title: Evaluation of four different diagnostic tests to detect Clostridium difficile in piglets.
abstract: Clostridium difficile is emerging as pathogen in both humans and animals. In 2000 it was described as one of the causes of neonatal enteritis in piglets, and it is now the most common cause of neonatal diarrhea in the United States. In Europe, C. difficile infection (CDI) in both neonatal piglets and adult sows has also been reported. Diagnosis of this infection is based on detection of the bacterium C. difficile or its toxins A and B. Most detection methods, however, are only validated for diagnosing human infections. In this study three commercially available enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and a commercial real-time-PCR (Becton, Dickinson, and Company) were evaluated by testing 172 pig fecal specimens (139 diarrheic and 33 nondiarrheic piglets). The results of each test were compared to those of cytotoxicity assays (CTAs) and toxigenic culture as the "gold standards." Compared to CTAs, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were, respectively, as follows: for real-time PCR, 91.6, 37.1, 57.6, and 82.5%; for Premier Toxins A&B (Meridian), 83.1, 31.5, 53.1, and 66.7%; for ImmunoCard Toxins A&B kit (ICTAB; Meridian), 86.6, 56.8, 66.9, and 80.7%; and for VIDAS (bioMérieux), 54.8, 92.6, 85.0, and 72.8%. Compared to toxigenic culture, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were, respectively, as follows: for real-time PCR, 93.0, 34.7, 50.0, and 87.5%; for Premier Toxins A&B, 80.3, 27.7, 43.8, and 66.7%; and for ICTAB, 80.0, 46.2, 52.8, and 75.4%; and for VIDAS, 56.4, 89.8, 77.5, and 76.7%. We conclude that all tests had an unacceptably low performance as a single test for the detection of C. difficile in pig herds and that a two-step algorithm is necessary, similar to that in cases of human CDI. Of all of the assays, the real-time PCR had the highest NPV compared to both reference methods and is therefore the most appropriate test to screen for the absence of C. difficile in pigs as a first step in the algorithm. The second step would be a confirmation of the positive results by toxigenic culture.
authors.affiliation: Division of Public Health and Food Safety, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, PO Box 80175, 3508 TD Utrecht, Netherlands.
authors.forename: E C
authors.initials: EC
authors.lastname: Keessen
authors.forename: N E M
authors.initials: NE
authors.lastname: Hopman
authors.forename: L A M G
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: van Leengoed
authors.forename: A J A M
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: van Asten
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Hermanus
authors.forename: E J
authors.initials: EJ
authors.lastname: Kuijper
authors.forename: L J A
authors.initials: LJ
authors.lastname: Lipman
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D016360:Clostridioides difficile / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D003015:Clostridium Infections / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000382:microbiology* / Q000662:veterinary*; D003955:Diagnostic Tests, Routine / Q000379:methods*; D004797:Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay / Q000379:methods; D016133:Polymerase Chain Reaction / Q000379:methods; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013552:Swine; D013553:Swine Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000382:microbiology