Clostridium difficile testing algorithms using glutamate dehydrogenase antigen and C. difficile toxin enzyme immunoassays with C. difficile nucleic acid amplification testing increase diagnostic yield in a tertiary pediatric population

Clostridioides difficile Infections in Children: What Is the Optimal Laboratory Diagnostic Method?

The diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in the pediatric population is complicated by the high prevalence of asymptomatic colonization, particularly in infants. Many laboratory diagnostic methods are available, but there continues to be controversy over the optimal laboratory testing approach to diagnose CDI in children. We evaluated commonly used C. difficile diagnostic commercial tests in our pediatric hospital population at Sidra Medicine in Doha, Qatar. Between June and December 2023, 374 consecutive stool samples from pediatric patients aged 0-18 years old were tested using: Techlab C. diff Quik Chek Complete, Cepheid GeneXpert C. difficile, QIAstat-Dx Gastrointestinal Panel, and culture using CHROMagar C. difficile. The results of these tests as standalone methods or in four different testing algorithms were compared to a composite reference method on the basis of turnaround time, ease of use, cost, and performance characteristics including specificity, sensitivity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value. Our study showed variability in test performance of the different available assays in diagnosing CDI. In our population, a testing algorithm starting with Cepheid GeneXpert C. difficile PCR assay or QIAstat-Dx Gastrointestinal panel as a screening test followed by toxin immunoassay for positive samples using the Techlab C. diff Quik Chek Complete kit showed the best performance (100% specificity and 100% positive predictive value) when combined with clinical review of the patient to assess risk factors for CDI, clinical presentation, and alternative causes of diarrhea.

Prevalence of Clostridioides difficile in dogs (Canis familiaris) with gastrointestinal disorders in Rio de Janeiro

Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) have a high morbidity and mortality rate and have always been considered a nosocomial disease. Nonetheless, the number of cases of community-acquired CDI is increasing, and new evidence suggests additional C. difficile reservoirs exist. Pathogenic C. difficile strains have been found in livestock, domestic animals, and meat, so a zoonotic transmission has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to isolate C. difficile strains in dogs at a veterinary clinic in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and characterize clinical and pathological findings associated with lower gastrointestinal tract disorders.

METHODS

Fifty stool samples and biopsy fragments from dogs were obtained and cultured in the CDBA selective medium. All suggestive C. difficile colonies were confirmed by MALDI-TOF MS and PCR (tpi gene). Vancomycin, metronidazole, moxifloxacin, erythromycin, and rifampicin were tested for antibiotic susceptibility. Biofilm, motility assays, and a PCR for the toxins (tcdA, tcdB, and cdtB), as well as ribotyping, were also performed.

RESULTS

Blood samples and colonic biopsy fragments were examined in C. difficile positive dogs. Ten animals (20%) tested positive for C. difficile by using stool samples, but not from biopsy fragments. Most C. difficile strains were toxigenic: six were A+B+ belonging to RT106; two were A+B+ belonging to RT014/020; and two were A-B- belonging to RT010. All strains were biofilm producers. In the motility test, 40% of strains were as motile as the positive control, CD630 (RT012). In the disc diffusion test, two strains (RT010) were resistant to erythromycin and metronidazole; and another to metronidazole (RT014/020). In terms of C. difficile clinicopathological correlations, no statistically significant morphological changes, such as pseudomembranous and "volcano" lesions, were observed. Regarding hematological data, dogs positive for C. difficile had leucopenia (p = 0.02) and lymphopenia (p = 0.03). There was a significant correlation between senility and the presence of C. difficile in the dogs studied (p = 0,02).

CONCLUSIONS

Although C. difficile has not been linked to canine diarrheal disorders, it appears to be more common in dogs with intestinal dysfunctions. The isolation of ribotypes frequently involved in human CDI outbreaks around the world supports the theory of C. difficile zoonotic transmission.

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.

The prevalence, risk factors, and complications of Clostridium difficile infection in a tertiary care center, western region, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Clostridium difficile is an anaerobic gram-positive spore-forming bacillus that is most commonly associated with nosocomial diarrhea. This study aimed to analyze the prevalence and risk factors of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) at a tertiary health care center, Western region, Saudi Arabia. We also aimed to examine the duration of exposure to each risk factor prior CDI development, and to categorize CDI as severe and non-severe depending on the white blood cell (WBC) count. Various complications of the infection were also analyzed.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who had a positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for Clostridium difficile toxin genes between October 2018 and October 2020.

RESULTS

The prevalence of CDI among the included patients was 9.1% (237 of 2611 patients). The mean age (standard deviation) was 56.86 (21) years, and the infection was more prevalent among men (52.74%) than among women (47.26%). The most common risk factor associated with CDI was recent antibiotic use (74.68%), followed by recent acid suppressant use (67.50%), malignancy (46%), and previous gastrointestinal surgery (6.30%). The CDI recurrence rate was 13.90%. Piperacillin-tazobactam was the most frequently used broad-spectrum antibiotic, and was used in 38.8% of the patients, followed by meropenem. The most common malignancy type was lymphoma (22.94%, n = 25), followed by leukemia (n = 23). The most common type of surgery was subtotal colectomy (n = 6). Three patients underwent transverse colon resection, and two underwent ileocecal resection. Hypotension was the most frequently recorded complication (28.40%) in the study population.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence rate of CDI among the study patients during the two-year study from October 2018 to October 2020 was 9.1%. Appropriate use of antibiotic and acid suppressants, and contact isolation measures can help in decreasing the number of CDI cases.

Comparative Evaluation of Three Immunoassays for the Simultaneous Detection of Clostridioides difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxin A/B

Background: In the medical laboratory, a step-by-step workflow for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) detection using glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B assays for initial screening, along with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), has been recommended recently. In this study, we evaluated these three immunoassays for the simultaneous detection of GDH and Clostridioides difficile (CD) toxin A/B. Methods: A total of 304 stool samples were tested for the presence of GDH antigen and CD toxin A/B using VIDAS C. difficile GDH and toxin A/B (CDAB), RIDASCREEN C. difficile GDH and toxin A/B (RIDA), and C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. As complementary reference methods for GDH and toxin A/B detection in the three immunoassays, CD cultures using ChromID C. difficile agar and the Xpert C. difficile assay, respectively, were tested. Results: All three GDH assays showed overall substantial agreement with the CD culture. All three toxin A/B assays showed overall moderate agreement with the Xpert C. difficile assay. In comparison with consensus results, VIDAS GDH and QCC GDH showed almost perfect agreement, whereas RIDA GDH showed inferior but substantial agreement. All three toxin A/B assays showed almost perfect agreement. Conclusions: Since the QCC GDH and toxin A/B assay is relatively more sensitive and specific than the other two immunoassays for discriminating toxigenic or non-toxigenic CDI, QCC is very helpful for the simultaneous identification of GDH and CD toxin A/B in the initial step of the two-round workflow for diagnosing CDI.

Pediatric Clostridioides difficile Infection: Diagnosis and Diagnostic Stewardship

Although the pathogenesis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is complex and incompletely understood, it is believed that the elaboration of C. difficile toxins is necessary for disease. There are a variety of tests available for the detection of both the C. difficile organism and its toxins; however, each has limitations and the best application of these tests to the diagnosis of CDI in children remains uncertain. Nucleic acid amplification tests are unable to reliably discriminate between CDI and C. difficile colonization, while commercially available enzyme immunoassays for toxin detection lack sensitivity. An understanding of preanalytic factors, relevant patient features, and test performance characteristics is essential to the accurate diagnosis of CDI in children. Specific diagnostic stewardship strategies can also increase the likelihood that positive tests reflect disease rather than colonization. Ultimately, CDI remains a clinical diagnosis and clinical judgment is essential when interpreting test results, regardless of the methods used.

Significance of a polymerase chain reaction method in the detection of Clostridioides difficile

OBJECTIVE

Clostridioides difficile (CD) is the most common cause of nosocomial diarrhea. Detection of CD toxin in patients' faecal samples is the traditional rapid method for the diagnosis of CD infection. Various testing algorithms have been proposed: an initial screening test using a rapid test, and a confirmatory test (cytotoxicity neutralization assay, toxigenic culture, nucleic acid amplification test) for discordant results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a two-step algorithm using an immunochromatographic test followed of a polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

METHODS

The specimens have been tested according to the following schedule: 1) Step one: All samples were tested for detection of glutamate dehydrogenase antigen (GDH) and toxin A/B using the C. diff QUIK CHEK Complete test. All GDH and toxins positive results were considered CD positives; 2) Step two: When the results were discrepant (only GDH+ or toxins+), the samples were confirmed using the PCR test BD MAX Cdiff. All PCR positive results were considered CD positives.

RESULTS

A total of 2,138 specimens were initially tested. 139 were positive for GDH and toxins. 160 discrepant results (148 GDH+ and 12 toxins+) were tested by PCR, 117 were positive (107/148 GDH+ and 10/12 toxins+).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a PCR method showed an increase de 117 positive results (73.1% of discrepant). Considering the sensitivity of C.diff QUIK CHEK (instructions of manufacturer), the GDH discrepant results may be false negatives, y the samples PCR and toxins positives may be real positives results.

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.

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.

Clostridioides difficile in Outpatients: Application of a Diagnostic Algorithm Recommended by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

This study aimed at evaluating in outpatients an algorithm for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI), i.e., enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) detecting bacterial glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B, followed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses of samples with discordant EIA results.

In total, 9802 examinations of stool samples by GDH and toxin EIAs performed in 7263 outpatients and 488 inpatients were analyzed retrospectively. Samples with discordant EIA results had been tested by a commercially available PCR assay detecting genes of the C. difficile-specific triose phosphate isomerase (tpi) and toxin B (tcdB). Concordant EIA results (686 C. difficile-positive, 8121 negative) were observed for 8807 (89.8%; 95% CI, 89.2–90.4%) samples. Of 958 samples with discordant EIA results, 895 were analyzed using PCR and 580 of 854 GDH-positive/borderline, toxin-negative samples (67.9%; 95% CI, 64.7–71.0%) were positive for tpi and tcdB, while 274 samples (32.1%; 95% CI, 29.0–35.3%) were tcdB-negative. In contrast, 35 of 41 GDH-negative, toxin-positive/borderline samples (85.4%; 95% CI, 71.2–93.5%) were tcdB-negative. Still, 6 samples (14.6%; 95% CI, 6.5–28.8%) yielded positive PCR results for both genes.

In conclusion, around 90% of the samples were analyzed appropriately by only applying EIAs. Approximately one third of the PCR-analyzed samples were tcdB-negative; thus, patients most likely did not require CDI treatment.

Enterotoxic Clostridia: Clostridioides difficile Infections

Clostridioides difficile is a Gram-positive, anaerobic, spore forming pathogen of both humans and animals and is the most common identifiable infectious agent of nosocomial antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Infection can occur following the ingestion and germination of spores, often concurrently with a disruption to the gastrointestinal microbiota, with the resulting disease presenting as a spectrum, ranging from mild and self-limiting diarrhea to severe diarrhea that may progress to life-threating syndromes that include toxic megacolon and pseudomembranous colitis. Disease is induced through the activity of the C. difficile toxins TcdA and TcdB, both of which disrupt the Rho family of GTPases in host cells, causing cell rounding and death and leading to fluid loss and diarrhea. These toxins, despite their functional and structural similarity, do not contribute to disease equally. C. difficile infection (CDI) is made more complex by a high level of strain diversity and the emergence of epidemic strains, including ribotype 027-strains which induce more severe disease in patients. With the changing epidemiology of CDI, our understanding of C. difficile disease, diagnosis, and pathogenesis continues to evolve. This article provides an overview of the current diagnostic tests available for CDI, strain typing, the major toxins C. difficile produces and their mode of action, the host immune response to each toxin and during infection, animal models of disease, and the current treatment and prevention strategies for CDI.

Simultaneous Detection of Clostridioides difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxin A/B: Comparison of the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE and RIDASCREEN Assays

Various commercial assays have recently been developed for detecting glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and/or toxin A/B to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). We compared the performance of two assays for the simultaneous detection of C. difficile GDH and toxin A/B, using 150 stool samples: C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC; TechLab, Blacksburg, VA, USA) and RIDASCREEN Clostridium difficile GDH (RC-GDH) and Toxin A/B (RC-Toxin A/B; R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany). For GDH detection, QCC and RC-GDH showed satisfactory sensitivity (95.7% and 94.3%, respectively) and specificity (92.5% and 93.8%, respectively) compared with C. difficile culture. For toxin A/B detection, QCC showed higher sensitivity than RC-Toxin A/B (60.0% vs 33.3%, P<0.001) compared with toxigenic C. difficile culture. When the results of QCC or RC-GDH+RC-Toxin A/B were used as the first step of a two-step algorithm for diagnosing CDI, QCC permitted more accurate discrimination than RC of positive or negative results for CDI (77.3% and 65.3%, respectively). QCC is useful for the simultaneous detection of C. difficile GDH and toxin A/B as a part of the two-step algorithm for diagnosing CDI.

Clostridioides difficile-Associated Diarrhea: Infection Prevention Unknowns and Evolving Risk Reduction Strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

New controversies in the diagnosis and prevention of Clostridiodes difficile are challenging and at times changing infection control practice at many medical centers.

RECENT FINDINGS

Molecular epidemiologic studies are changing our understanding of C. difficile and its spectrum of disease. C. difficile as a hospital-acquired infection is likely largely overdiagnosed given overly sensitive molecular testing and widespread colonization of ill or debilitated patients. Clostridiodes difficile infection continues to challenge infection prevention programs. Shifts in our understanding of the epidemiology of this organism and its spectrum of clinical presentations are changing the approach to prevention efforts. Nevertheless, cleanliness of the healthcare environment and antimicrobial stewardship remain core risk reduction strategies. Other strategies such as screening and isolation are inciting controversy. The optimal infection prevention strategies for C. difficile remain the subject of intense study and debate.

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.

Five years of fecal microbiota transplantation - an update of the Israeli experience

AIM

To evaluate and describe the efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in a national Israeli cohort.

METHODS

All patients who received FMT for recurrent (recurrence within 8 wk of the previous treatment) or refractory CDI from 2013 through 2017 in all the five medical centers in Israel currently performing FMT were included. Stool donors were screened according to the Israeli Ministry of Health guidelines. Clinical and laboratory data of patients were collected from patients’ medical files, and they included indications for FMT, risk factors for CDI and disease severity. Primary outcome was FMT success (at least 2 mo free of CDI-related diarrhea post-FMT). Secondary outcomes included initial response to FMT (cessation of diarrhea within 7 d) and recurrence at 6 mo.

RESULTS

There were 111 FMTs for CDI, with a median age of 70 years [interquartile range (IQR): 53-82], and 42% (47) males. Fifty patients (45%) were treated via the lower gastrointestinal (LGI, represented only by colonoscopy) route, 37 (33%) via capsules, and 24 (22%) via the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) route. The overall success rate was 87.4% (97 patients), with no significant difference between routes of administration (P = 0.338). In the univariant analysis, FMT success correlated with milder disease (P = 0.01), ambulatory setting (P < 0.05) and lower Charlson comorbidity score (P < 0.05). In the multivariant analysis, only severe CDI [odd ratio (OR) = 0.14, P < 0.05] and inpatient FMT (OR = 0.19, P < 0.05) were each independently inversely related to FMT success. There were 35 (32%) patients younger than 60 years of age, and 14 (40%) of them had a background of inflammatory bowel disease.

CONCLUSION

FMT is a safe and effective treatment for CDI, with capsules emerging as a successful and well-tolerated route. Severe CDI is less likely to respond to FMT.

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.

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.

Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: Comparison of Techlab C. diff Quik Chek Complete, Xpert C. difficile, and multistep algorithmic approach

BACKGROUND

Clostridium difficile is a major pathogen responsible for nosocomial infectious diarrhea. We explored optimal laboratory strategies for diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI) in our clinical settings, a 1400-bed tertiary care hospital.

METHODS

Using 191 fresh stool samples from adult patients, we evaluated the performance of Xpert C. difficile (Xpert CD), C. diff Quik Chek Complete (which simultaneously detects glutamate dehydrogenase [GDH] and C. difficile toxins [CDT]), toxigenic culture, and a two-step algorithm composed of GDH/CDT as a screening test and Xpert CD as a confirmatory test.

RESULTS

Clostridium difficile was detected in 35 samples (18.3%), and all isolates were toxigenic strains. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value of each assay for detecting CDI were as follows: Quik Chek Complete CDT (45.7%, 100%, 100%, 89.1%), Quik Chek Complete GDH (97.1%, 99.4%, 97.1%, 99.4%), Xpert CD (94.3%, 100%, 100%, 98.7%), and toxigenic culture (91.4%, 100%, 100%, 98.1%). A two-step algorithm performed identically with Xpert CD assay.

CONCLUSION

Our data showed that most C. difficile isolates from adult patients were toxigenic. We demonstrated that a two-step algorithm based on GDH/CDT assay followed by Xpert CD assay as a confirmatory test was rapid, reliable, and cost effective for diagnosis of CDI in an adult patient setting with high prevalence of toxigenic C. difficile.

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

Diagnostic testing for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has, in recent years, seen the introduction of rapid dual-EIA (enzyme immunoassay) tests combining species-specific glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) with toxin A/B. In a prospective study, we compared the C. DIFF Quik Chek Complete test to a combination of selective culture (SC) and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) of the toxin A gene. Of 419 specimens, 68 were positive in SC including 62 positive in LAMP (14.7%). The combined EIA yielded 82 GDH positives of which 47 were confirmed toxin A/B positive (11%) corresponding to a sensitivity and specificity of 94% for GDH EIA compared to SC and for toxin A/B EIA a sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 99% compared to LAMP. Twenty different PCR ribotypes were evenly distributed except for UK 081 where only 25% were toxin A/B positive compared to LAMP. We propose a primary use of a combined GDH toxin A/B EIA permitting a sensitive 1-h result of 379 of 419 (90%, all negatives plus GDH and toxin EIA positives) referred specimens. The remaining 10% being GDH positive should be tested for toxin A/B gene on the same day and positive results left to a final decision by the physician.

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.

Clostridium difficile infection

Infection of the colon with the Gram-positive bacterium Clostridium difficile is potentially life threatening, especially in elderly people and in patients who have dysbiosis of the gut microbiota following antimicrobial drug exposure. C. difficile is the leading cause of health-care-associated infective diarrhoea. The life cycle of C. difficile is influenced by antimicrobial agents, the host immune system, and the host microbiota and its associated metabolites. The primary mediators of inflammation in C. difficile infection (CDI) are large clostridial toxins, toxin A (TcdA) and toxin B (TcdB), and, in some bacterial strains, the binary toxin CDT. The toxins trigger a complex cascade of host cellular responses to cause diarrhoea, inflammation and tissue necrosis - the major symptoms of CDI. The factors responsible for the epidemic of some C. difficile strains are poorly understood. Recurrent infections are common and can be debilitating. Toxin detection for diagnosis is important for accurate epidemiological study, and for optimal management and prevention strategies. Infections are commonly treated with specific antimicrobial agents, but faecal microbiota transplants have shown promise for recurrent infections. Future biotherapies for C. difficile infections are likely to involve defined combinations of key gut microbiota.

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infections in Children

The detection and diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection in pediatric populations have some unique considerations in comparison to testing in adults. The testing methodologies, including toxigenic culture, cell cytotoxicity, antigen detection, and, more recently, molecular testing, are the same in all age groups. However, limited data exist on the specific performance characteristics in children. In this review, we focus on the challenges of testing in pediatric populations and assess the available data on test performance in these populations. Additionally, a review of the existing guidance for testing is provided.

Diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification in detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) remains a diagnostic challenge for clinicians. More recently, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) has become readily available for the diagnosis of CDI, and many studies have investigated the usefulness of LAMP for rapid and accurate diagnosis of CDI. However, the overall diagnostic accuracy of LAMP for CDI remains unclear. In this meta-analysis, our aim was to establish the overall diagnostic accuracy of LAMP in detection of Clostridium difficile (CD) in stool samples.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was done in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases up to February 2014 to identify published studies that evaluated the diagnostic role of LAMP for CD. Methodological quality was assessed according to the quality assessment for studies of diagnostic accuracy (QUADAS) instrument. The sensitivities (SEN), specificities (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were pooled statistically using random effects models. Statistical analysis was performed by employing Meta-Disc 1.4 software. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were used to summarize overall test performance. Funnel plots were used to test the potential publication bias.

RESULT

A total of 9 studies met inclusion criteria for the present meta-analysis. The pooled SEN and SPE for diagnosing CD were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99), respectively. The PLR was 47.72 (95% CI: 15.10-150.82), NLR was 0.07 (95% CI: 0.04-0.14) and DOR was 745.19 (95% CI: 229.30-2421.72). The area under the ROC was 0.98. Meta-regression indicated that the total number of samples was a source of heterogeneity for LAMP in detection of CD. The funnel plots suggested no publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The LAMP meets the minimum desirable characteristics of a diagnostic test of SEN, SPE and other measures of accuracy in the diagnosis of CD, and it is suitable as a rapid, effective and reliable stand-alone diagnostic test for diagnosis of CDI, potentially decreasing morbidity and nosocomial spread of CD.

Development and Validation of Digital Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Ultrasensitive Detection and Quantification of Clostridium difficile Toxins in Stool

The currently available diagnostics for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) have major limitations. Despite mounting evidence that toxin detection is paramount for diagnosis, conventional toxin immunoassays are insufficiently sensitive and cytotoxicity assays too complex; assays that detect toxigenic organisms (toxigenic culture [TC] and nucleic acid amplification testing [NAAT]) are confounded by asymptomatic colonization by toxigenic C. difficile. We developed ultrasensitive digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for toxins A and B using single-molecule array technology and validated the assays using (i) culture filtrates from a panel of clinical C. difficile isolates and (ii) 149 adult stool specimens already tested routinely by NAAT. The digital ELISAs detected toxins A and B in stool with limits of detection of 0.45 and 1.5 pg/ml, respectively, quantified toxins across a 4-log range, and detected toxins from all clinical strains studied. Using specimens that were negative by cytotoxicity assay/TC/NAAT, clinical cutoffs were set at 29.4 pg/ml (toxin A) and 23.3 pg/ml (toxin B); the resulting clinical specificities were 96% and 98%, respectively. The toxin B digital ELISA was 100% sensitive versus cytotoxicity assay. Twenty-five percent and 22% of the samples positive by NAAT and TC, respectively, were negative by the toxin B digital ELISA, consistent with the presence of organism but minimal or no toxin. The mean toxin levels by digital ELISA were 1.5- to 1.7-fold higher in five patients with CDI-attributable severe outcomes, versus 68 patients without, but this difference was not statistically significant. Ultrasensitive digital ELISAs for the detection and quantification of toxins A and B in stool can provide a rapid and simple tool for the diagnosis of CDI with both high analytical sensitivity and high clinical specificity.

Pitfalls in Diagnosis of Pediatric Clostridium difficile Infection

The incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has risen among children and C difficile is increasingly recognized as an important cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea among pediatric patients. Still, increased identification of CDI in healthy children in the community and increased testing among infants requires cautious interpretation, given the high prevalence of asymptomatic colonization in young infants and frequent detection of viruses and other co-pathogens in stool specimens in these age groups. The significance of CDI among infants and the implications of positive C difficile testing among healthy children in the community are areas in need of further study.

Ultrasound diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea

Clostridium difficile colitis is diagnosed using an immunoassay or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for toxins A/B. Since ultrasound is frequently used as a screening test for hospitalized patients suffering from different abdominal morbidities, we searched for sonographic indicators of C. difficile infection (CDI). In a prospective and blinded case-control study, abdominal ultrasound was performed on hospitalized patients for whom stool samples were sent for C. difficile toxin immunoassay. All patients with positive toxin were included as the case group and patients with negative toxin comprised the control group. Sonographic parameters of both groups were compared. Demographic variables of the 67 patients in the toxin-positive group were similar to those of the 71 patients in the toxin-negative group. The sonographic parameters which were found to be associated with CDI included colonic wall thickening, appearing in 61 (91%) patients of the toxin-positive group versus 15 (21%) patients of the toxin-negative group (p < 0.001), and also internal ring (24 versus 0%, p < 0.001), external ring (15 versus 0%, p < 0.001), ascites (24 versus 10%, p < 0.001), and diminution of large bowel content (16 versus 1%, p < 0.001). Bowel wall thickening had high positive and negative predictive values (0.80 and 0.90, respectively), while the other features had only high positive predictive values (0.7-1.0). Abdominal ultrasound may contribute to the diagnosis of C. difficile colitis in patients developing hospital-acquired diarrhea.

Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Diagnosis of Bacterial Gastroenteritis

Bacterial gastroenteritis is a disease that is pervasive in both the developing and developed worlds. While for the most part bacterial gastroenteritis is self-limiting, identification of an etiological agent by bacterial stool culture is required for the management of patients with severe or prolonged diarrhea, symptoms consistent with invasive disease, or a history that may predict a complicated course of disease. Importantly, characterization of bacterial enteropathogens from stool cultures in clinical laboratories is one of the primary means by which public health officials identify and track outbreaks of bacterial gastroenteritis. This article provides guidance for clinical microbiology laboratories that perform stool cultures. The general characteristics, epidemiology, and clinical manifestations of key bacterial enteropathogens are summarized. Information regarding optimal specimen collection, transport, and processing and current diagnostic tests and testing algorithms is provided. This article is an update of Cumitech 12A (P. H. Gilligan, J. M. Janda, M. A. Karmali, and J. M. Miller, Cumitech 12A, Laboratory diagnosis of bacterial diarrhea, 1992).

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.

Clostridium difficile Infection Is More Severe When Toxin Is Detected in the Stool than When Detected Only by a Toxigenic Culture

OBJECTIVE

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the major cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in hospital inpatients. Rapid testing for the toxins in stool specimens is inconclusive due to its low sensitivity. Therefore, a two-step method is recommended as the most appropriate approach. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the differences in the disease severity score between the patients who were glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)-positive/enzyme immunoassays (EIA) toxin-positive (group A) and those who were GDH-positive/EIA toxin-negative, but who were nonetheless finally confirmed to be toxin-positive by toxigenic culture testing (group B).

METHODS

A rapid detection EIA for GDH and toxin A/B were simultaneously performed for initial screening. Subsequently, the toxin production by bacterial colonies in culture was retested with the same rapid test kit when necessitated by an equivocal result of the initial screening.

RESULTS

A total of 334 fecal specimens were evaluated. Group A consisted of 25 specimens (from 16 patients) and group B consisted of 27 specimens (from 12 patients). The severity score (based on a number of factors, including age, body temperature, serum albumin level and white cell count) of group A and B was 2.2±0.7 and 1.4±0.5, respectively (p=0.002).

CONCLUSION

The cases of CDI in which the toxins were detected by the initial screening test were more severe than those where the toxins were not detected at the initial screening but were identified by the toxigenic culture. In addition, the most significant factors affecting the severity score were an older age and a lower serum albumin level.

Clostridium difficile infection diagnosis in a paediatric population: comparison of methodologies

The increasing incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in paediatric hospitalised populations, combined with the emergence of hypervirulent strains, community-acquired CDI and the need for prompt treatment and infection control, makes the rapid, accurate diagnosis of CDI crucial. We validated commonly used C. difficile diagnostic tests in a paediatric hospital population. From October 2011 to January 2012, 150 consecutive stools were collected from 75 patients at a tertiary paediatric hospital in Perth, Western Australia. Stools were tested using: C. Diff Quik Chek Complete, Illumigene C. difficile, GeneOhm Cdiff, cycloserine cefoxitin fructose agar (CCFA) culture, and cell culture cytotoxin neutralisation assay (CCNA). The reference standard was growth on CCFA or Cdiff Chromagar and PCR on isolates to detect tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, and cdtB. Isolates were PCR ribotyped. The prevalence of CDI was high (43 % of patients). Quik Chek Complete glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) demonstrated a low negative predictive value (NPV) (93 %). Both CCNA and Quik Chek Complete toxin A/B had poor sensitivity (33 % and 29 % respectively). Molecular methods both had 89 % sensitivity. Algorithms using GDH + Illumigene or GeneOhm reduced the sensitivity to 85 % and 83 % respectively. Ribotype UK014/20 predominated. GDH NPV and GeneOhm and Illumigene sensitivities were reduced compared with adult studies. Quik Chek Complete and CCNA cannot reliably detect toxigenic CDI. A GDH first algorithm showed reduced sensitivity. In a high prevalence paediatric population, molecular methods alone are recommended over the use of GDH algorithm or culture and CCNA, as they demonstrate the best test performance characteristics.

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories

Clostridium difficile is a formidable nosocomial and community-acquired pathogen, causing clinical presentations ranging from asymptomatic colonization to self-limiting diarrhea to toxic megacolon and fulminant colitis. Since the early 2000s, the incidence of C. difficile disease has increased dramatically, and this is thought to be due to the emergence of new strain types. For many years, the mainstay of C. difficile disease diagnosis was enzyme immunoassays for detection of the C. difficile toxin(s), although it is now generally accepted that these assays lack sensitivity. A number of molecular assays are commercially available for the detection of C. difficile. This review covers the history and biology of C. difficile and provides an in-depth discussion of the laboratory methods used for the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI). In addition, strain typing methods for C. difficile and the evolving epidemiology of colonization and infection with this organism are discussed. Finally, considerations for diagnosing C. difficile disease in special patient populations, such as children, oncology patients, transplant patients, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease, are described. As detection of C. difficile in clinical specimens does not always equate with disease, the diagnosis of C. difficile infection continues to be a challenge for both laboratories and clinicians.

Clostridium difficile infection in children: a comprehensive review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive review of the literature relating to Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) infection (CDI) in the pediatric population.

METHODS

Two investigators conducted independent searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus until March 31st, 2013. All databases were searched using the terms 'Clostridium difficile infection', 'Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea' 'antibiotic associated diarrhea', 'C. difficile', in combination with 'pediatric' and 'paediatric'. Articles which discussed pediatric CDI were reviewed and relevant cross references also read and evaluated for inclusion. Selection bias could be a possible limitation of this approach.

FINDINGS

There is strong evidence for an increased incidence of pediatric CDI. Increasingly, the infection is being acquired from the community, often without a preceding history of antibiotic use. The severity of the disease has remained unchanged. Several medical conditions may be associated with the development of pediatric CDI. Infection prevention and control with antimicrobial stewardship are of paramount importance. It is important to consider the age of the child while testing for CDI. Traditional therapy with metronidazole or vancomycin remains the mainstay of treatment. Newer antibiotics such as fidaxomicin appear promising especially for the treatment of recurrent infection. Conservative surgical options may be a life-saving measure in severe or fulminant cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric providers should be cognizant of the increased incidence of CDI in children. Early and judicious testing coupled with the timely institution of therapy will help to secure better outcomes for this disease.

Molecular techniques for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the usefulness of 2 rapid molecular diagnostic techniques, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), in Clostridium difficile infection (CDI).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of PCR and LAMP in diagnosis of CDI, including studies that used toxigenic culture or cytotoxicity assay as reference standard.

RESULTS

A search of PubMed and CinAHL medical databases yielded 25 PCR studies, including 11,801 samples that met inclusion criteria and 6 heterogeneous studies that evaluated LAMP. With toxigenic culture as a standard, pooled sensitivity was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.94); specificity, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.94-0.95); and diagnostic odds ratio, 378 (95% CI, 260-547). With cytotoxicity as a standard, pooled sensitivity was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.90); specificity, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.97-0.98); and diagnostic odds ratio, 370 (95% CI, 226-606).

CONCLUSION

Polymerase chain reaction is a highly accurate test for identifying CDI. Heterogeneity in LAMP studies did not allow meta-analysis; however, further research into this promising method is warranted.