Evaluation of C. diff.-CUBE test for detection of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea

Historical perspectives on studies of Clostridium difficile and C. difficile infection

The initial period of studies on Clostridium difficile (published during 1978-1980) appeared to provide a nearly complete portfolio of criteria for diagnosing and treating C. difficile infection (CDI). The putative pathogenic role of C. difficile was established using Koch's postulates, risk factors were well-defined, use of a cell cytotoxicity assay as the diagnostic test provided accurate results, and treatment with oral vancomycin was highly effective and rapidly incorporated into practice. During the next 10 years, enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) were introduced as diagnostic tests and became the standard for most laboratories. This was not because EIAs were as good as the cell cytotoxicity assay; rather, EIAs were inexpensive and yielded results quickly. Similarly, metronidazole became the favored treatment because it was less expensive and quelled fears of colonization with vancomycin-resistant organisms, not because it was better than vancomycin therapy. Cephalosporins replaced clindamycin as the major inducers of CDI because they were so extensively used, rather than because they incurred the same risk. Some serious issues remained unresolved during this period: the major challenges were to determine ways to treat seriously ill patients for whom it was not possible to get vancomycin into the colon and to find methods that stop persistent relapses. These concerns persist today.

Evaluation of six commercial assays for the rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxin and/or antigen in stool specimens

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate six commercially available assays for the detection of Clostridium difficile toxin and/or antigen in stool samples: one latex agglutination test (Culturette brand CDT, Becton Dickinson), two ELISAs (Culturette brand Toxin CD, Becton Dickinson, and Ridascreen C. difficile Toxin A/B, R-biopharm), two chromatographic assays (Clearview C. difficile A, Oxoid, and ColorPac Toxin A, Becton Dickinson) and one enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of C. difficile common antigen and toxin A (Triage C. difficile Panel, Biosite).

METHODS

Over a period of 3 months, 366 liquid or semi-liquid stool samples were tested using cell-culture cytotoxin assay as standard, ethanol shock stool culture and latex agglutination (Culturette brand CDT). Of these, 78 samples, positive with at least one of these three methods, and 98 randomly selected negative samples were further evaluated using the other five kits. PCR was also performed on positive cultures to confirm the presence of toxin A and B genes.

RESULTS

Triage C. difficile Panel had the best sensitivity (95%), followed by Clearview C. difficile and ColorPac Toxin A (both 89%), Culturette brand Toxin CD (73%), Ridascreen C. difficile Toxin A/B (57%) and Culturette brand CDT (23%). For Triage, the sensitivity of C. difficile antigen detection was 93%, and the sensitivity of toxin detection was lower (77%). Most false-positive results were obtained with the Triage C. difficile Panel (25 specimens) and Clearview C. difficile A (20 specimens). Culturette brand CDT had the best specificity (99%); followed by Ridascreen C. difficile Toxin A/B (97%), Culturette brand Toxin CD (95%), ColorPac Toxin A (89%), Clearview C. difficile A (83%) and Triage C. difficile Panel (75%). The positive predictive values ranged from 68% to 94%, and the negative predictive values from 83% to 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity is much higher for Triage and the two new chromatographic assays than for the conventional EIAs. These tests also have a high negative predictive value. For Triage, C. difficile antigen-positive, toxin A-negative results can be obtained; the clinical value of these must be established by additional studies. Overall, the new-generation assays are still less sensitive than the cytotoxin assay; however, they provided same-day results, could be used as a screening test and may be useful in laboratories without tissue-culture facilities. Our results do not allow the recommendation of one single assay for the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. It remains the case that laboratory results must be correlated and interpreted with the clinical presentation of the patient.

Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis

OBJECTIVES

To review and summarize the status of diagnosis, epidemiology, infection control, and treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD).

DIAGNOSIS

A case definition of CDAD should include the presence of symptoms (usually diarrhea) and at least one of the following positive tests: endoscopy revealing pseudomembranes, stool cytotoxicity test for toxin B, stool enzyme immunoassay for toxin A or B, or stool culture for C difficile (preferably with confirmation of organism toxicity if a direct stool toxin test is negative or not done). Testing of asymptomatic patients, including those who are asymptomatic after treatment, is not recommended other than for epidemiologic purposes. Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is the only diagnostic test for pseudomembranous colitis, but it is expensive, invasive, and insensitive (51% to 55%) for the diagnosis of CDAD. Stool culture is the most sensitive laboratory test currently in clinical use, but it is not as specific as the cell cytotoxicity assay.

EPIDEMIOLOGY

C difficile is the most frequently identified cause of nosocomial diarrhea. The majority of C difficile infections are acquired nosocomially, and most patients remain asymptomatic following acquisition. Antimicrobial exposure is the greatest risk factor for patients, especially clindamycin, cephalosporins, and penicillins, although virtually every antimicrobial has been implicated. Cases of CDAD unassociated with prior antimicrobial or antineoplastic use are very rare. Hands of personnel, as well as a variety of environmental sites within institutions, have been found to be contaminated with C difficile, which can persist as spores for many months. Contaminated commodes, bathing tubs, and electronic thermometers have been implicated as sources of C difficile. Symptomatic and asymptomatic infected patients are the major reservoirs and sources for environmental contamination. Both genotypic and phenotypic typing systems for C difficile are available and have enhanced epidemiologic investigation greatly.

INFECTION CONTROL

Successful infection control measures designed to prevent horizontal transmission include the use of gloves in handling body substances and replacement of electronic thermometers with disposable devices. Isolation, cohorting, handwashing, environmental disinfection, and treatment of asymptomatic carriers are recommended practices for which convincing data of efficacy are not available. The most successful control measure directed at reduction in symptomatic disease has been antimicrobial restriction.

TREATMENT

Treatment of symptomatic (but not asymptomatic) patients with metronidazole or vancomycin for 10 days is effective; metronidazole may be preferred to reduce risk of vancomycin resistance among other organisms in hospitals. Recurrence of symptoms occurs in 7% to 20% of patients and is due to both relapse and reinfection. Over 90% of first recurrences can be treated successfully in the same manner as initial cases. Combination treatment with vancomycin plus rifampin or the addition orally of the yeast Saccharomyces boulardii to vancomycin or metronidazole treatment has been shown to prevent subsequent diarrhea in patients with recurrent disease.

Comparison of TechLab Clostridium difficile Tox-A enzyme immunoassay and Bartels Prima system toxin-A EIA

We evaluated the Bartles Clostridium difficile toxin A test and the TechLab Tox-A test to detect C. difficile toxin A in stool. The results were compared with C. difficile cytotoxicity assays. Of the 463 specimens tested 82 (17.7%) tested positive by cytotoxicity assay. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the TechLab EIA were 86.6%, 93.7%, 74.7%, and 97.0%, respectively. For the Bartels Prima EIA, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 95.1%, 95.5%, 82.1%, and 98.9%, respectively. The differences in sensitivity were statistically significant. Indeterminate results requiring repeat testing were more common with the TechLab EIA than with the Bartels Prima EIA. Of the two kits, the Bartels EIA is preferable, primarily because of its increased sensitivity.