Molecular test based on isothermal helicase-dependent amplification for detection of the Clostridium difficile toxin A gene

C. difficile biomarkers, pathogenicity and detection

BACKGROUND

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is the main etiologic agent of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. CDI contributes to gut inflammation and can lead to disruption of the intestinal epithelial barrier. Recently, the rate of CDI cases has been increased. Thus, early diagnosis of C. difficile is critical for controlling the infection and guiding efficacious therapy.

APPROACH

A search strategy was set up using the terms C. difficile biomarkers and diagnosis. The found references were classified into two general categories; conventional and advanced methods.

RESULTS

The pathogenicity and biomarkers of C. difficile, and the collection manners for CDI-suspected specimens were briefly explained. Then, the conventional CDI diagnostic methods were subtly compared in terms of duration, level of difficulty, sensitivity, advantages, and disadvantages. Thereafter, an extensive review of the various newly proposed techniques available for CDI detection was conducted including nucleic acid isothermal amplification-based methods, biosensors, and gene/single-molecule microarrays. Also, the detection mechanisms, pros and cons of these methods were highlighted and compared with each other. In addition, approximately complete information on FDA-approved platforms for CDI diagnosis was collected.

CONCLUSION

To overcome the deficiencies of conventional methods, the potential of advanced methods for C. difficile diagnosis, their direction, perspective, and challenges ahead were discussed.

Evaluation of non-invasive diagnostic tools for diarrhea: a systematic review of point-of-care tests and biomarkers

Background

Diarrhea is a prevalent condition affecting millions worldwide. However, current standard diagnostic methods have many drawbacks. This review examines various non-invasive point-of-care (POC) tests and biomarkers aiding rapid diagnosis of diarrhea from different causes.

Methods

PubMed, PubMed Central, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched from 2013 to present for relevant literature. Two reviewers independently assessed included studies' quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist.

Results

The search yielded 1453 studies, of which 39 were included after screening and applying eligibility criteria. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was the POC test in 25 studies, providing consistent sensitivity and specificity. For biomarkers, C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin, and procalcitonin offered high sensitivity and specificity for conditions like acute pediatric diarrhea, microscopic colitis, and inflammatory diarrhea, respectively.

Conclusion

PCR proved the ideal POC test for rapid diarrhea diagnosis, while the procalcitonin biomarker helps differentiate inflammatory from non-inflammatory diarrhea. Other reviewed tools also demonstrated promising diagnostic performance, though improvements in sensitivity, specificity, and usability are still needed.

[Diagnosis by isothermal amplification of nucleic acids. Opportunity for community pharmacies]

This review focuses on describing new commercially available POC-type molecular diagnostic systems that can be easily implemented in community pharmacies and have the potential to expand the portfolio of pharmaceutical services and make a significant contribution to the improvement of public health.Knowledge of new molecular diagnostic techniques other than PCR is relatively unexplored. However, the available options are diverse and have reached sufficient technological maturity for large-scale use. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought diagnostic tests to market that, in some cases, have been used exclusively in research for decades.Isothermal nucleic acid amplification technology continues to evolve and it is likely that in the coming years we will witness an exponential increase in its use, as well as the development of new improvements that further simplify and reduce the cost of each assay.Furthermore, we cannot ignore the fact that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the public has become accustomed to self-diagnosing through mass distribution channels such as community pharmacies. Which can open the sector to other diseases - such as sexually transmitted diseases or animal health -, food control, water and air contamination (fungi) or the presence of allergens.Knowledge of them is an essential technological surveillance strategy for the pharmaceutical sector.

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.

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.

A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs) and Algorithms Including NAATs for the Diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile in Adults

The evidence base for the optimal laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile in adults is currently unresolved due to the uncertain performance characteristics and various combinations of tests. This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory testing algorithms that include nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) to detect the presence of C. difficile The systematic review and meta-analysis included eligible studies (those that had PICO [population, intervention, comparison, outcome] elements) that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of NAAT alone or following glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) or GDH EIAs plus C. difficile toxin EIAs (toxin). The diagnostic yield of NAAT for repeat testing after an initial negative result was also assessed. Two hundred thirty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Seventy-two of these studies had sufficient data for meta-analysis. The strength of evidence ranged from high to insufficient. The uses of NAAT only, GDH-positive EIA followed by NAAT, and GDH-positive/toxin-negative EIA followed by NAAT are all recommended as American Society for Microbiology (ASM) best practices for the detection of the C. difficile toxin gene or organism. Meta-analysis of published evidence supports the use of testing algorithms that use NAAT alone or in combination with GDH or GDH plus toxin EIA to detect the presence of C. difficile in adults. There is insufficient evidence to recommend against repeat testing of the sample using NAAT after an initial negative result due to a lack of evidence of harm (i.e., financial, length of stay, or delay of treatment) as specified by the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) systematic review method in making such an assessment. Findings from this systematic review provide clarity to diagnostic testing strategies and highlight gaps, such as low numbers of GDH/toxin/PCR studies, in existing evidence on diagnostic performance, which can be used to guide future clinical research studies.

Evaluation of an UltraFast LabChip V280 assay for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile

In this study, we compared the performance of an UltraFast LabChip (UL) V280 system for Clostridium difficile detection in stool with that of Xpert C. difficile/Epi and VIDAS CDAB. Among 176 stool specimens, UL V280 detected toxigenic C. difficile in 22 (22/176, 12.5%) with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100.0%, 99.4%, 99.5% and 100.0%, respectively, which were higher than 95.2%, 97.4%, 83.3%, and 99.3% of Xpert C. difficile/Epi (P > 0.05). Notably, the sensitivity and NPV of ULV280 were significantly higher than those of VIDAS CDAB 52.4% (P < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] = 20.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.26-176.81) and 93.8% (P = 0.002, OR = 10.27, 95% CI = 1.30-81.17). UL V280 turnaround time (35 min) and cost (6.24 Dollars [$]) per specimen were less than those for Xpert C. difficile/Epi (47 min, 59.26 $) and VIDAS CDAB (65 min, 11.70 $). UL V280 possessed an analytical sensitivity limit of 2500 CFU/ml, 95% [CI] = (Ct: 30.76-34.90), and no cross-reactions with other pathogens were found. The study demonstrates that UL V280 based on a microfluidic chip is a rapid, accurate, easy, and cost-effective diagnostic test for toxigenic C. difficile in stool.

Advanced DNA-Based Point-of-Care Diagnostic Methods for Plant Diseases Detection

Diagnostic technologies for the detection of plant pathogens with point-of-care capability and high multiplexing ability are an essential tool in the fight to reduce the large agricultural production losses caused by plant diseases. The main desirable characteristics for such diagnostic assays are high specificity, sensitivity, reproducibility, quickness, cost efficiency and high-throughput multiplex detection capability. This article describes and discusses various DNA-based point-of care diagnostic methods for applications in plant disease detection. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the most common DNA amplification technology used for detecting various plant and animal pathogens. However, subsequent to PCR based assays, several types of nucleic acid amplification technologies have been developed to achieve higher sensitivity, rapid detection as well as suitable for field applications such as loop-mediated isothermal amplification, helicase-dependent amplification, rolling circle amplification, recombinase polymerase amplification, and molecular inversion probe. The principle behind these technologies has been thoroughly discussed in several review papers; herein we emphasize the application of these technologies to detect plant pathogens by outlining the advantages and disadvantages of each technology in detail.

European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection

In 2009 the first European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guideline for diagnosing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) was launched. Since then newer tests for diagnosing CDI have become available, especially nucleic acid amplification tests. The main objectives of this update of the guidance document are to summarize the currently available evidence concerning laboratory diagnosis of CDI and to formulate and revise recommendations to optimize CDI testing. This update is essential to improve the diagnosis of CDI and to improve uniformity in CDI diagnosis for surveillance purposes among Europe. An electronic search for literature concerning the laboratory diagnosis of CDI was performed. Studies evaluating a commercial laboratory test compared to a reference test were also included in a meta-analysis. The commercial tests that were evaluated included enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) detecting glutamate dehydrogenase, EIAs detecting toxins A and B and nucleic acid amplification tests. Recommendations were formulated by an executive committee, and the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence were graded using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. No single commercial test can be used as a stand-alone test for diagnosing CDI as a result of inadequate positive predictive values at low CDI prevalence. Therefore, the use of a two-step algorithm is recommended. Samples without free toxin detected by toxins A and B EIA but with positive glutamate dehydrogenase EIA, nucleic acid amplification test or toxigenic culture results need clinical evaluation to discern CDI from asymptomatic carriage.

A prospective study of two isothermal amplification assays compared with real-time PCR, CCNA and toxigenic culture for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

Background

New molecular methods of detecting Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) provide the routine lab with a sensitive random access method to produce results that are available in a shorter time than traditional methods.

Methods

In this prospective study a total of 989 stool specimens were tested over a period of 16 months in parallel using two isothermal amplification assays, AmpliVue® (Quidel) and Illumigene® (Meridian) and the results compared to those from toxigenic culture. In addition all specimens were tested using a cytotoxic cell neutralisation assay (CCNA) and three different Real-time PCR targeting a C. difficile-specific 16S rDNA sequence or the toxin genes tcdA, tcdB/tcdB027 or cdtB.

Results

AmpliVue® was positive in 242 (24.5 %) and Illumigene® in 228 (23.1 %) specimens. 167 (16.9 %) specimens were positive in toxigenic culture. Real-time-tcdA and -tcdB PCR was positive in 211 (21.3 %) specimens, Real-time-cdtB PCR was positive in 101 (10.2 %) specimens and C. difficile-PCR (16S rDNA) in 267 (27.0 %) specimens.

Conclusions

The respective sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value compared to toxigenic culture were 91, 89, 62 and 98 % for AmpliVue® and 91, 91, 67 and 98 % for Illumigene®.

Comparison of a novel chemiluminescent based algorithm to three algorithmic approaches for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

Background

Rapid commercial assays, including nucleic acid amplification tests and immunoassays for Clostridium. difficile toxins, have replaced the use of older assays. They are included in a two-step algorithm diagnosis, including first the detection of the glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) as a screening method and second the detection of toxins as a confirmatory method. Although assays that detect the presence of free toxins in feces are known to lack sensitivity, they are preferable to confirm infection. We evaluated the accuracy of the chemiluminescence-based method detecting C.difficile GDH and free toxins A/B (DiaSorin algorithm) to an enzyme-immunoassay (EIA) for GDH with a molecular toxins test (Meridian algorithm), EIA-GDH and an EIA-toxins A/B algorithm (Alere algorithm) with and without toxigenic culture for confirmation.

Findings

A total of 468 diarrhoeal and loose stool samples were included in the study. A positive result was defined by a positive GDH and a positive toxin test. Discordant samples were resolved using an enriched toxigenic culture considered as the reference method. After resolution, the DiaSorin algorithm showed a high sensitivity (86.7 %) compared to that of the Alere algorithm with (60.0 %) and without (50.0 %) confirmation by culture and was as sensitive as the Meridian algorithm (90.0 %), while the specificities were similar: 99.1, 99.5, 99.5 and 98.9 %, respectively.

Conclusions

The DiaSorin algorithm was as sensitive as an algorithm including nucleic acid amplification test for toxins. Chemiluminescence toxin-enhanced signal assay compensates the lack of sensitivity usually observed for EIA tests for toxins.

A large scale clinical evaluation of the AmpliVue and Illumigene molecular tests for the identification of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adult and pediatric patients

The AmpliVue (Quidel, San Diego, CA, USA) and Illumigene (Meridian Biosciences, Cincinnati, OH, USA) molecular tests were compared for the detection of C. difficile toxin in fresh fecal samples from adult and pediatric patients. A total of 758 samples were collected, in 3 clinical sites: Nationwide Children's (Columbus, OH, USA), Penn State Hershey (Hershey, PA, USA), Primary Children's (Salt Lake City, UT, USA). Each site tested the fecal specimens using both assays. Any discordant results were resolved by performing toxigenic culture. There were 16 discordant samples among the 3 sites. Following discordant resolution, the combined performance for all 3 sites for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for AmpliVue was 96.1%, 99.2%, 96.1%, and 99.2%, respectively, while for Illumigene was 96.1%, 99.8%, 99.2%, and 99.2%, respectively. The AmpliVue and Illumigene methods are both relatively rapid and simple to use, sensitive, and specific for detection of C. difficile toxin and demonstrate similar performance.