Evaluation of three enzyme immunoassays and a loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

Overview of current detection methods and microRNA potential in Clostridioides difficile infection screening

Clostridioides difficile (formerly called Clostridium difficile, C. difficile) infection (CDI) is listed as an urgent threat on the 2019 antibiotic resistance threats report in the United States by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Early detection and appropriate disease management appear to be essential. Meanwhile, although the majority of cases are hospital-acquired CDI, community-acquired CDI cases are also on the rise, and this vulnerability is not limited to immunocompromised patients. Gastrointestinal treatments and/or gastrointestinal tract surgeries may be required for patients diagnosed with digestive diseases. Such treatments could suppress or interfere with the patient’s immune system and disrupt gut flora homeostasis, creating a suitable microecosystem for C. difficile overgrowth. Currently, stool-based non-invasive screening is the first-line approach to CDI diagnosis, but the accuracy is varied due to different clinical microbiology detection methods; therefore, improving reliability is clearly required. In this review, we briefly summarised the life cycle and toxicity of C. difficile, and we examined existing diagnostic approaches with an emphasis on novel biomarkers such as microRNAs. These biomarkers can be easily detected through non-invasive liquid biopsy and can yield crucial information about ongoing pathological phenomena, particularly in CDI.

Accuracy of diagnostic assays for the detection of Clostridioides difficile: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Clostridioides difficile Infection (CDI) has been identified as one of the main causes of nosocomial infection all across the world. Rapid diagnosis of CDI is difficult and poses a significant challenge to physicians worldwide. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate rapid tests' diagnostic accuracy against toxigenic culture as the reference standard for CDI.

METHOD

We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain) and RevMan (version 5.3; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark).

RESULTS

We reviewed retrieved records and identified 63 studies that met the inclusion criteria. 26 were about enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (our main index test). The sensitivity of GDH and Tox A/B EIAs were 82% (95% CI: 79-84) and 75% (95% CI: 70-79), respectively. On the other hand, the specificity of GDH EIA was 91% (95% CI: 90-92) and the specificity of Tox A/B EIA was 95% (95% CI: 94-96). Among other index tests, BD Max with 92% has the most sensitivity and cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) has the most specificity (100%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that EIAs could be reliable methods for detecting CDI based on their sensitivity, specificity, time and cost-effectiveness, and simplicity in the procedure. Further work to improve rapid tests would benefit from improvements to the methodology.

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.

Clinical significance of a positive Clostridioides difficile glutamate dehydrogenase test on the outcomes of hospitalized older patients

AIM

Clostridioides difficile infection worsens the outcome of older hospitalized patients; thus, its diagnosis is necessary for the nosocomial infection control. The standard diagnostic test's limited sensitivity for Clostridioides difficile infection, an enzyme immunoassay for Clostridioides difficile toxins, is of clinical concern. Glutamate dehydrogenase detection is usually tested combined with Clostridioides difficile toxins. However, the clinical significance of a positive glutamate dehydrogenase result is unclear. We evaluated the association between positive glutamate dehydrogenase results, in-hospital mortality and hospital stay length among older patients with suspected Clostridioides difficile infection.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we examined the data of patients who received antibiotics (except for Clostridioides difficile infection treatment) after admission and tested for Clostridioides difficile infection using an enzyme immunoassay for Clostridioides difficile toxins and glutamate dehydrogenase in a secondary care hospital located in a rural region with high aging rate, between 2015 and 2018.

RESULTS

In total, 188 patients were included (83.5% of them aged >75 years). Glutamate dehydrogenase positivity was independently associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 2.19, 95% confidence interval 1.14-4.21) and hospital stay length (regression coefficient 16.0, 95% confidence interval 5.15-26.9). Clostridioides difficile toxin positivity was independently associated with hospital stay duration (regression coefficient 14.5, 95% confidence interval 0.04-29.1), unlike in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Glutamate dehydrogenase was closely related to in-hospital mortality and prolonged hospitalization compared with Clostridioides difficile toxin. Clinicians should not neglect glutamate dehydrogenase-positive patients, even when they are Clostridioides difficile toxin-negative, and consider them as having poor prognostic potential. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 1138-1144.

Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile

Clostridium (reclassified as " Clostridioides ") difficile is an anaerobic, gram-positive bacterium that causes significant disease through elaboration of two potent toxins in patients whose normal gut microbiota has been altered through antimicrobial or chemotherapeutic agents (dysbiosis). The optimum method of laboratory diagnosis is still somewhat controversial. Recent practice guidelines published by professional societies recommend a two-step approach beginning with a test for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), followed by a toxin test and/or a nucleic acid test. Alternatively, in institutions where established clinical algorithms guide testing, a nucleic acid test alone is acceptable. Nucleic acid tests are the methods of choice in approximately 50% of laboratories in the United States. These tests are considered as the most sensitive methods for detection of C. difficile in stool and are the least specific. Because of the lower specificity with nucleic acid tests, some clinicians believe that toxin enzyme immunoassays are better predictors of disease, despite their known poor performance in certain patient populations. This review will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the currently available test methods for the diagnosis of C. difficile with a brief mention of some novel assays that are currently in clinical trials.

The diagnostic performance and accuracy of 3 molecular assays for the detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples, compared with the Xpert® C. difficile assay

This research compares the performance and diagnostic accuracy of three molecular tests for the detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples, with the Xpert® C. difficile assay. Fifty-nine positive and twenty-five stool negative samples were analyzed by the BDmax™ Cdiff, the Simplexa C. difficile Direct, and the GenomEra™ C. difficile, and compared with the Xpert® C. difficile routinely used in our laboratory. The highest sensitivity was 94.9% for the BDmax™ Cdiff, followed by GenomEra™ C. difficile with 93.2%, and Simplexa™ C. difficile Direct with 89.8%. The specificities of all assays were 100%. GenomEra™ C. difficile had the highest retesting rate (12%). Simplexa™ C. difficile Direct benefits from both short hands-on time and total-turnaround time and 0% retesting. The differences in performance and accuracy between these three molecular assays are insignificant and all may be used as part of the routine algorithm for detection of C. difficile.

Evaluation of a Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel Immunoassay in Stool Testing of Patients with Suspected Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile Infection

Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI) is the most common causative pathogen of health care-associated gastrointestinal infections; however, due to the overlap of clinical symptoms with those of other causes of acute gastroenteritis, the selection of the most appropriate laboratory test is difficult. From April to October 2018, 640 stool samples requested for CDI testing were examined using the mariPOC CDI and Gastro test (ArcDia), which allows the detection of C. difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B, norovirus genogroups GI and GII.4, rotavirus, adenovirus, and Campylobacter spp. In parallel, the C. Diff Quik Chek Complete test (Alere) was used as a routine diagnostic assay, and C. difficile toxigenic culture was used as a reference method. The sensitivity of the mariPOC CDI and Gastro test was comparable to that of C. Diff Quik Chek Complete for the detection of GDH (96.40% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 91.81% to 98.82%] versus 95.68% [95% CI, 90.84 to 98.40%]; P = 1.00) and was higher for the detection of toxin A/B (66.67% [95% CI, 57.36 to 75.11%] versus 55.56% [95% CI, 46.08 to 64.74%]; P = 0.00). The specificity of the mariPOC CDI and Gastro test was lower than that of C. Diff Quik Chek Complete for GDH detection (95.21% [95% CI, 92.96% to 96.91%] versus 97.60% [95% CI, 95.85% to 98.76%]; P = 0.04) and comparable to that of C. Diff Quik Chek Complete for toxin A/B detection (99.24 [95% CI, 98.05% to 99.79%] versus 99.81% [95% CI, 98.94% to 100.0%]; P = 0.37). In 29 cases (4.53%), other causative agents of diarrhea were detected (Campylobacter spp. [n = 17], rotavirus [n = 7], and norovirus genogroup GII.4 [n = 5]).

A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs) and Algorithms Including NAATs for the Diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile in Adults

The evidence base for the optimal laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile in adults is currently unresolved due to the uncertain performance characteristics and various combinations of tests. This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory testing algorithms that include nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) to detect the presence of C. difficile The systematic review and meta-analysis included eligible studies (those that had PICO [population, intervention, comparison, outcome] elements) that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of NAAT alone or following glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) or GDH EIAs plus C. difficile toxin EIAs (toxin). The diagnostic yield of NAAT for repeat testing after an initial negative result was also assessed. Two hundred thirty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Seventy-two of these studies had sufficient data for meta-analysis. The strength of evidence ranged from high to insufficient. The uses of NAAT only, GDH-positive EIA followed by NAAT, and GDH-positive/toxin-negative EIA followed by NAAT are all recommended as American Society for Microbiology (ASM) best practices for the detection of the C. difficile toxin gene or organism. Meta-analysis of published evidence supports the use of testing algorithms that use NAAT alone or in combination with GDH or GDH plus toxin EIA to detect the presence of C. difficile in adults. There is insufficient evidence to recommend against repeat testing of the sample using NAAT after an initial negative result due to a lack of evidence of harm (i.e., financial, length of stay, or delay of treatment) as specified by the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) systematic review method in making such an assessment. Findings from this systematic review provide clarity to diagnostic testing strategies and highlight gaps, such as low numbers of GDH/toxin/PCR studies, in existing evidence on diagnostic performance, which can be used to guide future clinical research studies.

Evaluation of an UltraFast LabChip V280 assay for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile

In this study, we compared the performance of an UltraFast LabChip (UL) V280 system for Clostridium difficile detection in stool with that of Xpert C. difficile/Epi and VIDAS CDAB. Among 176 stool specimens, UL V280 detected toxigenic C. difficile in 22 (22/176, 12.5%) with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100.0%, 99.4%, 99.5% and 100.0%, respectively, which were higher than 95.2%, 97.4%, 83.3%, and 99.3% of Xpert C. difficile/Epi (P > 0.05). Notably, the sensitivity and NPV of ULV280 were significantly higher than those of VIDAS CDAB 52.4% (P < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] = 20.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.26-176.81) and 93.8% (P = 0.002, OR = 10.27, 95% CI = 1.30-81.17). UL V280 turnaround time (35 min) and cost (6.24 Dollars [$]) per specimen were less than those for Xpert C. difficile/Epi (47 min, 59.26 $) and VIDAS CDAB (65 min, 11.70 $). UL V280 possessed an analytical sensitivity limit of 2500 CFU/ml, 95% [CI] = (Ct: 30.76-34.90), and no cross-reactions with other pathogens were found. The study demonstrates that UL V280 based on a microfluidic chip is a rapid, accurate, easy, and cost-effective diagnostic test for toxigenic C. difficile in stool.

Occurrence of Clostridium difficile ribotype 027 in hospitals of Silesia, Poland

Clostridium difficile is an important healthcare-associated pathogen, responsible for a broad spectrum of diarrheal diseases. The aim of this prospective study was to determine the occurrence of C. difficile infection (CDI), to characterize cultured C. difficile strains and to investigate the association of fecal lactoferrin with CDI. Between January 2013 and June 2014, 148 stool samples were obtained from adult diarrheal patients (C. difficile as a suspected pathogen) hospitalized in different healthcare facilities of 15 Silesian hospitals. Out of 134 isolated C. difficile strains, 108 were ribotyped: 82.4% belonged to Type 027, 2.8% to Type 176, 2.8% to Type 014, 1.9% to Type 010 and 0.9% to Types 001, 018, 020 and 046 each. In total, 6.5% non-typable strains were identified. All Type 027 isolates contained both toxin genes tcdA & tcdB, and binary toxin genes (cdtA &cdtB). Susceptibility testing revealed that all Type 027 isolates were sensitive to metronidazole and vancomycin and resistant to moxifloxacin, ciprofloxacin, imipenem and erythromycin. Of 89 Type 027 strains, 16 had a ermB (688 bp) gene coinciding with high levels of erythromycin resistance (MIC >256 μg/mL). Of 16 ermB positive strains, 14 demonstrated also high level of resistance to clindamycin (>256 μg/mL). A significant difference (p = 0.004) in lactoferrin level was found between C. difficile toxin-positive (n = 123; median 185.9 μg/mL; IQR 238.8) and toxin-negative (n = 25; median 22.4 μg/mL; IQR 141.7) fecal samples. Stool samples from n = 89 patients with CDI caused by Type 027 demonstrated significantly higher (p = 0.03) lactoferrin level (median 173.0 μg/mL; IQR 237.3) than from patients with CDI caused by other ribotypes and non-typable C. difficile strains (median 189.4 μg/mL; IQR 190.8).

Clostridium difficile infection diagnostics - evaluation of the C. DIFF Quik Chek Complete assay, a rapid enzyme immunoassay for detection of toxigenic C. difficile in clinical stool samples

Diagnostic testing for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has, in recent years, seen the introduction of rapid dual-EIA (enzyme immunoassay) tests combining species-specific glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) with toxin A/B. In a prospective study, we compared the C. DIFF Quik Chek Complete test to a combination of selective culture (SC) and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) of the toxin A gene. Of 419 specimens, 68 were positive in SC including 62 positive in LAMP (14.7%). The combined EIA yielded 82 GDH positives of which 47 were confirmed toxin A/B positive (11%) corresponding to a sensitivity and specificity of 94% for GDH EIA compared to SC and for toxin A/B EIA a sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 99% compared to LAMP. Twenty different PCR ribotypes were evenly distributed except for UK 081 where only 25% were toxin A/B positive compared to LAMP. We propose a primary use of a combined GDH toxin A/B EIA permitting a sensitive 1-h result of 379 of 419 (90%, all negatives plus GDH and toxin EIA positives) referred specimens. The remaining 10% being GDH positive should be tested for toxin A/B gene on the same day and positive results left to a final decision by the physician.

European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection

In 2009 the first European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guideline for diagnosing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) was launched. Since then newer tests for diagnosing CDI have become available, especially nucleic acid amplification tests. The main objectives of this update of the guidance document are to summarize the currently available evidence concerning laboratory diagnosis of CDI and to formulate and revise recommendations to optimize CDI testing. This update is essential to improve the diagnosis of CDI and to improve uniformity in CDI diagnosis for surveillance purposes among Europe. An electronic search for literature concerning the laboratory diagnosis of CDI was performed. Studies evaluating a commercial laboratory test compared to a reference test were also included in a meta-analysis. The commercial tests that were evaluated included enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) detecting glutamate dehydrogenase, EIAs detecting toxins A and B and nucleic acid amplification tests. Recommendations were formulated by an executive committee, and the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence were graded using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. No single commercial test can be used as a stand-alone test for diagnosing CDI as a result of inadequate positive predictive values at low CDI prevalence. Therefore, the use of a two-step algorithm is recommended. Samples without free toxin detected by toxins A and B EIA but with positive glutamate dehydrogenase EIA, nucleic acid amplification test or toxigenic culture results need clinical evaluation to discern CDI from asymptomatic carriage.

Evaluation of the VIDAS glutamate dehydrogenase assay for the detection of Clostridium difficile

We evaluated the performance of the VIDAS GDH assay for the detection of Clostridium difficile. In total, 350 fecal specimens collected from patients clinically suspected of having CDI were analyzed by C. difficile culture and enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (VIDAS GDH); the results were compared with those of toxigenic C. difficile culture (TC), PCR (Xpert C. difficile assay), and toxin AB EIA (VIDAS CDAB). The numbers of culture-positive and culture-negative samples were 108 and 242, respectively. The concordance between the GDH assay and C. difficile culture was 90.3%. With PCR, 12 more samples were found to be positive in GDH-positive/C. difficile culture-negative specimens. Thus, the concordance between GDH assay and C. difficile culture/PCR was 93.7%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the VIDAS GDH assay were 97.2%, 87.2%, 77.2%, and 98.6%, respectively, based on the C. difficile culture, and 97.5%, 91.7%, 86.0%, and 98.6%, respectively, based on C. difficile culture/PCR. Positivity rates of the GDH assay were partially associated with those of semi-quantitative C. difficile cultures, which were maximized in grade 3 (>100 colony-forming unit [CFU]) compared with grade 1 (<10 CFU). We evaluated the two-step or three-step algorithm using GDH assay as a first step. No toxin EIA-positive case was found among GDH-negative samples, and 60.8% (48/79) were TC- and/or PCR-positive among the GDH-positive/toxin EIA-negative samples. Thus, approximately 25% of the 350 samples required a confirmatory test (TC or PCR) in the GDH-toxin EIA algorithm, whereas only 2.3% of the total samples in GDH-PCR algorithm was discrepant and required another confirmatory test like TC.

Diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification in detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) remains a diagnostic challenge for clinicians. More recently, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) has become readily available for the diagnosis of CDI, and many studies have investigated the usefulness of LAMP for rapid and accurate diagnosis of CDI. However, the overall diagnostic accuracy of LAMP for CDI remains unclear. In this meta-analysis, our aim was to establish the overall diagnostic accuracy of LAMP in detection of Clostridium difficile (CD) in stool samples.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was done in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases up to February 2014 to identify published studies that evaluated the diagnostic role of LAMP for CD. Methodological quality was assessed according to the quality assessment for studies of diagnostic accuracy (QUADAS) instrument. The sensitivities (SEN), specificities (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were pooled statistically using random effects models. Statistical analysis was performed by employing Meta-Disc 1.4 software. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were used to summarize overall test performance. Funnel plots were used to test the potential publication bias.

RESULT

A total of 9 studies met inclusion criteria for the present meta-analysis. The pooled SEN and SPE for diagnosing CD were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99), respectively. The PLR was 47.72 (95% CI: 15.10-150.82), NLR was 0.07 (95% CI: 0.04-0.14) and DOR was 745.19 (95% CI: 229.30-2421.72). The area under the ROC was 0.98. Meta-regression indicated that the total number of samples was a source of heterogeneity for LAMP in detection of CD. The funnel plots suggested no publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The LAMP meets the minimum desirable characteristics of a diagnostic test of SEN, SPE and other measures of accuracy in the diagnosis of CD, and it is suitable as a rapid, effective and reliable stand-alone diagnostic test for diagnosis of CDI, potentially decreasing morbidity and nosocomial spread of CD.

Accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review

Loop-mediated isothermal DNA amplification (LAMP) is currently used as standalone diagnostic test for C. difficile infection (CDI). We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of LAMP for the diagnosis of CDI. We searched 5 databases to identify studies that compared LAMP with culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay or anaerobic toxigenic culture (TC) of C. difficile. We used the random-effects model to calculate pooled sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratios, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The search of the databases yielded 16 studies (6979 samples) that met inclusion criteria. When TC was used as the gold standard (6572 samples), bivariate analysis yielded a mean sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93-0.97; I(2)=67.4) and a mean specificity of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.00; I(2)=97.0). LAMP is a useful diagnostic tool with high sensitivity and specificity for detecting CDI. The results should, however, be interpreted only in the presence of clinical suspicion and symptoms of CDI.

Evaluation of the illumigene C. difficile assay for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection: a prospective study of 302 consecutive clinical fecal samples

Toxigenic Clostridium difficile is a major pathogen causing nosocomial diarrhea. Consequently, rapid detection of toxigenic C. difficile is very important in clinical laboratories. The illumigene C. difficile DNA amplification assay (illumigene; Meridian Bioscience, Inc.) is a rapid method that detects the toxin A gene (tcdA) by loop-mediated isothermal amplification. In the present study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the illumigene assay using 302 consecutive stool specimens in comparison with the VIDAS C. difficile A&B enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (VIDAS-CDAB; bioMérieux). Toxigenic culture was used as the reference method. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the illumigene assay were 88.1%, 96.7%, 86.7%, and 97.1%, respectively, while those of the VIDAS-CDAB assay were 40.4%, 98.8%, 87.5%, and 88.5%, respectively. It is of note that use of a combination of the illumigene and VIDAS-CDAB assays did not improve any of the 4 evaluated parameters (88.1%, 95.5%, 82.5%, and 97.1%, respectively). The illumigene assay showed limits of detection of 250 and 11,467 CFU/mL for ATCC 9688 (tcdA+, tcdB+, cdtB-) and ATCC 43598 (tcdA-, tcdB+, cdtB-) reference strains, respectively, and there was no cross-reactivity with 8 frequently isolated bacterial species. In conclusion, the illumigene assay might be a useful method for rapid detection of toxigenic C. difficile in clinical laboratories. Additionally, the VIDAS-CDAB assay seems unnecessary if the illumigene assay is used.

Evaluation of a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

We evaluated the new C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (CD COMPLETE; TechLab, USA), which is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay that uses a combination of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen and toxin A and B detection. A total of 608 consecutive loose stool specimens collected from the patients with suspected Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) from August to December 2012 were subjected to the CD COMPLETE and VIDAS Clostridium difficile A & B (VIDAS CDAB; bioMérieux, France). Their performances were compared with a toxigenic culture as a reference. Stool specimens that were culture-negative and CD COMPLETE- or VIDAS CDAB-positive were analyzed by using an enrichment procedure. In comparison to the toxigenic cultures, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) were 63.6%, 98.0%, 76.1%, and 96.4%, respectively, for the CD COMPLETE-toxin and 75.5%, 97.4%, 72.5%, and 97.8%, respectively, for the VIDAS CDAB. In comparison to the enriched C. difficile cultures, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the CD COMPLETE-GDH were 91.0%, 92.4%, 70.5%, and 98.1%, respectively. The CD COMPLETE is a reliable method for the diagnosis of CDI and provides greater sensitivity than toxin enzyme immunoassay alone. Furthermore, the CD COMPLETE-GDH has advantages over direct culture in detecting 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.

Economic evaluation of laboratory testing strategies for hospital-associated Clostridium difficile infection

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the most common cause of infectious diarrhea in health care settings, and for patients presumed to have CDI, their isolation while awaiting laboratory results is costly. Newer rapid tests for CDI may reduce this burden, but the economic consequences of different testing algorithms remain unexplored. We used decision analysis from the hospital perspective to compare multiple CDI testing algorithms for adult inpatients with suspected CDI, assuming patient management according to laboratory results. CDI testing strategies included combinations of on-demand PCR (odPCR), batch PCR, lateral-flow diagnostics, plate-reader enzyme immunoassay, and direct tissue culture cytotoxicity. In the reference scenario, algorithms incorporating rapid testing were cost-effective relative to nonrapid algorithms. For every 10,000 symptomatic adults, relative to a strategy of treating nobody, lateral-flow glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)/odPCR generated 831 true-positive results and cost $1,600 per additional true-positive case treated. Stand-alone odPCR was more effective and more expensive, identifying 174 additional true-positive cases at $6,900 per additional case treated. All other testing strategies were dominated by (i.e., more costly and less effective than) stand-alone odPCR or odPCR preceded by lateral-flow screening. A cost-benefit analysis (including estimated costs of missed cases) favored stand-alone odPCR in most settings but favored odPCR preceded by lateral-flow testing if a missed CDI case resulted in less than $5,000 of extended hospital stay costs and <2 transmissions, if lateral-flow GDH diagnostic sensitivity was >93%, or if the symptomatic carrier proportion among the toxigenic culture-positive cases was >80%. These results can aid guideline developers and laboratory directors who are considering rapid testing algorithms for diagnosing CDI.

Evaluation of a new automated homogeneous PCR assay, GenomEra C. difficile, for rapid detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal specimens

We evaluated a new automated homogeneous PCR assay to detect toxigenic Clostridium difficile, the GenomEra C. difficile assay (Abacus Diagnostica, Finland), with 310 diarrheal stool specimens and with a collection of 33 known clostridial and nonclostridial isolates. Results were compared with toxigenic culture results, with discrepancies being resolved by the GeneXpert C. difficile PCR assay (Cepheid). Among the 80 toxigenic culture-positive or GeneXpert C. difficile assay-positive fecal specimens, 79 were also positive with the GenomEra C. difficile assay. Additionally, one specimen was positive with the GenomEra assay but negative with the confirmatory methods. Thus, the sensitivity and specificity were 98.8% and 99.6%, respectively. With the culture collection, no false-positive or -negative results were observed. The analytical sensitivity of the GenomEra C. difficile assay was approximately 5 CFU per PCR test. The short hands-on (<5 min for 1 to 4 samples) and total turnaround (<1 h) times, together with the high positive and negative predictive values (98.8% and 99.6%, respectively), make the GenomEra C. difficile assay an excellent option for toxigenic C. difficile detection in fecal specimens.

Evaluation of Clostridium difficile fecal load and limit of detection during a prospective comparison of two molecular tests, the illumigene C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi tests

In a large prospective comparison, the illumigene test detected Clostridium difficile in 98% of toxin-positive and 58% of toxin-negative samples confirmed positive by other methods. The Xpert was uniformly sensitive. Most samples with discrepant results had C. difficile concentrations below the illumigene limit of detection. The significance of low-level C. difficile detection needs investigation.