False- positive Results of Campylobacter Rapid Antigen Testing

Department of Pediatrics & Section of Infectious Diseases, Children's Mercy Hospitals & Clinics, The University of Missouri-Kansas City, (Myers, Jackson) Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children's Mercy Hospitals & Clinics, The University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri (Selvarangan).
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal (Impact Factor: 2.72). 06/2011; 30(6):542. DOI: 10.1097/INF.0b013e31821524db
Source: PubMed
73 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The STAT® CAMPY immunochromatographic assay for Campylobacter antigen was compared to culture for 500 clinical stool specimens. Antigen was detected in six culture-negative, PCR-positive specimens. C. upsaliensis, a pathogenic species that is traditionally difficult to recover in routine stool cultures, was detected in two of these culture negative specimens. This study provides evidence that antigen testing may cross-react with at least one additional non-jejuni/coli Campylobacter that may be missed by routine culture for campylobacteriosis.
    Journal of clinical microbiology 04/2013; 51(6). DOI:10.1128/JCM.03208-12 · 3.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Campylobacter spp. are fastidious microorganisms, and their detection by culture depends on the freshness of the stool sample and the skills of the laboratory staff. To improve laboratory diagnosis, assays for the detection of specific antigens have been developed. Here, we evaluated two assays for the detection of Campylobacter spp.-specific antigens, i.e., one immunochromatographic test and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (EIA), in 38 frozen Campylobacter spp.-positive specimens and prospectively in 533 fresh stool samples with a conventional enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and culture. Both assays were positive for 36 samples with Campylobacter jejuni and one with Campylobacter coli among 38 Campylobacter spp.-positive frozen samples. One Campylobacter lari-positive sample was identified by the immunochromatographic assay (ICA) only. In a prospective study performed within the course of routine microbiology, both assays were positive for 24/25 C. jejuni culture-positive samples (positive percent agreement, 96.0% [95% CI: 78.9-100%]). ICA and EIA also were positive for 14 and 10 culture-negative samples, respectively (negative percent agreement: ICA, 97.2% [95% CI: 95.4-98.4%]; EIA, 98.0% [95% CI: 96.4-99.0%]). In conclusion, the high agreement between both antigen-detection assays and culture indicates that both assays may be initially performed followed by culture only upon a positive test result.
    European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology 09/2014; 4(3):156-8. DOI:10.1556/EUJMI-D-14-00018
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bacterial gastroenteritis is a disease that is pervasive in both the developing and developed worlds. While for the most part bacterial gastroenteritis is self-limiting, identification of an etiological agent by bacterial stool culture is required for the management of patients with severe or prolonged diarrhea, symptoms consistent with invasive disease, or a history that may predict a complicated course of disease. Importantly, characterization of bacterial enteropathogens from stool cultures in clinical laboratories is one of the primary means by which public health officials identify and track outbreaks of bacterial gastroenteritis. This article provides guidance for clinical microbiology laboratories that perform stool cultures. The general characteristics, epidemiology, and clinical manifestations of key bacterial enteropathogens are summarized. Information regarding optimal specimen collection, transport, and processing and current diagnostic tests and testing algorithms is provided. This article is an update of Cumitech 12A (P. H. Gilligan, J. M. Janda, M. A. Karmali, and J. M. Miller, Cumitech 12A, Laboratory diagnosis of bacterial diarrhea, 1992). Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
    Clinical Microbiology Reviews 01/2015; 28(1):3-31. DOI:10.1128/CMR.00073-14 · 17.41 Impact Factor