Missed diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection; a prospective evaluation of unselected stool samples

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.

Prevalence of diagnostically-discrepant Clostridioides difficile clinical specimens: insights from longitudinal surveillance

Background

Clostridioides difficile Infection (CDI) is a healthcare-associated diarrheal disease prevalent worldwide. A common diagnostic algorithm relies on a two-step protocol that employs stool enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) to detect the pathogen, and its toxins, respectively. Active CDI is deemed less likely when the Toxin EIA result is negative, even if the pathogen-specific EIA is positive for C. difficile. We recently reported, however, that low-toxin-producing C. difficile strains recovered from Toxin-negative ('discrepant') clinical stool specimens can be fully pathogenic, and cause lethality in a rodent CDI model. To document frequency of discrepant CDI specimens, and evaluate C. difficile strain diversity, we performed longitudinal surveillance at a Southern Arizona tertiary-care hospital.

Methods

Diarrheic stool specimens from patients with clinical suspicion of CDI were obtained over an eight-year period (2015-2022) from all inpatient and outpatient Units of a > 600-bed Medical Center in Southern Arizona. Clinical laboratory EIA testing identified C. difficile-containing specimens, and classified them as Toxin-positive or Toxin-negative. C. difficile isolates recovered from the stool specimens were DNA fingerprinted using an international phylogenetic lineage assignment system ("ribotyping"). For select isolates, toxin abundance in stationary phase supernatants of pure cultures was quantified via EIA.

Results

Of 8,910 diarrheic specimens that underwent diagnostic testing, 1733 (19.4%) harbored C. difficile. Our major findings were that: (1) C. difficile prevalence and phylogenetic diversity was stable over the 8-year period; (2) toxigenic C. difficile was recovered from 69% of clinically Tox-neg ('discrepant') specimens; (3) the six most prevalent USA ribotypes were recovered in significant proportions (>60%) from Tox-neg specimens; and (4) toxin-producing C. difficile recovered from discrepant specimens produced less toxin than strains of the same ribotype isolated from non-discrepant specimens.

Conclusion

Our study highlights the dominance of Toxin EIA-negative CDI specimens in a clinical setting and the high frequency of known virulent ribotypes in these specimens. Therefore, a careful reevaluation of the clinical relevance of diagnostically-discrepant specimens particularly in the context of missed CDI diagnoses and C. difficile persistence, is warranted.

Misdiagnosis of Clostridioides difficile Infections by Standard-of-Care Specimen Collection and Testing among Hospitalized Adults, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, 2019-20201

Although Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) incidence is high in the United States, standard-of-care (SOC) stool collection and testing practices might result in incidence overestimation or underestimation. We conducted diarrhea surveillance among inpatients >50 years of age in Louisville, Kentucky, USA, during October 14, 2019-October 13, 2020; concurrent SOC stool collection and CDI testing occurred independently. A study CDI case was nucleic acid amplification test‒/cytotoxicity neutralization assay‒positive or nucleic acid amplification test‒positive stool in a patient with pseudomembranous colitis. Study incidence was adjusted for hospitalization share and specimen collection rate and, in a sensitivity analysis, for diarrhea cases without study testing. SOC hospitalized CDI incidence was 121/100,000 population/year; study incidence was 154/100,000 population/year and, in sensitivity analysis, 202/100,000 population/year. Of 75 SOC CDI cases, 12 (16.0%) were not study diagnosed; of 109 study CDI cases, 44 (40.4%) were not SOC diagnosed. CDI incidence estimates based on SOC CDI testing are probably underestimated.

Economic burden of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection in adults admitted to Spanish hospitals. A multicentre retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is associated with increased hospital stays and mortality and a high likelihood of rehospitalization, leading to increased health resource use and costs. The objective was to estimate the economic burden of recurrent CDI (rCDI).

METHODS

Observational, retrospective study carried out in six hospitals. Adults aged ≥18 years with ≥1 confirmed diagnosis (primary or secondary) of rCDI between January 2010 and May 2018 were included. rCDI-related resource use included days of hospital stay (emergency room, ward, isolation and ICU), tests and treatments. For patients with primary diagnosis of rCDI, the complete hospital stay was attributed to rCDI. When diagnosis of rCDI was secondary, hospital stay attributed to rCDI was estimated using 1:1 propensity score matching as the difference in hospital stay compared to controls. Controls were hospitalizations without CDI recorded in the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database. The cost was calculated by multiplying the natural resource units by the unit cost. Costs (euros) were updated to 2019.

RESULTS

We included 282 rCDI episodes (188 as primary diagnosis): 66.31% of patients were aged ≥65 years and 57.80% were female. The mean hospital stay (SD) was 17.18 (23.27) days: 86.17% of rCDI episodes were isolated for a mean (SD) of 10.30 (9.97) days. The total mean cost (95%-CI) per episode was €10,877 (9,499-12,777), of which the hospital stay accounted for 92.56.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high cost and resource use associated with rCDI, highlighting the importance of preventing rCDI to the Spanish National Health System.

Rate and consequences of missed Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection diagnosis from nonreporting of Clostridioides difficile results of the multiplex GI PCR panel: experience from two-hospitals

INTRODUCTION

It is common among microbiology laboratories to blind the Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) BioFire FilmArray GI Panel result in fear of overdiagnosis.

METHODS

We examined the rate of missed community-onset C. difficile infection (CDI) diagnosis and associated outcomes. Adult patients with FilmArray GI Panel positive for C. difficile on hospital admission who lacked dedicated C. difficile testing were included.

RESULTS

Among 144 adults with a FilmArray Panel positive for C. difficile, 18 did not have concurrent dedicated C. difficile testing. Eight patients were categorized as possible, 5 as probable and 4 as definite cases of missed CDI diagnosis. We observed associated delays in initiation of appropriate therapy, intensive care unit admissions, hospital readmissions, colorectal surgery and death/discharge to hospice. Five out of 17 lacked risk factors for CDI.

CONCLUSION

The practice of concealing C. difficile FilmArray GI Panel results needs to be reconsidered in patients presenting with community-onset colitis.

Clinical impact of a Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile bedside infectious disease stewardship intervention

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical impact of a bedside visit to patients with a positive Clostridioides difficile test on the antimicrobial stewardship of C. difficile infection (CDI) and non-C. difficile infections.

Methods

All patients ≥18 years old with positive CDI laboratory tests hospitalized between January 2017 and August 2017 received an immediate bedside intervention that consisted mainly of checking protective measures and providing recommendations on infection control and the management of CDI and other infections.

Results

A total of 214 patients were evaluated. The infectious disease (ID) physician was the first to establish protective measures in 25.2% of the cases. In 22/29 (75.9%) cases, physicians in charge accepted ID consultant recommendations to stop CDI treatment in asymptomatic patients. Unnecessary non-CDI antibiotics were discontinued in 19.1% of the cases. ID recommendations were not accepted by physicians in charge in only 12.6% of the cases.

Conclusions

A bedside rapid intervention for patients with a CDI-positive faecal sample was effective in avoiding overdiagnosis and unnecessary antibiotic treatment, optimizing anti-CDI drugs, increasing compliance with infection control measures and providing educational advice.

Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection: An official clinical practice guideline of the Spanish Society of Chemotherapy (SEQ), Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) and the working group of Postoperative Infection of the Spanish Society of Anesthesia and Reanimation (SEDAR)

This document gathers the opinion of a multidisciplinary forum of experts on different aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in Spain. It has been structured around a series of questions that the attendees considered relevant and in which a consensus opinion was reached. The main messages were as follows: CDI should be suspected in patients older than 2 years of age in the presence of diarrhea, paralytic ileus and unexplained leukocytosis, even in the absence of classical risk factors. With a few exceptions, a single stool sample is sufficient for diagnosis, which can be sent to the laboratory with or without transportation media for enteropathogenic bacteria. In the absence of diarrhoea, rectal swabs may be valid. The microbiology laboratory should include C. difficile among the pathogens routinely searched in patients with diarrhoea. Laboratory tests in different order and sequence schemes include GDH detection, presence of toxins, molecular tests and toxigenic culture. Immediate determination of sensitivity to drugs such as vancomycin, metronidazole or fidaxomycin is not required. The evolution of toxin persistence is not a suitable test for follow up. Laboratory diagnosis of CDI should be rapid and results reported and interpreted to clinicians immediately. In addition to the basic support of all diarrheic episodes, CDI treatment requires the suppression of antiperistaltic agents, proton pump inhibitors and antibiotics, where possible. Oral vancomycin and fidaxomycin are the antibacterials of choice in treatment, intravenous metronidazole being restricted for patients in whom the presence of the above drugs in the intestinal lumen cannot be assured. Fecal material transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with multiple recurrences but uncertainties persist regarding its standardization and safety. Bezlotoxumab is a monoclonal antibody to C. difficile toxin B that should be administered to patients at high risk of recurrence. Surgery is becoming less and less necessary and prevention with vaccines is under research. Probiotics have so far not been shown to be therapeutically or preventively effective. The therapeutic strategy should be based, rather than on the number of episodes, on the severity of the episodes and on their potential to recur. Some data point to the efficacy of oral vancomycin prophylaxis in patients who reccur CDI when systemic antibiotics are required again.

Modelling diverse sources of Clostridium difficile in the community: importance of animals, infants and asymptomatic carriers

Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs) affect patients in hospitals and in the community, but the relative importance of transmission in each setting is unknown. We developed a mathematical model of C. difficile transmission in a hospital and surrounding community that included infants, adults and transmission from animal reservoirs. We assessed the role of these transmission routes in maintaining disease and evaluated the recommended classification system for hospital- and community-acquired CDIs. The reproduction number in the hospital was <1 (range: 0.16–0.46) for all scenarios. Outside the hospital, the reproduction number was >1 for nearly all scenarios without transmission from animal reservoirs (range: 1.0–1.34). However, the reproduction number for the human population was <1 if a minority (>3.5–26.0%) of human exposures originated from animal reservoirs. Symptomatic adults accounted for <10% transmission in the community. Under conservative assumptions, infants accounted for 17% of community transmission. An estimated 33–40% of community-acquired cases were reported but 28–39% of these reported cases were misclassified as hospital-acquired by recommended definitions. Transmission could be plausibly sustained by asymptomatically colonised adults and infants in the community or exposure to animal reservoirs, but not hospital transmission alone. Under-reporting of community-onset cases and systematic misclassification underplays the role of community transmission.

Global burden of Clostridium difficile infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Clostridium difficile is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in several countries. However, there are limited evidence characterizing its role as a global public health problem. We conducted a systematic review to provide a comprehensive overview of C. difficile infections (CDI) rates.

Methods

Seven databases were searched (January 2016) to identify studies and surveillance reports published between 2005 and 2015 reporting CDI incidence rates. CDI incidence rates for health care facility-associated (HCF), hospital onset-health care facility-associated, medical or general intensive care unit (ICU), internal medicine (IM), long-term care facility (LTCF), and community-associated (CA) were extracted and standardized. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model.

Results

229 publications, with data from 41 countries, were included. The overall rate of HCF-CDI was 2.24 (95% confidence interval CI = 1.66-3.03) per 1000 admissions/y and 3.54 (95%CI = 3.19-3.92) per 10 000 patient-days/y. Estimated rates for CDI with onset in ICU or IM wards were 11.08 (95%CI = 7.19-17.08) and 10.80 (95%CI = 3.15-37.06) per 1000 admission/y, respectively. Rates for CA-CDI were lower: 0.55 (95%CI = 0.13-2.37) per 1000 admissions/y. CDI rates were generally higher in North America and among the elderly but similar rates were identified in other regions and age groups.

Conclusions

Our review highlights the widespread burden of disease of C. difficile, evidence gaps, and the need for sustainable surveillance of CDI in the health care setting and the community.

Diagnostic Guidance for C. difficile Infections

Diagnosis of Clostridium 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 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 now been advocated by international guidelines in order to optimize diagnostic accuracy. Despite these recommendations, testing methods between hospitals vary widely, which impacts CDI incidence rates. 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 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.

Detection of toxigenic Clostridioides [Clostridium] difficile: Usefulness of two commercially available enzyme immunoassays and a PCR assay on stool samples and stool isolates

The best laboratory diagnostic approach to detect Clostridioides [Clostridium] difficile infection (CDI) is a subject of ongoing debate. With the aim of evaluating four laboratory diagnostic methods, 250 unformed stools from patients with suspected CDI submitted to nine medical center laboratories from November 2010 to December 2011, were studied using: (1) an immunochromatographic rapid assay test that combines the qualitative determination of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) plus toxins A and B (QAB), the CDIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE assay; (2) an enzyme immunoassay for qualitative determination of toxins A and B, the RIDASCREEN™ C. difficile Toxin A/B assay (RAB); (3) a PCR for the toxin B gene assay (PCR); and (4) the toxigenic culture (TC). C. difficile isolates from direct toxin negative stools by QAB, RAB and PCR were evaluated for toxigenicity by the same direct tests, in order to assess the contribution of the TC (QAB-TC, RAB-TC, PCR-TC). A combination of the cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCNA) in stools, and the same assay on isolates from direct negative samples (CCCNA-TC) was considered the reference method (CCCNA/CCCNA-TC). Of the 250 stools tested, 107 (42.8%) were positive by CCCNA/CCCNA-TC. The GDH and PCR/PCR-TC assays were the most sensitive, 91.59% and 87.62%, respectively. The QAB, RAB, QAB/QAB-TC and RAB/RAB-TC had the highest specificities, ca. 95%. A negative GDH result would rule out CDI, however, its low positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 3.97 indicates that a positive result should always be complemented with the detection of toxins. If the RAB, QAB, and PCR assays do not detect toxins from direct feces, the toxigenic culture should be performed. In view of our results, the most accurate and reliable methods to be applied in a clinical microbiology laboratory were the QAB/QAB-TC, and RAB/RAB-TC, with PLRs >10 and negative likelihood ratios <0.30.

Optimizing the diagnostic testing of Clostridium difficile infection

INTRODUCTION

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the leading cause of hospital-acquired diarrhea and is associated with a considerable health and cost burden. However, there is still not a clear consensus on the best laboratory diagnosis approach and a wide variation of testing methods and strategies can be encountered.

AREAS COVERED

We aim to review the most practical aspects of CDI diagnosis providing our own view on how to optimize CDI diagnosis. Expert commentary: Laboratory diagnosis in search of C. difficile toxins should be applied to all fecal diarrheic samples reaching the microbiology laboratory in patients > 2 years old, with or without classic risk factors for CDI. Detection of toxins either directly in the fecal sample or in the bacteria isolated in culture confirm CDI in the proper clinical setting. Nuclear Acid Assay techniques (NAAT) allow to speed up the process with epidemiological and therapeutic consequences.

Clostridium difficile infection

Infection of the colon with the Gram-positive bacterium Clostridium difficile is potentially life threatening, especially in elderly people and in patients who have dysbiosis of the gut microbiota following antimicrobial drug exposure. C. difficile is the leading cause of health-care-associated infective diarrhoea. The life cycle of C. difficile is influenced by antimicrobial agents, the host immune system, and the host microbiota and its associated metabolites. The primary mediators of inflammation in C. difficile infection (CDI) are large clostridial toxins, toxin A (TcdA) and toxin B (TcdB), and, in some bacterial strains, the binary toxin CDT. The toxins trigger a complex cascade of host cellular responses to cause diarrhoea, inflammation and tissue necrosis - the major symptoms of CDI. The factors responsible for the epidemic of some C. difficile strains are poorly understood. Recurrent infections are common and can be debilitating. Toxin detection for diagnosis is important for accurate epidemiological study, and for optimal management and prevention strategies. Infections are commonly treated with specific antimicrobial agents, but faecal microbiota transplants have shown promise for recurrent infections. Future biotherapies for C. difficile infections are likely to involve defined combinations of key gut microbiota.

Spectrum of Clostridium difficile infections: Particular clinical situations

Incidence, pathogenesis, diagnostic techniques and therapeutic management of CDI have prompted abundant and adequate recent literature. However, report on clinical manifestations of CDI is frequently biased by the type of patients selected, the retrospective nature of many papers, the epidemic or endemic characteristics of the population reported. This article seeks to review some less discussed clinical and epidemiological aspects of CDI trying to include the clinical manifestations of this disease in unselected populations and also including discussion of CDI in specific groups of patients such as patients without colon and rectum, pediatric and critical care patients.