Comparison of BD Max Cdiff and GenomEra C. difficile molecular assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from stools in conventional sample containers and in FecalSwabs

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.

C. difficile biomarkers, pathogenicity and detection

BACKGROUND

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is the main etiologic agent of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. CDI contributes to gut inflammation and can lead to disruption of the intestinal epithelial barrier. Recently, the rate of CDI cases has been increased. Thus, early diagnosis of C. difficile is critical for controlling the infection and guiding efficacious therapy.

APPROACH

A search strategy was set up using the terms C. difficile biomarkers and diagnosis. The found references were classified into two general categories; conventional and advanced methods.

RESULTS

The pathogenicity and biomarkers of C. difficile, and the collection manners for CDI-suspected specimens were briefly explained. Then, the conventional CDI diagnostic methods were subtly compared in terms of duration, level of difficulty, sensitivity, advantages, and disadvantages. Thereafter, an extensive review of the various newly proposed techniques available for CDI detection was conducted including nucleic acid isothermal amplification-based methods, biosensors, and gene/single-molecule microarrays. Also, the detection mechanisms, pros and cons of these methods were highlighted and compared with each other. In addition, approximately complete information on FDA-approved platforms for CDI diagnosis was collected.

CONCLUSION

To overcome the deficiencies of conventional methods, the potential of advanced methods for C. difficile diagnosis, their direction, perspective, and challenges ahead were discussed.

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.

Evaluation of a new fast in-house Real-Time PCR assay for detecting both Norovirus and toxigenic Clostridium difficile using fecal sample and rectal swab

BACKGROUND

Norovirus and toxigenic Clostridium difficile infections are the 2 most common causes of infectious gastroenteritis. Rapid and reliable detection of these to microorganisms is important to assess if contact precautions are indicated to prevent spreading and reduce cost of isolation.

METHODS

This study determines sensitivity and specificity of a new fast in-house PCR assay used on BD MAX platform to detect both norovirus and C difficile in 1 turn-over in clinical context. Furthermore, fecal samples as well as rectal swabs were used as analysis material to determine the accuracy of the new assay on a fecal samples and rectal swabs compared with standard methods.

RESULTS

From 227 included patients, 143 rectal swabs and 135 fecal samples obtained. The new in-house PCR showed a sensitivity of 73.3% and a specificity of 99.2% for norovirus on a fecal sample and a sensitivity of 57.1% and specificity 99.1% of for norovirus on a rectal swab. For C difficile a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 100% on a fecal sample and a sensitivity of 90.9% and a specificity of 99.1% on a rectal swab was shown. The time consumption for detecting the 2 enteropathogens was reduced by half by using the new assay.

CONCLUSIONS

The new assay shows an acceptable sensitivity and specificity for C difficile and an acceptable specificity for norovirus when analysis was done on fecal samples and reduces half of the time consumption. Further research is needed to improve the accuracy of the new in-house PCR before clinical implication.

The reference method influence on the sensitivity of the Clostridium difficile enzyme immunoassays: A meta analysis

The use of enzyme immunoassays to screen for toxins A and B produced by Clostridium difficile is a common procedure in algorithms designed for its detection. Moreover, the absence of a unique test capable of providing reliable results at low cost motivates a great discussion about which algorithm is the best. Thus, several studies have evaluated the performance of these enzyme immunoassays. However, all fail to provide sufficient explanations for the different behaviours observed in different studies that evaluate the same index test against a common reference method. Our main goal was to find out which factors affect the sensitivity of these assays, since the specificity is very close to 1. In this research, we verified that sensitivity increases with the prevalence rate and with the proportion of reported cases of onset diarrhea. Therefore, its use is advisable for high prevalence rates (e.g. in an epidemic setting). As far as reference methods are concerned, nucleic acid amplification tests can be used as a reference method, with a performance similar to the well-accepted toxigenic culture. The method chosen for toxigenicity screening in a toxigenic culture also seems to affect the evaluation performance of tests and should be better studied in the future.

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 nucleic acid amplification assay for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection

Clostridioides difficile is the leading cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea and the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) continues to be challenging. Accurate and rapid identification of C. difficile will reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and ensure contact isolation to control the spread of CDI. In this study, diagnostic performance of BD MAX Cdiff assay (Becton Dickinson, USA) was evaluated for the detection of C. difficile in 2502 fresh stool samples from hospitalized children and adult patients and the results were compared to toxigenic culture. The frequency of CDI in adults and pediatric patients were found as 3.3% and 6.2%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of BD MAX Cdiff assay were found as; 100%, 99.7%, 93%, and 100% for all patients; 100%, 99.7%, 96.2%, and 100% for pediatric patients; and 100%, 99.6%, 90.2%, and 100% for adult patients, respectively. We concluded that BD MAX Cdiff assay with high sensitivity, specificity, and PPV is useful for the diagnosis of CDI. With a high NPV of 100%, BD MAX Cdiff assay is also suitable for the exclusion of CDI.

Simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic Clostridium difficile directly from clinical stool specimens

We employed a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) coupled with capillary electrophoresis (mPCR-CE) targeting six Clostridium difficile genes, including tpi, tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, cdtB, and a deletion in tcdC for simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic C. difficile directly from fecal specimens. The mPCR-CE had a limit of detection of 10 colony-forming units per reaction with no cross-reactions with other related bacterial genes. Clinical validation was performed on 354 consecutively collected stool specimens from patients with suspected C. difficile infection and 45 isolates. The results were compared with a reference standard combined with BD MAX Cdiff, real-time cell analysis assay (RTCA), and mPCR-CE. The toxigenic C. difficile species were detected in 36 isolates and 45 stool specimens by the mPCR-CE, which provided a positive rate of 20.3% (81/399). The mPCR-CE had a specificity of 97.2% and a sensitivity of 96.0%, which was higher than RTCA (x² = 5.67, P = 0.017) but lower than BD MAX Cdiff (P = 0.245). Among the 45 strains, 44 (97.8%) were determined as nonribotype 027 by the mPCR-CE, which was fully agreed with PCR ribotyping. Even though ribotypes 017 (n = 8, 17.8%), 001 (n = 6, 13.3%), and 012 (n = 7, 15.6%) were predominant in this region, ribotype 027 was an important genotype monitored routinely. The mPCR-CE provided an alternative diagnosis tool for the simultaneous detection of toxigenic C. difficile in stool and potentially differentiated between RT027 and non-RT027.

Novel portable platform for molecular detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in faeces: a diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND

A novel portable platform for nucleic acid amplification enables rapid detection of diarrhoea causing toxigenic Clostridium difficile directly from faeces, even in resource-limited settings. We evaluated the accuracy and precision of the new commercial molecular test system.

METHODS

One thousand one hundred and sixty faecal samples from patients suspected of having Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) were analysed using the Orion GenRead C. difficile test system (Orion Diagnostica Oy, Espoo, Finland) and comparative methods in three teaching hospital laboratories in Finland and France. The precision of the Orion GenRead C. difficile test system was evaluated in a reproducibility study with a set of blind-coded samples. The test system is based on a new isothermal amplification technology (Strand Invasion Based Amplification, SIBA®) and detection of the tcdB gene of C. difficile. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and the overall agreement according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute recommendations.

FINDINGS

The overall agreement of the Orion GenRead C. difficile test when compared to the comparative methods in routine use in the participating laboratories was between 96.7% and 98.8%. In the reproducibility study; the total percent agreement between three laboratories was 99.8%.

INTERPRETATION

The identification of toxigenic C. difficile from faeces with the light-weight portable Orion GenRead test system was highly sensitive and specific, and the results were reproducible in the participating laboratories. This platform could enable fast and accurate molecular pathogen detection even in resource-limited or point-of-care settings.