Comparative performance study of six commercial molecular assays for rapid detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile

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.

Rapid Isothermal Detection of Pathogenic Clostridioides difficile Using Recombinase Polymerase Amplification

Nosocomial-associated diarrhea due to Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is diagnosed after sample precultivation by the detection of the toxins in enzyme immunoassays or via toxin gene nucleic acid amplification. Rapid and direct diagnosis is important for targeted treatment to prevent severe cases and recurrence. We developed two singleplex and a one-pot duplex fluorescent 15 min isothermal recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) assays targeting the toxin genes A and B (tcdA and tcdB). Furthermore, we adapted the singleplex RPA to a 3D-printed microreactor device. Analytical sensitivity was determined using a DNA standard and DNA extracts of 20 C. difficile strains with different toxinotypes. Nineteen clostridial and gastrointestinal bacteria strains were used to determine analytical specificity. Adaptation of singleplex assays to duplex assays in a 50 μL volume required optimized primer and probe concentrations. A volume reduction by one-fourth (12.4 μL) was established for the 3D-printed microreactor. Mixing of RPA was confirmed as essential for optimal analytical sensitivity. Detection limits (LOD) ranging from 119 to 1411 DNA molecules detected were similar in the duplex tube format and in the singleplex 3D-printed microreactor format. The duplex RPA allows the simultaneous detection of both toxins important for the timely and reliable diagnosis of CDI. The 3D-printed reaction chamber can be developed into a microfluidic lab-on-a-chip system use at the point of care.

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.

Rapid-format recombinant antibody-based methods for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection: Recent advances and perspectives

Clostridioides difficile, the most common cause of nosocomial diarrhea, has been continuously reported as a worldwide problem in healthcare settings. Additionally, the emergence of hypervirulent strains of C. difficile has always been a critical concern and led to continuous efforts to develop more accurate diagnostic methods for detection of this recalcitrant pathogen. Currently, the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI) is based on clinical manifestations and laboratory tests for detecting the bacterium and/or its toxins, which exhibit varied sensitivity and specificity. In this regard, development of rapid diagnostic techniques based on antibodies has demonstrated promising results in both research and clinical environments. Recently, application of recombinant antibody (rAb) technologies like phage display has provided a faster and more cost-effective approach for antibody production. The application of rAbs for developing ultrasensitive diagnostic tools ranging from immunoassays to immunosensors, has allowed the researchers to introduce new platforms with high sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, DNA encoding antibodies are directly accessible in these approaches, which enables the application of antibody engineering to increase their sensitivity and specificity. Here, we review the latest studies about the antibody-based ultrasensitive diagnostic platforms for detection of C. difficile bacteria, with an emphasis on rAb technologies.

Comparative Evaluation of Three Immunoassays for the Simultaneous Detection of Clostridioides difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxin A/B

Background: In the medical laboratory, a step-by-step workflow for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) detection using glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B assays for initial screening, along with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), has been recommended recently. In this study, we evaluated these three immunoassays for the simultaneous detection of GDH and Clostridioides difficile (CD) toxin A/B. Methods: A total of 304 stool samples were tested for the presence of GDH antigen and CD toxin A/B using VIDAS C. difficile GDH and toxin A/B (CDAB), RIDASCREEN C. difficile GDH and toxin A/B (RIDA), and C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. As complementary reference methods for GDH and toxin A/B detection in the three immunoassays, CD cultures using ChromID C. difficile agar and the Xpert C. difficile assay, respectively, were tested. Results: All three GDH assays showed overall substantial agreement with the CD culture. All three toxin A/B assays showed overall moderate agreement with the Xpert C. difficile assay. In comparison with consensus results, VIDAS GDH and QCC GDH showed almost perfect agreement, whereas RIDA GDH showed inferior but substantial agreement. All three toxin A/B assays showed almost perfect agreement. Conclusions: Since the QCC GDH and toxin A/B assay is relatively more sensitive and specific than the other two immunoassays for discriminating toxigenic or non-toxigenic CDI, QCC is very helpful for the simultaneous identification of GDH and CD toxin A/B in the initial step of the two-round workflow for diagnosing CDI.

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.

Usefulness of a newly developed high-speed polymerase chain reaction analysis system for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has been continuously increasing and thereby became an important issue worldwide. Appropriate diagnosis, management, and infection control are required for patients with CDI. Enzyme immunoassay (EIA) is a widely used standard diagnostic tool for C. difficile-specific glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and C. difficile toxins (toxins A and B). However, the sensitivity of EIA in detecting C. difficile toxins has been reported to be relatively low, resulting in CDI underdiagnosis. Therefore, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) are recently developed for higher sensitivity/specificity test.

METHODS

In this study, a total of 279 stool samples submitted for CDI diagnosis were examined using an independently developed new high-speed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) device (PathOC RightGene, Metaboscreen). In parallel, results were compared with those of definitive diagnosis and conventional diagnostic methods (EIA, real-time PCR) to assess the inspection accuracy.

RESULTS

PathOC RightGene showed high sensitivity (96.7%) and specificity (96.7%). Regarding the measurement time, C. difficile-specific and C. difficile toxin genes were simultaneously detected in approximately 25 min for one sample (including the preprocessing and measurement time).

CONCLUSION

PathOC RightGene has been found to show both excellent sensitivity and rapidity and thus can be used for the reliable and early diagnosis, which are needed for the appropriate management of CDI.

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.

Molecular and non-molecular approaches to etiologic diagnosis of gastroenteritis

Gastroenteritis is a major cause of mortality and morbidity globally and rapid identification of the causative pathogen is important for appropriate treatment and patient management, implementation of effective infection control measures, reducing hospital length of stay, and reducing overall medical costs. Although stool culture and microscopic examination of diarrheal stool has been the primary method for laboratory diagnosis, culture-independent proteomic and genomic tests are receiving increased attention. Antigen tests for stool pathogens are routinely implemented as rapid and simple analytics whereas molecular tests are now available in various formats from high complexity to waived point-of-care tests. In addition, metagenomic next-generation sequencing stands poised for use as a method for both diagnosis and routine characterization of the gut microbiome in the very near future. Analysis of host biomarkers as indicators of infection status and pathogenesis may also become important for prediction, diagnosis, and monitoring of gastrointestinal infection. Here we review current methods and emerging technologies for the etiologic diagnosis of gastroenteritis in the clinical laboratory. Benefits and limitations of these evolving methods are highlighted.

Prospective Evaluation of the mariPOC Test for Detection of Clostridioides difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxins A/B

The objective of this study was to evaluate a novel automated random-access test, mariPOC CDI (ArcDia Ltd., Finland), for the detection of Clostridioides difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxins A and B directly from fecal specimens. The mariPOC test was compared with both the GenomEra C. difficile PCR assay (Abacus Diagnostica Oy, Finland) and the TechLab C. diff Quik Chek Complete (Alere Inc.; now Abbot) membrane enzyme immunoassay (MEIA). Culture and the Xpert C. difficile assay (Cepheid Inc., USA) were used to resolve discrepant results. In total, 337 specimens were tested with the mariPOC CDI test and GenomEra PCR. Of these specimens, 157 were also tested with the TechLab MEIA. The sensitivity of the mariPOC test for GDH was slightly lower (95.2%) than that obtained with the TechLab assay (100.0%), but no toxin-positive cases were missed. The sensitivity of the mariPOC test for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile by analyzing toxin expression was better (81.6%) than that of the TechLab assay (71.1%). The analytical specificities for the mariPOC and the TechLab tests were 98.3% and 100.0% for GDH and 100.0% and 99.2% for toxin A/B, respectively. The analytical specificity of the GenomEra method was 100.0%. The mariPOC and TechLab GDH tests and GenomEra PCR had high negative predictive values of 99.3%, 98.3%, and 99.7%, respectively, in excluding infection with toxigenic C. difficile The mariPOC toxin A/B test and GenomEra PCR had an identical analytical positive predictive value of 100%, providing highly reliable information about toxin expression and the presence of toxin genes, respectively.

An Overview of the Molecular Methods in the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Infectious Diseases

Gastrointestinal infectious diseases are very common worldwide and an important cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in infants in developing countries. Diarrhea and other intestinal infections are caused by a wide range of bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasites. Conventional diagnosis of these infections is performed by culture, microscopy, and antigen detection immunoassays. The traditional culture and microscopy procedures are time-consuming, lack sensitivity, and require special laboratory setup and well-trained staff. However, based on the advancement in the molecular diagnostics and with the introduction of commercially available tests, traditional diagnostic techniques have been continuously replaced by these newer rapid antigen detection and molecular-based methods. This review summarizes and discusses the availability, advantages, and disadvantages of molecular methods in the detection and identification of human gastrointestinal pathogens.

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.

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.