Multicenter evaluation of the Verigene Clostridium difficile nucleic acid assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51:4120-4125. [PMID: 24088862 DOI: 10.1128/jcm.01690-13]

Overview of current detection methods and microRNA potential in Clostridioides difficile infection screening

Clostridioides difficile (formerly called Clostridium difficile, C. difficile) infection (CDI) is listed as an urgent threat on the 2019 antibiotic resistance threats report in the United States by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Early detection and appropriate disease management appear to be essential. Meanwhile, although the majority of cases are hospital-acquired CDI, community-acquired CDI cases are also on the rise, and this vulnerability is not limited to immunocompromised patients. Gastrointestinal treatments and/or gastrointestinal tract surgeries may be required for patients diagnosed with digestive diseases. Such treatments could suppress or interfere with the patient’s immune system and disrupt gut flora homeostasis, creating a suitable microecosystem for C. difficile overgrowth. Currently, stool-based non-invasive screening is the first-line approach to CDI diagnosis, but the accuracy is varied due to different clinical microbiology detection methods; therefore, improving reliability is clearly required. In this review, we briefly summarised the life cycle and toxicity of C. difficile, and we examined existing diagnostic approaches with an emphasis on novel biomarkers such as microRNAs. These biomarkers can be easily detected through non-invasive liquid biopsy and can yield crucial information about ongoing pathological phenomena, particularly in CDI.

Continued decline in the prevalence of the Clostridioides difficile BI/NAP1/027 strain across the United States Veterans Health Administration

In 2018, we demonstrated a decreased prevalence of the hypervirulent Clostridioides difficile BI/NAP1/027 strain across the United States (US) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) from 2011 through 2016. The objective of this retrospective study was to update the prevalence of the BI/NAP1/027 strain within the VHA from 2017 through 2020. Patients with positive tests for the presence of toxigenic C. difficile at any Veterans Affairs Medical Center found to also routinely test for BI/NAP1/027 strain presence were included between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2020. In total, 7490 patients had 8148 positive C. difficile tests that had a corresponding BI/NAP1/027 test. Of those, there were 1031 (12.6%) presumptive positive tests for the BI/NAP1/027 strain. The overall prevalence of BI/NAP1/027 decreased from a high of 15.4% in 2017 to 8.21% in 2020. Statistically significant reductions in rates from 2017 to 2020 occurred in 4 of 9 US Census Bureau regions.

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.

A review of methods for the detection of pathogenic microorganisms

The testing and rapid detection of pathogenic organisms is a crucial protocol in the prevention and identification of crises related to health, safety and wellbeing. Pathogen detection has become one of the most challenging aspects in the food and water industries, because of the rapid spread of waterborne and foodborne diseases in the community and at significant costs. With the prospect of inevitable population growth, and an influx of tourism to certain water bodies testing will become a requirement to control and prevent possible outbreaks of potentially fatal illnesses. The legislation is already particularly rigorous in the food industry, where failure to detect pathogenic materials represents a catastrophic event, particularly for the elderly, very young or immune-compromised population types. In spite of the need and requirement for rapid analytical testing, conventional and standard bacterial detection assays may take up to seven days to yield a result. Given the advent of new technologies, biosensors, chemical knowledge and miniaturisation of instrumentation this timescale is not acceptable. This review presents an opportunity to fill a knowledge gap for an extremely important research area; discussing the main techniques, biology, chemistry, miniaturisation, sensing and the emerging state-of-the-art research and developments for detection of pathogens in food, water, blood and faecal samples.

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.

Simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic Clostridium difficile directly from clinical stool specimens

We employed a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) coupled with capillary electrophoresis (mPCR-CE) targeting six Clostridium difficile genes, including tpi, tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, cdtB, and a deletion in tcdC for simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic C. difficile directly from fecal specimens. The mPCR-CE had a limit of detection of 10 colony-forming units per reaction with no cross-reactions with other related bacterial genes. Clinical validation was performed on 354 consecutively collected stool specimens from patients with suspected C. difficile infection and 45 isolates. The results were compared with a reference standard combined with BD MAX Cdiff, real-time cell analysis assay (RTCA), and mPCR-CE. The toxigenic C. difficile species were detected in 36 isolates and 45 stool specimens by the mPCR-CE, which provided a positive rate of 20.3% (81/399). The mPCR-CE had a specificity of 97.2% and a sensitivity of 96.0%, which was higher than RTCA (x² = 5.67, P = 0.017) but lower than BD MAX Cdiff (P = 0.245). Among the 45 strains, 44 (97.8%) were determined as nonribotype 027 by the mPCR-CE, which was fully agreed with PCR ribotyping. Even though ribotypes 017 (n = 8, 17.8%), 001 (n = 6, 13.3%), and 012 (n = 7, 15.6%) were predominant in this region, ribotype 027 was an important genotype monitored routinely. The mPCR-CE provided an alternative diagnosis tool for the simultaneous detection of toxigenic C. difficile in stool and potentially differentiated between RT027 and non-RT027.

Performance evaluation of the Verigene®Clostridium difficile nucleic acid test, an automated multiplex molecular testing system for detection of C. difficile toxin

The Verigene^®Clostridium difficile nucleic acid test (Verigene^® CDF test) is an automatic and rapid detection system for the genes encoding tcdA, tcdB, binary toxin, and the single nucleotide deletion at base pair 117 in the tcdC based on microarray and PCR amplification. We compared the performance of the Verigene^® CDF test to that of two enzyme immunoassays, C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE and X/Pect Toxin A/B, using 118 specimens. We found overall concordance rates of 81.4% and 78.8% between C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE and Verigene^® CDF test, and X/Pect Toxin A/B and Verigene^® CDF test. The Verigene^® CDF test showed the highest sensitivity (93.9%) and had a specificity of 96.5%. The sensitivity and specificity were respectively 45.5 and 94.1% for C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE and 27.3 and 100.0% for X/Pect Toxin A/B. These results indicated that the Verigene^® CDF test was highly accurate for the detection of C. difficile toxin in fecal specimens and supported its use in daily diagnostic practice.

Hospital-Associated Infections

Hospital-associated infection (HAI) in immunocompromised patients can result in high rates of morbidity and mortality. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are especially worrisome because of the limited choice of remaining antibiotics available when a patient becomes colonized or infected with an MDRO. It is therefore important that immunocompromised patients be cared for in an environment that limits the risk for acquiring infections. However, with healthcare being increasingly delivered in settings other than the traditional inpatient hospital wards, a bigger effort will need to be set forth to prevent or rapidly diagnose HAI. The last few years have seen a significant increase in the number of singleplex and multiplex molecular assays for the detection of many of the organisms responsible for HAI, but more is needed as infections caused by organisms like Legionella pneumophila and Aspergillus species are still diagnosed with methods that have relatively low yield and are slow to provide actionable results. Finally, the use of novel techniques for outbreak investigations will provide new information on transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings and allow stronger, evidence-based recommendations to be developed for prevention of HAIs in the immunocompromised host.

Current knowledge on the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is a spore-forming, toxin-producing, gram-positive anaerobic bacterium that is the principal etiologic agent of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Infection with C. difficile (CDI) is characterized by diarrhea in clinical syndromes that vary from self-limited to mild or severe. Since its initial recognition as the causative agent of pseudomembranous colitis, C. difficile has spread around the world. CDI is one of the most common healthcare-associated infections and a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among older adult hospitalized patients. Due to extensive antibiotic usage, the number of CDIs has increased. Diagnosis of CDI is often difficult and has a substantial impact on the management of patients with the disease, mainly with regards to antibiotic management. The diagnosis of CDI is primarily based on the clinical signs and symptoms and is only confirmed by laboratory testing. Despite the high burden of CDI and the increasing interest in the disease, episodes of CDI are often misdiagnosed. The reasons for misdiagnosis are the lack of clinical suspicion or the use of inappropriate tests. The proper diagnosis of CDI reduces transmission, prevents inadequate or unnecessary treatments, and assures best antibiotic treatment. We review the options for the laboratory diagnosis of CDI within the settings of the most accepted guidelines for CDI diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of CDI.

False Negative Results in Clostridium difficile Testing

Background

Accurate diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is paramount for patient management. The wrong diagnosis places patients at risk, delays treatment, and/ or contributes to transmission of infection in the healthcare setting. Although amplification of the toxin B gene by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a sensitive method for detecting toxigenic C. difficile, false negative results still occur and could impact the diagnosis and treatment of this infection.

Methods

This study investigated 48 patients that tested negative for toxigenic C. difficile via GeneXpert C. difficile epi test, while simultaneously testing positive for toxigenic C. difficile via stool culture. Fifty discrepant samples were collected over a 15-month period and all C. difficile isolates were characterized by ribotype. Patient charts were reviewed to assess whether discrepant results impacted the treatment course or clinical outcome of affected patients.

Results

Fifty samples of a total of 2308 samples tested in an acute healthcare facility over a 15-month period had negative PCR and positive stool culture for toxigenic C. difficile. C. difficile isolated from the discrepant samples resulted in diverse ribotyping patterns suggesting they were derived from different strains. The samples belonged to patients who were distributed evenly between age groups and wards in the hospital. In the majority of cases, the false negative C. difficile test results did not seem to impact the clinical outcome in these patients.

Conclusions

The PCR limit of detection may impact the results of molecular methods for C. difficile detection. Both clinical and analytical sensitivity of C. difficile tests should be considered when deciding which diagnostic assay to use, and clinical correlates should be examined carefully before excluding CDI as a cause of disease.

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.

Sample-to-result molecular infectious disease assays: clinical implications, limitations and potential

Molecular infectious disease diagnostic tests have undergone major advances in the past decade and will continue to rapidly evolve. Assays have become extraordinarily simple to perform, eliminating the need for pre-analytic sample preparation and post-amplification analysis. This allows these tests to be performed in settings without sophisticated expertise in molecular biology, including locations with limited resources. Additionally, the sensitivity and specificity of these assays is superb and many offer extremely fast turn-around times. These tests have major impacts on patient care, but also have some limitations.

Clinical Utility of Laboratory Detection of Clostridium difficile Strain BI/NAP1/027

Clostridium difficile strain BI/NAP1/027 is associated with increased C. difficile infection (CDI) rates and severity, and the efficacy of some CDI therapies may be strain dependent. Although cultured C. difficile isolates can be reliably subtyped by various methods, the long turnaround times, high cost, and limited availability of strain typing preclude their routine use. Nucleic acid amplification tests identify BI/NAP1/027 rapidly from stool, but the emergence of closely related strains compromises test specificity. Although detection of epidemiologically significant pathogens is generally useful for infection control programs, specific data supporting use of rapid detection of BI/NAP1/027 as an infection control tool are still awaited.

Emerging technologies for the clinical microbiology laboratory

In this review we examine the literature related to emerging technologies that will help to reshape the clinical microbiology laboratory. These topics include nucleic acid amplification tests such as isothermal and point-of-care molecular diagnostics, multiplexed panels for syndromic diagnosis, digital PCR, next-generation sequencing, and automation of molecular tests. We also review matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) and electrospray ionization (ESI) mass spectrometry methods and their role in identification of microorganisms. Lastly, we review the shift to liquid-based microbiology and the integration of partial and full laboratory automation that are beginning to impact the clinical microbiology laboratory.

Evaluation of an automated rapid diagnostic test for detection of Clostridium difficile

The Verigene Clostridium difficile Nucleic Acid Test (Verigene CDF Test) (Nanosphere, Northbrook, IL, USA) is a new multiplex qualitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test used to detect C. difficile toxin genes in fecal specimens. To evaluate the performance of the new method, we tested 69 fecal samples from patients with suspected C. difficile infection using the Verigene CDF test, an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and PCR following anaerobic fecal culture. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the Verigene CDF test were 96.7% (29/30), 97.4% (38/39), and 97.1% (67/69) respectively, using PCR following fecal culture as a reference method. We also analyzed the potential clinical impact of the Verigene CDF test using chart reviews of the 69 patients with suspected C. difficile infection and found that 11 of the 69 patients were incorrectly diagnosed, and the Verigene CDF test would have led to them receiving more appropriate management including practice of treatment and contact precaution, although, of the 69 patients, there are two whose samples were incorrectly identified with the Verigene CDF test. The Verigene CDF test will have a positive impact on patient care.

Comparison of the Verigene Clostridium difficile, Simplexa C. difficile Universal Direct, BD MAX Cdiff, and Xpert C. difficile assays for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile

We compared the Verigene Clostridium difficile test (Nanosphere, Northbrook, IL, USA), the Simplexa C. difficile Universal Direct (Focus Diagnostics, Cypress, CA, USA), the BD MAX Cdiff (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), and the Xpert C. difficile (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) assays for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile. One hundred and ninety deidentified, remnant diarrheal specimens were included in this study. After resolution of discordant results by toxigenic culture, the Xpert C. difficile assay displayed the highest sensitivity (100%), with a specificity of 98.8%. The sensitivity and specificity were 95.2% and 99.4% and 87% and 100% for the Verigene CDF and Simplexa Universal Direct assays, respectively. Finally, the BD MAX assay showed a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 98.8%. Despite differences in the overall performance of these assays, these results support the routine use of these platforms for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile in the clinical laboratory.