Accuracy of Xpert Clostridium difficile assay for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: A meta analysis

Background

There is an urgent need for rapid and accurate microbiological diagnostic assay for detection of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert Clostridium difficile assay (Xpert CD) for the diagnosis of CDI.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies according to predetermined criteria. STATA 13.0 software was used to analyze the tests for sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). QUADAS-2 was used to assess the quality of included studies with RevMan 5.2. Heterogeneity in accuracy measures was tested with Spearman correlation coefficient and Chi-square.

Results

A total of 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (95% confidence intervals [CI]) was 0.97 (0.95–0.99) and specificity was 0.95 (0.94–0.96). The AUC was 0.99 (0.97–0.99). Significant heterogeneity was observed when we pooled most of the accuracy measures of selected studies.

Conclusions

The Xpert CD assay is a useful diagnostic tool with high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing toxigenic CDI, and this method has excellent usability due to its rapidity and simplicity.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Evaluation of the VIDAS glutamate dehydrogenase assay for the detection of Clostridium difficile

We evaluated the performance of the VIDAS GDH assay for the detection of Clostridium difficile. In total, 350 fecal specimens collected from patients clinically suspected of having CDI were analyzed by C. difficile culture and enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (VIDAS GDH); the results were compared with those of toxigenic C. difficile culture (TC), PCR (Xpert C. difficile assay), and toxin AB EIA (VIDAS CDAB). The numbers of culture-positive and culture-negative samples were 108 and 242, respectively. The concordance between the GDH assay and C. difficile culture was 90.3%. With PCR, 12 more samples were found to be positive in GDH-positive/C. difficile culture-negative specimens. Thus, the concordance between GDH assay and C. difficile culture/PCR was 93.7%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the VIDAS GDH assay were 97.2%, 87.2%, 77.2%, and 98.6%, respectively, based on the C. difficile culture, and 97.5%, 91.7%, 86.0%, and 98.6%, respectively, based on C. difficile culture/PCR. Positivity rates of the GDH assay were partially associated with those of semi-quantitative C. difficile cultures, which were maximized in grade 3 (>100 colony-forming unit [CFU]) compared with grade 1 (<10 CFU). We evaluated the two-step or three-step algorithm using GDH assay as a first step. No toxin EIA-positive case was found among GDH-negative samples, and 60.8% (48/79) were TC- and/or PCR-positive among the GDH-positive/toxin EIA-negative samples. Thus, approximately 25% of the 350 samples required a confirmatory test (TC or PCR) in the GDH-toxin EIA algorithm, whereas only 2.3% of the total samples in GDH-PCR algorithm was discrepant and required another confirmatory test like TC.

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: the molecular approach

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is based on clinical presentation and laboratory tests. Although numerous laboratory methods are now available, the diagnosis of C. difficile infection remains challenging. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are the most recent marketed methods. These methods detect genes for toxins A and/or B. They are very sensitive compared with the reference method (toxigenic culture) and are thus very promising, despite their cost. However, a positive NAAT result must be interpreted with caution owing to the possible detection of asymptomatic carriers of toxigenic strains who may have diarrhea for other reasons. The place of NAATs in current diagnostic strategies needs to be better defined, but the rapidity of the result is interesting for early recognition of the disease.