Clostridium difficile infection diagnostics - evaluation of the C. DIFF Quik Chek Complete assay, a rapid enzyme immunoassay for detection of toxigenic C. difficile in clinical stool samples

Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection in symptomatic patients: what can we do better?

The laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is challenging since this bacteria may be detected in healthy people and toxin production detection is not sensitive enough to be used alone. Thus, there is no single test with adequate sensitivity and specificity to be used in laboratory diagnosis. We evaluated the performance of tests used in the diagnosis of CDI in symptomatic patients with risk factors in hospitals in southern Brazil. Enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for glutamate dehydrogenase antigen (GDH) and toxins A/B, real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), GeneXpert system, and a two-step algorithm comprising GDH/TOXIN EIA performed simultaneously followed by GeneXpert for outliers were evaluated. Toxigenic strain in stool culture was considered CDI positive (gold standard). Among 400 samples tested, 54 (13.5%) were positive for CDI and 346 (86.5%) were negative. The diagnosis of the two-step algorithm and qPCR had an excellent performance with an accuracy of 94.5% and 94.2%, respectively. The Youden index showed that GeneXpert as a single test (83.5%) and the two-step algorithm (82.8%) were the most effective assays. Diagnosing CDI and non-CDI diarrhea could be successfully attained by the combination of clinical data with accuracy of laboratory tests.

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.

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.

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.

Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection is associated with treatment failure and prolonged illness in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are susceptible to recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) that is increasing globally, necessitating new approaches to prevent fatal consequences. We examined the clinical characteristics of cancer patients with recurrent CDI (RCDI).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of cancer patients with C. difficile-positive test between January 2015 and May 2017 was carried out. CDI was defined as diarrhea and toxigenic C. difficile detection in the stool by nucleic acid amplification test and enzyme immunoassay. Patients having two CDI episodes were categorized as single recurrent CDI (SRCDI), and those having three or more CDI episodes were categorized as multiple recurrent CDI (MRCDI). Treatment failure was defined as the requirement of antimicrobial alteration or repetition.

RESULTS

We included 170 patients having 270 CDI episodes; 85 patients had non-RCDI, and 85 had RCDI; 14 of them had MRCDI. Previous hospitalization and immunosuppressant use were more frequent in MRCDI group than in SRCDI group (P=0.009 and 0.002, respectively). Physicians treated more SRCDI episodes than MRCDI episodes with metronidazole alone (P=0.017), whereas, more MRCDI episodes needed combination antimicrobials (P=0.072). The mean duration of CDI treatment was longer in the MRCDI group than in the SRCDI group (P=0.030). MRCDI was associated with treatment failure more than SRCDI (P=0.021). The risk for a recurrent episode of CDI was increased in patients who had the following features of the first CDI episode: previous use of antibiotic, NSAID, immunosuppressant, chemotherapy, comorbidities, CDI treatment failure, and severe CDI (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Risk factors for RCDI in cancer patients are similar to those without cancer, with the exception of chemotherapy that is only given to cancer patients. Long CDI treatment and CDI treatment failure are associated with MRCDI.

GDH and toxin immunoassay for the diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection is not a 'one size fit all' screening test

Diagnosing Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection is challenged by lack of a clear gold standard. We sought to determine if the two-step algorithm (screening GDH and toxin lateral flow assay followed by tcdB PCR) would have adequate clinical performance at a tertiary care center. Of 486 patients, 310 (63.8%) were immunocompromised. Of 150 PCR-positive specimens, 52 (34.7%) were toxin-positive and 126 (84.0%) were GDH positive. Positive GDH or toxin results corresponded to lower PCR cycle threshold values (P < 0.01). PCR-positive patients had more frequently documented antibiotic usage (78.4% vs 66.9%, P = 0.05) and diarrhea (91.0% vs. 79.4%, P < 0.01) and less frequent alternate etiologies of diarrhea (27.3% vs. 41.1%, P = 0.004) or laxative use (24.6% vs 36.1%, P = 0.02). Toxin positivity was associated with antibiotic use (P < 0.01), but not with neutropenia, diarrhea, malignancy, or chemotherapy (P > 0.05). The application of the 2-step algorithm should be thoroughly evaluated in immunocompromised patient populations before implementation.

Evaluation of Nucleic Acid Isothermal Amplification Methods for Human Clinical Microbial Infection Detection

Battling infection is a major healthcare objective. Untreated infections can rapidly evolve toward the condition of sepsis in which the body begins to fail and resuscitation becomes critical and tenuous. Identification of infection followed by rapid antimicrobial treatment are primary goals of medical care, but precise identification of offending organisms by current methods is slow and broad spectrum empirical therapy is employed to cover most potential pathogens. Current methods for identification of bacterial pathogens in a clinical setting typically require days of time, or a 4- to 8-h growth phase followed by DNA extraction, purification and PCR-based amplification. We demonstrate rapid (70-120 min) genetic diagnostics methods utilizing loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) to test for 15 common infection pathogen targets, called the Infection Diagnosis Panel (In-Dx). The method utilizes filtration to rapidly concentrate bacteria in sample matrices with lower bacterial loads and direct LAMP amplification without DNA purification from clinical blood, urine, wound, sputum and stool samples. The In-Dx panel was tested using two methods of detection: (1) real-time thermocycler fluorescent detection of LAMP amplification and (2) visual discrimination of color change in the presence of Eriochrome Black T (EBT) dye following amplification. In total, 239 duplicate samples were collected (31 blood, 122 urine, 73 mucocutaneous wound/swab, 11 sputum and two stool) from 229 prospectively enrolled hospital patients with suspected clinical infection and analyzed both at the hospital and by In-Dx. Sensitivity (Se) of the In-Dx panel targets pathogens from urine samples by In-Dx was 91.1% and specificity (Sp) was 97.3%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 53.7% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.7% as compared to clinical microbial detection methods. Sensitivity of detection of the In-Dx panel from mucocutaneous swab samples was 65.5% with a Sp of 99.3%, and a PPV of 84% and NPV of 98% as compared to clinical microbial detection methods. Results indicate the LAMP-based In-Dx panel allows rapid and precise diagnosis of clinical infections by targeted pathogens across multiple culture types for point-of-care utilization.