospective chart analysis conducted at the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) covering the period from January 2015 to September 2018. Results: A total of 788 samples were simultaneously tested by the two methods and analyzed in this study. 49% were positive with the QCC-EIA assay (GDH and/or toxins). The GeneXpert assay showed 40% positivity, based on the detection of either toxin B or binary toxin genes. Using GeneXpert as a reference test, the performance of C. difficile Quik Chek was evaluated in terms of sensitivity (96%), specificity (81%), PPV (77%) and NPV (97%). Among the concordant negative results with the QCC-EIA assay (GDH−/Toxins-), 97% were negative by GeneXpert, while among the concordant positive results (GDH+/Toxins+), 92% were positive by GeneXpert. Regarding the discordant QCC-EIA results (GDH+/Toxins-), 77% were positive by PCR. Conclusion: C. difficile Quik Chek immunoassay is a solid method to use as an upfront for stool testing of C. difficile infections with satisfactory sensitivity and specificity when compared to GeneXpert assay. When results of the immunoassay are concordant for both the toxins and GDH components, it is very unlikely for the results to be different with molecular assays such as the GeneXpert. However, for discordant results, we recommend following up such cases with a molecular assay like GeneXpert. © 2020 Elsevier B.V.
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.mgene.2020.100715
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-85083118692
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/32255
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.relation.ispartofMeta Gene
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectClostridium
dc.subjectGdh
dc.subjectGenexpert
dc.subjectToxins
dc.subjectClostridium difficile toxin b
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectClostridioides difficile
dc.subjectClostridium difficile infection
dc.subjectComparative study
dc.subjectControlled study
dc.subjectDiagnostic test accuracy study
dc.subjectEnzyme immunoassay
dc.subjectFeces analysis
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHuman
dc.subjectLebanon
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle aged
dc.subjectPolymerase chain reaction
dc.subjectPredictive value
dc.subjectPriority journal
dc.subjectRetrospective study
dc.subjectSensitivity and specificity
dc.subjectTertiary care center
dc.titleDiagnosis of Clostridiodes difficile infection: Assessing the performance of Quik Chek complete kit assay versus the GeneXpert PCR assay at a major tertiary care center in Lebanon
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2020-3112.pdf
Size:
248.31 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format