Clinical Outcomes of Treated and Untreated C. difficile PCR-Positive/Toxin-Negative Adult Hospitalized Patients: a Quasi-Experimental Noninferiority Study

Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and Xpert C. difficile assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile in stool specimens

This study compared the performance of two commercial molecular assays, the STANDARD M10 Clostridioides difficile assay (M10) and the Xpert C. difficile assay (Xpert), for detecting toxigenic C. difficile in stool specimens. A total of 487 consecutive stool specimens submitted for routine C. difficile testing between June and November 2023 were included. Following routine testing using C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC), M10 and Xpert were tested in parallel, alongside toxigenic culture (reference standard). Additionally, two-step algorithms, using QCC on the first step and either M10 or Xpert on the second step, were assessed. Both M10 and Xpert demonstrated a sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. M10 exhibited significantly higher specificity and positive predictive value (PPV; 91.9% and 64.2%, respectively) than Xpert (90.3% and 59.8%, respectively). Both two-step algorithms showed a sensitivity and NPV of 98.4% and 99.8%, respectively. The specificity and PPV of the two-step algorithm using M10 (95.2% and 75.0%, respectively) were slightly higher than those of the one using Xpert (94.8% and 73.2%, respectively), without statistical significance. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, assessing the predictive ability of cycle threshold (Ct) values for the detection of free toxin, exhibited an area under the curve of 0.825 for M10 and 0.843 for Xpert. This indicates the utility of Ct values as predictors for the detection of free toxin in both assays. In conclusion, M10 proves to be an effective diagnostic tool with performance comparable to Xpert, whether utilized independently or as part of a two-step algorithm.

Potential underreporting of treated patients using a Clostridioides difficile testing algorithm that screens with a nucleic acid amplification test

OBJECTIVE

Patients tested for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) using a 2-step algorithm with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) followed by toxin assay are not reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network as a laboratory-identified CDI event if they are NAAT positive (+)/toxin negative (-). We compared NAAT+/toxin- and NAAT+/toxin+ patients and identified factors associated with CDI treatment among NAAT+/toxin- patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

The study was conducted across 36 laboratories at 5 Emerging Infections Program sites.

PATIENTS

We defined a CDI case as a positive test detected by this 2-step algorithm during 2018-2020 in a patient aged ≥1 year with no positive test in the previous 8 weeks.

METHODS

We used multivariable logistic regression to compare CDI-related complications and recurrence between NAAT+/toxin- and NAAT+/toxin+ cases. We used a mixed-effects logistic model to identify factors associated with treatment in NAAT+/toxin- cases.

RESULTS

Of 1,801 cases, 1,252 were NAAT+/toxin-, and 549 were NAAT+/toxin+. CDI treatment was given to 866 (71.5%) of 1,212 NAAT+/toxin- cases versus 510 (95.9%) of 532 NAAT+/toxin+ cases (P < .0001). NAAT+/toxin- status was protective for recurrence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77) but not CDI-related complications (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.28). Among NAAT+/toxin- cases, white blood cell count ≥15,000/µL (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.28-2.74), ≥3 unformed stools for ≥1 day (aOR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.40-2.59), and diagnosis by a laboratory that provided no or neutral interpretive comments (aOR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.23-4.68) were predictors of CDI treatment.

CONCLUSION

Use of this 2-step algorithm likely results in underreporting of some NAAT+/toxin- cases with clinically relevant CDI. Disease severity and laboratory interpretive comments influence treatment decisions for NAAT+/toxin- cases.

Clinical outcomes and treatment necessity in patients with toxin-negative Clostridioides difficile stool samples

PURPOSE

The clinical significance of negative toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for Clostridioides difficile infections (CDIs) is unclear. Our study aimed to investigate the significance of toxin EIA-negative in the diagnosis and prognosis of CDI.

METHODS

All stool specimens submitted for C. difficile toxin EIA testing were cultured to isolate C. difficile. In-house PCR for tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, and cdtB genes were performed using C. difficile isolates. Stool specimens were tested with C. difficile toxins A and B using EIA kit (RIDASCREEN Clostridium difficile toxin A/B, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Characteristics and subsequent CDI episodes of toxin EIA-negative and -positive patients were compared.

RESULTS

Among 190 C. difficile PCR-positive patients, 83 (43.7%) were toxin EIA-negative. Multivariate analysis revealed independent associations toxin EIA-negative results and shorter hospital stays (OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99, p = 0.013) and less high-risk antibiotic exposure in the preceding month (OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.16-0.94, p = 0.035). Toxin EIA-negative patients displayed a significantly lower white blood cell count rate (11.0 vs. 35.4%, p < 0.001). Among the 54 patients who were toxin EIA-negative and did not receive CDI treatment, three (5.6%) were diagnosed with CDI after 7-21 days without complication.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that toxin EIA-negative patients had milder laboratory findings and no complications, despite not receiving treatment. Prolonged hospitalisation and exposure to high-risk antibiotics could potentially serve as markers for the development of toxin EIA-positive CDI.

Multicenter evaluation of BioCode GPP for syndromic molecular detection of gastrointestinal pathogens from stool specimens

Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide across all age groups that disproportionally affects young children in low- and middle-income countries and immunocompromised patients in high-income countries. Regional outbreaks of AGE are typically detected by traditional microbiological detection methods that target limited organisms and are associated with low sensitivity and lengthy time-to-results. Combined, these may result in repeat testing, imprecise or delayed treatment, and delayed recognition of outbreaks. We conducted a multi-site prospective study comparing the BioCode Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel (BioCode GPP) for the detection of 17 common bacterial, viral, and protozoan causes of gastroenteritis with reference methods, including stool culture, enzyme immunoassays, pathogen-specific PCR assays, and sequencing. One thousand five hundred fifty-eight residual, de-identified stool samples (unpreserved stool and stool in Cary-Blair transport medium) were enrolled and tested for 11 bacterial, 3 viral, and 3 protozoan pathogens. BioCode GPP and reference methods were positive for 392 (25.2%) and 283 (18.2%) samples, respectively (P < 0.0001). In this study, the BioCode GPP and reference methods detected 69 and 65 specimens positive for Clostridioides difficile, 51 and 48 for enteroaggregative Escherichia coli, 33 and 27 for enterotoxigenic E. coli, 50 and 47 for norovirus GI/GII, and 30 and 22 for rotavirus A, respectively. The BioCode GPP showed good positive and negative agreements for each pathogen ranging from 89.5% to 100%, with overall sensitivity and specificity of 96.1% and 99.7%, post adjudication. The BioCode GPP detected >1 pathogens in 49 samples, representing 12.5% of the total 392 positive specimens.

IMPORTANCE

This study highlights performance of a novel technology for timely and accurate detection and differentiation of 17 common bacterial, viral, and protozoan causes of gastroenteritis. Utilizing molecular tests such as the BioCode Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel may improve the detection of gastrointestinal pathogens and provide actionable results, particularly for patient populations at most risk.

Clinical Outcomes and Management of NAAT-Positive/Toxin-Negative Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Standalone nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are frequently used to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), although they may be unable to distinguish colonization from disease. A 2-stage algorithm pairing NAATs with toxin immunoassays (Toxin) may improve specificity. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ versus NAAT+/Toxin- and treated versus untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases through systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE from inception to April 1, 2023 for articles comparing CDI outcomes among symptomatic patients tested by NAAT and Toxin tests. The risk differences (RD) of all-cause mortality and CDI recurrence were computed by random effects meta-analysis between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ and NAAT+/Toxin-, as well as between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- and treated or untreated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six observational studies comprising 12 737 patients were included. The 30-day all-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (8.4%) and NAAT+/Toxin- (6.7%) (RD = 0.41%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -.67, 1.49). Recurrence at 60 days was significantly higher among patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (19.8%) versus NAAT+/Toxin- (11.0%) (RD = 7.65%, 95% CI = 4.60, 10.71). Among treated compared to untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases, the all-cause 30-day mortalities were 5.0% and 12.7%, respectively (RD = -7.45%, 95% CI = -12.29, -2.60), but 60-day recurrence was not significantly different (11.6% vs 7.0%, respectively; RD = 5.25%, 95% CI -1.71, 12.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- was associated with reduced all-cause mortality but not recurrence. Although subject to the inherent limitations of observational studies, these results suggest that some patients who are NAAT+/Toxin- may benefit from treatment.

Antimicrobial Stewardship in Immunocompromised Patients: Current State and Future Opportunities

Immunocompromised (IC) patients are high risk for complications due to a high rate of antibiotic exposure. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions targeted to IC patients can be challenging due to limited data in this population and a high risk of severe infection-related outcomes. Here, the authors review immunocompromised antimicrobial stewardship barriers, metrics, and opportunities for antimicrobial use and testing optimization. Last, the authors highlight future steps in the field.

Real-world evaluation of a two-step testing algorithm for Clostridioides difficile infection

During the 4 years after implementation of the 2-step Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) testing algorithm, 70% to 78% of patients with suspected CDI and a positive nucleic acid amplification test but a negative toxin test (NAAT+/TOX-) received CDI treatment. Overall, 73% of NAAT+/TOX- patients were classified as having probable or possible CDI.

Leveraging diagnostic stewardship within antimicrobial stewardship programmes

Novel diagnostic stewardship in infectious disease consists of interventions that modify ordering, processing, and reporting of diagnostic tests to provide the right test for the right patient, prompting the right action. The interventions work upstream and synergistically with traditional antimicrobial stewardship efforts. As diagnostic stewardship continues to gain public attention, it is critical that antimicrobial stewardship programmes not only learn how to effectively leverage diagnostic testing to improve antimicrobial use but also ensure that they are stakeholders and leaders in developing new diagnostic stewardship interventions within their institutions. This review will discuss the need for diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship, the interplay of diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship, evidence of benefit to antimicrobial stewardship programmes, and considerations for successfully engaging in diagnostic stewardship interventions. This article is part of the Antibiotic stewardship Special Issue: https://www.drugsincontext.com/special_issues/antimicrobial-stewardship-a-focus-on-the-need-for-moderation.

Optimizing the interpretation of Clostridioides difficile two-step diagnostic algorithm results through antimicrobial stewardship

Over a 4-year period, the antimicrobial stewardship team reviewed all positive (PCR+/Tox+) and indeterminate (PCR+/Tox-) cases with the most responsible physician for classification of patients as infection or colonization. Among 501 indeterminate samples, 213 (43%) were considered to be clinical infection, suggesting the need for ongoing clinical assessment of indeterminates.

The value of fecal calprotectin in Clostridioides difficile infection: A systematic review

As a marker of inflammation, calprotectin has potential application value in a variety of inflammatory diseases, such as arthritis and bacterial infections. Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is an infectious disease that causes intestinal damage and inflammation. This systematic review aims to determine whether fecal calprotectin has application value in CDI. Nine databases were searched from inception to 6 June 2022, and 17 studies were included. These studies were divided into four groups according to their content. Generally speaking, fecal calprotectin is not an ideal indicator for the diagnosis and prognosis prediction of CDI but may serve as a potential indicator for assessing disease severity and as a readily detectable marker for CDI screening. In addition, patients in need of treatment or with detectable toxins in stool may tend to have higher levels of fecal calprotectin. In summary, fecal calprotectin has some potential application value in CDI. However, further studies are needed to verify these findings and determine the reliability of calprotectin as a biomarker for CDI.