Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: Comparison of Techlab C. diff Quik Chek Complete, Xpert C. difficile, and multistep algorithmic approach

Romanowsky staining: history, recent advances and future prospects from a chemistry perspective

Romanowsky staining was an important methodological breakthrough in diagnostic hematology and cytopathology during the late 19th and early 20th centuries; it has facilitated for decades the work of biologists, hematologists and pathologists working with blood cells. Despite more than a century of studying Romanowsky staining, no systematic review has been published that explains the chemical processes that produce the "Romanowsky effect" or "Romanowsky-Giemsa effect" (RGE), i.e., a purple coloration arising from the interaction of an azure dye with eosin and not due merely to their simultaneous presence. Our review is an attempt to build a bridge between chemists and biomedical scientists and to summarize the available data on methylene blue (MB) demethylation as well as the related reduction and decomposition of MB to simpler compounds by both light and enzyme systems and microorganisms. To do this, we analyze modern data on the mechanisms of MB demethylation both in the presence of acids and bases and by disproportionation due to the action of light. We also offer an explanation for why the RGE occurs only when azure B, or to a lesser extent, azure A is present by applying experimental and calculated physicochemical parameters including dye-DNA binding constants and electron density distributions in the molecules of these ligands. Finally, we discuss modern techniques for obtaining new varieties of Romanowsky dyes by modifying previously known ones. We hope that our critical literature study will help scientists understand better the chemical and physicochemical processes and mechanisms of cell staining with such dyes.

Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and Xpert C. difficile assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile in stool specimens

This study compared the performance of two commercial molecular assays, the STANDARD M10 Clostridioides difficile assay (M10) and the Xpert C. difficile assay (Xpert), for detecting toxigenic C. difficile in stool specimens. A total of 487 consecutive stool specimens submitted for routine C. difficile testing between June and November 2023 were included. Following routine testing using C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC), M10 and Xpert were tested in parallel, alongside toxigenic culture (reference standard). Additionally, two-step algorithms, using QCC on the first step and either M10 or Xpert on the second step, were assessed. Both M10 and Xpert demonstrated a sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. M10 exhibited significantly higher specificity and positive predictive value (PPV; 91.9% and 64.2%, respectively) than Xpert (90.3% and 59.8%, respectively). Both two-step algorithms showed a sensitivity and NPV of 98.4% and 99.8%, respectively. The specificity and PPV of the two-step algorithm using M10 (95.2% and 75.0%, respectively) were slightly higher than those of the one using Xpert (94.8% and 73.2%, respectively), without statistical significance. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, assessing the predictive ability of cycle threshold (Ct) values for the detection of free toxin, exhibited an area under the curve of 0.825 for M10 and 0.843 for Xpert. This indicates the utility of Ct values as predictors for the detection of free toxin in both assays. In conclusion, M10 proves to be an effective diagnostic tool with performance comparable to Xpert, whether utilized independently or as part of a two-step algorithm.

Challenges and future solutions for detection of Clostridioides difficile in adults

There are no established standards for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), even though the importance of this infection in humans is well known. The effectiveness of the commercially available techniques, which are all standardized for use with human feces, is also limited in terms of the accuracy of the tests. Furthermore, the current approach lacks a point-of-care diagnosis with an acceptable range of sensitivity and specificity. This article reviews the challenges and possible future solutions for the detection of CDI in adults. Existing diagnostic methods, such as enzyme-linked immunoassays and microbial culturing for the detection of toxins A and B, appear to work poorly in samples but exhibit great sensitivity for glutamate dehydrogenase. Real-time polymerase chain reaction and nucleic acid amplification tests have been investigated in a few studies on human samples, but so far have shown poor turnaround times. Thus, developing a multiplex point-of-care test assay with high sensitivity and specificity is required as a bedside approach for diagnosing this emerging infection.

Comparison of commercial assays and two-step approach to detect Clostridioides difficile in South Africa

Background

Clostridioides difficile is the number one cause of hospital-acquired diarrhoea. Accurate diagnosis of C. difficile is of utmost importance as it guides patient management and infection control practices. Studies evaluating the performance of commercially available nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) versus algorithms are lacking in resource-limited settings.

Objective

This study assessed the performance of three commercially available tests and a two-step approach for the diagnosis of C. difficile infection using toxigenic culture (TC) as the gold standard.

Methods

Two hundred and twenty-three non-duplicate loose stool samples were submitted to the National Health Laboratory Service Microbiology Laboratory at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, from October 2017 to October 2018. The samples were tested in parallel using the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and two NAATs (Xpert C. difficile and BD MAX Cdiff), and the results were compared to TC. The performance of a two-step approach consisting of the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE followed by the Xpert C. difficile was also determined.

Results

Of 223 faecal specimens tested, 37 (16.6%) were TC-positive. The sensitivity and specificity of the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE were 54.1% and 98.9%; Xpert C. difficile, 86.4% and 96.8%; BD MAX Cdiff, 89.2% and 96.8%; and two-step approach, 89.2% and 96.2%.

Conclusion

The C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE, in a two-step approach with the Xpert C. difficile, performed similarly to the NAATs on their own and offer advantages in terms of cost and workflow in low-resource settings.

Rapid Quantification of C. difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxin B (TcdB) with a NanoBiT Split-Luciferase Assay

C. difficile infection (CDI) is a leading healthcare-associated infection with a high morbidity and mortality and is a financial burden. No current standalone point-of-care test (POCT) is sufficient for the identification of true CDI over a disease-free carriage of C. difficile, so one is urgently required to ensure timely, appropriate treatment. Here, two types of binding proteins, Affimers and nanobodies, targeting two C. difficile biomarkers, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin B (TcdB), are combined in NanoBiT (NanoLuc Binary Technology) split-luciferase assays. The assays were optimized and their performance controlling parameters were examined. The 44 fM limit of detection (LoD), 4–5 log range and 1300-fold signal gain of the TcdB assay in buffer is the best observed for a NanoBiT assay to date. In the stool sample matrix, the GDH and TcdB assay sensitivity (LoD = 4.5 and 2 pM, respectively) and time to result (32 min) are similar to a current, commercial lateral flow POCT, but the NanoBit assay has no wash steps, detects clinically relevant TcdB over TcdA, and is quantitative. Development of the assay into a POCT may drive sensitivity further and offer an urgently needed ultrasensitive TcdB test for the rapid diagnosis of true CDI. The NanoBiTBiP (NanoBiT with Binding Proteins) system offers advantages over NanoBiT assays with antibodies as binding elements in terms of ease of production and assay performance. We expect this methodology and approach to be generally applicable to other biomarkers.

Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile diagnostic assay: an update meta-analysis

Background

Accurate and rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is critical for effective patient management and implementation of infection control measures to prevent transmission.

Objectives

We updated our previous meta-analysis to provide a more reliable evidence base for the clinical diagnosis of Xpert C. difficile (Xpert C. difficile) assay.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) databases to identify studies according to predetermined criteria. STATA 13.0 software was used to analyze the tests for sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). QUADAS-2 was used to assess the quality of included studies with RevMan 5.2. Heterogeneity in accuracy measures was tested with Spearman correlation coefficient and chi-square. Meta-regressions and subgroup analyses were performed to figure out the potential sources of heterogeneity. Model diagnostics were used to evaluate the veracity of the data.

Results

A total of 26 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for diagnosis was 0.97(0.95–0.98), and specificity was 0.96(0.95–0.97). The AUC was 0.99 (0.98–1.00). Model diagnostics confirmed the robustness of our meta-analysis’s results. Significant heterogeneity was still observed when we pooled most of the accuracy measures of selected studies. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses showed that the sample size and type, ethnicity, and disease prevalence might be the conspicuous sources of heterogeneity.

Conclusions

The up-to-date meta-analysis showed the Xpert CD assay had good accuracy for detecting CDI. However, the diagnosis of CDI must combine clinical presentation with diagnostic testing to better answer the question of whether the patient actually has CDI in the future, and inclusion of preanalytical parameters and clinical outcomes in study design would provide a more objective evidence base.

Laboratory Diagnostic Methods for Clostridioides difficile Infection: the First Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Korea

Background

Various methods are used for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). We systematically analyzed and investigated the performance of current laboratory diagnostic methods for CDI.

Methods

We performed systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed. The following methods were evaluated glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassays (GDH EIAs), toxin A and B detection by enzyme immunoassays (toxin AB EIAs), and nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for C. difficile toxin genes. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each method were calculated.

Results

Based on 39 studies, the pooled sensitivities/specificities were 92.7%/94.6%, 57.9%/97.0%, and 90.0%/95.8% for GDH EIAs, toxin AB EIAs, and NAATs, respectively, compared with those of toxigenic culture. The pooled sensitivities of automated EIAs were significantly higher than those of non-automated EIAs for both GDH and toxins A and B. The pooled sensitivity of Xpert C. difficile was significantly higher than those of other NAATs. PPVs increased as CDI prevalence increased, and NPVs were excellent when CDI prevalence was low; at CDI prevalence of 5%, PPV = 37%-65% and NPV = 97%-100%; at CDI prevalence of 50%, PPV = 92%-97% and NPV = 65%-98%.

Conclusions

Toxin AB EIAs still show unsatisfactory sensitivity, whereas GDH EIAs and NAATs show relatively high sensitivity. However, toxin AB EIAs are the most specific tests. This study may provide useful information for CDI diagnosis.

Clostridioides difficile Infection: The Challenge, Tests, and Guidelines

Clostridioides difficile is a dangerous human pathogen because it can grow to high numbers in the intestine, cause colitis with its potent toxins, and persist as spores. C. difficile infection (CDI) is the primary hospital-acquired infection in North America and Europe, and it now is a global disease. Even with newer laboratory tests, there still is confusion on accurately diagnosing this disease. Three guidelines from three different healthcare-affiliated societies have recently been published. Consensus consolidated recommendations from these guidelines should be recognized by healthcare professionals, who need to understand why this disease continues to be difficult to diagnose and need a clear understanding of the advantages and limitations of current tests. Hopefully, these combined efforts will lead to an improvement in the recognition of this pathogen and a reduction in the suffering and economic loss caused by CDI.

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

Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile is responsible for most cases of nosocomial diarrhea and, despite the high prevalence of the disease worldwide, the best laboratory diagnostic approach to diagnose C. difficile infection (CDI) is a subject of ongoing debate. Although the use of multiple tests is recommended, the cost of these algorithms commonly exceeds the affordability in some countries. Thus, to improve CDI diagnosis in a university hospital in Brazil, this study analyzed two immunochromatographic tests and one enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) to evaluate the detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and A/B toxins of C. difficile. Stool samples of 89 adult patients presenting nosocomial diarrhea during hospitalization were included. The toxigenic culture was used as the reference method. GDH detection by both commercial tests showed high sensitivity (100%) and specificity (92.1%). On the other hand, toxin-based methods showed a sensitivity between 19.2 and 57.7%. In conclusion, the results suggest that rapid tests for GDH detection are not only suitable for CDI diagnosis as screening tests but also as a single method.

Effectiveness of a Two-Step Testing Algorithm for Reliable and Cost-Effective Detection of Clostridium difficile Infection in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a two-step algorithm for the detection of Clostridium difficile infection. Setting and Design: A two-step testing algorithm was evaluated for testing stool samples from patients suspected of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). A total of 103 stool specimens were tested using the C. diff Quik Chek Complete enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test and the Xpert C. difficile PCR test. A two-step algorithm was implemented, and data from 3518 patient samples tested during a two-year period after implementation were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of the Quik Chek Complete EIA test were calculated using the Xpert C. difficile PCR test as a reference method. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Quik Chek Complete EIA test for C. difficile toxin were 46.7%, 100%, 100%, and 91%, respectively. The two-step algorithm, which combined the Quik Chek Complete EIA with Xpert C. difficile PCR, improved the sensitivity and also provided rapid detection. When algorithm-based testing was performed daily, there was a 66% reduction in turnaround time compared to batch testing using a lengthy ELISA procedure. Postimplementation data analysis showed that almost 89% of the samples could be reported immediately by initial screening with Quik Chek Complete EIA. Only 11% of the samples gave discrepant results and required PCR confirmation. According to our results, the two-step algorithm is an effective tool for the rapid and reliable detection of toxigenic C. difficile from stool samples.

Evaluation of antigen-positive toxin-negative enzyme immunoassay results for the diagnosis of toxigenic Clostridium difficile infection

Clostridium difficile (C. difficile)-associated diarrhea (CDAD) is a challenging nosocomial infectious disease. C. DIFF Quik Chek Complete assay is widely used to detect glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen and toxin A/B of C. difficile simultaneously. However, the interpretation of GDH positive/toxin negative results is problematic. We performed a retrospective study of patients with GDH positive/toxin negative results to determine the probability of detecting toxigenic C. difficile and its risk factors. Between April 2012 and March 2017, we investigated cultures of fecal specimens followed by toxin detection tests. The clinical histories of patients with and without toxigenic C. difficile were compared using univariate- and multivariate-analyses. In total, 2675 patients were examined using C. Diff Quik Chek Complete assay. Among 356 GDH positive/toxin negative patients, cultures were performed in 220 cases and toxigenic C. difficile was recovered from 139 (63.2%) specimens. Patients with toxigenic C. difficile had significantly lower body mass index than those without. Over half the GDH positive/toxin negative patients were infected with toxigenic C. difficile. Lower BMI was a CDAD risk factor in this patient population. These data can be utilized to initiate isolation and clinical interventions before confirmatory test results are available. J. Med. Invest. 65:131-135, February, 2018.

Performance comparison of the cobas Liat and Cepheid GeneXpert systems for Clostridium difficile detection

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a high burden and significant cause of healthcare-acquired infectious diarrhea in the United States (US). Timely and accurate diagnosis of CDI enables the rapid initiation of antibiotic therapy and infection control policies to minimize disease transmission. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays have become a preferred modality for diagnosing CDI in the US. The cobas Liat Cdiff PCR test is a novel assay that can be performed on-demand for hospital-based testing with a rapid 20-minute turnaround time from specimen collection to result reporting. We compared the clinical performance of the cobas Liat Cdiff test to the previously introduced Xpert C. difficile/Epi test; both tests are FDA-cleared PCR assays that detect the toxin B (tcdB) gene of C. difficile. Prospectively collected and remnant stool specimens from 310 patients with suspected CDI were obtained for analysis. The cobas Liat Cdiff and Xpert PCR tests showed an overall percent agreement of 97.4% (302/310; 95% CI: 95.0–98.9). Low bacterial burdens of toxigenic C. difficile, indicated by significantly delayed PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, explained most of the discordance. Positive and negative percent agreement of the cobas Liat Cdiff test compared to the Xpert PCR test were 94.5% (52/55) and 98.0% (250/255), respectively. The clinical performance of the cobas Liat Cdiff test, combined with its simplicity of use and rapid result reporting, provides a reliable option for clinical laboratory use.

Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: Comparison of Techlab C. diff Quik Chek Complete, Xpert C. difficile, and multistep algorithmic approach

BACKGROUND

Clostridium difficile is a major pathogen responsible for nosocomial infectious diarrhea. We explored optimal laboratory strategies for diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI) in our clinical settings, a 1400-bed tertiary care hospital.

METHODS

Using 191 fresh stool samples from adult patients, we evaluated the performance of Xpert C. difficile (Xpert CD), C. diff Quik Chek Complete (which simultaneously detects glutamate dehydrogenase [GDH] and C. difficile toxins [CDT]), toxigenic culture, and a two-step algorithm composed of GDH/CDT as a screening test and Xpert CD as a confirmatory test.

RESULTS

Clostridium difficile was detected in 35 samples (18.3%), and all isolates were toxigenic strains. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value of each assay for detecting CDI were as follows: Quik Chek Complete CDT (45.7%, 100%, 100%, 89.1%), Quik Chek Complete GDH (97.1%, 99.4%, 97.1%, 99.4%), Xpert CD (94.3%, 100%, 100%, 98.7%), and toxigenic culture (91.4%, 100%, 100%, 98.1%). A two-step algorithm performed identically with Xpert CD assay.

CONCLUSION

Our data showed that most C. difficile isolates from adult patients were toxigenic. We demonstrated that a two-step algorithm based on GDH/CDT assay followed by Xpert CD assay as a confirmatory test was rapid, reliable, and cost effective for diagnosis of CDI in an adult patient setting with high prevalence of toxigenic C. difficile.