Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clostridium difficile-associated-diarrhea (CDAD) is a nosocomial infection in dogs. Diagnosis of this infection is dependent on clinical signs of disease supported by laboratory detection of C. difficile toxins A or B, or both, in fecal specimens via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Unfortunately, to the authors' knowledge, commercially available ELISAs have not been validated in dogs to date. We evaluated 5 ELISAs done on 143 canine fecal specimens (100 diarrheic and 43 nondiarrheic dogs) and on 29 C. difficile isolates. The results of each ELISA were compared with the cytotoxin B tissue culture assay (CTA). Clostridium difficile was isolated from 23% of the fecal specimens. Eighteen of the 143 fecal specimens were toxin positive (15 diarrheic and 3 nondiarrheic dogs). On the basis of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis for toxin-A and -B genes, 72% of the isolates were toxigenic. The carriage rate of toxigenic isolates in diarrheic dogs was higher than that in the nondiarrheic dogs; however, these differences were not statistically significant. A good correlation was found between CTA, PCR, and culture results. The ELISAs done on fecal specimens collected from diarrheic dogs had low sensitivity (7-33%). In contrast, ELISA for toxin A or B, or both, performed on toxigenic isolates had high sensitivity (93%). These results suggest that commercially available human ELISAs are inadequate for the diagnosis of canine C. difficile-associated diarrhea when tested on fecal specimens. In contrast, the Premier ToxinA/B and Techlab ToxinA/B ELISAs may be useful for the diagnosis of canine CDAD when used on toxigenic isolates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chouicha et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: