Evaluation of Clostridium difficile fecal load and limit of detection during a prospective comparison of two molecular tests, the illumigene C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi tests

Pragmatic Strategy for Fecal Specimen Storage and the Corresponding Test Methods for Clostridioides difficile Diagnosis

The quality of fecal specimens is one of the factors responsible for successful Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) diagnosis. The quality depends largely on the storage conditions, including the temperature and time period. In this study, we organized the outputs of previous studies, filled experimental gaps in the knowledge of storage conditions, and introduced a pragmatic strategy for fecal storage for CDI diagnosis. A 5-step pathway was adopted to develop the fecal specimen storage strategy as follows: step 1, bibliomic analysis; step 2, experimental gap-filling; step 3, comparative evaluation; step 4, strategy development; step 5, internal review. Step 1 identified eight articles providing experimental information on the effects of fecal specimen storage conditions on the effectiveness of C. difficile detection methods. Step 2 provided additional quantitative data on C. difficile vegetative and spore cell viability and DNA stability. All previous and current results were compared (step 3). In step 4, fir general and nine special strategies were developed, followed by an internal review of the overall approaches (step 5). It is recommended to separate fecal samples into aliquots before testing and storing them. It is particularly recommended that fecal specimen samples be stored for CDI diagnosis at 4 °C for up to 60 days for all test methods.

Clinical evaluation of a non-purified direct molecular assay for the detection of Clostridioides difficile toxin genes in stool specimens

Recently, a new rapid assay for the detection of tcdB gene of Clostridioides difficile was developed using the GENECUBE. The assay can directly detect the tcdB gene from stool samples without a purification in approximately 35 minutes with a few minutes of preparation process. We performed a prospective comparative study of the performance of the assay at eight institutions in Japan. Fresh residual stool samples (Bristol stool scale ≥5) were used and comparisons were performed with the BD MAX Cdiff assay and toxigenic cultures. For the evaluation of 383 stool samples compared with the BD MAX Cdiff assay, the sensitivity, and specificity of the two assays was 99.0% (379/383), 98.1% (52/53), 99.1% (327/330), respectively. In the comparison with toxigenic culture, the total, sensitivity, and specificity were 96.6% (370/383), 85.0% (51/60), and 98.8% (319/323), respectively. The current investigation indicated the GENECUBE Clostridioides difficile assay has equivalent performance with the BD MAX Cdiff assay for the detection of tcdB gene of C. difficile.

Advances in Directly Amplifying Nucleic Acids from Complex Samples

Advances in nucleic acid amplification technologies have revolutionized diagnostics for systemic, inherited, and infectious diseases. Current assays and platforms, however, often require lengthy experimental procedures and multiple instruments to remove contaminants and inhibitors from clinically-relevant, complex samples. This requirement of sample preparation has been a bottleneck for using nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) at the point of care (POC), though advances in “lab-on-chip” platforms that integrate sample preparation and NAATs have made great strides in this space. Alternatively, direct NAATs—techniques that minimize or even bypass sample preparation—present promising strategies for developing POC diagnostic tools for analyzing real-world samples. In this review, we discuss the current status of direct NAATs. Specifically, we surveyed potential testing systems published from 1989 to 2017, and analyzed their performances in terms of robustness, sensitivity, clinical relevance, and suitability for POC diagnostics. We introduce bubble plots to facilitate our analysis, as bubble plots enable effective visualization of the performances of these direct NAATs. Through our review, we hope to initiate an in-depth examination of direct NAATs and their potential for realizing POC diagnostics, and ultimately transformative technologies that can further enhance healthcare.

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.

Poor yield of Clostridium difficile testing algorithms using glutamate dehydrogenase antigen and C. difficile toxin enzyme immunoassays in a pediatric population with declining prevalence of clostridium difficile strain BI/NAP1/027

We compared the performance of algorithmic Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) diagnosis with four molecular tests in children. Stool samples in patients 1-18 years old were tested with an algorithm (C. Diff Quik Chek Complete (QCC) reflexed to illumigene C. difficile); AmpliVue C. difficile (ACD); Lyra Direct C. difficile (Lyra); BD MAX C diff (BDM); and Xpert C. difficile (XCD). The gold standard was positivity by two tests. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 85%, 99%, 93%, 97% for the algorithm; 21%, 99%, 78%, 87% for QCC's toxin component; 94%, 99%, 94%, 99% for ACD; 88%, 99%, 94%, 98% for Lyra; 94%, 100%, 100%, 99% for BDM, and 94%, 99%, 94% and 99% for XCD. 9.6% of samples were ribotype 027. Algorithms may detect CDI with lower sensitivity compared to molecular methods in children. This may be related to low prevalence of NAP-1/ribotype 027.

Evaluation of Xpert C. difficile, BD MAX Cdiff, IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000, and Illumigene C. difficile Assays for Direct Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Stool Specimens

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the performance of four commercial nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs: Xpert C. difficile, BD MAX Cdiff, IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000, and Illumigene C. difficile) for direct and rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxin genes.

METHODS

We compared four NAATs on the same set of 339 stool specimens (303 prospective and 36 retrospective specimens) with toxigenic culture (TC).

RESULTS

Concordance rate among four NAATs was 90.3% (306/339). Based on TC results, the sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% and 92.9% for Xpert; 86.3% and 89.3% for Max; 84.3% and 94.4% for IMDx; and 82.4% and 93.7% for Illumigene, respectively. For 306 concordant cases, there were 11 TC-negative/NAATs co-positive cases and 6 TC-positive/NAATs co-negative cases. Among 33 discordant cases, 18 were only single positive in each NAAT (Xpert, 1; Max, 12; IMDx, 1; Illumigene, 4). Positivity rates of the four NAATs were associated with those of semi-quantitative cultures, which were maximized in grade 3 (>100 colony-forming unit [CFU]) compared with grade 1 (<10 CFU).

CONCLUSIONS

Commercial NAATs may be rapid and reliable methods for direct detection of tcdA and/or tcdB in stool specimens compared with TC. Some differences in the sensitivity of the NAATs may partly depend on the number of toxigenic C. difficile in stool specimens.

Selected Topics in Anaerobic Bacteriology

Alteration in the host microbiome at skin and mucosal surfaces plays a role in the function of the immune system, and may predispose immunocompromised patients to infection. Because obligate anaerobes are the predominant type of bacteria present in humans at skin and mucosal surfaces, immunocompromised patients are at increased risk for serious invasive infection due to anaerobes. Laboratory approaches to the diagnosis of anaerobe infections that occur due to pyogenic, polymicrobial, or toxin-producing organisms are described. The clinical interpretation and limitations of anaerobe recovery from specimens, anaerobe-identification procedures, and antibiotic-susceptibility testing are outlined. Bacteriotherapy following analysis of disruption of the host microbiome has been effective for treatment of refractory or recurrent Clostridium difficile infection, and may become feasible for other conditions in the future.

Comparison of Multilocus Sequence Typing and the Xpert C. difficile/Epi Assay for Identification of Clostridium difficile 027/NAP1/BI

Clostridium difficile 027/NAP1/BI is the most common C. difficile strain in the United States. The Xpert C. difficile/Epi assay allows rapid, presumptive identification of C. difficile NAP1. We compared Xpert C. difficile/Epi to multilocus sequence typing for identification of C. difficile NAP1 and found "very good" agreement at 97.9% (κ = 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.91).

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.

Accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review

Loop-mediated isothermal DNA amplification (LAMP) is currently used as standalone diagnostic test for C. difficile infection (CDI). We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of LAMP for the diagnosis of CDI. We searched 5 databases to identify studies that compared LAMP with culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay or anaerobic toxigenic culture (TC) of C. difficile. We used the random-effects model to calculate pooled sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratios, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The search of the databases yielded 16 studies (6979 samples) that met inclusion criteria. When TC was used as the gold standard (6572 samples), bivariate analysis yielded a mean sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93-0.97; I(2)=67.4) and a mean specificity of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.00; I(2)=97.0). LAMP is a useful diagnostic tool with high sensitivity and specificity for detecting CDI. The results should, however, be interpreted only in the presence of clinical suspicion and symptoms of CDI.

Comparison of GenomEra C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile as confirmatory tests in a multistep algorithm for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

We compared two multistep diagnostic algorithms based on C. Diff Quik Chek Complete and, as confirmatory tests, GenomEra C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 87.2%, 99.7%, 97.1%, and 98.3%, respectively, for the GenomEra-based algorithm and 89.7%, 99.4%, 95.5%, and 98.6%, respectively, for the Xpert-based algorithm. GenomEra represents an alternative to Xpert as a confirmatory test of a multistep algorithm for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) diagnosis.

Biosynthetic enhancement of the detection of bacteria by the polymerase chain reaction

Molecular viability testing (MVT) was previously reported to specifically detect viable bacterial cells in complex samples. In MVT, brief nutritional stimulation induces viable cells, but not non-viable cells, to produce abundant amounts of species-specific ribosomal RNA precursors (pre-rRNA). Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is used to quantify specific pre-rRNAs in a stimulated aliquot relative to a non-stimulated control. In addition to excluding background signal from non-viable cells and from free DNA, we report here that MVT increases the analytical sensitivity of qPCR when detecting viable cells. Side-by-side limit-of-detection comparisons showed that MVT is 5-fold to >10-fold more sensitive than standard (static) DNA-targeted qPCR when detecting diverse bacterial pathogens (Aeromonas hydrophila, Acinetobacter baumannii, Listeria monocytogenes, Mycobacterium avium, and Staphylococcus aureus) in serum, milk, and tap water. Sensitivity enhancement may come from the elevated copy number of pre-rRNA relative to genomic DNA, and also from the ratiometric measurement which reduces ambiguity associated with weak or borderline signals. We also report that MVT eliminates false positive signals from bacteria that have been inactivated by moderately elevated temperatures (pasteurization), a condition that can confound widely-used cellular integrity tests that utilize membrane-impermeant compounds such as propidium iodide (PI) or propidium monoazide (PMA) to differentiate viable from inactivated bacteria. MVT enables the sensitive and specific detection of very small numbers of viable bacteria in complex matrices.

Utility of a commercial PCR assay and a clinical prediction rule for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in asymptomatic carriers

A commercial PCR assay of perirectal swab specimens detected 17 (68%) of 25 asymptomatic carriers of toxigenic Clostridium difficile, including 93% with skin and/or environmental contamination. A clinical prediction rule, followed by PCR screening, could be used to identify carriers at high risk of C. difficile shedding.

Correlation between Clostridium difficile bacterial load, commercial real-time PCR cycle thresholds, and results of diagnostic tests based on enzyme immunoassay and cell culture cytotoxicity assay

The impact of Clostridium difficile fecal loads on diagnostic test results is poorly understood, but it may have clinical importance. In this study, we investigated the relationship between C. difficile fecal load and the results of four assays: a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassay (EIA), a toxin A/B antigen EIA (ToxAB), a cell culture cytotoxicity assay (CCA), and PCR targeting the tcdB gene. We also compared the PCR cycle threshold (CT) with the results of quantitative culture using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Finally, we sequenced the genomes of 24 strains with different detection profiles. A total of 203 clinical samples harboring toxigenic C. difficile were analyzed and sorted into one of four groups: 17 PCR(+) (group 1), 37 PCR(+) GDH(+) (group 2), 24 PCR(+) GDH(+) CCA(+) (group 3), and 125 PCR(+) GDH(+) ToxAB(+) (group 4). The overall median fecal load in log10 CFU/g was 6.67 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.57 to 7.54). The median fecal bacterial load of groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 4.15 (IQR, 3.00 to 4.98), 5.74 (IQR, 4.75 to 6.16), 6.20 (IQR, 5.23 to 6.80), and 7.08 (IQR, 6.35 to 7.83), respectively. Group 1 samples had lower fecal loads than those from each of the other groups (P < 0.001). Group 2 samples had lower fecal loads than those from groups 3 and 4 (P < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between PCR CT and fecal loads (ρ = -0.697; P < 0.001). NAP1 strains were associated with the detection of toxins by EIA or CCA (P = 0.041). This study demonstrates an association between C. difficile fecal load and the results of routinely used diagnostic tests.

Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections: there is light at the end of the colon

Single molecular or multistep assays (glutamate dehydrogenase, toxin A/B, ± molecular) are recommended for the diagnosis of CDI in patients with clinically significant diarrhea. Rapid and accurate tests can improve resource allocations and improve patient care. Enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for toxins A/B is too insensitive for use as a stand-alone assay. This guideline will examine the use of molecular tests and multitest algorithms for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). These new tests, alone or in a multistep algorithm consisting of >1 assay, are more expensive than the older EIA assays; however, rapid and accurate testing can save money overall by initiating appropriate treatment and infection control protocols sooner and by possibly reducing length of hospital stay. We recommend testing only unformed stool in patients with clinically significant diarrhea by a molecular method or by a 2- to 3-step algorithm.

Evaluation of an algorithmic approach in comparison with the Illumigene assay for laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

The following three diagnostic algorithms were evaluated in comparison with the Illumigene assay as a stand-alone test for Clostridium difficile detection: glutamate dehydrogenase antigen screen (GDH) followed by toxin A/B antigen testing (Tox A/B) with the cell cytotoxicity assay for discordant specimens (algorithm 1), GDH followed by the Illumigene (algorithm 2), and GDH followed by Tox A/B with the Illumigene for discordant specimens (algorithm 3). A total of 428 stool specimens submitted to three clinical microbiology laboratories in Manitoba, Canada, for C. difficile detection between June 2011 and April 2012 were included in the study. The prevalence of C. difficile in the stool specimens was 14.7% (63/428) based on toxigenic culture (microbiologic reference standard). The sensitivity and specificity of the Illumigene for C. difficile detection were 73.0% and 99.7%, respectively. The corresponding sensitivities and specificities were 65.1% and 100.0% for algorithm 1, 68.3% and 100.0% for algorithm 2, and 69.8% and 100.0% for algorithm 3. Using algorithm 1, a cell cytotoxicity assay was required for toxin detection in 37% of positive tests, prolonging turnaround time. However, the predictive value of a positive test based on a clinical reference standard (all tests positive or cytotoxigenic culture positive and clinical disease on chart review) was slightly higher with algorithm 1 than with the Illumigene assay as a stand-alone test or as part of an algorithm (algorithms 2 and 3). Based on a reduction in turnaround time, simplicity, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity, we recommend algorithm 2 (screening with the GDH antigen test and confirmatory testing with the Illumigene).