Clostridium difficile isolation and culture techniques

High levels of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile contamination of hospital environments: a hidden threat in hospital-acquired infections in Kenya

Introduction

The contribution of Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile) to the burden of hospital-associated infections (HAIs) remains undetermined in many African countries.

Aim

This study aimed to identify a sensitive and readily adaptable C. difficile detection assay and to evaluate the C. difficile HAI risk in Kenya.

Methodology

Sterile swabs in neutralizing buffer were used to sample equipment or surfaces that patients and clinical staff touched frequently. These swabs were either plated directly on chromogenic agar or cultured in an enrichment broth before plating. The swab suspensions, enrichment broth and plate cultures were screened by quantitative PCR (qPCR) to determine the most efficient detection method. The HAI risk was evaluated by testing the C. difficile-positive samples by qPCR for the A, B and binary toxins.

Results

C. difficile was detected on 4/57 (7.0 %) equipment and surfaces by direct culture. The additional enrichment step increased the detection rate 10-fold to 43/57 (75.4 %). In total, 51/57 (89.5 %) environmental samples were positive for C. difficile detected through either culture or qPCR. The genes encoding the primary toxins, tcdA and tcdB, were detected on six surfaces, while the genes encoding the binary toxins, cdtA and cdtB, were detected on 2/57 (3.5 %) and 3/57 (5.3 %) surfaces, respectively. Different C. difficile toxin gene profiles were detected: the tcdA+/tcdB− gene profile on 4/10 (40 %) high-touch surfaces, tcdA−/tcdB+ on 3/10 (30 %) surfaces, tcdA+/tcdB+/cdtA+/cdtB+ on 2/10 (20 %) surfaces and tcdA−/tcdB+/cdtB+ on one high-touch surface.

Conclusion

The widespread contamination of hospital environments by toxigenic C. difficile gives a strong indication of the high risk of C. difficile infections (CDIs). The two-step culture process described can easily be adapted for monitoring hospital environment contamination by C. difficile.

Rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxins and laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections

BACKGROUND

Clostridium difficile is an anaerobic, spore-forming and Gram-positive bacillus. It is the major cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea prevailing in hospital settings. The morbidity and mortality of C. difficile infection (CDI) has increased significantly due to the emergence of hypervirulent strains. Because of the poor clinical different between CDI and other causes of hospital-acquired diarrhea, laboratory test for C. difficile is an important intervention for diagnosis of CDI.

OBJECTIVE

Laboratory tests for CDI can broadly detect either the organisms or its toxins. Currently, several laboratory tests are used for diagnosis of CDI, including toxigenic culture, glutamate dehydrogenase detection, nucleic acid amplification testing, cell cytotoxicity assay, and enzyme immunoassay towards toxin A and/or B. This review focuses on the rapid testing of C. difficile toxins and currently available methods for diagnosis of CDI, giving an overview of the role that the toxins rapid detecting plays in clinical diagnosis of CDI.

Development of TaqMan-based quantitative PCR for sensitive and selective detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in human stools

Background

Clostridium difficile is the main cause of nosocomial diarrhea, but is also found in asymptomatic subjects that are potentially involved in transmission of C. difficile infection. A sensitive and accurate detection method of C. difficile, especially toxigenic strains is indispensable for the epidemiological investigation.

Methods

TaqMan-based quantitative-PCR (qPCR) method for targeting 16S rRNA, tcdB, and tcdA genes of C. difficile was developed. The detection limit and accuracy of qPCR were evaluated by analyzing stool samples spiked with known amounts of C. difficile. A total of 235 stool specimens collected from 82 elderly nursing home residents were examined by qPCR, and the validity was evaluated by comparing the detection result with that by C. difficile selective culture (CDSC).

Results

The analysis of C. difficile-spiked stools confirmed that qPCR quantified whole C. difficile (TcdA⁺TcdB⁺, TcdA⁻TcdB⁺, and TcdA⁻TcdB⁻ types), TcdB-producing strains (TcdA⁺TcdB⁺ and TcdA⁻TcdB⁺ types), and TcdA-producing strains (TcdA⁺TcdB⁺ type), respectively, with a lower detection limit of 10³ cells/g of stool. Of the 235 specimens examined, 12 specimens (5.1%) were C. difficile-positive by qPCR: TcdA⁺TcdB⁺ strain in six specimens and TcdA⁻TcdB⁻ strain in the other six. CDSC detected C. difficile in 9 of the 12 specimens, and toxigenic types of the isolates from the 9 specimens were consistent with those identified by qPCR, supporting the validity of our qPCR method. Moreover, the qPCR examination revealed that the carriage rate of whole C. difficile and that of toxigenic strains in the 82 subjects over a 6-month period ranged from 2.4 to 6.8% and 1.2 to 3.8%, respectively. An average qPCR count of C. difficile detected was 10^4.5 cells/g of stool, suggesting that C. difficile constituted a very small fraction of intestinal microbiota.

Conclusion

Our qPCR method should be an effective tool for both clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigation of C. difficile.

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories

Clostridium difficile is a formidable nosocomial and community-acquired pathogen, causing clinical presentations ranging from asymptomatic colonization to self-limiting diarrhea to toxic megacolon and fulminant colitis. Since the early 2000s, the incidence of C. difficile disease has increased dramatically, and this is thought to be due to the emergence of new strain types. For many years, the mainstay of C. difficile disease diagnosis was enzyme immunoassays for detection of the C. difficile toxin(s), although it is now generally accepted that these assays lack sensitivity. A number of molecular assays are commercially available for the detection of C. difficile. This review covers the history and biology of C. difficile and provides an in-depth discussion of the laboratory methods used for the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI). In addition, strain typing methods for C. difficile and the evolving epidemiology of colonization and infection with this organism are discussed. Finally, considerations for diagnosing C. difficile disease in special patient populations, such as children, oncology patients, transplant patients, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease, are described. As detection of C. difficile in clinical specimens does not always equate with disease, the diagnosis of C. difficile infection continues to be a challenge for both laboratories and clinicians.

Evaluation of a simultaneous detection kit for the glutamate dehydrogenase antigen and toxin A/B in feces for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

Rapid detection kits for toxin A/B in feces are widely used as a diagnostic tool for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Their low sensitivity, however, has been considered a problem. In this study, we evaluated a new rapid diagnostic kit for simultaneous detection of the glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen and toxin A/B, C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE. A total of 60 stool specimens from 60 patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhea were examined. Using C. difficile culture as the reference method, the GDH portion of this kit indicated a sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of 100, 93.3, and 100%, respectively. The toxin A/B portion showed a sensitivity and specificity of 78.6 and 96.9%, respectively, compared to the culture results of toxin B-positive C. difficile (toxigenic culture). Of the 23 specimens that showed "dual positives" for GDH and toxin A/B, 22 were toxigenic culture positive, whereas C. difficile culture was negative in all the 28 specimens that showed "dual negatives" for GDH and toxin A/B. Of the nine "GDH-positive and toxin A/B-negative" specimens, six exhibited positive results by toxigenic culture. Results showing "dual positives" and "dual negatives" for GDH and toxin A/B can be reported as "true positive" and "true negative," respectively, whereas additional testing for confirmation, such as toxigenic culture, is required for specimens with discrepant results. Diagnostic algorithms, utilizing the simultaneous detection kit for GDH and toxin A/B as an initial screening test, may be useful for accurate and efficient diagnosis of CDI as well as the control of healthcare-associated infections.