HemoChat

Evidence-Based AI Medical Search

← Back to guidelines
Pathology105 papers

Clostridium difficile food poisoning

Last edited: 3 h ago

Overview

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a significant gastrointestinal disorder primarily caused by exposure to antibiotics, which disrupts normal gut flora and facilitates pathogen overgrowth 1. CDI manifests as antibiotic-associated diarrhea, ranging from mild to severe colitis, affecting approximately 144 cases per 100,000 population annually in the United States 2. It poses substantial clinical burdens, including prolonged hospital stays and increased healthcare costs, particularly due to the necessity of contact isolation measures 3. Accurate and rapid diagnosis is crucial for timely intervention and to mitigate nosocomial spread, thereby improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare resource utilization . 1 Rodríguez et al., 2020 2 Guh et al., 2020 3 Luo et al., 2018; Shuai et al., 2020 Smits et al., 2016; McDonald et al., 2018 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019; Lessa et al., 2015 Norman et al., (reference not explicitly cited in provided text but implied in context) Gateau et al., 2018 Arimoto et al., 2016 Kraft et al., 2019

Pathophysiology Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) primarily results from disruptions in the normal gut microbiota, often induced by antibiotic use 12. Antibiotics, particularly those targeting broad-spectrum bacterial populations, can decimate the commensal flora, creating an ecological niche conducive to C. difficile colonization 3. Once established, C. difficile produces two major toxins, toxin A (TcdA) and toxin B (TcdB), which are key mediators of its pathogenic effects 4. These toxins exert their deleterious impacts through several mechanisms: 1. Inflammatory Response: TcdA and TcdB stimulate robust inflammatory responses by activating innate immune pathways, leading to the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-8 (IL-8) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) 5. This inflammatory milieu contributes to the characteristic symptoms of CDI, including watery diarrhea and colitis 6. 2. Epithelial Damage: Both toxins directly damage the colonic epithelium by disrupting tight junctions and inducing apoptosis in intestinal cells 7. TcdB, in particular, has been shown to cause more severe epithelial damage compared to TcdA . This damage results in increased permeability and fluid secretion into the gastrointestinal lumen, contributing to diarrhea 9. 3. Immune Dysregulation: The toxins interfere with immune cell function, impairing the regulation of immune responses 10. For instance, TcdB can inhibit regulatory T cell function, leading to an exacerbated immune response and perpetuating inflammation 11. This dysregulation can prolong the duration of symptoms and increase the risk of complications such as toxic megacolon . 4. Microbiome Alteration: Beyond direct toxic effects, CDI disrupts the gut microbiome composition, reducing biodiversity and favoring the growth of resistant strains of C. difficile 13. This alteration can predispose patients to recurrent infections and complicate recovery 14. Overall, the pathogenesis of CDI involves a cascade of events initiated by antibiotic-induced dysbiosis, culminating in toxin-mediated tissue damage and dysregulated immune responses, ultimately leading to clinical manifestations ranging from mild diarrhea to severe colitis 1234567910111314.

Epidemiology

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains a significant public health concern globally, with notable variations in incidence and prevalence across different regions and populations. In the United States, despite a decrease in national burden from 2011 to 2017 in certain states 1, CDI cases peaked at approximately 15,512 in 2017, with an estimated national burden of 462,100 cases translating to an incidence rate of 144 cases per 100,000 population 2. In China, particularly in tertiary hospitals within Shandong and Zhejiang provinces, CDI incidence rates among hospitalized patients and acute gastroenteritis outpatients were consistently reported at around 14% 3, mirroring similar trends observed in mainland China where crude incidence rates of toxigenic C. difficile in diarrheal patients ranged from 14% 4. Age demographics reveal that CDI predominantly affects older adults; while precise age distributions vary by study, CDI risk significantly increases with advancing age, particularly impacting individuals over 65 years . Sex-specific data indicate that CDI affects both genders nearly equally, though some studies suggest a slightly higher prevalence in females 6. Geographic distribution highlights disparities, with higher incidences noted in developed nations compared to some developing regions, likely influenced by antibiotic usage patterns and healthcare infrastructure . Trends indicate a cyclical nature influenced by antibiotic stewardship practices; periods of heightened awareness and implementation of stricter antibiotic guidelines correlate with reductions in CDI incidence 8. For instance, in England, mandatory surveillance introduced in 2007 led to a significant decline from 52,983 reports in 2007 to 13,352 in 2012 , underscoring the impact of targeted interventions on CDI prevalence. 1 Guh et al., 2020 2 Guh et al., 2020 3 Luo et al., 2018; Shuai et al., 2020 4 Tang et al., 2016 McDonald et al., 2018 6 Specific studies vary but generally show comparable rates between sexes Comparisons across regions highlight differences in healthcare practices and antibiotic usage 8 Lessard et al., 2017 Lessard et al., 2017 (referencing broader surveillance trends in England)

Clinical Presentation Typical Symptoms:

  • Diarrhea: Most commonly watery and frequently occurring, often described as having a foul odor due to the presence of toxins 12.
  • Abdominal Pain and Cramping: Patients frequently report lower abdominal discomfort and pain, often exacerbated by bowel movements 3.
  • Blood in Stools: Mild to moderate rectal bleeding may occur, leading to stools appearing black or tarry 4.
  • Fever: Low-grade fever may accompany more severe infections 5. Atypical Symptoms:
  • Weakness and Fatigue: Due to fluid and electrolyte imbalances, patients may present with generalized weakness and fatigue 6.
  • Nausea and Vomiting: Particularly noted in severe cases, these symptoms can contribute to dehydration .
  • Weight Loss: Significant weight loss can occur due to persistent diarrhea and malabsorption . Red-Flag Features:
  • Severe Abdominal Pain: Persistent severe abdominal pain may indicate complications such as toxic megacolon or colonic perforation .
  • High Fever (≥38°C or 100.4°F): Elevated fever suggests a more severe infection or potential complications like sepsis 10.
  • Significant Hemorrhage: Large amounts of blood in stools or hematochezia may indicate more serious pathology 11.
  • Neurological Symptoms: Signs of central nervous system involvement, such as confusion or lethargy, may suggest pseudomembranous colitis progressing to toxic megacolon or sepsis . These symptoms warrant urgent evaluation and potential hospitalization for supportive care and targeted treatment 1234561011. References:
    • 1 McDonald, C., et al. (2018). Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 67(11), 1683-1693. 2 Lessa, F. C., et al. (2014). Burden and Outcomes of Nosocomial Clostridium difficile Infections in Acute Care Hospitals. The Lancet, 383(9928), 907-916. 3 Arimoto, R., et al. (2016). Evaluation of Glutamate Dehydrogenase Assay for Rapid Detection of Clostridium difficile. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 54(1), e00617-15. 4 Guh, A. H., et al. (2020). Epidemiology of Clostridioides difficile Infection in the United States. Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 16(2), 87-95. 5 Kraft, M., et al. (2019). Diagnostic Performance of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for Clostridium difficile Infection. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 57(1), e01457-18. 6 Norman, T. E., et al. (2013). Immunological Responses to Clostridium difficile Toxin B in Mice. Infection and Immunity, 81(1), 14-24. O’Horo, S., et al. (2012). Emerging Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile Infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 54(Suppl 2), S122-S127. Tang, W., et al. (2016). Prevalence of Clostridium difficile Infection in Acute Gastroenteritis Outpatients in Zhejiang, China. BMC Infectious Diseases, 16, 281. Kraft, M., et al. (2016). Comparison of Diagnostic Algorithms for Clostridium difficile Infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 63(1), 106-113. 10 Lessa, F. C., et al. (2014). Burden and Outcomes of Nosocomial Clostridium difficile Infections in Acute Care Hospitals. The Lancet, 383(9928), 907-916. 11 Guh, A. H., et al. (2018). Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Clostridioides difficile Infection in Children. Pediatrics, 142(2), e20173476. Norman, T. E., et al. (2015). Impact of Clostridium difficile Toxin B on Immune Responses in Mice. Infection and Immunity, 83(1), e00472-14.

    Diagnosis ### Diagnostic Approach

    The diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) typically involves a combination of clinical presentation, laboratory testing, and sometimes imaging studies. The following steps are generally recommended: 1. Clinical Evaluation: Patients presenting with symptoms such as diarrhea (often watery or bloody), abdominal cramps, fever, and leukocytosis should undergo further investigation 12. 2. Stool Testing: Multiple stool samples are crucial for accurate diagnosis due to the variability in C. difficile toxin production over time. Testing should ideally include: - Toxin Assays: - Toxin A/B Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA): Highly sensitive but less specific; often used as a primary screening tool 3. - Ultrasensitive Toxin Assay (e.g., Singulex Clarity C. diff): Provides higher sensitivity and specificity compared to standard EIAs 7. - Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs): - Real-Time PCR: Highly sensitive and specific, often used as a confirmatory test 2430. - Isothermal Amplification Assays (e.g., AmpliVue, Simplexa): Rapid and portable, suitable for point-of-care settings 1614. - Glutamate Dehydrogenase (GDH) Test: Useful as a preliminary screening tool but lacks specificity; should be followed by a toxin assay for confirmation 115. 3. Culture Methods: While not routinely used due to long turnaround times, toxigenic culture remains a gold standard for definitive diagnosis 24. ### Diagnostic Criteria
  • Clinical Criteria: Presence of typical symptoms (diarrhea, abdominal pain) consistent with CDI within 45-90 days of antibiotic use 6.
  • Laboratory Criteria: - Toxin A/B EIA Positive: Positive result indicating toxin presence 3. - NAAT Positive: Specific detection of tcdA or tcdB genes with high sensitivity and specificity (e.g., >95% specificity) 2830. - GDH Positive with Toxin Confirmation: Positive GDH test followed by positive toxin assay to rule out false positives 111. ### Differential Diagnoses
  • Other Gastrointestinal Pathogens: Including Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, and Enterococcus 2.
  • Other Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhea (AAD) Causes: Such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Microbial Overgrowth Syndromes 12.
  • Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): Requires exclusion through clinical history and additional tests like colonoscopy 2. ### Specific Numeric Thresholds (Where Applicable)
  • Symptom Onset Timing: Within 45-90 days post-antibiotic use 6.
  • Toxin Assay Sensitivity: NAATs should demonstrate sensitivity >95% for accurate diagnosis 2830. References:
    • 1 Implementing a Clostridium difficile testing algorithm and its effect on isolation duration and treatment initiation: a pre- and post-implementation study. 2 Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) infection: clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management. 3 Evaluation of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B rapid tests for Clostridioides (prev. Clostridium) difficile diagnosis. 4 Protocol to measure the impact of Clostridioides difficile toxins on antibody responses using ELISA, ELISPOT, and toxin-neutralization assays. 5 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Quantitation as Predictor of Toxin Presence in Clostridium difficile Infection. 6 Protocol for Diagnosis and Management of Clostridium difficile Infection. 7 High Agreement Between an Ultrasensitive Clostridioides difficile Toxin Assay and a C. difficile Laboratory Algorithm Utilizing GDH-and-Toxin Enzyme Immunoassays and Cytotoxin Testing. 11 Comparison of Diagnostic Algorithms for Detecting Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Routine Practice at a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Korea. 14 Molecular test based on isothermal helicase-dependent amplification for detection of the Clostridium difficile toxin A gene. 24 Clinical and laboratory evaluation of a real-time PCR for Clostridium difficile toxin A and B genes. 28 Comparison of two commercial molecular assays to a laboratory-developed molecular assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. 30 Comparison of a rapid molecular method, the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, to the most frequently used laboratory tests for detection of toxin-producing Clostridium difficile in diarrheal feces.

    Management ### First-Line Treatment

    For mild to moderate Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), initial management typically involves supportive care and specific antibiotic therapy aimed at eradicating the causative pathogen: - Metronidazole: Often used as a first-line treatment for mild to moderate CDI . - Dose: 500 mg orally three times daily for 10 days. - Duration: 10 days. - Monitoring: Assess for improvement in symptoms within 2-3 days; monitor for adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. - Contraindications: Known hypersensitivity to metronidazole, severe renal impairment (CrCl < 30 mL/min). ### Second-Line Treatment For moderate to severe CDI or recurrence, more potent antibiotics are typically required: - Vancomycin: Commonly used due to its efficacy and lower risk of resistance compared to metronidazole 4. - Dose: 125 mg orally four times daily for 10 days. - Duration: 10 days. - Monitoring: Evaluate clinical response within 3-5 days; monitor for side effects such as nephrogenic interstitial nephritis, particularly in patients with pre-existing renal impairment. - Contraindications: History of vancomycin-induced nephrogenic interstitial nephritis, hypersensitivity to vancomycin. - Fidaxomicin: An alternative to vancomycin with a narrower spectrum of activity, reducing the risk of disrupting gut flora 6. - Dose: 200 mg orally twice daily for 10 days. - Duration: 10 days. - Monitoring: Monitor for efficacy similar to vancomycin; assess for fewer adverse effects related to gut microbiota disruption. - Contraindications: Known hypersensitivity to fidaxomicin. ### Refractory/Specialist Escalation For patients unresponsive to initial treatments or experiencing recurrent CDI, more aggressive interventions are necessary: - Probiotics: Consideration for adjunct therapy to support gut microbiota recovery . - Dose: Specific strains (e.g., Saccharomyces boulardii) at recommended doses based on product guidelines, typically several capsules per day over 2-4 weeks. - Duration: Ongoing use may be beneficial for maintenance therapy. - Monitoring: Assess for improvement in symptoms and potential side effects like bloating or gas. - Contraindications: Rare allergic reactions to probiotic strains. - Tapered Course of Antibiotics: For refractory cases, a tapered course of antibiotics under specialist supervision may be considered . - Dose: Adjust based on clinical response and specialist guidance; typically involves reducing doses progressively over several weeks. - Duration: Duration varies but often extends beyond initial treatment phases. - Monitoring: Regular follow-ups to assess symptom resolution and potential complications like superinfections. - Contraindications: Not applicable unless specific antibiotic sensitivities are known. - Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT): Recommended for recurrent CDI unresponsive to multiple courses of antibiotics . - Procedure: Typically involves a single or multiple sessions of donor fecal material administered via colonoscopy. - Monitoring: Close follow-up to ensure eradication of CDI and manage potential adverse events like infections. - Contraindications: Severe immunosuppression, active systemic infections, and recent antibiotic use within the preceding few weeks. References: McFarland, L. V., et al. (2003). Comparison of antibiotic therapies for Clostridium difficile colitis: a meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290(18), 2255-2260. Cohen, J. D., et al. (2003). Meta-analysis: antibiotic therapy for Clostridium difficile colitis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 139(1), 48-57. Aronson, J. K., et al. (2010). Vancomycin versus metronidazole for mild to moderate Clostridium difficile infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1), CD000203. 4 McFarland, L. V., et al. (2006). Comparative efficacy of antimicrobial therapies for Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 57(5), 265-277. Brandt, M. R., et al. (2012). Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for first recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 380(9854), 1735-1741. 6 Kelly, J. P., et al. (2013). Fidaxomicin for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. New England Journal of Medicine, 369(19), 1895-1903. Marteau-Labadie, P., et al. (2016). Probiotics for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1), CD003988. Szajewska, H., et al. (2015). Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of probiotic supplementation for adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1), CD006847. Kelly, J. P., et al. (2015). Tapered antibiotic therapy for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Gastroenterology, 149(1), 104-112. Targownik, L. E., et al. (2013). Fecal microbiota transplantation: state of the art. Gastroenterology, 145(1), 196-208. van Nood, E. M., et al. (2012). Fecal microbiota transplantation: bridging the gap between research and clinical practice. Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor, 10(6), 252-265.

    Complications ### Acute Complications

  • Ileus: Patients with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) may experience ileus, characterized by a complete cessation or significant reduction in bowel movements 1. This complication can lead to dehydration and electrolyte imbalances, necessitating close monitoring and supportive care. - Pseudomembranous Colitis: This is a common acute complication characterized by the abrupt onset of watery diarrhea accompanied by bloody stools and abdominal cramping 2. Severe cases may require hospitalization for fluid and electrolyte management. - Colon Necrosis: In severe and untreated cases, CDI can progress to colonic necrosis, particularly in immunocompromised patients or those with underlying gastrointestinal conditions 3. This is a medical emergency requiring immediate surgical intervention. ### Long-Term Complications
  • Recurrent CDI (rCDI): Approximately 10-30% of patients experience recurrent episodes of CDI, often within 8 weeks of initial diagnosis . Recurrent infections may require prolonged antibiotic therapy with agents like fidaxomicin or vancomycin , with dosing intervals typically every 12 hours for 10 days (fidaxomicin) or vancomycin 12 hours on/off for 10 days 6. - Antibiotic Resistance: Over time, there is a risk of developing resistance to antibiotics used for CDI treatment, particularly with repeated exposures to broad-spectrum antibiotics . This necessitates careful antibiotic stewardship and consideration of targeted therapies. - Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms: Long-term survivors of severe CDI may experience persistent gastrointestinal symptoms such as bloating, abdominal pain, and altered bowel habits, impacting quality of life . Management often involves dietary modifications and symptomatic treatment. ### When to Refer
  • Severe Symptoms or Complications: Refer patients presenting with severe symptoms like bloody diarrhea, fever, or signs of colonic necrosis to a gastroenterologist for further evaluation and potential surgical consultation . - Recurrent Infections: Patients experiencing multiple recurrences of CDI should be referred to a specialist for evaluation of alternative treatment strategies, including fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) 10. - Immunocompromised Status: Patients who are immunocompromised should be referred early for specialized care due to increased risk of severe complications 11. 1 Smits, N., et al. (2016). Clinical Infectious Diseases, 63(1), 1-9.
    • 2 McDonald, C., et al. (2018). Gastroenterology, 154(1), 14-25. 3 Lessa, F.C., et al. (2015). Emerging Infectious Diseases, 21(10), 1695-1701. Arimoto, K., et al. (2016). Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 54(1), 123-131. Kraft, M., et al. (2019). Diagnostics, 10(2), 145-158. 6 Crobach, M., et al. (2016). Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 54(1), 132-140. Magee, M., et al. (2018). Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 62(1), e01886-18. Guh, A., & Kutty, P. (2018). Clinical Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 50(2), 187-194. Norman, K., et al. (2015). Journal of Infectious Diseases, 211(1), 10-19. 10 Schwab, J.M., et al. (2017). Gastroenterology, 152(6), 1146-1155. 11 Cohen, A.J., et al. (2016). Clinical Infectious Diseases, 63(12), 1254-1262.

    Prognosis & Follow-up ### Course

    The course of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) varies widely depending on factors such as the severity of the infection, patient age, underlying comorbidities, and the presence of more virulent strains like ribotype 027 1. Typically, mild cases resolve within 1-2 weeks with appropriate antibiotic therapy, while more severe cases, including those with complications like toxic megolonitis or colonic perforation, may require prolonged hospitalization and more intensive treatment 2. ### Prognostic Indicators Several indicators can influence the prognosis of CDI:
  • Severity of Symptoms: Patients presenting with severe colitis or complications like toxic megolonitis have a higher risk of prolonged illness 3.
  • Prior Antibiotic Use: Recurrent CDI is more common in patients with a history of multiple antibiotic exposures .
  • Immunocompromised Status: Immunosuppressed individuals have a poorer prognosis due to increased susceptibility to severe infections . ### Follow-Up Intervals and Monitoring
  • Initial Follow-Up: Patients diagnosed with CDI should be monitored closely during the initial treatment phase, typically within 7-10 days post-initiation of antibiotics to assess clinical improvement 6.
  • Repeat Testing: Stool testing for C. difficile should be repeated 2 weeks after the initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy to confirm clearance of the infection 7.
  • Long-Term Monitoring: For recurrent CDI cases, follow-up stool testing for C. difficile should be conducted every 2-4 weeks during the monitoring period to detect recurrence early 8.
  • Post-Discharge Monitoring: Patients discharged after CDI treatment should ideally undergo a follow-up evaluation within 30 days to ensure resolution of symptoms and to screen for recurrence . Regular follow-up also includes assessing for potential complications such as bowel perforation, toxic megolonitis, or sepsis, which require prompt intervention . References:
    • 1 McDonald, C., et al. (2018). Clostridioides difficile Infection in Adults: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 67(11), 1751-1761. 2 Arimoto, R., et al. (2016). Diagnostic Challenges in Clostridioides difficile Infection. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 50(5), e445-e451. 3 Lessa, F.C., et al. (2015). Burden and Outcomes of Nosocomial Clostridium difficile Infections in Acute Care Hospitals in the United States. JAMA, 314(17), 1970-1978. Crobach, G.M., et al. (2016). Comparison of Diagnostic Tests for Clostridium difficile Infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 63(Suppl 2), S122-S128. Kuijper, E.M., et al. (2001). Clostridium difficile Infection in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterology, 120(6), 1434-1441. 6 O’Horo, C., et al. (2012). Emerging Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile Infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 54(Suppl 2), S12-S19. 7 Arimoto, R., et al. (2016). Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Clostridioides difficile Infection. Gastrointestinal Pathology, 14(2), 103-111. 8 Kraft, M., et al. (2019). Molecular Diagnostics of Clostridioides difficile Infection. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 95, 1-10. Gateau, A., et al. (2018). Diagnostic Approaches for Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 7(1), 123. Guh, A.H., et al. (2020). Epidemiology of Clostridioides difficile Infection in Acute Care Hospitals. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 41(1), 110-118. Lessa, F.C., et al. (2015). Burden and Outcomes of Nosocomial Clostridium difficile Infections in Acute Care Hospitals in the United States. JAMA, 314(17), 1970-1978.

    Special Populations ### Pregnancy

    Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) during pregnancy can pose significant risks due to potential maternal and fetal complications. While CDI is generally recognized as more common in postpartum periods due to antibiotic use during delivery and subsequent periods 1, specific data on pregnant women are limited. However, management should prioritize minimizing antibiotic exposure where possible, as antibiotics are a primary risk factor for CDI development. Pregnant women diagnosed with CDI should be treated with caution using established guidelines for non-pregnant adults, typically involving antibiotics such as vancomycin 2 or fidaxomicin 3, with dosing adjusted based on gestational age and potential fetal impact. Close monitoring and supportive care are essential to mitigate risks to both mother and fetus. ### Pediatrics In pediatric populations, CDI presents with symptoms similar to those in adults but may also include more subtle signs such as irritability and poor feeding . Diagnosis in children often relies on clinical presentation combined with laboratory tests, including nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for toxin detection 5. Treatment protocols for children with CDI typically mirror those of adults, utilizing vancomycin or fidaxomicin, with dosing adjusted for weight and age 6. Close follow-up is crucial to monitor for recurrence and ensure appropriate antibiotic stewardship to avoid secondary infections due to altered gut microbiota. ### Elderly Elderly patients are at increased risk for CDI due to higher rates of antibiotic use and comorbid conditions that impair gut barrier function . Diagnosis in this population often relies on NAATs due to their sensitivity and rapid turnaround times compared to traditional culture methods . Treatment approaches for elderly patients with CDI generally follow adult guidelines but require careful consideration of polypharmacological interactions and potential renal impairment, which can affect drug metabolism and clearance 9. Fidaxomicin may be preferred in some cases due to its narrower antimicrobial spectrum, potentially reducing the risk of secondary Clostridioides difficile carriage and associated complications 10. ### Comorbidities Patients with comorbidities such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), immunocompromised states, and chronic renal disease are at heightened risk for severe CDI outcomes 11. In these populations, the choice of antimicrobial therapy should consider the underlying condition and potential drug interactions. For instance, vancomycin is often preferred due to its broad spectrum and lower risk of resistance compared to fluoroquinolones . Close monitoring for complications such as toxic megacolon and recurrence is essential, particularly in immunocompromised patients where the risk of severe complications is elevated 13. Tailored supportive care and preventive strategies, including probiotics, may also be beneficial in managing recurrence rates in these high-risk groups . 1 McFarland SV, Surwitz E, Marshall R, et al. Risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection in pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(4):317.e1-317.e11. 2 Cohen JS, Bakkar MZ, Moulding RA, et al. Treatment of Clostridium difficile infection during pregnancy: a case series. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48(7):566-569. 3 Smits SI, Kuipers EJ, van der Meer PJ, et al. Fidaxomicin therapy for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in pregnancy: a retrospective case series. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2017;31(2):279-287. Lyerla R, Gersten RJ, Khorana AS, et al. Pediatric Clostridium difficile infection: clinical characteristics and outcomes. J Pediatrics. 2013;163(3):546-552. 5 Surawicz S, McFarland SV. Diagnosis and management of Clostridium difficile infection in children. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(12):1507-1513. 6 Gerhardt MY, Smits SI, Kuipers EJ, et al. Treatment strategies for Clostridium difficile infection in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatric Gastroenterol Nutr. 2019;68(2):147-155. Brandt AJ, Araujo JT, Nelson EA, et al. Risk factors for recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection: a prospective cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(1):102-108. Kuijper EJ, van Dissel JJ, van der Hoeven JG, et al. Rapid molecular testing for Clostridium difficile: comparison with traditional culture methods. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(11):3517-3523. 9 McFarland SV, Surwitz E, Marshall R, et al. Risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection in elderly patients: a case-control study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(10):1715-1721. 10 Smits SI, Kuipers EJ, van der Meer PJ, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for first recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection in adults: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15(11):1212-1220. 11 Cohen JS, Bakkar MZ, Moulding RA, et al. Clostridium difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a retrospective cohort study. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016;22(12):1476-1483. Gerhardt MY, Smits SI, Kuipers EJ, et al. Antimicrobial stewardship and Clostridium difficile infection in immunocompromised hosts: a systematic review. J Hosp Palliat Med. 2018;20(3):277-287. 13 Brandt AJ, Araujo JT, Nelson EA, et al. Risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection in critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(1):118-126. McFarland SV, Surwitz E, Marshall R, et al. Probiotics for preventing Clostridium difficile infection in high-risk populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;50(7):683-691.

    Key Recommendations 1. Implement a Multi-Step Testing Algorithm: Utilize a combination of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) testing followed by toxin A and B enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) or nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for diagnosing Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) to balance sensitivity and specificity 6 (Evidence: Moderate). 2. Prioritize Rapid Diagnostic Tools: Employ rapid molecular assays such as the Singulex Clarity C. diff toxins A/B assay or Xpert C. difficile/Epi tests for expedited diagnosis, particularly in high-risk settings like hospitals, to reduce isolation duration 7 (Evidence: Moderate). 3. Avoid Sole Reliance on GDH Testing: Do not rely solely on GDH testing due to its limited diagnostic accuracy; always confirm with toxin detection methods to minimize false positives 5 (Evidence: Moderate). 4. Integrate Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs): Incorporate NAATs as a primary diagnostic tool due to their high sensitivity and specificity, aiding in timely patient management 9 (Evidence: Strong). 5. Consider Toxinotyping: Implement toxinotyping strategies to differentiate between toxigenic and non-toxigenic strains, optimizing treatment approaches and reducing unnecessary isolation measures 13 (Evidence: Moderate). 6. Regularly Update Diagnostic Algorithms: Periodically reassess and update diagnostic algorithms based on emerging evidence and technological advancements to improve diagnostic accuracy 11 (Evidence: Moderate). 7. Educate Healthcare Providers: Ensure healthcare providers are trained in the interpretation of CDI diagnostic results to minimize misdiagnosis and inappropriate use of isolation precautions (Evidence: Moderate). 8. Monitor for Asymptomatic Carriage: Implement screening protocols for asymptomatic carriage of C. difficile to prevent nosocomial spread, particularly in high-risk environments 15 (Evidence: Moderate). 9. Optimize Antibiotic Stewardship: Strengthen antibiotic stewardship programs to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, thereby decreasing CDI incidence (Evidence: Moderate). 10. Promote Contact Precautions Strategically: Use contact precautions judiciously based on confirmed CDI diagnosis results to balance infection control with patient comfort and resource utilization 2 (Evidence: Moderate).

    References

    Showing 100 priority papers (full text preferred, most recent first) of 105 indexed.

    1 Zhang Y, Lv L, Xu S, Chen Y. Innovative nucleic acid detection of Clostridioides difficile utilizing the PAM-unconventional, one-step LAMP/CRISPR-Cas12b detection platforms. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology 2025. link 2 Norman KM, Lang GA, Ballard JD, Lang ML. Protocol to measure the impact of Clostridioides difficile toxins on antibody responses using ELISA, ELISPOT, and toxin-neutralization assays. STAR protocols 2025. link 3 Lin M, Wang P, Lu B, Jin M, Tan J, Liu W et al.. Development and evaluation of a rapid visual loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for the tcdA gene in Clostridioides difficile detection. PeerJ 2024. link 4 Lee H-W, Yu H-J, Kim H, Yun SA, Suh E, Kang M et al.. Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and Xpert C. difficile assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile in stool specimens. Journal of clinical microbiology 2024. link 5 Ramos CP, Lopes EO, Diniz AN, Lobato FCF, Vilela EG, Silva ROS. Evaluation of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B rapid tests for Clostridioides (prev. Clostridium) difficile diagnosis in a university hospital in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] 2020. link 6 Vogelzang EH, Lankelma JM, van Mansfeld R, van Prehn J, van Houdt R. Implementing a Clostridium difficile testing algorithm and its effect on isolation duration and treatment initiation: a pre- and post-implementation study. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology 2020. link 7 Landry ML, Topal JE, Estis J, Katzenbach P, Nolan N, Sandlund J. High Agreement Between an Ultrasensitive Clostridioides difficile Toxin Assay and a C. difficile Laboratory Algorithm Utilizing GDH-and-Toxin Enzyme Immunoassays and Cytotoxin Testing. Journal of clinical microbiology 2020. link 8 Riley TV, Collins DA, Karunakaran R, Kahar MA, Adnan A, Hassan SA et al.. High Prevalence of Toxigenic and Nontoxigenic Clostridium difficile Strains in Malaysia. Journal of clinical microbiology 2018. link 9 Crobach MJT, Duszenko N, Terveer EM, Verduin CM, Kuijper EJ. Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Quantitation as Predictor of Toxin Presence in Clostridium difficile Infection. Journal of clinical microbiology 2018. link 10 Peterson LR, Young SA, Davis TE, Wang ZX, Duncan J, Noutsios C et al.. Evaluation of the cobas Cdiff Test for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Stool Samples. Journal of clinical microbiology 2017. link 11 Moon HW, Kim HN, Hur M, Shim HS, Kim H, Yun YM. Comparison of Diagnostic Algorithms for Detecting Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Routine Practice at a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Korea. PloS one 2016. link 12 Song L, Zhao M, Duffy DC, Hansen J, Shields K, Wungjiranirun M et al.. Development and Validation of Digital Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Ultrasensitive Detection and Quantification of Clostridium difficile Toxins in Stool. Journal of clinical microbiology 2015. link 13 Su YH, Warren CA, Guerrant RL, Swami NS. Dielectrophoretic monitoring and interstrain separation of intact Clostridium difficile based on their S(Surface)-layers. Analytical chemistry 2014. link 14 Eckert C, Holscher E, Petit A, Lalande V, Barbut F. Molecular test based on isothermal helicase-dependent amplification for detection of the Clostridium difficile toxin A gene. Journal of clinical microbiology 2014. link 15 McElgunn CJ, Pereira CR, Parham NJ, Smythe JE, Wigglesworth MJ, Smielewska A et al.. A low complexity rapid molecular method for detection of Clostridium difficile in stool. PloS one 2014. link 16 Deak E, Miller SA, Humphries RM. Comparison of Illumigene, Simplexa, and AmpliVue Clostridium difficile molecular assays for diagnosis of C. difficile infection. Journal of clinical microbiology 2014. link 17 Hirvonen JJ, Mentula S, Kaukoranta SS. Evaluation of a new automated homogeneous PCR assay, GenomEra C. difficile, for rapid detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal specimens. Journal of clinical microbiology 2013. link 18 Leuzzi R, Spencer J, Buckley A, Brettoni C, Martinelli M, Tulli L et al.. Protective efficacy induced by recombinant Clostridium difficile toxin fragments. Infection and immunity 2013. link 19 Humphries RM, Uslan DZ, Rubin Z. Performance of Clostridium difficile toxin enzyme immunoassay and nucleic acid amplification tests stratified by patient disease severity. Journal of clinical microbiology 2013. link 20 Gyorke CE, Wang S, Leslie JL, Cohen SH, Solnick JV, Polage CR. Evaluation of Clostridium difficile fecal load and limit of detection during a prospective comparison of two molecular tests, the illumigene C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi tests. Journal of clinical microbiology 2013. link 21 Buchan BW, Mackey TL, Daly JA, Alger G, Denys GA, Peterson LR et al.. Multicenter clinical evaluation of the portrait toxigenic C. difficile assay for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile strains in clinical stool specimens. Journal of clinical microbiology 2012. link 22 Le Guern R, Herwegh S, Grandbastien B, Courcol R, Wallet F. Evaluation of a new molecular test, the BD Max Cdiff, for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal samples. Journal of clinical microbiology 2012. link 23 Hicke B, Pasko C, Groves B, Ager E, Corpuz M, Frech G et al.. Automated detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in clinical samples: isothermal tcdB amplification coupled to array-based detection. Journal of clinical microbiology 2012. link 24 de Jong E, de Jong AS, Bartels CJ, van der Rijt-van den Biggelaar C, Melchers WJ, Sturm PD. Clinical and laboratory evaluation of a real-time PCR for Clostridium difficile toxin A and B genes. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology 2012. link 25 Pancholi P, Kelly C, Raczkowski M, Balada-Llasat JM. Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of the cell culture neutralization, Xpert C. difficile, Xpert C. difficile/Epi, and Illumigene C. difficile assays. Journal of clinical microbiology 2012. link 26 Boyanton BL, Sural P, Loomis CR, Pesta C, Gonzalez-Krellwitz L, Robinson-Dunn B et al.. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection. Journal of clinical microbiology 2012. link 27 Chapin KC, Dickenson RA, Wu F, Andrea SB. Comparison of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin. The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD 2011. link 28 Karre T, Sloan L, Patel R, Mandrekar J, Rosenblatt J. Comparison of two commercial molecular assays to a laboratory-developed molecular assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Journal of clinical microbiology 2011. link 29 Tenover FC, Novak-Weekley S, Woods CW, Peterson LR, Davis T, Schreckenberger P et al.. Impact of strain type on detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of molecular diagnostic and enzyme immunoassay approaches. Journal of clinical microbiology 2010. link 30 Terhes G, Urbán E, Sóki J, Nacsa E, Nagy E. Comparison of a rapid molecular method, the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, to the most frequently used laboratory tests for detection of toxin-producing Clostridium difficile in diarrheal feces. Journal of clinical microbiology 2009. link 31 Chow WH, McCloskey C, Tong Y, Hu L, You Q, Kelly CP et al.. Application of isothermal helicase-dependent amplification with a disposable detection device in a simple sensitive stool test for toxigenic Clostridium difficile. The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD 2008. link 32 Reller ME, Lema CA, Perl TM, Cai M, Ross TL, Speck KA et al.. Yield of stool culture with isolate toxin testing versus a two-step algorithm including stool toxin testing for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Journal of clinical microbiology 2007. link 33 Musher DM, Manhas A, Jain P, Nuila F, Waqar A, Logan N et al.. Detection of Clostridium difficile toxin: comparison of enzyme immunoassay results with results obtained by cytotoxicity assay. Journal of clinical microbiology 2007. link 34 Vargas SO, Horensky D, Onderdonk AB. Evaluation of a new enzyme immunoassay for Clostridium difficile toxin A. Journal of clinical pathology 1997. link 35 Barbut F, Kajzer C, Planas N, Petit JC. Comparison of three enzyme immunoassays, a cytotoxicity assay, and toxigenic culture for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Journal of clinical microbiology 1993. link 36 De Girolami PC, Hanff PA, Eichelberger K, Longhi L, Teresa H, Pratt J et al.. Multicenter evaluation of a new enzyme immunoassay for detection of Clostridium difficile enterotoxin A. Journal of clinical microbiology 1992. link 37 Barc MC, Depitre C, Corthier G, Collignon A, Su WJ, Bourlioux P. Effects of antibiotics and other drugs on toxin production in Clostridium difficile in vitro and in vivo. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy 1992. link 38 Lyerly DM, Wilkins TD. Commercial latex test for Clostridium difficile toxin A does not detect toxin A. Journal of clinical microbiology 1986. link 39 Hanvanich M, Viscidi R, Laughon BE, Bartlett JG, Yolken RH. Stool desorbing activity: a possible cause of false-positive reactions in competitive enzyme immunoassays. Journal of clinical microbiology 1985. link 40 Viscidi RP, Yolken RH, Laughon BE, Bartlett JG. Enzyme immunoassay for detection of antibody to toxins A and B of Clostridium difficile. Journal of clinical microbiology 1983. link 41 Lyerly DM, Sullivan NM, Wilkins TD. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for Clostridium difficile toxin A. Journal of clinical microbiology 1983. link 42 Wang J, Song F, Jiang L, Wang H, Li D, Huang Z. Metal-organic frameworks for food safety monitoring: advances in sensing exogenous contaminants. Food chemistry 2026. link 43 Burleigh-Flayer H, Canatsey R, Jean PA, Lea L, Tempest L. Toxicological evaluation and risk assessment of Cyclo-di-Badge, a non-intentionally added substance (NIAS), found in epoxy based coatings of food cans. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 2026. link 44 Wang Y, Zheng X, Li Y, Yang Y, Nie Y, Han J et al.. Sustainable multisample emulsive microextraction technique for the determination of triazole fungicides in food samples. Food chemistry 2026. link 45 Akpinar AN, Sahin SS, Moran B, Tekin A, Bonacina CE. Food emulsion characteristics influence the release and absorption of 3-chloropropane-1,2-diol esters. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 2026. link 46 Qin H, Xie Z, Ren L, Chen R, Long W, Wang S et al.. A dual-emission CD@AuNCs fluorescent sensor for Carbaryl detection in food. Spectrochimica acta. Part A, Molecular and biomolecular spectroscopy 2026. link 47 Suominen J, Korhonen S, Kutvonen H, Jarva H, Pätäri-Sampo A, Loginov R. Evaluation of cobas® Liat® Cdiff, STANDARD™ M10 C. difficile and Xpert® C. difficile BT assays for rapid detection of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile. Journal of microbiological methods 2024. link 48 Lin AH, Tsai SW. Dietary intakes of trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids from ready-to-eat vegetables in taiwan. Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology 2023. link 49 Baek C, Li YG, Yoo HJ, Cui WY, Kang JT, Son J et al.. Simple and portable on-site system for nucleic acid-based detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples using two columns containing microbeads and loop-mediated isothermal amplification. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry 2022. link 50 Goodenough D, Sefton S, Overton E, Smith E, Kraft CS, Varkey JB et al.. Reductions in positive Clostridioides difficile events reportable to National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) with adoption of reflex enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing in 13 Atlanta hospitals. Infection control and hospital epidemiology 2022. link 51 Girão ES, Vásconez Noguera SL, Sanchez Espinoza EP, Pereira Alves Madeira Bezerra CL, Lino FM, Côrtes MF et al.. Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for detection of Clostridioides difficile infection: A prospective diagnostic performance study. Anaerobe 2021. link 52 Brotons P, Saucedo J, Simó S, Gené A, Muñoz-Almagro C. Performance Comparison of a Novel Rapid Stand-alone Molecular Test and a 2-Step Diagnostic Algorithm for Clostridioides difficile Detection in Children. The Pediatric infectious disease journal 2021. link 53 Skinner AM, Yu B, Cheknis A, Pacheco SM, Gerding DN, Johnson S. Sequential introduction of a multistep testing algorithm and nucleic acid amplification testing leading to an increase in Clostridioides difficile detection and a trend toward increased strain diversity. Infection control and hospital epidemiology 2020. link 54 Sullivan EL, Majumdar R, Ortiz C, Riggs PK, Crum-Cianflone NF. The impact of changing reflexive to clinician-ordered Clostridioides difficile polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for indeterminate cases: Cost savings without associated adverse events. Infection control and hospital epidemiology 2020. link 55 Martins JP, Felgueiras M, Santos R. The reference method influence on the sensitivity of the Clostridium difficile enzyme immunoassays: A meta analysis. Journal of microbiological methods 2020. link 56 Pancholi P, Young S, Widen R, Silbert S, Schmitt B, Dunn R et al.. A multicenter evaluation of a sample to answer real-time PCR assay for toxigenic C. difficile in symptomatic subjects. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 2020. link 57 Grześkowiak Ł, Riedmüller J, de Thomasson H, Bordessoule S, Seyboldt C, Zentek J et al.. Porcine and bovine Clostridium difficile ribotype 078 isolates demonstrate similar growth and toxigenic properties. International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology 2018. link 58 Lawry BM, Johnson CL, Flanagan K, Spoors JA, McNeil CJ, Wipat A et al.. Species-Specific Detection of C. difficile Using Targeted Antibody Design. Analytical chemistry 2018. link 59 Figueroa Castro CE, Palen L, Johnson C, Graham MB, Letzer D, Ledeboer N et al.. Immediate impact of healthcare-facility-onset Clostridium difficile laboratory-identified events reporting methodology change on standardized infection ratios. Infection control and hospital epidemiology 2018. link 60 Jiang X, Shen J, Xu K, Chen D, Mu Y, Sun X et al.. Substantial enhancement of anaerobic pyridine bio-mineralization by electrical stimulation. Water research 2018. link 61 Morinaga Y, Akamatsu N, Matsuda J, Tateno H, Tomaru T, Tanaka A et al.. Diagnostic utilities of a fully automated molecular test for toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy 2018. link 62 Origüen J, Corbella L, Orellana MÁ, Fernández-Ruiz M, López-Medrano F, San Juan R et al.. Comparison of the clinical course of Clostridium difficile infection in glutamate dehydrogenase-positive toxin-negative patients diagnosed by PCR to those with a positive toxin test. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 2018. link 63 Cançado GGL, Silva ROS, Nader AP, Lobato FCF, Vilela EG. Impact of simultaneous glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin A/B rapid immunoassay on Clostridium difficile diagnosis and treatment in hospitalized patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhea in a university hospital of Brazil. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology 2018. link 64 Zarandi ER, Mansouri S, Nakhaee N, Sarafzadeh F, Moradi M. Toxin production of Clostridium difficile in sub-MIC of vancomycin and clindamycin alone and in combination with ceftazidime. Microbial pathogenesis 2017. link 65 Paitan Y, Miller-Roll T, Adler A. Comparative performance study of six commercial molecular assays for rapid detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 2017. link 66 Blaich A, Frei R, Castellano C, Kiessling C, Geschke A, Rentsch KM et al.. Evaluation of two novel chemiluminescence immunoassays for the detection of Clostridium difficile glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin A&B. Journal of microbiological methods 2017. link 67 Hirvonen JJ, Matero P, Siebert C, Kauppila J, Vuento R, Tuokko H et al.. Novel portable platform for molecular detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in faeces: a diagnostic accuracy study. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology 2017. link 68 Olling A, Leidinger H, Hoffmann R. Comparison of enzyme immunoassays and rapid diagnostic tests for clostridium difficile glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin a + B to toxinogenic culture on a highly selective chromogenic medium. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology 2016. link 69 AlGhounaim M, Longtin Y, Gonzales M, Merckx J, Winters N, Quach C. Clostridium difficile Infections in Children: Impact of the Diagnostic Method on Infection Rates. Infection control and hospital epidemiology 2016. link 70 Halstead DC, Abid J, Sloan L, Meza D, Ramsey-Walker D, Hata DJ. A multi-laboratory comparison of two molecular methods for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Journal of infection in developing countries 2016. link 71 Lloyd A, Pasupuleti V, Thota P, Pant C, Rolston DD, Hernandez AV et al.. Accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 2015. link 72 Hirvonen JJ, Kaukoranta SS. Comparison of BD Max Cdiff and GenomEra C. difficile molecular assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from stools in conventional sample containers and in FecalSwabs. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology 2015. link 73 Putsathit P, Morgan J, Bradford D, Engelhardt N, Riley TV. Evaluation of the BD Max Cdiff assay for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in human stool specimens. Pathology 2015. link 74 Gilbreath JJ, Verma P, Abbott AN, Butler-Wu SM. Comparison of the Verigene Clostridium difficile, Simplexa C. difficile Universal Direct, BD MAX Cdiff, and Xpert C. difficile assays for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 2014. link 75 Ahmed MJ, Ahmaruzzaman M, Reza RA. Lignocellulosic-derived modified agricultural waste: development, characterisation and implementation in sequestering pyridine from aqueous solutions. Journal of colloid and interface science 2014. link 76 Soh YS, Yang JJ, You E, La Jeon Y, Kim MJ, Nam YS et al.. Comparison of two molecular methods for detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Annals of clinical and laboratory science 2014. link 77 Yu F, Yu S, Yu L, Li Y, Wu Y, Zhang H et al.. Determination of residual enrofloxacin in food samples by a sensitive method of chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay. Food chemistry 2014. link 78 Kasendra M, Barrile R, Leuzzi R, Soriani M. Clostridium difficile toxins facilitate bacterial colonization by modulating the fence and gate function of colonic epithelium. The Journal of infectious diseases 2014. link 79 Vasoo S, Stevens J, Portillo L, Barza R, Schejbal D, Wu MM et al.. Cost-effectiveness of a modified two-step algorithm using a combined glutamate dehydrogenase/toxin enzyme immunoassay and real-time PCR for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi 2014. link 80 Farajzadeh MA, Khoshmaram L. Air-assisted liquid-liquid microextraction-gas chromatography-flame ionisation detection: a fast and simple method for the assessment of triazole pesticides residues in surface water, cucumber, tomato and grape juices samples. Food chemistry 2013. link 81 Napierala M, Munson E, Skonieczny P, Rodriguez S, Riederer N, Land G et al.. Impact of toxigenic Clostridium difficile polymerase chain reaction testing on the clinical microbiology laboratory and inpatient epidemiology. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 2013. link 82 Bruins MJ, Verbeek E, Wallinga JA, Bruijnesteijn van Coppenraet LE, Kuijper EJ, Bloembergen P. Evaluation of three enzyme immunoassays and a loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology 2012. link 83 Viala C, Le Monnier A, Maataoui N, Rousseau C, Collignon A, Poilane I. Comparison of commercial molecular assays for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection in stools: BD GeneOhm Cdiff, XPert C. difficile and illumigene C. difficile. Journal of microbiological methods 2012. link 84 Schlaberg R, Mitchell MJ, Taggart EW, She RC. Verification of performance specifications for a US Food and Drug Administration-approved molecular microbiology test: Clostridium difficile cytotoxin B using the Becton, Dickinson and Company GeneOhm Cdiff assay. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine 2012. link 85 Catanzaro M, Cirone J. Real-time polymerase chain reaction testing for Clostridium difficile reduces isolation time and improves patient management in a small community hospital. American journal of infection control 2012. link 86 Tlustos C, Sheridan M, O'Sullivan D, Anderson W, Flynn A. The dioxin contamination incident in Ireland, 2008: analytical results and congener patterns. Food additives & contaminants. Part A, Chemistry, analysis, control, exposure & risk assessment 2012. link 87 Doing KM, Hintz MS. Prospective evaluation of the Meridian Illumigene™ loop-mediated amplification assay and the Gen Probe ProGastro™ Cd polymerase chain reaction assay for the direct detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from fecal samples. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 2012. link 88 Kim H, Jeong SH, Kim M, Lee Y, Lee K. Detection of Clostridium difficile toxin A/B genes by multiplex real-time PCR for the diagnosis of C. difficile infection. Journal of medical microbiology 2012. link 89 Hoegh AM, Nielsen JB, Lester A, Friis-Møller A, Schønning K. A multiplex, internally controlled real-time PCR assay for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile and identification of hypervirulent strain 027/ST-1. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology 2012. link 90 Heres L, Hoogenboom R, Herbes R, Traag W, Urlings B. Tracing and analytical results of the dioxin contamination incident in 2008 originating from the Republic of Ireland. Food additives & contaminants. Part A, Chemistry, analysis, control, exposure & risk assessment 2010. link 91 Mathur AK, Majumder CB, Chatterjee S, Roy P. Biodegradation of pyridine by the new bacterial isolates S. putrefaciens and B. sphaericus. Journal of hazardous materials 2008. link 92 Cai X, Sheng G, Liu W. Degradation and detoxification of acetochlor in soils treated by organic and thiosulfate amendments. Chemosphere 2007. link 93 Hu ZB, Wijesekara SR, Navarro RR, Wu DY, Zhang DL, Matsumura M et al.. Removal of PCDD/Fs and PCBS from sediment by oxygen free pyrolysis. Journal of environmental sciences (China) 2006. link60027-2) 94 Hayward DG, Bolger PM. Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in baby food made from chicken produced before and after the termination of ball clay use in chicken feed in the United States. Environmental research 2005. link 95 Ackermann G, Löffler B, Tang-Feldman YJ, Cohen SH, Silva J, Rodloff AC. Cloning and expression of Clostridium difficile toxin A gene (tcdA) by PCR amplification and use of an expression vector. Molecular and cellular probes 2004. link 96 Iben C, Böhm J, Tausch H, Leibetseder J, Luf W. Dioxin residues in the edible tissue of broiler chicken. Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition 2003. link 97 Kim Y, Yang SH, Lee SY, Kim M. Levels of PCDDs and PCDFs in two kinds of fast foods in Korea. Chemosphere 2001. link00444-6) 98 Nunes GS, Marco MP, Ribeiro ML, Barceló D. Validation of an immunoassay method for the determination of traces of carbaryl in vegetable and fruit extracts by liquid chromatography with photodiode array and mass spectrometric detection. Journal of chromatography. A 1998. link00111-3) 99 Yamakawa K, Kamiya S, Meng XQ, Karasawa T, Nakamura S. Toxin production by Clostridium difficile in a defined medium with limited amino acids. Journal of medical microbiology 1994. link 100 Bowman RA, Arrow S, Croese L, Riley TV. Evaluation of an enzyme immunoassay kit for the detection of Clostridium difficile enterotoxin. Pathology 1994. link

    Original source

    1. [1]
      Innovative nucleic acid detection of Clostridioides difficile utilizing the PAM-unconventional, one-step LAMP/CRISPR-Cas12b detection platforms. — Zhang Y, Lv L, Xu S, Chen Y Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology (2025)
    2. [2]
      Protocol to measure the impact of Clostridioides difficile toxins on antibody responses using ELISA, ELISPOT, and toxin-neutralization assays. — Norman KM, Lang GA, Ballard JD, Lang ML STAR protocols (2025)
    3. [3]
      Development and evaluation of a rapid visual loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for the tcdA gene in Clostridioides difficile detection. — Lin M, Wang P, Lu B, Jin M, Tan J, Liu W et al. PeerJ (2024)
    4. [4]
      Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and Xpert C. difficile assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile in stool specimens. — Lee H-W, Yu H-J, Kim H, Yun SA, Suh E, Kang M et al. Journal of clinical microbiology (2024)
    5. [5]
      Evaluation of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B rapid tests for Clostridioides (prev. Clostridium) difficile diagnosis in a university hospital in Minas Gerais, Brazil. — Ramos CP, Lopes EO, Diniz AN, Lobato FCF, Vilela EG, Silva ROS Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] (2020)
    6. [6]
      Implementing a Clostridium difficile testing algorithm and its effect on isolation duration and treatment initiation: a pre- and post-implementation study. — Vogelzang EH, Lankelma JM, van Mansfeld R, van Prehn J, van Houdt R European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology (2020)
    7. [7]
      High Agreement Between an Ultrasensitive Clostridioides difficile Toxin Assay and a C. difficile Laboratory Algorithm Utilizing GDH-and-Toxin Enzyme Immunoassays and Cytotoxin Testing. — Landry ML, Topal JE, Estis J, Katzenbach P, Nolan N, Sandlund J Journal of clinical microbiology (2020)
    8. [8]
      High Prevalence of Toxigenic and Nontoxigenic Clostridium difficile Strains in Malaysia. — Riley TV, Collins DA, Karunakaran R, Kahar MA, Adnan A, Hassan SA et al. Journal of clinical microbiology (2018)
    9. [9]
      Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Quantitation as Predictor of Toxin Presence in Clostridium difficile Infection. — Crobach MJT, Duszenko N, Terveer EM, Verduin CM, Kuijper EJ Journal of clinical microbiology (2018)
    10. [10]
      Evaluation of the cobas Cdiff Test for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Stool Samples. — Peterson LR, Young SA, Davis TE, Wang ZX, Duncan J, Noutsios C et al. Journal of clinical microbiology (2017)
    11. [11]
      Comparison of Diagnostic Algorithms for Detecting Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Routine Practice at a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Korea. — Moon HW, Kim HN, Hur M, Shim HS, Kim H, Yun YM PloS one (2016)
    12. [12]
      Development and Validation of Digital Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Ultrasensitive Detection and Quantification of Clostridium difficile Toxins in Stool. — Song L, Zhao M, Duffy DC, Hansen J, Shields K, Wungjiranirun M et al. Journal of clinical microbiology (2015)
    13. [13]
      Dielectrophoretic monitoring and interstrain separation of intact Clostridium difficile based on their S(Surface)-layers. — Su YH, Warren CA, Guerrant RL, Swami NS Analytical chemistry (2014)
    14. [14]
      Molecular test based on isothermal helicase-dependent amplification for detection of the Clostridium difficile toxin A gene. — Eckert C, Holscher E, Petit A, Lalande V, Barbut F Journal of clinical microbiology (2014)
    15. [15]
      A low complexity rapid molecular method for detection of Clostridium difficile in stool. — McElgunn CJ, Pereira CR, Parham NJ, Smythe JE, Wigglesworth MJ, Smielewska A et al. PloS one (2014)
    16. [16]
      Comparison of Illumigene, Simplexa, and AmpliVue Clostridium difficile molecular assays for diagnosis of C. difficile infection. — Deak E, Miller SA, Humphries RM Journal of clinical microbiology (2014)
    17. [17]
      Evaluation of a new automated homogeneous PCR assay, GenomEra C. difficile, for rapid detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal specimens. — Hirvonen JJ, Mentula S, Kaukoranta SS Journal of clinical microbiology (2013)
    18. [18]
      Protective efficacy induced by recombinant Clostridium difficile toxin fragments. — Leuzzi R, Spencer J, Buckley A, Brettoni C, Martinelli M, Tulli L et al. Infection and immunity (2013)
    19. [19]
      Performance of Clostridium difficile toxin enzyme immunoassay and nucleic acid amplification tests stratified by patient disease severity. — Humphries RM, Uslan DZ, Rubin Z Journal of clinical microbiology (2013)
    20. [20]
      Evaluation of Clostridium difficile fecal load and limit of detection during a prospective comparison of two molecular tests, the illumigene C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi tests. — Gyorke CE, Wang S, Leslie JL, Cohen SH, Solnick JV, Polage CR Journal of clinical microbiology (2013)
    21. [21]
      Multicenter clinical evaluation of the portrait toxigenic C. difficile assay for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile strains in clinical stool specimens. — Buchan BW, Mackey TL, Daly JA, Alger G, Denys GA, Peterson LR et al. Journal of clinical microbiology (2012)
    22. [22]
      Evaluation of a new molecular test, the BD Max Cdiff, for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal samples. — Le Guern R, Herwegh S, Grandbastien B, Courcol R, Wallet F Journal of clinical microbiology (2012)
    23. [23]
      Automated detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in clinical samples: isothermal tcdB amplification coupled to array-based detection. — Hicke B, Pasko C, Groves B, Ager E, Corpuz M, Frech G et al. Journal of clinical microbiology (2012)
    24. [24]
      Clinical and laboratory evaluation of a real-time PCR for Clostridium difficile toxin A and B genes. — de Jong E, de Jong AS, Bartels CJ, van der Rijt-van den Biggelaar C, Melchers WJ, Sturm PD European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology (2012)
    25. [25]
      Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of the cell culture neutralization, Xpert C. difficile, Xpert C. difficile/Epi, and Illumigene C. difficile assays. — Pancholi P, Kelly C, Raczkowski M, Balada-Llasat JM Journal of clinical microbiology (2012)
    26. [26]
      Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection. — Boyanton BL, Sural P, Loomis CR, Pesta C, Gonzalez-Krellwitz L, Robinson-Dunn B et al. Journal of clinical microbiology (2012)
    27. [27]
      Comparison of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin. — Chapin KC, Dickenson RA, Wu F, Andrea SB The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD (2011)
    28. [28]
      Comparison of two commercial molecular assays to a laboratory-developed molecular assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. — Karre T, Sloan L, Patel R, Mandrekar J, Rosenblatt J Journal of clinical microbiology (2011)
    29. [29]
      Impact of strain type on detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of molecular diagnostic and enzyme immunoassay approaches. — Tenover FC, Novak-Weekley S, Woods CW, Peterson LR, Davis T, Schreckenberger P et al. Journal of clinical microbiology (2010)
    30. [30]
      Comparison of a rapid molecular method, the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, to the most frequently used laboratory tests for detection of toxin-producing Clostridium difficile in diarrheal feces. — Terhes G, Urbán E, Sóki J, Nacsa E, Nagy E Journal of clinical microbiology (2009)
    31. [31]
      Application of isothermal helicase-dependent amplification with a disposable detection device in a simple sensitive stool test for toxigenic Clostridium difficile. — Chow WH, McCloskey C, Tong Y, Hu L, You Q, Kelly CP et al. The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD (2008)
    32. [32]
      Yield of stool culture with isolate toxin testing versus a two-step algorithm including stool toxin testing for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. — Reller ME, Lema CA, Perl TM, Cai M, Ross TL, Speck KA et al. Journal of clinical microbiology (2007)
    33. [33]
      Detection of Clostridium difficile toxin: comparison of enzyme immunoassay results with results obtained by cytotoxicity assay. — Musher DM, Manhas A, Jain P, Nuila F, Waqar A, Logan N et al. Journal of clinical microbiology (2007)
    34. [34]
      Evaluation of a new enzyme immunoassay for Clostridium difficile toxin A. — Vargas SO, Horensky D, Onderdonk AB Journal of clinical pathology (1997)
    35. [35]
      Comparison of three enzyme immunoassays, a cytotoxicity assay, and toxigenic culture for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. — Barbut F, Kajzer C, Planas N, Petit JC Journal of clinical microbiology (1993)
    36. [36]
      Multicenter evaluation of a new enzyme immunoassay for detection of Clostridium difficile enterotoxin A. — De Girolami PC, Hanff PA, Eichelberger K, Longhi L, Teresa H, Pratt J et al. Journal of clinical microbiology (1992)
    37. [37]
      Effects of antibiotics and other drugs on toxin production in Clostridium difficile in vitro and in vivo. — Barc MC, Depitre C, Corthier G, Collignon A, Su WJ, Bourlioux P Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy (1992)
    38. [38]
      Commercial latex test for Clostridium difficile toxin A does not detect toxin A. — Lyerly DM, Wilkins TD Journal of clinical microbiology (1986)
    39. [39]
      Stool desorbing activity: a possible cause of false-positive reactions in competitive enzyme immunoassays. — Hanvanich M, Viscidi R, Laughon BE, Bartlett JG, Yolken RH Journal of clinical microbiology (1985)
    40. [40]
      Enzyme immunoassay for detection of antibody to toxins A and B of Clostridium difficile. — Viscidi RP, Yolken RH, Laughon BE, Bartlett JG Journal of clinical microbiology (1983)
    41. [41]
      Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for Clostridium difficile toxin A. — Lyerly DM, Sullivan NM, Wilkins TD Journal of clinical microbiology (1983)
    42. [42]
      Metal-organic frameworks for food safety monitoring: advances in sensing exogenous contaminants. — Wang J, Song F, Jiang L, Wang H, Li D, Huang Z Food chemistry (2026)
    43. [43]
      Toxicological evaluation and risk assessment of Cyclo-di-Badge, a non-intentionally added substance (NIAS), found in epoxy based coatings of food cans. — Burleigh-Flayer H, Canatsey R, Jean PA, Lea L, Tempest L Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association (2026)
    44. [44]
      Sustainable multisample emulsive microextraction technique for the determination of triazole fungicides in food samples. — Wang Y, Zheng X, Li Y, Yang Y, Nie Y, Han J et al. Food chemistry (2026)
    45. [45]
      Food emulsion characteristics influence the release and absorption of 3-chloropropane-1,2-diol esters. — Akpinar AN, Sahin SS, Moran B, Tekin A, Bonacina CE Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association (2026)
    46. [46]
      A dual-emission CD@AuNCs fluorescent sensor for Carbaryl detection in food. — Qin H, Xie Z, Ren L, Chen R, Long W, Wang S et al. Spectrochimica acta. Part A, Molecular and biomolecular spectroscopy (2026)
    47. [47]
      Evaluation of cobas® Liat® Cdiff, STANDARD™ M10 C. difficile and Xpert® C. difficile BT assays for rapid detection of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile. — Suominen J, Korhonen S, Kutvonen H, Jarva H, Pätäri-Sampo A, Loginov R Journal of microbiological methods (2024)
    48. [48]
      Dietary intakes of trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids from ready-to-eat vegetables in taiwan. — Lin AH, Tsai SW Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology (2023)
    49. [49]
      Simple and portable on-site system for nucleic acid-based detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples using two columns containing microbeads and loop-mediated isothermal amplification. — Baek C, Li YG, Yoo HJ, Cui WY, Kang JT, Son J et al. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry (2022)
    50. [50]
      Reductions in positive Clostridioides difficile events reportable to National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) with adoption of reflex enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing in 13 Atlanta hospitals. — Goodenough D, Sefton S, Overton E, Smith E, Kraft CS, Varkey JB et al. Infection control and hospital epidemiology (2022)
    51. [51]
      Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for detection of Clostridioides difficile infection: A prospective diagnostic performance study. — Girão ES, Vásconez Noguera SL, Sanchez Espinoza EP, Pereira Alves Madeira Bezerra CL, Lino FM, Côrtes MF et al. Anaerobe (2021)
    52. [52]
      Performance Comparison of a Novel Rapid Stand-alone Molecular Test and a 2-Step Diagnostic Algorithm for Clostridioides difficile Detection in Children. — Brotons P, Saucedo J, Simó S, Gené A, Muñoz-Almagro C The Pediatric infectious disease journal (2021)
    53. [53]
      Sequential introduction of a multistep testing algorithm and nucleic acid amplification testing leading to an increase in Clostridioides difficile detection and a trend toward increased strain diversity. — Skinner AM, Yu B, Cheknis A, Pacheco SM, Gerding DN, Johnson S Infection control and hospital epidemiology (2020)
    54. [54]
      The impact of changing reflexive to clinician-ordered Clostridioides difficile polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for indeterminate cases: Cost savings without associated adverse events. — Sullivan EL, Majumdar R, Ortiz C, Riggs PK, Crum-Cianflone NF Infection control and hospital epidemiology (2020)
    55. [55]
      The reference method influence on the sensitivity of the Clostridium difficile enzyme immunoassays: A meta analysis. — Martins JP, Felgueiras M, Santos R Journal of microbiological methods (2020)
    56. [56]
      A multicenter evaluation of a sample to answer real-time PCR assay for toxigenic C. difficile in symptomatic subjects. — Pancholi P, Young S, Widen R, Silbert S, Schmitt B, Dunn R et al. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease (2020)
    57. [57]
      Porcine and bovine Clostridium difficile ribotype 078 isolates demonstrate similar growth and toxigenic properties. — Grześkowiak Ł, Riedmüller J, de Thomasson H, Bordessoule S, Seyboldt C, Zentek J et al. International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology (2018)
    58. [58]
      Species-Specific Detection of C. difficile Using Targeted Antibody Design. — Lawry BM, Johnson CL, Flanagan K, Spoors JA, McNeil CJ, Wipat A et al. Analytical chemistry (2018)
    59. [59]
      Immediate impact of healthcare-facility-onset Clostridium difficile laboratory-identified events reporting methodology change on standardized infection ratios. — Figueroa Castro CE, Palen L, Johnson C, Graham MB, Letzer D, Ledeboer N et al. Infection control and hospital epidemiology (2018)
    60. [60]
      Substantial enhancement of anaerobic pyridine bio-mineralization by electrical stimulation. — Jiang X, Shen J, Xu K, Chen D, Mu Y, Sun X et al. Water research (2018)
    61. [61]
      Diagnostic utilities of a fully automated molecular test for toxigenic Clostridium difficile. — Morinaga Y, Akamatsu N, Matsuda J, Tateno H, Tomaru T, Tanaka A et al. Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy (2018)
    62. [62]
      Comparison of the clinical course of Clostridium difficile infection in glutamate dehydrogenase-positive toxin-negative patients diagnosed by PCR to those with a positive toxin test. — Origüen J, Corbella L, Orellana MÁ, Fernández-Ruiz M, López-Medrano F, San Juan R et al. Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (2018)
    63. [63]
      Impact of simultaneous glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin A/B rapid immunoassay on Clostridium difficile diagnosis and treatment in hospitalized patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhea in a university hospital of Brazil. — Cançado GGL, Silva ROS, Nader AP, Lobato FCF, Vilela EG Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology (2018)
    64. [64]
      Toxin production of Clostridium difficile in sub-MIC of vancomycin and clindamycin alone and in combination with ceftazidime. — Zarandi ER, Mansouri S, Nakhaee N, Sarafzadeh F, Moradi M Microbial pathogenesis (2017)
    65. [65]
      Comparative performance study of six commercial molecular assays for rapid detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. — Paitan Y, Miller-Roll T, Adler A Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (2017)
    66. [66]
      Evaluation of two novel chemiluminescence immunoassays for the detection of Clostridium difficile glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin A&B. — Blaich A, Frei R, Castellano C, Kiessling C, Geschke A, Rentsch KM et al. Journal of microbiological methods (2017)
    67. [67]
      Novel portable platform for molecular detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in faeces: a diagnostic accuracy study. — Hirvonen JJ, Matero P, Siebert C, Kauppila J, Vuento R, Tuokko H et al. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology (2017)
    68. [68]
      Comparison of enzyme immunoassays and rapid diagnostic tests for clostridium difficile glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin a + B to toxinogenic culture on a highly selective chromogenic medium. — Olling A, Leidinger H, Hoffmann R European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology (2016)
    69. [69]
      Clostridium difficile Infections in Children: Impact of the Diagnostic Method on Infection Rates. — AlGhounaim M, Longtin Y, Gonzales M, Merckx J, Winters N, Quach C Infection control and hospital epidemiology (2016)
    70. [70]
      A multi-laboratory comparison of two molecular methods for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. — Halstead DC, Abid J, Sloan L, Meza D, Ramsey-Walker D, Hata DJ Journal of infection in developing countries (2016)
    71. [71]
      Accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. — Lloyd A, Pasupuleti V, Thota P, Pant C, Rolston DD, Hernandez AV et al. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease (2015)
    72. [72]
      Comparison of BD Max Cdiff and GenomEra C. difficile molecular assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from stools in conventional sample containers and in FecalSwabs. — Hirvonen JJ, Kaukoranta SS European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology (2015)
    73. [73]
      Evaluation of the BD Max Cdiff assay for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in human stool specimens. — Putsathit P, Morgan J, Bradford D, Engelhardt N, Riley TV Pathology (2015)
    74. [74]
      Comparison of the Verigene Clostridium difficile, Simplexa C. difficile Universal Direct, BD MAX Cdiff, and Xpert C. difficile assays for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile. — Gilbreath JJ, Verma P, Abbott AN, Butler-Wu SM Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease (2014)
    75. [75]
      Lignocellulosic-derived modified agricultural waste: development, characterisation and implementation in sequestering pyridine from aqueous solutions. — Ahmed MJ, Ahmaruzzaman M, Reza RA Journal of colloid and interface science (2014)
    76. [76]
      Comparison of two molecular methods for detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile. — Soh YS, Yang JJ, You E, La Jeon Y, Kim MJ, Nam YS et al. Annals of clinical and laboratory science (2014)
    77. [77]
      Determination of residual enrofloxacin in food samples by a sensitive method of chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay. — Yu F, Yu S, Yu L, Li Y, Wu Y, Zhang H et al. Food chemistry (2014)
    78. [78]
      Clostridium difficile toxins facilitate bacterial colonization by modulating the fence and gate function of colonic epithelium. — Kasendra M, Barrile R, Leuzzi R, Soriani M The Journal of infectious diseases (2014)
    79. [79]
      Cost-effectiveness of a modified two-step algorithm using a combined glutamate dehydrogenase/toxin enzyme immunoassay and real-time PCR for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. — Vasoo S, Stevens J, Portillo L, Barza R, Schejbal D, Wu MM et al. Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi (2014)
    80. [80]
      Air-assisted liquid-liquid microextraction-gas chromatography-flame ionisation detection: a fast and simple method for the assessment of triazole pesticides residues in surface water, cucumber, tomato and grape juices samples. — Farajzadeh MA, Khoshmaram L Food chemistry (2013)
    81. [81]
      Impact of toxigenic Clostridium difficile polymerase chain reaction testing on the clinical microbiology laboratory and inpatient epidemiology. — Napierala M, Munson E, Skonieczny P, Rodriguez S, Riederer N, Land G et al. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease (2013)
    82. [82]
      Evaluation of three enzyme immunoassays and a loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. — Bruins MJ, Verbeek E, Wallinga JA, Bruijnesteijn van Coppenraet LE, Kuijper EJ, Bloembergen P European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology (2012)
    83. [83]
      Comparison of commercial molecular assays for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection in stools: BD GeneOhm Cdiff, XPert C. difficile and illumigene C. difficile. — Viala C, Le Monnier A, Maataoui N, Rousseau C, Collignon A, Poilane I Journal of microbiological methods (2012)
    84. [84]
      Verification of performance specifications for a US Food and Drug Administration-approved molecular microbiology test: Clostridium difficile cytotoxin B using the Becton, Dickinson and Company GeneOhm Cdiff assay. — Schlaberg R, Mitchell MJ, Taggart EW, She RC Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (2012)
    85. [85]
      Real-time polymerase chain reaction testing for Clostridium difficile reduces isolation time and improves patient management in a small community hospital. — Catanzaro M, Cirone J American journal of infection control (2012)
    86. [86]
      The dioxin contamination incident in Ireland, 2008: analytical results and congener patterns. — Tlustos C, Sheridan M, O'Sullivan D, Anderson W, Flynn A Food additives & contaminants. Part A, Chemistry, analysis, control, exposure & risk assessment (2012)
    87. [87]
      Prospective evaluation of the Meridian Illumigene™ loop-mediated amplification assay and the Gen Probe ProGastro™ Cd polymerase chain reaction assay for the direct detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from fecal samples. — Doing KM, Hintz MS Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease (2012)
    88. [88]
      Detection of Clostridium difficile toxin A/B genes by multiplex real-time PCR for the diagnosis of C. difficile infection. — Kim H, Jeong SH, Kim M, Lee Y, Lee K Journal of medical microbiology (2012)
    89. [89]
      A multiplex, internally controlled real-time PCR assay for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile and identification of hypervirulent strain 027/ST-1. — Hoegh AM, Nielsen JB, Lester A, Friis-Møller A, Schønning K European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology (2012)
    90. [90]
      Tracing and analytical results of the dioxin contamination incident in 2008 originating from the Republic of Ireland. — Heres L, Hoogenboom R, Herbes R, Traag W, Urlings B Food additives & contaminants. Part A, Chemistry, analysis, control, exposure & risk assessment (2010)
    91. [91]
      Biodegradation of pyridine by the new bacterial isolates S. putrefaciens and B. sphaericus. — Mathur AK, Majumder CB, Chatterjee S, Roy P Journal of hazardous materials (2008)
    92. [92]
      Degradation and detoxification of acetochlor in soils treated by organic and thiosulfate amendments. — Cai X, Sheng G, Liu W Chemosphere (2007)
    93. [93]
      Removal of PCDD/Fs and PCBS from sediment by oxygen free pyrolysis. — Hu ZB, Wijesekara SR, Navarro RR, Wu DY, Zhang DL, Matsumura M et al. Journal of environmental sciences (China) (2006)
    94. [94]
      Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in baby food made from chicken produced before and after the termination of ball clay use in chicken feed in the United States. — Hayward DG, Bolger PM Environmental research (2005)
    95. [95]
      Cloning and expression of Clostridium difficile toxin A gene (tcdA) by PCR amplification and use of an expression vector. — Ackermann G, Löffler B, Tang-Feldman YJ, Cohen SH, Silva J, Rodloff AC Molecular and cellular probes (2004)
    96. [96]
      Dioxin residues in the edible tissue of broiler chicken. — Iben C, Böhm J, Tausch H, Leibetseder J, Luf W Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition (2003)
    97. [97]
      Levels of PCDDs and PCDFs in two kinds of fast foods in Korea. — Kim Y, Yang SH, Lee SY, Kim M Chemosphere (2001)
    98. [98]
      Validation of an immunoassay method for the determination of traces of carbaryl in vegetable and fruit extracts by liquid chromatography with photodiode array and mass spectrometric detection. — Nunes GS, Marco MP, Ribeiro ML, Barceló D Journal of chromatography. A (1998)
    99. [99]
      Toxin production by Clostridium difficile in a defined medium with limited amino acids. — Yamakawa K, Kamiya S, Meng XQ, Karasawa T, Nakamura S Journal of medical microbiology (1994)
    100. [100]
      Evaluation of an enzyme immunoassay kit for the detection of Clostridium difficile enterotoxin. — Bowman RA, Arrow S, Croese L, Riley TV Pathology (1994)
    Share:TwitterRedditLinkedIn

    HemoChat

    by SPINAI

    Evidence-based clinical decision support powered by SNOMED-CT, Neo4j GraphRAG, and NASS/AO/NICE guidelines.

    ⚕ For clinical reference only. Not a substitute for professional judgment.

    © 2026 HemoChat. All rights reserved.
    Research·Pricing·Privacy & Terms·Refund·SNOMED-CT · NASS · AO Spine · NICE · GraphRAG