Two-step algorithm-based Clostridioides difficile testing as a tool for antibiotic stewardship

When less is more: the art of communicating clinical microbiology results

The clinical microbiology laboratory is capable of identifying microorganisms in clinical specimens faster and more accurately than ever before. At face value, this should enable patient care providers to make better-informed decisions and target antimicrobial therapies to deliver individualized care. Ironically, more complete and specific reporting of microorganisms isolated from specimens may result in overtreatment based on the presence of a pathogen, even in the absence of clear signs of clinical infection. This conundrum calls into question the role of the laboratory in contributing to care through selective or "exception" reporting whereby some results are selectively withheld when there is a low probability that laboratory findings correlate with the clinical infection. In a recent article published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Bloomfield et al. (J Clin Microbiol 62:e00342-24, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00342-24) examine the impact and safety of an exception reporting strategy applied to wound swab specimens. Canonical pathogens associated with skin and soft tissue infections including S. aureus and beta-hemolytic streptococci are withheld from the laboratory report if certain patient criteria are met that would put them at low risk of adverse outcomes if untreated, or if treated with guideline-recommended empiric therapy. Their central finding was an approximately 50% reduction in post-laboratory report antibiotic initiation without adverse events or increased 30-day admission rate (indicative of infection-related complications, e.g., disseminated disease). While effectively achieving their goal, the premise of exception reporting and other modified reporting strategies raises questions about the potential risk of underreporting and how to ensure that the message is being interpreted, and acted upon, by care providers as was intended by the laboratory.

Clostridioides difficile infection: history, epidemiology, risk factors, prevention, clinical manifestations, treatment, and future options

SUMMARYClostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is one of the major issues in nosocomial infections. This bacterium is constantly evolving and poses complex challenges for clinicians, often encountered in real-life scenarios. In the face of CDI, we are increasingly equipped with new therapeutic strategies, such as monoclonal antibodies and live biotherapeutic products, which need to be thoroughly understood to fully harness their benefits. Moreover, interesting options are currently under study for the future, including bacteriophages, vaccines, and antibiotic inhibitors. Surveillance and prevention strategies continue to play a pivotal role in limiting the spread of the infection. In this review, we aim to provide the reader with a comprehensive overview of epidemiological aspects, predisposing factors, clinical manifestations, diagnostic tools, and current and future prophylactic and therapeutic options for C. difficile infection.

Potential underreporting of treated patients using a Clostridioides difficile testing algorithm that screens with a nucleic acid amplification test

OBJECTIVE

Patients tested for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) using a 2-step algorithm with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) followed by toxin assay are not reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network as a laboratory-identified CDI event if they are NAAT positive (+)/toxin negative (-). We compared NAAT+/toxin- and NAAT+/toxin+ patients and identified factors associated with CDI treatment among NAAT+/toxin- patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

The study was conducted across 36 laboratories at 5 Emerging Infections Program sites.

PATIENTS

We defined a CDI case as a positive test detected by this 2-step algorithm during 2018-2020 in a patient aged ≥1 year with no positive test in the previous 8 weeks.

METHODS

We used multivariable logistic regression to compare CDI-related complications and recurrence between NAAT+/toxin- and NAAT+/toxin+ cases. We used a mixed-effects logistic model to identify factors associated with treatment in NAAT+/toxin- cases.

RESULTS

Of 1,801 cases, 1,252 were NAAT+/toxin-, and 549 were NAAT+/toxin+. CDI treatment was given to 866 (71.5%) of 1,212 NAAT+/toxin- cases versus 510 (95.9%) of 532 NAAT+/toxin+ cases (P < .0001). NAAT+/toxin- status was protective for recurrence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77) but not CDI-related complications (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.28). Among NAAT+/toxin- cases, white blood cell count ≥15,000/µL (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.28-2.74), ≥3 unformed stools for ≥1 day (aOR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.40-2.59), and diagnosis by a laboratory that provided no or neutral interpretive comments (aOR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.23-4.68) were predictors of CDI treatment.

CONCLUSION

Use of this 2-step algorithm likely results in underreporting of some NAAT+/toxin- cases with clinically relevant CDI. Disease severity and laboratory interpretive comments influence treatment decisions for NAAT+/toxin- cases.

Clinical Outcomes and Management of NAAT-Positive/Toxin-Negative Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Standalone nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are frequently used to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), although they may be unable to distinguish colonization from disease. A 2-stage algorithm pairing NAATs with toxin immunoassays (Toxin) may improve specificity. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ versus NAAT+/Toxin- and treated versus untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases through systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE from inception to April 1, 2023 for articles comparing CDI outcomes among symptomatic patients tested by NAAT and Toxin tests. The risk differences (RD) of all-cause mortality and CDI recurrence were computed by random effects meta-analysis between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ and NAAT+/Toxin-, as well as between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- and treated or untreated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six observational studies comprising 12 737 patients were included. The 30-day all-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (8.4%) and NAAT+/Toxin- (6.7%) (RD = 0.41%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -.67, 1.49). Recurrence at 60 days was significantly higher among patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (19.8%) versus NAAT+/Toxin- (11.0%) (RD = 7.65%, 95% CI = 4.60, 10.71). Among treated compared to untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases, the all-cause 30-day mortalities were 5.0% and 12.7%, respectively (RD = -7.45%, 95% CI = -12.29, -2.60), but 60-day recurrence was not significantly different (11.6% vs 7.0%, respectively; RD = 5.25%, 95% CI -1.71, 12.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- was associated with reduced all-cause mortality but not recurrence. Although subject to the inherent limitations of observational studies, these results suggest that some patients who are NAAT+/Toxin- may benefit from treatment.

Clostridioides difficile Infection: Diagnosis and Treatment Challenges

Clostridioides difficile is the most important cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea in the United States. The high incidence and recurrence rates of C. difficile infection (CDI), associated with high morbidity and mortality, pose a public health challenge. Although antibiotics targeting C. difficile bacteria are the first treatment choice, antibiotics also disrupt the indigenous gut flora and, therefore, create an environment that is favorable for recurrent CDI. The challenge of treating CDI is further exacerbated by the rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of C. difficile, placing it among the top five most urgent antibiotic resistance threats in the USA. The evolution of antibiotic resistance in C. difficile involves the acquisition of new resistance mechanisms, which can be shared among various bacterial species and different C. difficile strains within clinical and community settings. This review provides a summary of commonly used diagnostic tests and antibiotic treatment strategies for CDI. In addition, it discusses antibiotic treatment and its resistance mechanisms. This review aims to enhance our current understanding and pinpoint knowledge gaps in antimicrobial resistance mechanisms in C. difficile, with an emphasis on CDI therapies.

Diagnostic Guidance for C. difficile Infections

Diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) can be challenging. First of all, there has been debate on which of the two reference assays, cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) or toxigenic culture (TC), should be considered the gold standard for CDI detection. Although the CCNA suffers most from suboptimal storage conditions and subsequent toxin degradation, TC is reported to falsely increase CDI detection rates as it cannot differentiate CDI patients from patients asymptomatically colonised by toxigenic C. difficile. Several rapid assays are available for CDI detection and fall into three broad categories: (1) enzyme immunoassays for glutamate dehydrogenase, (2) enzyme immunoassays or single-molecule array assays for toxins A/B and (3) nucleic acid amplification tests detecting toxin genes. All three categories have their own limitations, being suboptimal specificity and/or sensitivity or the inability to discern colonised patients from CDI patients. In light of these limitations, multi-step algorithmic testing has been advocated by international guidelines (IDSA/SHEA and ESCMID) in order to optimize diagnostic accuracy. As a result, a survey performed in 2018-2019 in Europe revealed that most of all hospital sites reported using more than one test to diagnose CDI. CDI incidence rates are also influenced by sample selection criteria, as several studies have shown that if not all unformed stool samples are tested for CDI, many cases may be missed due to an absence of clinical suspicion. Since methods for diagnosing CDI remain imperfect, there has been a growing interest in alternative testing strategies like faecal microbiota biomarkers, immune modulating interleukins, cytokines and imaging methods. At the moment, these alternative methods might play an adjunctive role, but they are not suitable to replace conventional CDI testing strategies.

Fecal microbiota transplantation holds the secret to youth

Aging shows itself not just at the cellular level, with shortened telomeres and cell cycle arrest, but also at the organ and organismal level, with diminished brainpower, dry eyes, intestinal inflammation, muscular atrophy, wrinkles, etc. When the gut microbiota, often called the "virtual organ of the host," fails to function normally, it can lead to a cascade of health problems including, but not limited to, inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, metabolic liver disease, type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and even neurological disorders. An effective strategy for restoring healthy gut bacteria is fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). It can reverse the effects of aging on the digestive system, the brain, and the vision by transplanting the functional bacteria found in the excrement of healthy individuals into the gut tracts of patients. This paves the way for future research into using the microbiome as a therapeutic target for disorders associated with aging.