Multicenter evaluation of a new screening test that detects Clostridium difficile in fecal specimens

Isolation and characterization of a multidrug-resistant Clostridioides difficile toxinotype V from municipal wastewater treatment plant

PURPOSE

Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is regarded as a potential source for transmission of Clostridioides difficile from urban areas into the surface water, through feces of human and animals. The aim of this study was to screen and characterize the C. difficile bacteria in inlet and outlet wastewater of different WWTPs in Tehran, Iran.

METHODS

Totally, 72 samples were collected from three different WWTPs (inlet site and outlet sites) during a year. C. difficile was isolated and characterized in terms of toxins, toxinotype, resistance profile and genes, and colonization factors using PCR.

RESULTS

One C. difficile toxinotype V was isolated from the outlet samples. The isolate was susceptible to vancomycin but resistant to metronidazole, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and moxifloxacin using MIC Test Strips. The isolated C. difficile was toxigenic (tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, cdtB positive and CPE positive) and had tcdC-A genotype. No mutations were found in fliC and fliD. The slpA sequence type was 078 - 01. The C. difficile was positive for tetM, int, but negative for vanA, nim, and tndX genes. Mutations were not observed in gyrA and gyrB genes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided evidence of presence of a multidrug-resistant C. difficile toxinotype V in one of the municipal WWTP. The transmission of such isolate to the environment and reuse of treated wastewater by human pose a threat to human health and dissemination of antibiotic resistant bacteria which are untreatable.

Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection: An official clinical practice guideline of the Spanish Society of Chemotherapy (SEQ), Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) and the working group of Postoperative Infection of the Spanish Society of Anesthesia and Reanimation (SEDAR)

This document gathers the opinion of a multidisciplinary forum of experts on different aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in Spain. It has been structured around a series of questions that the attendees considered relevant and in which a consensus opinion was reached. The main messages were as follows: CDI should be suspected in patients older than 2 years of age in the presence of diarrhea, paralytic ileus and unexplained leukocytosis, even in the absence of classical risk factors. With a few exceptions, a single stool sample is sufficient for diagnosis, which can be sent to the laboratory with or without transportation media for enteropathogenic bacteria. In the absence of diarrhoea, rectal swabs may be valid. The microbiology laboratory should include C. difficile among the pathogens routinely searched in patients with diarrhoea. Laboratory tests in different order and sequence schemes include GDH detection, presence of toxins, molecular tests and toxigenic culture. Immediate determination of sensitivity to drugs such as vancomycin, metronidazole or fidaxomycin is not required. The evolution of toxin persistence is not a suitable test for follow up. Laboratory diagnosis of CDI should be rapid and results reported and interpreted to clinicians immediately. In addition to the basic support of all diarrheic episodes, CDI treatment requires the suppression of antiperistaltic agents, proton pump inhibitors and antibiotics, where possible. Oral vancomycin and fidaxomycin are the antibacterials of choice in treatment, intravenous metronidazole being restricted for patients in whom the presence of the above drugs in the intestinal lumen cannot be assured. Fecal material transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with multiple recurrences but uncertainties persist regarding its standardization and safety. Bezlotoxumab is a monoclonal antibody to C. difficile toxin B that should be administered to patients at high risk of recurrence. Surgery is becoming less and less necessary and prevention with vaccines is under research. Probiotics have so far not been shown to be therapeutically or preventively effective. The therapeutic strategy should be based, rather than on the number of episodes, on the severity of the episodes and on their potential to recur. Some data point to the efficacy of oral vancomycin prophylaxis in patients who reccur CDI when systemic antibiotics are required again.

Characterization of Clostridioides difficile isolates recovered from hospitalized patients and the hospitals environment and air: A multicenter study

In healthcare settings, contamination of environment with toxigenic and hypervirulent Clostridioides difficile strains is a serious concern. Here, we assessed whether patients with C. difficile have a role to play in the dissemination of C. difficile in our settings or other sources are implicated in its circulation. A total of 700 fecal specimens and 1435 environmental samples from surfaces, equipment and air of rooms occupied by patients suspected of C. difficile infection were taken from 4 tertiary hospitals in Tehran, Iran between April 2016 and August 2017. Antibiotic susceptibility testing and detection of resistance genes were performed for the environmental isolates. The clinical and environmental isolates of C. difficile were subjected to Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis. Forty three (6.14%) and 2 (0.13%) isolates of C. difficile were recovered from the clinical and environmental samples, respectively. In the clinical settings, 2 patients were suspected of recurrent C. difficile infection. Thirty distinct pulsotypes were found among the C. difficile isolates including 28 singletons and 2 common types. One of the two environmental isolates was isolated from floor in the Medical ward, of pulsotype/ribotype/toxinotype PT10/New ribotype/toxinotype V, harbored cdtA/B and tcdC-A, and resistant to ciprofloxacin. The other one was isolated from air of a room in ICU, assigned to PT11/RT001/toxinotype 0, belonged to tcdC-sc3 genotypes and resistant to metronidazole. The environmental isolates did not generate amplicons in PCR assays targeting vanA and nim genes. This study provided evidence for dissemination of genetically diverse strains of C. difficile in hospitalized patients, presence of C. difficile in hospital air, existence of binary toxin positive/antibiotic-resistant isolate on the floor and intra-hospital dissemination of this pathogen.

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by toxigenic culture and PCR assay

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Clostridium difficile is responsible for 15-25% of nosocomial antibiotic associated diarrhea (AAD) cases and all cases of pseudomembranous colitis. C. difficile has two major virulence factors, toxin A (enterotoxin) and toxin B (cytotoxin). The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of C. difficile strains in patients with diarrhea in Babol' hospitals with toxigenic culture and PCR assay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred stool specimens were taken from diarrheal patients in hospitals of the city of Babol. All patients had a history of antibiotic use. The samples were cultured on CCFA medium. In the next stage, toxigenic culture was performed for isolated C. difficile strains. Then, PCR assay was used to identify gdh, tcdA and tcdB genes among isolated C. difficile strains.

RESULTS

From the 100 stool samples, eight (8%) samples were positive in C. difficile culture. In toxigenic culture, two (2%) of these strains had cytopathic effects on Vero cells. All eight strains had the gdh gene. This gene is specific for C. difficile. Two strains that had cytopathic effects on toxigenic culture were positive for toxin genes.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of toxigenic strains in different parts of the world is variable, and needs to be continually investigated. In the present study, the PCR method had a good correlation with toxigenic culture. Thus, it can replace the laborious and costly cell culture method.

Highly antibiotic-resistant Clostridium difficile isolates from Iranian patients

AIMS

Little is known about the resistance rate and susceptibility profile of Clostridium difficile isolates in Iran. Therefore, the aim of present study is to assess the rate of drug-resistant C. difficile.

METHODS AND RESULTS

During a 6-year period, four hospitals submitted 735 stool specimens from patients suspected for C. difficile infections to the anaerobic bacteriology laboratory. The 46 C. difficile isolates were subjected to disc diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) Test Strips. All isolates were susceptible to vancomycin (VAN) while the highly resistant phenotypes of metronidazole (MTZ) (67·4%), moxifloxacin (78·3%), ciprofloxacin (69·5%) and tetracycline (82·6%) were observed. Of more concern, 67·3% of C. difficile isolates displayed multidrug-resistant phenotypes. More than half of the isolates (n = 27, 58·6%) were coresistant to ciprofloxacin and moxifloxacin. The MIC90 of VAN was ≤2 mg l^-1 , whereas this value for MTZ, ciprofloxacin, moxifloxacin and tetracycline was higher than the resistance breakpoints. According to the comparison of interpretive categories for two tests, the categorical agreement was less than 90% for VAN, ciprofloxacin and tetracycline.

CONCLUSIONS

The disc diffusion method can be used to detect the isolates with reduced susceptibility to MTZ or moxifloxacin. The high rate of resistance to fluoroquinolones highlights the possibility of the emergence of hypervirulent strains in our settings.

SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY

This study provides data regarding the high level of resistance against multiple antibiotics except VAN.

Pathogenicity locus determinants and toxinotyping of Clostridioides difficile isolates recovered from Iranian patients

Little is known about the toxin profiles, toxinotypes and variations of toxin Clostridioides difficile C (tcdC) in Iranian C. difficile isolates. A total of 818 stool specimens were obtained from outpatients (n = 45) and hospitalized patients (n = 773) in Tehran, Iran, from 2011 to 2017. The 44 C. difficile isolates were subjected to PCR of toxin C. difficile A (tcdA), toxin C. difficile B (tcdB), tcdA 3′-end deletion, toxinotyping and sequencing of the tcdC gene. Thirty-eight isolates (86.36%) were identified as tcdA and tcdB positive, and the remaining six isolates (13.63%) were nontoxigenic. All tcdA- and tcdB-positive isolates yielded an amplicon of 2535 bp by PCR for the tcdA 3′ end. Fourteen (36.84%), seventeen (44.73%) and seven (18.43%) isolates belonged to wild-type, toxin C. difficile C subclone3 (tcdC-sc3) and tcdC-A genotype of tcdC, respectively. Thirty-one isolates (81.57%) belonged to toxinotype 0, and seven isolates (18.42%) were classified as toxinotype V. This study provides evidence for the circulation of historical and hypervirulent isolates in the healthcare and community settings. Furthermore, it was also demonstrated that the tcdC-A genotype and toxinotype V are not uncommon among Iranian C. difficile isolates.

BaiCD gene cluster abundance is negatively correlated with Clostridium difficile infection

BACKGROUND

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a major cause of hospital-acquired diarrhea. Secondary bile acids were shown to confer resistance to colonization by C. difficile. 7α-dehydroxylation is a key step in transformation of primary to secondary bile acids and required genes have been located in a single bile acid-inducible (bai) operon in C. scindens as well as in C. hiranonis, two Clostridium sp. recently reported to protect against C. difficile colonization.

AIM

To analyze baiCD gene abundance in C. difficile positive and negative fecal samples.

MATERIAL & METHODS

A species-specific qPCR for detecting baiCD genes was established. Fecal samples of patients with CDI, asymptomatic toxigenic C. difficile colonization (TCD), non-toxigenic C. difficile colonization (NTCD), of C. difficile negative (NC) patients, and of two patients before and after fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for recurrent CDI (rCDI) were tested for the presence of the baiCD genes.

RESULTS

The prevalence of the baiCD gene cluster was significantly higher in C. difficile negative fecal samples than in samples of patients diagnosed with CDI (72.5% (100/138) vs. 35.9% (23/64; p<0.0001). No differences in baiCD gene cluster prevalence were seen between NC and NTCD or NC and TCD samples. Both rCDI patients were baiCD-negative at baseline, but one of the two patients turned positive after successful FMT from a baiCD-positive donor.

CONCLUSION

Fecal samples of CDI patients are less frequently baiCD-positive than samples from asymptomatic carriers or C. difficile-negative individuals. Furthermore, we present a case of baiCD positivity observed after successful FMT for rCDI.

Selection and characterization of DNA aptamers for detection of glutamate dehydrogenase from Clostridium difficile

Rapid and accurate diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) is crucial for patient treatment, infection control and epidemiological monitoring. As an important antigen, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) has been proposed as a preliminary screening test target for CDI. However, current assays based on GDH activity or GDH immunoassays have suboptimal sensitivity and specificity. Herein, we describe the selection and characterization of single-stranded DNA aptamers that specifically target GDH. After 10 rounds of selection, high-throughput sequencing was used to identify enriched aptamer candidates. Of 10 candidates, three aptamers for GDH were identified. Gel shift assays showed that these aptamers exhibited low nanomolar affinities. One aptamer was optimized based on structural analysis and further engineered into a structure-switching fluorescence signaling aptamer, wherein desorption from reduced graphene oxide (RGO) upon binding of GDH led to an increase in fluorescence emission. This method allowed for quantitative detection of GDH with a detection limit of 1 nM, providing great potential for its further application in CDI diagnosis.

Optimizing the diagnostic testing of Clostridium difficile infection

INTRODUCTION

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the leading cause of hospital-acquired diarrhea and is associated with a considerable health and cost burden. However, there is still not a clear consensus on the best laboratory diagnosis approach and a wide variation of testing methods and strategies can be encountered.

AREAS COVERED

We aim to review the most practical aspects of CDI diagnosis providing our own view on how to optimize CDI diagnosis. Expert commentary: Laboratory diagnosis in search of C. difficile toxins should be applied to all fecal diarrheic samples reaching the microbiology laboratory in patients > 2 years old, with or without classic risk factors for CDI. Detection of toxins either directly in the fecal sample or in the bacteria isolated in culture confirm CDI in the proper clinical setting. Nuclear Acid Assay techniques (NAAT) allow to speed up the process with epidemiological and therapeutic consequences.

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

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

A Diagnostic Algorithm for the Detection of Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea

BACKGROUND

Clostridium difficile is a common cause of hospital-acquired diarrhea, which is usually associated with previous antibiotic use. The clinical manifestations of C. difficile infection (CDI) may range from mild diarrhea to fulminant colitis. Clostridium difficile should be considered in diarrhea cases with a history of antibiotic use within the last 8 weeks (community-associated CDI) or with a hospital stay of at least 3 days, regardless of the duration of antibiotic use (hospital-acquired CDI).

AIMS

This study investigated the frequency of CDI in diarrheic patients and evaluated the efficacy of the triple diagnostic algorithm that is proposed here for C. difficile detection.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

In this study, we compared three methods currently employed for C. difficile detection using 95 patient stool samples: an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for toxin A/B (C. diff Toxin A+B; Diagnostic Automation Inc.; Calabasas, CA, USA), an EIA for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) (C. DIFF CHEK-60TM, TechLab Inc.; Blacksburg, VA, USA), and a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay (GeneXpert(®) C. difficile; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) that detects C. difficile toxin genes and conventional methods as well. In this study, 50.5% of the patients were male, 50 patients were outpatients, 32 were from inpatient clinics and 13 patients were from the intensive care unit.

RESULTS

Of the 95 stool samples tested for GDH, 28 were positive. Six samples were positive by PCR, while nine samples were positive for toxin A/B. The hypervirulent strain NAP-1 and binary toxin was not detected. The rate of occurrence of toxigenic C. difficile was 5.1% in the samples. Cefaclor, ampicillin-sulbactam, ertapenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam were the most commonly used antibiotics by patients preceding the onset of diarrhea. Among the patients who were hospitalized in an intensive care unit for more than 7 days, 83.3% were positive for CDI by PCR screening. If the PCR test is accepted as the reference: C. difficile Toxin A/B ELISA sensitivity and specificity were 67% and 94%, respectively, and GDH sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 75%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Tests targeting C. difficile toxins are frequently applied for the purpose of diagnosing CDI in a clinical setting. However, changes in the temperature and reductant composition of the feces may affect toxin stability, potentially yielding false-negative test results. Therefore, employment of a GDH EIA, which has high sensitivity, as a screening test for the detection of toxigenic strains, may prevent false-negative results, and its adoption as part of a multistep diagnostic algorithm may increase accuracy in the diagnosis of CDIs.

Evaluation of the BD Max Cdiff assay for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in human stool specimens

The Becton Dickinson (BD) PCR-based GeneOhm Cdiff assay has demonstrated a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting Clostridium difficile. Recently, the BD Max platform, using the same principles as BD GeneOhm, has become available in Australia. This study aimed to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of BD Max Cdiff assay for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile in an Australian setting. Between December 2013 and January 2014, 406 stool specimens from 349 patients were analysed with the BD Max Cdiff assay. Direct and enrichment toxigenic culture were performed on bioMérieux ChromID C. difficile agar as a reference method. isolates from specimens with discrepant results were further analysed with an in-house PCR to detect the presence of toxin genes. The overall prevalence of toxigenic C. difficile was 7.2%. Concordance between the BD Max assay and enrichment culture was 98.5%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the BD Max Cdiff assay were 95.5%, 99.0%, 87.5% and 99.7%, respectively, when compared to direct culture, and 91.7%, 99.0%, 88.0% and 99.4%, respectively, when compared to enrichment culture. The new BD Max Cdiff assay appeared to be an excellent platform for rapid and accurate detection of toxigenic C. difficile.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults: 2010 Update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)

Since publication of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America position paper onClostridium difficileinfection in 1995, significant changes have occurred in the epidemiology and treatment of this infection.C. difficileremains the most important cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea and is increasingly important as a community pathogen. A more virulent strain ofC. difficilehas been identified and has been responsible for more-severe cases of disease worldwide. Data reporting the decreased effectiveness of metronidazole in the treatment of severe disease have been published. Despite the increasing quantity of data available, areas of controversy still exist. This guideline updates recommendations regarding epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and infection control and environmental management.

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 in paediatric populations

An increase in Clostridium difficile infection incidence has been observed among hospitalized children in the United States. The present statement, targeted at clinicians caring for infants and children in community and institutional settings, summarizes the relevant information relating to the role of C difficile in childhood diarrhea and provides recommendations for diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Significant differences between adult and paediatric risk factors and disease are discussed, along with emerging therapies. The relationship between age and disease severity in children with a newly emergent and more fluoroqinolone-resistant strain of C difficile (North American Pulse-field type-1 [NAP1]) remains unknown. The importance of antimicrobial stewardship as a preventive strategy is highlighted. This statement replaces a previous Canadian Paediatric Society position statement on C difficile published in 2000.

Clostridium difficile infection in the inflammatory bowel disease patient

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been increasing in frequency and severity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Population based and single center studies have shown worse clinical outcomes in concomitant CDI and IBD, with several reporting longer length of hospital stay, higher colectomy rates and increased mortality. Clinically, CDI may be difficult to distinguish from an IBD flare and may range from an asymptomatic carrier state to severe life threatening colitis. The traditional risk factors for CDI have included hospitalization, antibiotic use, older age and severe co-morbid disease but IBD patients have several distinct characteristics including younger age, community acquisition, lack of antibiotic exposure, colonic IBD and steroid use. CDI can occur in the small bowel and specifically in ulcerative colitis patients who have had a colectomy and an ileal pouch anal anastomosis. PCR based assays and combination Elisa algorithms have improved the sensitivity and specificity of testing, though in IBD patients have raised clinical questions about how to best manage diarrhea in the setting of possible C. difficile colonization. Treatment modalities for CDI have not been examined in randomized clinical trials in the IBD population. Newer antibiotics, immunotherapy and fecal microbiota transplantation may alter current treatment strategies. This review will focus on the unique epidemiology of CDI in IBD patients, detail clinical disease states, and provide updated diagnostic strategies, prevention and treatment options.

Improved recovery of Clostridium difficile spores with the incorporation of synthetic taurocholate in cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar (CCFA)

AIM

Culture remains important for the detection and typing of Clostridium difficile. Culture of C. difficile spores can be enhanced on media supplemented with a germinant. Despite this, unsupplemented media continues to be used in some laboratories. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of the known germinant sodium taurocholate on recovery of C. difficile spores and to determine if the supplement impacts on the recovery of vegetative C. difficile.

METHODS

The recovery on cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar (CCFA) with and without taurocholate, of spore, vegetative, and total cell fractions of broth cultures of eight C. difficile isolates was compared.

RESULTS

Taurocholate in CCFA did not inhibit growth of vegetative C. difficile and significantly increased recovery of spores (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The routine incorporation of taurocholate in CCFA is recommended for improved sensitivity in C. difficile culture from specimens.

Novel management strategies in the treatment of severe Clostridium difficile infection

CDI is increasing in incidence and severity. Clinicians must have a low threshold to consider the diagnosis and to treat patients with the clinical syndrome and risk factors before laboratory confirmation of the diagnosis. In patients who have signs of advanced disease, escalation of care with antimicrobial strategies and multidisciplinary care including surgical consultation is necessary. Furthermore, lowering the threshold for surgery compared with traditional approaches likely results in improved survival. Novel surgical approaches may obviate total abdominal colectomy and the associated immediate and long-term morbidity in this often fragile patient population, thus allowing clinicians to embrace surgical therapy earlier in the course of severe, complicated 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.

Clostridium difficile: epidemiology, pathogenesis, management, and prevention of a recalcitrant healthcare-associated pathogen

Clostridium difficile is the leading cause of healthcare-associated infectious diarrhea. Although C difficile is part of normal flora in some healthy individuals, patients with selective risk factors are often vulnerable to the toxigenic potential of this virulent healthcare pathogen. The spectrum of C difficile infection (CDI) is highly variable, ranging from mild to severe illness, presenting with single to multiple disease recurrences. Current approaches to treatment are based on severity of illness, number of recurrences, and clinical presentation. Oral vancomycin and metronidazole have formed the foundation for treatment of CDI, but therapeutic failures are commonly reported, especially involving hypervirulent clones. Alternative therapies, including newer antimicrobials, probiotics, immunotherapy, and fecal transplantation, have all met with varying degrees of efficacy. Although toxigenic culture (TC) testing from anaerobic culture remains the gold standard, newer technologies, including enzyme immunoassay, common antigen (glutamate dehydrogenase) testing, and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are less time-consuming and rapid. However, TC and PCR have reported high specificity and sensitivity when compared with other laboratory tests. Because of the significant morbidity and mortality associated with CDI, a high index of suspicion is warranted. Prevention and eradication of CDI require a multidisciplinary approach, including early disease recognition through appropriate surveillance, implementation of effective contact isolation strategies, adherence to environmental controls, judicious hand hygiene, evidence-based treatment, and management that includes antibiotic stewardship, continuous education of healthcare workers, and administrative support.

Biology of Clostridium difficile: implications for epidemiology and diagnosis

Clostridium difficile is an anaerobic, spore-forming, gram-positive rod that causes a spectrum of antibiotic-associated colitis through the elaboration of two large clostridial toxins and other virulence factors. Since its discovery in 1978 as the agent responsible for pseudomembranous colitis, the organism has continued to evolve into an adaptable, aggressive, hypervirulent strain. Advances in molecular methods and improved animal models have facilitated an understanding of how this organism survives in the environment, adapts to the gastrointestinal tract of animals and humans, and accomplishes its unique pathogenesis. The advances in microbiology have been accompanied by some important clinical observations including increased rates of C. difficile infection, increased virulence, and multiple outbreaks. The major new risk is fluoroquinolone use; there is also an association with proton pump inhibitors and increased recognition of cases in outpatients, pediatric patients, and patients without recent antibiotic use. The combination of more aggressive strains with mobile genomes in a setting of an expanded pool of individuals at risk has refocused attention on and challenged assumptions regarding diagnostic gold standards. Future research is likely to build upon the advancements in phylogenetics to create novel strategies for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention.

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection

Clostridium difficile infection is the primary cause of health care-associated diarrhea. While most laboratories have been using rapid antigen tests for detecting C. difficile toxins, they have poor sensitivity; newer molecular methods offer rapid results with high test sensitivity and specificity. This study was designed to compare the performances of two molecular assays (Meridian illumigene and BD GeneOhm) and two antigen assays (Wampole Quik Chek Complete and TechLab Tox A/B II) to detect toxigenic C. difficile. Fecal specimens from hospitalized patients (n = 139) suspected of having C. difficile infection were tested by the four assays. Nine specimens were positive and 109 were negative by all four methods. After discrepant analysis by toxigenic culture (n = 21), the total numbers of stool specimens classified as positive and negative for toxigenic C. difficile were 21 (15%) and 118 (85%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were as follows: GeneOhm (95.2%, 100%, 100%, and 99.2%), illumigene (95.2%, 96.6%, 83.3%, and 99.2%), Tox A/B II (52.4%, 97.5%, 78.6%, and 92.4%), and Quik Chek Complete (47.6%, 100%, 100%, and 91.9%). The illumigene assay performed comparably to the GeneOhm assay with a slight decrease in test specificity; the sensitivities of both far exceeded those of the antigen assays. The clinical characteristics of the concordant and discrepant study patients were similar, including stool consistency and frequency. In the era of rapid molecular-based tests for toxigenic C. difficile, toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) should no longer be considered the standard of care.

Lack of effect of strain type on detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile by glutamate dehydrogenase and polymerase chain reaction

Glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) is popular as a preliminary test for the detection of Clostridium difficile. Recent work has suggested that GDH sensitivity may vary according to ribotype and may be lower for ribotypes 002, 027, and 106 compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We investigated this effect using a dilution series of 64 isolates tested by GDH and Cepheid GeneXpert PCR. PCR was significantly more sensitive than GDH overall; however, there was no difference in detection according to specific ribotype.

Evaluation of the C.Diff Quik Chek Complete Assay, a new glutamate dehydrogenase and A/B toxin combination lateral flow assay for use in rapid, simple diagnosis of clostridium difficile disease

The diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection continues to be a challenge for many clinical microbiology laboratories. A new lateral flow assay, the C.Diff Quik Chek Complete assay, which tests for the presence of both glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and C. difficile toxins A and B, was evaluated for its ability to diagnose C. difficile disease. The results of this assay were compared to those of both PCR and toxigenic culture. The results showed that this assay allows 88% of specimens to be accurately screened as either positive (both tests positive) or negative (both tests negative) for the presence of toxigenic C. difficile in less than 30 min and with minimal hands-on time. Use of a random-access PCR for the analysis of specimens with discrepant results (one test positive and the other negative) allows the easy, rapid, and highly sensitive (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 89.6 to 100%) and specific (99.6%; 95% CI, 97.3 to 99.9%) diagnosis of C. difficile disease. The use of this algorithm would save institutional costs, curtail unnecessary isolation days, reduce the nosocomial transmission of disease, and increase the quality of care for patients.

Clostridium difficile testing in the clinical laboratory by use of multiple testing algorithms

The incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has risen almost 3-fold in the United States over the past decade, emphasizing the need for rapid and accurate tests for CDI. The Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay is an integrated, closed, nucleic acid amplification system that automates sample preparation and real-time PCR detection of the toxin B gene (tcdB). A total of 432 stool specimens from symptomatic patients were tested by a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assay, a toxin A and B enzyme immunoassay (EIA), the Xpert C. difficile assay, and a cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCN). The results of these methods, used individually and in combination, were compared to those of toxigenic culture. Results for the Xpert C. difficile assay alone showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.4, 96.3, 84.0, and 98.8%, while the EIA alone gave corresponding values of 58.3, 94.7, 68.9, and 91.9%, respectively. An algorithm using the GDH assay and the EIA (plus the CCCN if the EIA was negative) showed corresponding values of 83.1, 96.7, 83.1, and 96.1%. The Xpert C. difficile assay was statistically superior to the EIA (P, <0.001 by Fisher's exact test) and to the GDH-EIA-CCCN algorithm (P, 0.0363). Combining the GDH and Xpert C. difficile assays lowered both the sensitivity and the NPV of the Xpert assay. The GDH-EIA-CCCN procedure required, on average, 2 days to complete testing on GDH-positive results, while testing by the Xpert C. difficile assay was completed, on average, in less than 1 h. Xpert C. difficile testing yielded the highest sensitivity and NPV, in the least amount of time, of the individual- and multiple-test algorithms evaluated in this study.

C. Diff Quik Chek complete enzyme immunoassay provides a reliable first-line method for detection of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens

We evaluated a single membrane device assay for simultaneously detecting both Clostridium difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B antigens against a standard that combines two PCR assays and cytotoxigenic culture. Results showing dual GDH and toxin A/B antigen positives and negatives can be reported immediately as true positives and negatives, respectively. Specimens with discrepant results for GDH and toxins A/B, which comprised 13.2% of the specimens, need to be retested.

Two-step glutamate dehydrogenase antigen real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile

Current diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) relies upon detection of toxins A/B in stool by enzyme immunoassay [EIA(A/B)]. This strategy is unsatisfactory because it has a low sensitivity resulting in significant false negatives. We investigated the performance of a two-step algorithm for diagnosis of CDI using detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH). GDH-positive samples were tested for C. difficile toxin B gene (tcdB) by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The performance of the two-step protocol was compared with toxin detection by the Meridian Premier EIA kit in 500 consecutive stool samples from patients with suspected CDI. The reference standard among samples that were positive by either EIA(A/B) or GDH testing was culture cytotoxin neutralisation (culture/CTN). Thirty-six (7%) of 500 samples were identified as true positives by culture/CTN. EIA(A/B) identified 14 of the positive specimens with 22 false negatives and two false positives. The two-step protocol identified 34 of the positive samples with two false positives and two false negatives. EIA(A/B) had a sensitivity of 39%, specificity of 99%, positive predictive value of 88% and negative predictive value of 95%. The two-step algorithm performed better, with corresponding values of 94%, 99%, 94% and 99% respectively. Screening for GDH before confirmation of positives by PCR is cheaper than screening all specimens by PCR and is an effective method for routine use. Current EIA(A/B) tests for CDI are of inadequate sensitivity and should be replaced; however, this may result in apparent changes in CDI rates that would need to be explained in national surveillance statistics.

Comparison of BD GeneOhm Cdiff real-time PCR assay with a two-step algorithm and a toxin A/B enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for diagnosis of toxigenic Clostridium difficile infection

The BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, a real-time PCR assay for the detection of the Clostridium difficile toxin B (tcdB) gene, was compared with the toxin A/B (Tox A/B) II enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and a two-step algorithm which includes a C. Diff Chek-60 glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen assay followed by cytotoxin neutralization. Four hundred liquid or semisolid stool samples submitted for diagnostic C. difficile testing, 200 GDH antigen positive and 200 GDH antigen negative, were selected for analysis. All samples were tested by the C. Diff Chek-60 GDH antigen and cytotoxin neutralization assays, the Tox A/B II ELISA, and the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay. Specimens with discrepant results were tested by toxigenic culture as an independent "gold standard." Of 200 GDH-positive samples, 71 were positive by the Tox A/B II ELISA, 88 were positive by the two-step method, 93 were positive by PCR, and 96 were positive by the GDH antigen assay only. Of 200 GDH-negative samples, 3 were positive by PCR only. Toxigenic culture was performed for 41 samples with discrepant results, and 39 were culture positive. Culture resolution of discrepant results showed the Tox A/B II assay to have detected 70 (66.7%), the two-step method to have detected 87 (82.9%), and PCR to have detected 96 (91.4%) of 105 true positives. The BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay was more sensitive in detecting toxigenic C. difficile than the Tox A/B II assay (P < 0.0001); however, the difference between PCR and the two-step method was not significant (P = 0.1237). Enhanced sensitivity and rapid turnaround time make the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay an important advance in the diagnosis of toxigenic C. difficile infection.

Comparison of nine commercially available Clostridium difficile toxin detection assays, a real-time PCR assay for C. difficile tcdB, and a glutamate dehydrogenase detection assay to cytotoxin testing and cytotoxigenic culture methods

The continuing rise in the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection is a cause for concern, with implications for patients and health care systems. Laboratory diagnosis largely relies on rapid toxin detection kits, although assays detecting alternative targets, including glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin genes, are now available. Six hundred routine diagnostic diarrheal samples were tested prospectively using nine commercial toxin detection assays, cytotoxin assay (CYT), and cytotoxigenic culture (CYTGC) and retrospectively using a GDH detection assay and PCR for the toxin B gene. The mean sensitivity and specificity for toxin detection assays were 82.8% (range, 66.7 to 91.7%) and 95.4% (range, 90.9 to 98.8%), respectively, in comparison with CYT and 75.0% (range, 60.0 to 86.4%) and 96.1% (91.4 to 99.4%), respectively, in comparison with CYTGC. The sensitivity and specificity of the GDH assay were 90.1% and 92.9%, respectively, compared to CYT and 87.6% and 94.3%, respectively, compared to CYTGC. The PCR assay had the highest sensitivity of all the tests in comparison with CYT (92.2%) and CYTGC (88.5%), and the specificities of the PCR assay were 94.0% and 95.4% compared to CYT and CYTGC, respectively. All kits had low positive predictive values (range, 48.6 to 86.8%) compared with CYT, assuming a positive sample prevalence of 10% (representing the hospital setting), which compromises the clinical utility of single tests for the laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection. The optimum rapid single test was PCR for toxin B gene, as this had the highest negative predictive value. Diagnostic algorithms that optimize test combinations for the laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection need to be defined.

Distinct ribotypes and rates of antimicrobial drug resistance in Clostridium difficile from Shanghai and Stockholm

Seventy-five clinical isolates of Clostridium difficile from Shanghai and 80 from Stockholm were investigated. The prevalence of toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive isolates of C. difficile among isolates from Shanghai (33.3%) was significantly higher than among isolates from Stockholm (0%). Both sets of isolates were fully susceptible to metronidazole and vancomycin. However, the MICs of fluoroquinolones, erythromycin-clindamycin, tetracycline, rifampin and fusidic acid were significantly higher for the Shanghai isolates than for the Stockholm isolates. Thirty-three PCR ribotypes were identified; a dominant clone, 017, accounted for 18.7% of Shanghai isolates, whereas clone 005 dominated among Stockholm isolates, accounting for 11.3%. Strains 027 and 078 were not detected. No outbreak occurred during the study period.

Guidelines for evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients: 2008 update from the American College of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America

OBJECTIVE

To update the practice parameters for the evaluation of adult patients who develop a new fever in the intensive care unit, for the purpose of guiding clinical practice.

PARTICIPANTS

A task force of 11 experts in the disciplines related to critical care medicine and infectious diseases was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Specialties represented included critical care medicine, surgery, internal medicine, infectious diseases, neurology, and laboratory medicine/microbiology.

EVIDENCE

The task force members provided personal experience and determined the published literature (MEDLINE articles, textbooks, etc.) from which consensus was obtained. Published literature was reviewed and classified into one of four categories, according to study design and scientific value.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

The task force met twice in person, several times by teleconference, and held multiple e-mail discussions during a 2-yr period to identify the pertinent literature and arrive at consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to the relationship between the weight of scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation. Draft documents were composed and debated by the task force until consensus was reached by nominal group process.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel concluded that, because fever can have many infectious and noninfectious etiologies, a new fever in a patient in the intensive care unit should trigger a careful clinical assessment rather than automatic orders for laboratory and radiologic tests. A cost-conscious approach to obtaining cultures and imaging studies should be undertaken if indicated after a clinical evaluation. The goal of such an approach is to determine, in a directed manner, whether infection is present so that additional testing can be avoided and therapeutic decisions can be made.

Rapid and reliable diagnostic algorithm for detection of Clostridium difficile

We evaluated a two-step algorithm for detection of Clostridium difficile in 1,468 stool specimens. First, specimens were screened by an immunoassay for C. difficile glutamate dehydrogenase antigen (C.DIFF CHEK-60). Second, screen-positive specimens underwent toxin testing by a rapid toxin A/B assay (TOX A/B QUIK CHEK); toxin-negative specimens were subjected to stool culture. This algorithm allowed final results for 92% of specimens with a turnaround time of 4 h.

Yield of stool culture with isolate toxin testing versus a two-step algorithm including stool toxin testing for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile

We examined the incremental yield of stool culture (with toxin testing on isolates) versus our two-step algorithm for optimal detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Per the two-step algorithm, stools were screened for C. difficile-associated glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen and, if positive, tested for toxin by a direct (stool) cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA). In parallel, stools were cultured for C. difficile and tested for toxin by both indirect (isolate) CCNA and conventional PCR if the direct CCNA was negative. The "gold standard" for toxigenic C. difficile was detection of C. difficile by the GDH screen or by culture and toxin production by direct or indirect CCNA. We tested 439 specimens from 439 patients. GDH screening detected all culture-positive specimens. The sensitivity of the two-step algorithm was 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 84%), and that of culture was 87% (95% CI, 80 to 92%). PCR results correlated completely with those of CCNA testing on isolates (29/29 positive and 32/32 negative, respectively). We conclude that GDH is an excellent screening test and that culture with isolate CCNA testing detects an additional 23% of toxigenic C. difficile missed by direct CCNA. Since culture is tedious and also detects nontoxigenic C. difficile, we conclude that culture is most useful (i) when the direct CCNA is negative but a high clinical suspicion of toxigenic C. difficile remains, (ii) in the evaluation of new diagnostic tests for toxigenic C. difficile (where the best reference standard is essential), and (iii) in epidemiologic studies (where the availability of an isolate allows for strain typing and antimicrobial susceptibility testing).

Performance of TechLab C. DIFF QUIK CHEK and TechLab C. DIFFICILE TOX A/B II for the detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples

Two membrane-bound enzyme immunoassays by TechLab, Blacksburg, VA, were evaluated and compared with the Triage Micro C. difficile Panel (Biosite Diagnostics, San Diego, CA), with culture, and with cytotoxic assay. The TechLab panels were C. DIFF QUIK CHEK (QC-GDH) and C. DIFFICILE TOX A/B II (QC-toxinA/B), which detect glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and Clostridium difficile toxins A and B, respectively. The Triage Panel detects GDH (TR-GDH) and toxin A (TR-toxinA).

METHODS

Stool samples were inoculated onto CCFA plates (Q-Labs, Quebec, Canada) after alcohol shock, and suspected colonies were identified by the MicroScreen C. difficile latex slide agglutination test (Microgen Bioproducts, Surrey, UK). TR-GDH, TR-toxinA, QC-GDH, and QC-toxinA/B tests were performed according to the manufacturers' instructions on all the samples. Samples positive for GDH or culture but negative for TR-toxinA and QC-toxinA/B were further tested by cytotoxin assay (CTA). CTA was also performed on samples that caused blackening of the Triage Micro C. difficile Panel.

RESULTS

A total of 313 of 401 stool samples were negative for GDH and toxins (78%). Eighty-eight samples were positive either for GDH or culture or both. Thirteen of these could not be evaluated for C. difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) because CTA test was not performed. Toxin/s was detected at least by one method in 46 (11.8%) of 388 samples that were positive for culture or GDH and were considered diagnostic of CDAD. The QC-GDH was more sensitive than culture and TR-GDH for the detection of C. difficile. However, in 18GDH-positive samples positive for either of the Triage or TechLab immunoassays, the culture remained negative. Ten (2%) results of the Triage immunoassays could not be evaluated because of discoloration of the panels. QC-GDH (93.5%) was more sensitive for detecting the presence of toxin-producing C. difficile than TR-GDH (79.5%). TR-toxinA was more specific for detecting the presence of toxin-producing C. difficile than QC-toxinA/B (100% and 96.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The GDH tests had a faster turnaround time than the traditional culture methods. QC-GDH was most sensitive for the detection C. difficile-positive stools and was easy to use.

Molecular characterization and antimicrobial susceptibilities of extra-intestinal Clostridium difficile isolates

Amongst 25 extra-intestinal clinical isolates of Clostridium difficile, A(+)B(+) (72%) and A(-)B(+) (4%) toxigenic phenotypes, as well as the non-toxigenic phenotype (A(-)B(-)) (24%), were identified. The A(-)B(-) isolates did not express toxin, yet carried part of the tcdA and tcdB gene and are of a previously unreported toxinotype. Six A(+)B(+) isolates also carried binary toxin genes. Resistance to erythromycin (20%), clindamycin (48%), tetracycline (16%), moxifloxacin (16%) and imipenem (11%) occurred but with no apparent correlation to phenotype. None of the strains was resistant to vancomycin or metronidazole. Imipenem-resistance decreased by EDTA, but susceptibility to meropenem suggests the presence of an imipenem specific metalloenzyme.