A comparison of Clostridium difficile diagnostic methods for identification of local strains in a South African centre

Accurate diagnosis of infection is essential for disease management. A clinical and molecular analysis of isolated from symptomatic patients at Groote Schuur Hospital, South Africa, was conducted to establish the most suitable clinical test for the diagnosis and characterization of locally prevalent strains. was detected in stool samples using enzyme-based immunoassays (EIA) and nucleic acid amplification methods, and their performance was compared with that of isolation using direct selective culture combined with specific PCR to detect the gene, toxin A and B genes and binary toxin genes. Toxigenic isolates were characterized further by ribotyping. Selective culture isolated 32 strains from 145 patients (22 %). Of these, the most prevalent (50 %) were of ribotype 017 (toxin A B ) while 15.6 % were ribotype 001 (toxin A B ). No ribotype 027 strains or binary toxin genes ( and ) were detected. The test sensitivities and specificities, respectively, of four commercial clinical diagnostic methods were as follows: Immuno Toxins A & B (40 % and 99.1 %), VIDAS Toxin A & B (50 % and 99.1 %), GenoType CDiff (86.7 % and 88.3 %) and Xpert (90 % and 97.3 %). Ribotype 001 and 017 strains had a 100 % detection rate by Xpert , 100 % and 93.3 % by GenoType CDiff, 75 % and 53.3 % by Immuno and 75 % and 60 % by VIDAS, respectively. The overall poor performance of EIA suggests that a change to PCR-based testing would assist diagnosis and ensure reliable detection of locally prevalent 017 strains.