Rapid and sensitive loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for Clostridium difficile detection challenges cytotoxin B cell test and culture as gold standard

Pathology consultation on detection of Clostridium difficile

Laboratory methods for detecting Clostridium difficile have undergone considerable evolution since the organism's etiologic association with antibiotic-associated diarrhea and colitis was established. Clearly, familiarity with the advantages and shortcomings of the various assays is essential for the laboratory director when choosing among these tests. For the consulting pathologist, furthermore, an understanding of the laboratory's role in securing a diagnosis of C difficile infection (CDI) is also required to identify requests for unnecessary testing that may be costly and potentially misleading. The purpose of this article is to highlight the major differences in laboratory test methods for CDI and to review a few commonly encountered provider ordering scenarios.

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection

Clostridium difficile infection is the primary cause of health care-associated diarrhea. While most laboratories have been using rapid antigen tests for detecting C. difficile toxins, they have poor sensitivity; newer molecular methods offer rapid results with high test sensitivity and specificity. This study was designed to compare the performances of two molecular assays (Meridian illumigene and BD GeneOhm) and two antigen assays (Wampole Quik Chek Complete and TechLab Tox A/B II) to detect toxigenic C. difficile. Fecal specimens from hospitalized patients (n = 139) suspected of having C. difficile infection were tested by the four assays. Nine specimens were positive and 109 were negative by all four methods. After discrepant analysis by toxigenic culture (n = 21), the total numbers of stool specimens classified as positive and negative for toxigenic C. difficile were 21 (15%) and 118 (85%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were as follows: GeneOhm (95.2%, 100%, 100%, and 99.2%), illumigene (95.2%, 96.6%, 83.3%, and 99.2%), Tox A/B II (52.4%, 97.5%, 78.6%, and 92.4%), and Quik Chek Complete (47.6%, 100%, 100%, and 91.9%). The illumigene assay performed comparably to the GeneOhm assay with a slight decrease in test specificity; the sensitivities of both far exceeded those of the antigen assays. The clinical characteristics of the concordant and discrepant study patients were similar, including stool consistency and frequency. In the era of rapid molecular-based tests for toxigenic C. difficile, toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) should no longer be considered the standard of care.

Laboratory testing for Clostridium difficile infection: light at the end of the tunnel

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is changing as evidenced by increasing virulence, rising incidence, unresponsiveness to metronidazole therapy, and worse outcomes. Thus, it is critical that CDI diagnosis be accurate so ongoing epidemiology, disease prevention, and treatment remain satisfactory. We tested 10 diagnostic assays, including 1 commercial real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) test for the laboratory detection of toxigenic C difficile on 1,000 stool samples. Sensitive culture for toxigenic C difficile using 2 types of media with broth enrichment defined the reference standard. For the study, 1,000 tests were performed on samples from 919 patients. Of the samples, 146 contained evidence for toxigenic C difficile and represented the true-positive results. Only the US Food and Drug Administration-cleared qPCR assay (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) and 1 glutamate dehydrogenase test (TechLab, Blacksburg, VA) were not statistically inferior to culture in sensitivity. The common enzyme immunoassay tests all had sensitivity values less than 50%. Clinical laboratory professionals need to seriously consider their diagnostic testing and use the assays that perform best for the detection of CDI.

Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection can molecular amplification methods move us out of uncertainty?

The laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) continues to be challenging. Recent guidelines from professional societies in the United States note that enzyme immunoassays for toxins A and B do not have adequate sensitivity to be used alone for detecting CDI, yet the optimal method for diagnosing this infection remains unclear. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) that target chromosomal toxin genes (usually the toxin B gene, tcdB) show high sensitivity and specificity, provide rapid results, and are amenable to both batch and on-demand testing, but these tests were not universally recommended for routine use in the recent guidelines. Rather, two-step algorithms that use glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assays to screen for C. difficile in stool specimens, followed by either direct cytotoxin testing or culture to identify toxin-producing C. difficile isolates, were recommended in one guideline and either GDH algorithms or NAATs were recommended in another guideline. Unfortunately, neither culture nor direct cytotoxin testing is widely available. In addition, this two-step approach requires 48 to 92 hours to complete, which may delay the initiation of therapy and critical infection control measures. Recent studies also show the sensitivity of several GDH assays to be <90%. This review considers the role of NAATs for diagnosing CDI and explores their potential advantages over two-step algorithms, including shorter time to results, while providing comparable, if not superior, accuracy.

Evaluation of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections

A new assay (illumigene C. difficile; Meridian Bioscience), based on the original loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay, was evaluated with 472 unformed stools from patients suspected of Clostridium difficile infection. Compared to the toxigenic culture, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 91.8, 99.1, 91.8, and 99.1% for the illumigene C. difficile assay and 69.4, 100, 100, and 96.6% for the cytotoxicity assay, respectively.

Comparison of two commercial molecular tests for the detection of Clostridium difficile in the routine diagnostic laboratory

Two commercial real-time PCR assays for the detection of Clostridium difficile, BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay (BD Diagnostics) and Xpert C. difficile assay (Cepheid), were compared to each other and to toxigenic culture, which was used as a gold standard, on a set of 194 clinical stools submitted for routine diagnostic analysis. Of 28 (14.4 %) toxigenic culture positive samples 23 were positive with both assays, the BD and the Cepheid real-time PCR assays, 4 were positive only by Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay and 1 sample was negative by both PCR assays, resulting in sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 82.1, 98.2, 88.5 and 97.0 %, respectively, for the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, and 96.4, 97.3, 87.1 and 99.3 %, respectively, for the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay. Altogether 26 out of 194 (13.4 %) samples were reported invalid by Cepheid. Toxigenic C. difficile positive samples contained 15 different PCR ribotypes distributed into toxinotype 0 and 2 different variant toxinotypes (III, IV). Clinical data were available for 24 out of 28 (85.7  %) toxigenic C. difficile positive patients and 18 (75.0 %) of them were diagnosed with diarrhoea, while others had other symptoms or risk factors related to possible C. difficile infection (antibiotics, bloody stool, peritonitis, Crohn's disease).