1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Methods
3.1. Sample Collection
3.2. Stool Culture and Bacterial Isolation
3.3. Glutamate Dehydrogenase Enzyme Immunoassay for C. difficile
3.4. Direct PCR Amplification of Toxin Genes Sequences
3.5. Evaluation of Diagnostic Methods Efficiency
3.6. PFGE Analysis of the Isolates
3.7. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
| Gender | 1 - 19 Years | 20 - 64 Years | > 65 Years |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 2 (11.1) | 1 (5.5) | 5 (27.7) |
| Male | 3 (16.6) | 1 (5.5) | 6 (33.4) |
| Total | 5 (27.7) | 2 (11.1) | 11 (61.2) |
aValues are expressed as No. (%).
4.1. Diagnosis of CDAD with PCR
PCR amplification of tcdA and tcdB genes among patients with CDAD. A, Amplification of tcdA; M: 1 kb DNA size marker; lane 1, confirmed C. difficile clinical isolate used as a positive control; lane 2, E. coli ATCC 2599 as a negative control; lanes 3, 7, and 8, negative samples; lanes 4 - 6, positive samples for tcdA; B, amplification of tcdB; M: 1 kb DNA size marker; lane 1, E. coli ATCC 2599 as a negative control; lane 2, confirmed C. difficile clinical isolate used as a positive control; lanes 3 - 8, positive samples.
| Toxin Gene Pattern | Values |
|---|---|
| tcdA+, tcdB+ | 15 (83.5) |
| tcdA+, tcdB- | 2 (11) |
| tcdA-, tcdB+ | 1 (5.5) |
| Total | 18 (100) |
aValues are expressed as No. (%).
4.2. Efficiency of Diagnostic Methods
| Assay | Number of Positive Samples | Number of Negative Samples | Specificity, % | Sensitivity, % | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCR | 18 | 102 | 100 | 90 | 100 | 98 |
| Direct culture | 12 | 108 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 92 |
| GDH-EIA | 15 | 105 | 99 | 70 | 93 | 94 |

