Zum Inhalt

Evaluation of a rapid fluorescence immunoassay for detecting Campylobacter antigens in stool samples

  • Open Access
  • 01.12.2025
  • Research
Erschienen in:

Abstract

Background

The species most frequently causing campylobacteriosis are Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli, followed by Campylobacter fetus, Campylobacter upsaliensis, and Campylobacter lari. Although polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can be used to detect Campylobacter DNA in stool samples, PCR assays are often validated for C. jejuni and C. coli only, and coproculture results can take several days to receive. For laboratories that do not have access to PCR technology, rapid antigen tests can be of the utmost importance for early diagnosis of the disease. We evaluated the performance of the Sofia Campylobacter Fluorescence Immunoassay (SCFIA) for rapid detection of Campylobacter antigens in stool. Methods: In total, 94 frozen and 205 fresh stool specimens were included in retrospective and prospective evaluations, respectively. The linearity of the assay and its limit of detection for different Campylobacter species was evaluated using serial dilutions. Cross reactivity to phylogenetically related species was also investigated. The PCR results from the BD MAX Enteric Panel were considered the gold standard. Results: The sensitivity of the SCFIA was 97.87% and 96.88% in retrospective and prospective evaluations, respectively. The specificity was 98.84%. The assay exhibited high linearity in serial dilutions for C. coli, C. jejuni, C. armoricus, C. ornithocola, C. lari, and C. upsaliensis, with correlation coefficients of 0.991–0.999, whereas C. fetus was not detected. No cross-reactivity was detected for Aliarcobacter butzleri, Helicobacter cinaedi, or Helicobacter pullorum. The minimum concentration for a positive result at the assay-specific cut-off was 4–17 million CFU/mL. The limit of detection ranged from 106 to 107 CFU/mL. Conclusion: SCFIA results are highly correlated with PCR results, with no cross-reactivity with phylogenetically related species. The linear correlation between fluorescence and CFU/mL results was strong. The assay’s ability to detect antigens of various Campylobacter species can aid early diagnosis. However, the inability to detect C. fetus must be considered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-025-00686-4.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background

Campylobacter genus is a major cause of bacteria-induced diarrheal infectious diseases worldwide, with an increasing incidence in both high- and low-income countries [1, 2]. In addition, Campylobacter spp. can overcome the gastrointestinal barrier, leading to bacteremia. Blood stream infections by Campylobacter spp. accounts for < 1% of Campylobacter spp. but are associated with substantial mortality rates of 3–28% [35]. In addition, bacteremia caused by Campylobacter can lead to complications such as infections in the joints, bones, and soft tissues, as well as vascular infections including mycotic aneurysms, endocarditis, spondylodiscitis, and meningoencephalitis [4, 611]. Post-infection complications can include reactive arthritis and Guillain–Barré syndrome [12]. Immunoproliferative small intestinal disease, a type of lymphoma, has been reported in association with Campylobacter infections. Notably, Campylobacter jejuni has been found in biopsy specimens of patients with this intestinal disease; in these patients, antimicrobial therapy targeting C. jejuni has led to rapid remission of the disease [13].
According to the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC), the species that most frequently cause campylobacteriosis in Europe are Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli, followed by Campylobacter upsaliensis, Campylobacter lari, and Campylobacter fetus [14]. Most cases of C. upsaliensis infections have been reported from the European Union (EU), Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United States [15]. Cats and dogs are the main reservoirs [16].
In 2021, 129, 960Campylobacter cases were reported in the EU, with the majority being C. jejuni (88.4%) and C. coli (10.1%) [14]. During the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) pandemic, there was an increase in C. fetus cases, with 148 reported in 2021 compared to 130 in 2020 and 122 in 2019 [14]. Campylobacter fetus infections have recently been identified as the most common cause of Campylobacter-associated bacteremia, leading to secondary tissue infections such as vascular infections and endocarditis (83%), with a mortality rate of up to 25% [10, 11, 17]. The primary reservoirs for C. fetus are cattle and sheep, and products from these animals are suspected sources of human infections [18]. In France, C. fetus recently caused an outbreak in a rehabilitation center, resulting in significant morbidity among elderly patients [19].
Antibiotic therapy for campylobacteriosis is most effective when started within the first 3 days after symptom onset; it shortens the duration of intestinal symptoms and also reduces the gut population of Campylobacter [20]. It is recommended to limit transmission in daycare centers and other places with groups of children [21]. Rapid identification of these bacteria can guide the choice of antibiotic therapy.
Stool culture to detect Campylobacter requires a minimum of 48 h and has a sensitivity ranging from 60 to 76% [22, 23]. Although the specificity of coproculture is excellent, its sensitivity is reduced for Campylobacter spp. detection. Several culture-independent diagnostic tests are available, providing faster results with better sensitivity and good specificity. Among them, molecular methods such as real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) require additional automation, are technically demanding, and are often validated only for C. jejuni and C. coli [2325]. Since the 2010s, syndromic PCR formats have become the first diagnostic test of choice for the detection of Campylobacter spp., often even replacing coproculture. Immunochromatographic tests are easier to use but have lower reported sensitivity [2628].
This study evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of the Sofia Campylobacter Fluorescence Immunoassay (SCFIA) for the rapid detection of Campylobacter antigens in stool specimens from patients with signs and symptoms of infectious gastroenteritis. SCFIA is a new rapid test designed for the detection of C. jejuni, C. coli, C. upsaliensis, and C. lari antigens in stool specimens. The test uses advanced immunofluorescence-based lateral flow technology to provide a rapid qualitative result within 15 min.

Materials and methods

SCFIA evaluation

This study was conducted between July and November 2023 at the French National Reference Centre for Campylobacter and Helicobacter (NRCCH) located in the Bacteriology Laboratory at the University Hospital of Bordeaux.
Testing for Campylobacter antigens was conducted using the SCFIA (QuidelOrtho Corp., San Diego, CA, USA), for the detection of C. jejuni, C. coli, C. upsaliensis, and C. lari antigens in stool specimens. A proprietary algorithm calculates a specimen over cut-off (S/CO) value, such that S/CO ≥ 1 indicates a positive result, and S/CO < 1 indicates a negative result. The S/CO value is an indicator of the ability of the assay to bind antigens of Campylobacter species and the antigen content of the specimen. All tests based on the SCFIA were conducted according to the manufacturer’s instructions [29]. Frozen or cooled specimens were brought to room temperature and mixed well before SCFIA testing.
A prospective evaluation was conducted using 205 fresh stool specimens sex ratio, 1.05; mean age, 37 ± 32 years) referred for testing for gastrointestinal infectious pathogens. Specimens were transported at 4 °C in Cary–Blair medium (FecalSwab, Copan, Italy) prior to testing. The samples were plated on Campylosel (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Étoile, France) and incubated for 3 days at 36 °C in jars using an Anoxomat microprocessor (Mart Microbiology, B.V. Lichtenvoorde, The Netherlands) to create a microaerobic atmosphere (80–90% N2, 5–10% CO2, and 5–10% H2). Subsequently, bacteria were identified via matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry (Bruker, 2023 library) as previously described [30]. For molecular detection, 50 µL of each sample was tested on the BD MAX Enteric Bacterial Panel, which includes targets for the detection of C. jejuni and C. coli [31, 32]. Among these 205 specimens, 173 tested negative in culture and PCR, and 32 were positive (27 C. jejuni, 4 C. coli, and 1 mixed infection of C. jejuni and C. coli). We also conducted a retrospective analysis using 94 frozen specimens collected in Cary–Blair medium between 2020 and 2021. These were aliquoted upon reception into tubes that had never previously been defrosted, and stored at − 80 °C. They all tested positive in culture and BD MAX PCR for Campylobacter (83 C. jejuni, 11 C. coli).
Positivity for Campylobacter in BD MAX PCR was considered the gold standard.

Linearity, limit of detection, and reactivity to other species

The linearity of the assay S/CO values and limit of detection (LOD) for C. jejuni, C. coli, C. upsaliensis, and C. lari were evaluated using serial dilutions. To assess reactivity to other Campylobacter species not declared by the manufacturer, C. armoricus (CCUG 73571T), C. fetus (ATCC 27374), and C. ornithocola (CECT 9147) were included in the serial dilutions because these species can also cause human gastroenteritis. The phylogenetically related species Aliarcobacter butzleri (ATCC 49616), Helicobacter cinaedi (CCUG 18818T), and Helicobacter pullorum (CCUG 33837T) were included to investigate potential cross-reactivity that could result in false-positive test results.
To establish the serial dilutions, well-characterized specimens with known species were grown on blood agar plates under microaerobic conditions. Subsequently, species identity was verified via MALDI-TOF. The grown cultures were used to create stock solutions for each species in Cary–Blair medium for a subsequent serial dilutions. The established stock solutions had the following concentrations in colony-forming units (CFUs) per mL: 3 × 108 (C. armoricus), 4.2 × 108 (C. coli), 1.2 × 108 (C. fetus), 3.9 × 108 (C. jejuni), 4.5 × 108 (C. lari), 1.7 × 108 (C. ornithocola), 4.5 × 107 (C. upsaliensis), 1.4 × 107 (A. butzleri), 5.4 × 107 (H. cinaedi), and 5.4 × 107 (H. pullorum). Stock solutions were diluted by 1:10, 1:100, 1:1000, 1:10,000, and 1:100,000. Each dilution was tested with the SCFIA to estimate the LOD of the assay. The linearity of the assay was evaluated by correlating the S/CO values with the individual dilutions.

Results

Accuracy

In the prospective evaluation of 205 specimens, the rate of positive agreement between the SCFIA and the gold standard was 96.88% (Table 1). The rate of negative agreement was 98.84%. In the retrospective evaluation, the positive agreement rate between the SCFIA and the gold standard was 97.87%. Overall, the positive agreement rate between the SCFIA and the gold standard was 97.62 (Table 1).
Table 1
Positive, negative, and overall agreement between SCFIA and the gold standard
Comparison vs. gold standard
Prospective samples
Retrospective samples
Prospective + retrospective samples
pos (n)
neg (n)
pos (n)
neg (n)
pos (n)
neg (n)
SCFIA
pos (n)
31
2
92
NA
123
2
neg (n)
1
171
2
NA
3
171
Positive agreement (95% CI)
96.88
(82.00–99,84)
97.87
(91.79–99.63)
97.62 (92.67–99.38)
Negative agreement (95% CI)
98.84
(95.45–99.80)
NA
98.84 (95.45–99.80)
Overall agreement
98.54
97.87
98.33
CI, confidence interval; n, total number; NA, not applicable; neg, negative; pos, positive
Gold standard refers to positivity in the BD MAX polymerase chain reaction test
Three specimens that tested positive in culture (3 C. jejuni, 1 from the prospective samples, and 2 from the retrospective samples) and PCR but negative in the SCFIA were also positive in an ELISA (RIDASCREEN Campylobacter, R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany). Two specimens from the prospective samples that tested negative in culture but positive in the SCFIA were also positive in PCR (Table 1).

Linearity and reactivity to other Campylobacter species

In the serial dilutions established for different Campylobacter species, the SCFIA showed the expected reactivity to C. coli, C. jejuni, C. lari, and C. upsaliensis, as described by the manufacturer. However, it also demonstrated reactivity to C. ornithocola and C. armoricus. The last dilution that provided a positive test result (S/CO > 1) for all species was 1:10. The S/CO values for positive results at the 1:10 dilution were 2.53 for C. coli and 4.82 for C. armoricus. The bacterial concentrations for positive results at the 1:10 dilution were 4.5 × 106 CFU/mL for C. upsaliensis and 4.5 × 107 CFU/mL for C. lari. Overall, the average S/CO at the 1:10 dilution was 4.01, correlated with a concentration of 3.0 × 107 CFU/mL.
The test results for C. fetus were negative even in the undiluted specimens at the highest concentration, with S/CO values near zero, indicating that the assay antibodies do not have any affinity to bind C. fetus antigens or to detect this species even at high concentrations (Table 2).
Table 2
SCFIA S/CO and CFU/mL values of serial dilutions for Campylobacter species
Species
Dilution
CFU/mL
S/CO
Species
Dilution
CFU/mL
S/CO
C. armoricus
0
3.0 × 108
29.826
C. jejuni
0
3.9 × 108
27.456
1:10
3.0 × 107
4.815
1:10
3.9 × 107
4.109
1:100
3.0 × 106
0.700
1:100
3.9 × 106
0.425
1:1,000
3.0 × 105
0.125
1:1,000
3.9 × 105
0.000
1:10,000
3.0 × 104
0.0720
1:10,000
3.9 × 104
0.0437
C. coli
0
4.2 × 108
19.208
C. upsaliensis
0
4.5 × 107
26.085
1:10
4.2 × 107
2.529
1:10
4.5 × 106
3.963
1:100
4.2 × 106
0.222
1:100
4.5 × 105
0.434
1:1,000
4.2 × 105
0.135
1:1,000
4.5 × 104
0.120
1:10,000
4.2 × 104
0.0000
1:10,000
4.5 × 103
0.0373
C. lari
0
4.5 × 108
24.655
C. fetus
0
1.2 × 108
0.000
1:10
4.5 × 107
4.717
1:10
1.2 × 107
0.138
1:100
4.5 × 106
0.154
1:100
1.2 × 106
0.140
1:1,000
4.5 × 105
0.000
1:1,000
1.2 × 105
0.138
1:10,000
4.5 × 104
0.0000
1:10,000
1.2 × 104
0.1007
C. ornithocola
0
1.7 × 108
28.297
Average over all species and dilution series
0
3.0 × 108
25,92
1:10
1.7 × 107
3.922
1:10
3.0 × 107
4,01
1:100
1.7 × 106
0.438
1:100
3.0 × 106
0,40
1:1,000
1.7 × 105
0.056
1:1,000
3.0 × 105
0,07
1:10,000
1.7 × 104
0.0000
1:10,000
3.0 × 104
0,03
S/CO values ≥ 1 indicate positive test results; S/CO values < 1 indicate negative results. Data for the 1:100,000 dilution are not shown
The S/CO values were strongly correlated with the estimated number of bacterial copies per mL for each Campylobacter species, with correlation coefficients (R2) ranging from 0.991 for C. lari to 0.999 for C. ornithocola and C. armoricus. Across all species, the R2 was 0.9971 (Fig. 1). Given the high linear correlation observed between S/CO values measured using the SCFIA and the bacterial concentration in the dilutions for all Campylobacter species, a linear regression analysis was conducted to estimate the number of CFU/mL needed to reach a positive test result (S/CO ≥ 1). The estimated minimum concentration in CFU/mL at the test-specific S/CO cut-off of 1 was 1.47 × 106 for C. upsaliensis, while the maximum was 17 × 106 CFU/mL for C. coli (Table 3).
Fig. 1
Linear trend and correlation coefficients (R2) between Sofia Campylobacter Fluorescence Immunoassay (SCFIA) specimen cut-off (S/CO) values and the number of colony-forming units (CFU)/mL per dilution step
Bild vergrößern
Table 3
Estimated minimum bacterial concentrations (CFU/mL) required in SCFIA for a positive test result (S/CO ≥ 1)
Species
Linear regression
Estimated CFU/mL for S/CO = 1
y = CFU/mL
x = S/CO
C. armoricus
y = 1 × 107 x– 4 × 106
6.00 × 106
C. coli
y = 2 × 107 x– 3 × 106
1.70 × 107
C. jejuni
y = 1 × 107 x– 4 × 106
6.00 × 106
C. lari
y = 2 × 107 x– 6 × 106
1.40 × 107
C. ornithocola
y = 6 × 106 x– 2 × 106
4.00 × 106
C. upsaliensis
y = 2 × 106 x– 534,225
1.47 × 106
All species
y = 1 × 107 x– 3 × 106
7.00 × 106

Reactivity to phylogenetically related species

The phylogenetically related species A. butzleri, H. cinaedi, and H. pullorum were included in the serial dilutions with initial concentrations of 1.4 × 107 for A. butzleri and 5.4 × 107 for both H. cinaedi and H. pullorum. The SCFIA test provided negative results for all three species, even at the highest concentration. The measured S/CO values were zero for all three species at the highest concentration, indicating that the SCFIA test has no potential to cross-react with these phylogenetically related species.

Discussion

The performance and value of Campylobacter antigen detection in stool samples have been described in numerous reports [33]. To our knowledge, this study presents the first independent evaluation of the performance of the SCFIA. Stool antigen tests have shown variable performance, perhaps due to intrinsic differences among the tests or the reference methods used in different studies. Culture methods are particularly known to lack sensitivity for Campylobacter detection compared to PCR methods. We assessed the clinical performance of the SCFIA using stool specimens confirmed to be positive via PCR, in both prospective and retrospective analyses.
The advantage of the SCFIA test kit is its automated reading, which eliminates operator influence. This is particularly beneficial for samples with low positivity, where immunochromatographic tests can be misinterpreted by users.
Our retrospective evaluation included 299 samples, of which 126 (42.1%) were positive for Campylobacter: 110 C. jejuni (87.3%), 15 C. coli (11.9%), and 1 for both, C. jejuni and C. coli (0.8%). This distribution closely matches data reported by the ECDC at the European level. According to the ECDC, 88.4% of confirmed infections in 2021 were caused by C. jejuni, followed by C. coli at 10.1% [14].
The linear correlation between S/CO values and approximated CFU/mL values was high across all individual serial dilutions and species, with correlation R2 values ranging from 0.991 (lowest for C. lari) to 0.999 (highest for C. armoricus and C. ornithocola). All serial dilutions included specimens with concentrations below and above the S/CO cut-off value of 1 and the LOD of the assay. The strong correlation between S/CO values and bacterial concentrations, spanning a wide range and including specimens around the assay cut-off and LOD, is a key indicator of the test’s reliability, particularly for borderline specimens. Infected humans usually excrete 106 to 109C. jejuni per gram of stool [34]. This test is therefore sufficiently sensitive to detect C. jejuni and C. coli in human stool specimens.
Linear regression estimated bacterial concentrations between 1.47 × 106 and 17 × 106 CFU/mL for different Campylobacter species at the S/CO cut-off of 1, with the exception of C. fetus. This result indicates that the ability of the assay to detect C. jejuni, C. coli, C. lari, C. upsaliensis, C. armoricus, and C. ornithocola is nearly equivalent. Such near-equivalence in human tests has not previously been described. For example, a study that evaluated the ProsPect Campylobacter immunoassay (Remel, Lenexa, KS, USA) reported higher detection limits for C. jejuni and C. coli than for other Campylobacter species that were also detectable [35]. The ability of some tests to detect C. upsaliensis has been previously described [3640]. Generally, these studies reported a 1- to 10-fold lower sensitivity for C. upsaliensis compared to C. jejuni [38, 39], which is not the case with the SCFIA.
In this study, the SCFIA showed good reactivity for C. ornithocola and C. armoricus, in addition to species listed in the manufacturer’s instructions (C. jejuni, C. coli, C. lari, and C. upsaliensis). This finding is not surprising, as C. ornithocola and C. armoricus were described in 2017 and 2019 as members of the C. lari group [41, 42] due to their strong phylogenetic relationship. Thus, the reactivity of the SCFIA was expected due to antigen similarity between these two species and C. lari. The ability of certain kits to detect C. lari has been described; for example, Kawatsu et al. [37] reported a Campylobacter immunochromatographic assay that detects a 15-kDa cell surface protein of C. jejuni, and Regnath et al. [43] reported similar results using the RIDA QUICK and RIDASCREEN Campylobacter kits (R-biopharm). The clinical significance of this finding is likely limited. Both C. ornithocola and C. armoricus are rarely detected in stool specimens from patients with gastroenteritis because these species are not detectable by the syndromic PCR formats marketed worldwide. They are also difficult to distinguish from C. lari via MALDI-TOF due to their phylogenetic proximity [41, 42]. In 2021, we detected C. ornithocola and C. armoricus in 2 and 4 of 8,709 strains sent to our reference center, respectively. In 2022, 4 of 8,971 strains tested at our reference center corresponded to C. ornithocola, whereas C. armoricus was not detected. These data indicate that infections with these two species are very rare [44].
However, we acknowledge the absence of detection of C. fetus, which is the third most common Campylobacter species isolated from campylobacteriosis specimens in France (NRCCH data available on www.cnrch.fr). Campylobacter fetus can cause invasive infections in elderly or immunocompromised patients [5]. Unfortunately, no kit on the market currently detects this species, making this detection gap common. Investigating the absence of cross-reactivity with closely related bacteria such as Aliarcobacter and enterohepatic Helicobacter in the kit was crucial in developing and evaluating a new test, as has already been achieved by other research teams [36, 37].

Conclusion

SCFIA is a rapid, accurate antigen test that could be of great utility to severely ill hospitalized patients who could benefit from early targeted antimicrobial therapy. Its capacity to detect the main species responsible for campylobacteriosis is of major interest for clinical use.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of QuidelOrtho INC in providing the fluorescent immunoassays used in this study. The manuscript was edited for proper use of English language by Textcheck (reference number: 25011405). Please direct any questions regarding this certificate or the English in the certified paper to: certified@textcheck.com.

Declarations

All diagnostic methods are routinely performed at our institution. Therefore, informed consent was not requested from patients to use their stool samples. However, to ensure subject anonymity, all identifiable patient data were removed from the present study.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Download
Titel
Evaluation of a rapid fluorescence immunoassay for detecting Campylobacter antigens in stool samples
Verfasst von
Lucie Bénéjat
Astrid Ducournau
Juliette Gebhart
Emilie Bessede
Juergen Becker
Marine Jauvain
Philippe Lehours
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2025
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Gut Pathogens / Ausgabe 1/2025
Elektronische ISSN: 1757-4749
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-025-00686-4

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaakoush NO, Castaño-Rodríguez N, Mitchell HM, Man SM. Global epidemiology of campylobacter infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28(3):687–720.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Platts-Mills JA, Babji S, Bodhidatta L, Gratz J, Haque R, Havt A, et al. Pathogen-specific burdens of community diarrhoea in developing countries: a multisite birth cohort study (MAL-ED). Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(9):e564–575.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Gazaigne L, Legrand P, Renaud B, Bourra B, Taillandier E, Brun-Buisson C, et al. Campylobacter fetus bloodstream infection: risk factors and clinical features. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;27:185–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-007-0415-0.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Feodoroff B, Lauhio A, Ellström P, Rautelin H. A nationwide study of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli bacteremia in Finland over a 10-year period, 1998–2007, with special reference to clinical characteristics and antimicrobial susceptibility. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:e99–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir509.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Tinévez C, Velardo F, Ranc AG, Dubois D, Pailhoriès H, Codde C, et al. Campylobacteremia study group. Retrospective multicentric study on Campylobacter spp. Bacteremia in France: the Campylobacteremia study. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;75:702–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab983.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Pacanowski J, Lalande V, Lacombe K, Boudraa C, Lesprit P, Legrand P, CAMPYL Study Group, et al. Campylobacter bacteremia: clinical features and factors associated with fatal outcome. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47:790–6. https://doi.org/10.1086/5915308.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Fernández-Cruz A, Muñoz P, Mohedano R, Valerio M, Marín M, Alcalá L, et al. Campylobacter bacteremia: clinical characteristics, incidence, and outcome over 23 years. Med (Baltim). 2010;89:319–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0b013e3181f2638d.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Olaiya D, Fok R, Chakrabarti P, Sharma H, Greig J. Campylobacter fetus spondylodiscitis: A case report and review of the literature. IDCases. 2018;1314:e00468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idcr.2018.e00468.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Tanabe S, Kutsuna S, Tsuboi M, Takeshita N, Hayakawa K, Ohmagari N. Meningoencephalitis caused by a Campylobacter fetus in a patient with chronic alcoholism. Intern Med. 2019;58(15):2247–50. https://doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.1486-18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Tinévez C, Lehours P, Ranc AG, Belaroussi Y, Velardo F, Dubois D, et al. Campylobacteremia study group. Multicenter retrospective study of vascular infections and endocarditis caused by Campylobacter spp., France. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29(3):484–92. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2903.221417.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Zayet S, Klopfenstein T, Gendrin V, Vuillemenot J-B, Plantin J, et al. Campylobacter fetus invasive infections and risks for death, France, 2000–2021. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29(11). https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2911.230598.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Stein RA. Campylobacter jejuni and postinfectious autoimmune diseases: A proof of concept in glycobiology. ACS Infect Dis. 2022;8(10):1981–91. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsinfecdis.2c00397. Epub 2022 Sep 22.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Lecuit M, Abachin E, Martin A, Poyart C, Pochart P, Suarez F, et al. Immunoproliferative small intestinal disease associated with Campylobacter jejuni. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(3):239–48.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat European Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Campylobacteriosis - Annual Epidemiological Report for 2021. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/campylobacteriosis-annual-epidemiological-report-2021. Accessed on May 26 2024.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Jenkin GA, Tee W. Campylobacter upsaliensis-associated diarrhea in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27(4):816–21.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Hald B, Madsen M. Healthy puppies and kittens as carriers of Campylobacter spp., with special reference to Campylobacter upsaliensis. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35(12):3351–2. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.35.12.3351-3352.1997.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Cypierre A, Denes E, Barraud O, Jamilloux Y, Jacques J, Durox H, Pinet P, Weinbreck P. Campylobacter fetus infections. Med Mal Infect. 2014;44(4):167–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medmal.2014.02.001.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Wagenaar JA, van Bergen MA, Blaser MJ, Tauxe RV, Newell DG, van Putten JP. Campylobacter fetus infections in humans: exposure and disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(11):1579–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu085.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Grouteau G, Mignonat C, Marchou B, Martin-Blondel G, Glass O, Roubaud-Baudron C, Lansalot-Matras P, Alik S, Balardy L, De Nadaï T, Bénéjat L, Jehanne Q, Le Coustumier A, Lehours P. Campylobacter fetus foodborne illness outbreak in the elderly. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1194243. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1194243.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Ternhag A, Asikainen T, Giesecke J, Ekdahl K. A meta-analysis on the effects of antibiotic treatment on duration of symptoms caused by infection with Campylobacter species. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(5):696–700.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Guarino A, Ashkenazi S, Gendrel D, Lo Vecchio A, Shamir R, Szajewska H. European society for pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition/ European society for pediatric infectious diseases evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute gastroenteritis in children in Europe: update 2014. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutrit. 2014;59(1):132–52.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Buss JE, Cresse M, Doyle S, Buchan BW, Craft DW, Young S. Campylobacter culture fails to correctly detect Campylobacter in 30% of positive patient stool specimens compared to non-cultural methods. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;38(6):1087–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Bessede E, Delcamp A, Sifre E, Buissonniere A, Megraud F. New methods for detection of Campylobacters in stool samples in comparison to culture. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(3):941–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Kabir SML, Chowdhury N, Asakura M, Shiramaru S, Kikuchi K, Hinenoya A, et al. Comparison of established PCR assays for accurate identification of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2019;72(2):81–7.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Onori M, Coltella L, Mancinelli L, Argentieri M, Menichella D, Villani A, et al. Evaluation of a multiplex PCR assay for simultaneous detection of bacterial and viral enteropathogens in stool samples of paediatric patients. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;79(2):149–54.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Bessède E, Asselineau J, Perez P, Valdenaire G, Richer O, Lehours P, et al. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of two immunochromatographic tests detecting campylobacter in stools and their role in Campylobacter infection diagnosis. Onderdonk AB, éditeur. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(4):e01567–1617.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Floch P, Goret J, Bessède E, Lehours P, Mégraud F. Evaluation of the positive predictive value of a rapid immunochromatographic test to detect Campylobacter in stools. Gut Pathog. 2012;4(1):17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Gómez-Camarasa C, Gutiérrez-Fernández J, Rodríguez-Granger JM, Sampedro-Martínez A, Sorlózano-Puerto A, Navarro-Marí JM. Evaluation of the rapid RIDAQUICK Campylobacter ® test in a general hospital. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;78(2):101–4.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat QuidelOrtho corporation. Instructions for use. Sofia 2 Campylobacter FIA. Revision 1394201EN00 (01/22). Available under https://www.quidelortho.com. Accessed on 26th of May 2024.
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Bessède E, Solecki O, Sifré E, Labadi L, Mégraud F. Identification of Campylobacter species and related organisms by matrix assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017;17(11):1735–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03468.x.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Gueudet T, Paolini MC, Buissonnière A, Trens A, Rousée JM, Lefranc M, Bénéjat L, Ducournau A, Mégraud F, Bessède E, Lehours P. How to interpret a positive Campylobacter PCR result using the BD MAX™ system in the absence of positive culture?? J Clin Med. 2019;8(12):2138. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8122138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Knabl L, Grutsch I, Orth-Höller D. Comparison of the BD MAX® enteric bacterial panel assay with conventional diagnostic procedures in diarrheal stool samples. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;35(1):131–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-015-2517-4. Epub 2015 Nov 13. PMID: 26563899.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Couturier MR. Revisiting the roles of culture and culture-Independent detection tests for Campylobacter. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54(5):1186–8. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.03221-15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Wassenaar TM, Blaser MJ. Pathophysiology of Campylobacter jejuni infections of humans. Microbes Infect. 1999;1(12):1023–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1286-4579(99)80520-6.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Platts-Mills JA, Liu J, Gratz J, Mduma E, Amour C, Swai N, Taniuchi M, Begum S, Peñataro Yori P, Tilley DH, Lee G, Shen Z, Whary MT, Fox JG, McGrath M, Kosek M, Haque R, Houpt ER. Detection of Campylobacter in stool and determination of significance by culture, enzyme immunoassay, and PCR in developing countries. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(4):1074–80. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02935-13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Bojanić K, Midwinter AC, Marshall JC, Rogers LE, Biggs PJ, Acke E. Variation in the limit-of-detection of the prospect Campylobacter microplate enzyme immunoassay in stools spiked with emerging Campylobacter species. J Microbiol Methods. 2016;127:236–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2016.06.016.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Kawatsu K, Kumeda Y, Taguchi M, Yamazaki-Matsune W, Kanki M, Inoue K. Development and evaluation of immunochromatographic assay for simple and rapid detection of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in human stool specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46(4):1226–31. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02170-07.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Couturier BA, Couturier MR, Kalp KJ, Fisher MA. Detection of non-jejuni and -coli Campylobacter species from stool specimens with an immunochromatographic antigen detection assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51(6):1935–7. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.03208-12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Hindiyeh M, Jense S, Hohmann S, Benett H, Edwards C, Aldeen W, Croft A, Daly J, Mottice S, Carroll KC. Rapid detection of Campylobacter jejuni in stool specimens by an enzyme immunoassay and surveillance for Campylobacter upsaliensis in the greater salt lake City area. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(8):3076–9. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.38.8.3076-3079.2000.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Dediste A, Vandenberg O, Vlaes L, Ebraert A, Douat N, Bahwere P, Butzler JP. Evaluation of the prospect microplate assay for detection of Campylobacter: a routine laboratory perspective. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2003;9(11):1085–90. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0691.2003.00705.x.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Caceres A, Muñoz I, Iraola G, Díaz-Viraque F, Collado L. Campylobacter Ornithocola Sp. nov., a new member of the Campylobacter lari group isolated from wild bird faecal samples. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2017;67(6):1634–49. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.001822.CrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Boukerb AM, Penny C, Serghine J, Walczak C, Cauchie HM, Miller WG, Losch S, Ragimbeau C, Mossong J, Mégraud F, Lehours P, Bénéjat L, Gourmelon M. Campylobacter Armoricus Sp. nov., a novel member of the Campylobacter lari group isolated from surface water and stools from humans with enteric infection. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2019;69(12):3969–79. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.003836.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Regnath T, Ignatius R. Accurate detection of Campylobacter spp. Antigens by immunochromatography and enzyme immunoassay in routine Microbiological laboratory. Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp). 2014;4(3):156–8. https://doi.org/10.1556/eujmi-d-14-00018.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Chereau F, Bessède E, Jauvain M, De Valk H, Lehours P. May. Agence Nationale De Santé Publique et Centre National de Référence des Campylobacters et Hélicobacters, Laboratoire de Bactériologie, CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux. Bilan de la surveillance des infections à Campylobacter en France en 2021 / 2022. https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/maladies-et-traumatismes/maladies-infectieuses-d-origine-alimentaire/campylobacter. Accessed on 29th of 2024.

Kompaktes Leitlinien-Wissen Innere Medizin (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

Mit medbee Pocketcards schnell und sicher entscheiden.
Leitlinien-Wissen kostenlos und immer griffbereit auf ihrem Desktop, Handy oder Tablet.

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

„Bei KHK routinemäßig auf Niereninsuffizienz screenen!“

Ein internationales Forschungsteam drängt, Menschen mit koronarer Herzkrankheit routinemäßig auf eine chronische Nierenerkrankung zu screenen, um so ein stark erhöhtes kardiovaskuläres Risiko rechtzeitig zu erkennen. Dafür soll nicht nur die eGFR, sondern auch der Albumin-Kreatinin-Quotient im Urin herangezogen werden.

Wie „digitale Zwillinge“ die Arrhythmie-Therapie optimieren können

Mithilfe sogenannter „digitaler Zwillinge“ konnten in einer kleinen Studie zur Ablationstherapie bei Patienten mit ventrikulären Tachykardien sehr gute Behandlungsergebnisse erzielt werden.

Süßungsmittel Erythritol könnte Thromboserisiko erhöhen

Weniger Zuckerkonsum ist ein großer Hebel für die Prävention kardiovaskulärer Erkrankungen. Stattdessen auf Süßstoffe zu setzen, scheint aber nicht der richtige Weg zu sein.

ASS als Option zur Thromboseprophylaxe nach Gelenkersatz

Zur medikamentösen Thromboseprophylaxe nach Gelenkersatz kann in bestimmten Fällen die Einnahme von Azetylsalizylsäure (ASS) als kostengünstige Alternative zu Heparinspritzen oder DOAK (direkten oralen Antikoagulanzien) erwogen werden. Dazu müssen allerdings bestimmte Voraussetzungen erfüllt sein.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Bildnachweise
Die Leitlinien für Ärztinnen und Ärzte, Blutprobe wird bei Patient abgenommen/© Tashi-Delek / Getty Images / iStock (Symbolbild mit Fotomodellen), Medizinisches Personal untersucht das Bein eines Erkankten/© Stratocaster / Stock.adobe.com (Symbolbild mit Fotomodellen), Patientin im Klinikbett spricht mit Arzt/© © sturti / Getty Images / iStock (Symbolbild mit Fotomodellen)