Performance of chromID Clostridium difficile agar compared with BBL C. difficile selective agar for detection of C. difficile in stool specimens

Emerging Diagnostics in Clostridioides difficile Infection

Clostridioides difficile detection in community settings is time-intensive, resulting in delays in diagnosing and quarantining infected individuals. However, with the advent of semi-automated devices and improved algorithms in recent decades, the ability to discern CDI infection from asymptomatic carriage has significantly improved. This, in turn, has led to efficiently regulated monitoring systems, further reducing endemic risk, with recent concerns regarding a possible surge in hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infections post-COVID failing to materialize. This review highlights established and emerging technologies used to detect community-acquired Clostridioides difficile in research and clinical settings.

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.

Colonization of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile Among Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Multi-Centre Cross-Sectional Study

Background:Clostridium difficile (CD) is a major cause of healthcare-associated infections and antibiotic-associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients worldwide. Carriers of toxigenic CD (tCD) have a higher risk of developing CD infections and can transmit CD to the environment and susceptible patients. However, little is known regarding the carriers and transmission of tCD in China.

Methods: A multi-center cross-sectional study of tCD colonization (tCDC) was conducted from October 24 to 31, 2014, at 33 hospitals in Shanghai, China. Rectal swabs or stool samples were collected and tested, and the clinical and demographic status, epidemiological data, and blood parameters of 531 participants were recorded. The status of tCDC was defined by a positive result on the nucleic acid amplification test for the tcdA (toxin A), tcdB (toxin B), and cdtAB (toxin CDT) genes after positive bacterial culture.

Results: The overall prevalence of CD colonization (CDC) was 19.02%, tCDC accounted for 92.08%, and A+B+CDT– was the dominant genotype (87.13%). The CD infection (CDI) prevalence was 1.51%. Potential tCDC-associated factors were admission to secondary grade hospitals, a body mass index <18.5, hospitalization during the previous 30 days, underlying diseases (including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, and respiratory failure), diarrhea during the previous 7 days, and exposure to fluoroquinolones or lansoprazole.

Conclusions: This study reveals the prevalence of CDC and tCDC in Shanghai, elucidates several associated factors, contributes to the awareness of the current epidemiology in parts of eastern China and provides new insights for further study and infection control practices.

Laboratory Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection in Korea: The First National Survey

In May 2015, we conducted a voluntary online survey on laboratory diagnostic assays for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) across clinical microbiology laboratories in Korea. Responses were obtained from 66 laboratories, including 61 hospitals and five commercial laboratories. Among them, nine laboratories reported having not conducted CDI assays. The toxin AB enzyme immunoassay (toxin AB EIA), nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), and C. difficile culture, alone or in combination with other assays, were used in 51 (89.5%), 37 (64.9%), and 37 (64.9%) of the remaining 57 laboratories, respectively, and 23 (40.4%) of the laboratories performed all three assays. Only one laboratory used the glutamate dehydrogenase assay. Nine laboratories used the toxin AB EIA as a stand-alone assay. The median (range) of examined specimens in one month for the toxin AB EIA, NAAT, and C. difficile culture was 160 (50–2,060), 70 (7–720), and 130 (9–750), respectively. These findings serve as valuable basic data regarding the current status of laboratory diagnosis of CDI in Korea, offering guidance for improved implementation.

Effect of the Synthetic Bile Salt Analog CamSA on the Hamster Model of Clostridium difficile Infection

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the leading cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and has gained worldwide notoriety due to emerging hypervirulent strains and the high incidence of recurrence. We previously reported protection of mice from CDI using the antigerminant bile salt analog CamSA. Here we describe the effects of CamSA in the hamster model of CDI. CamSA treatment of hamsters showed no toxicity and did not affect the richness or diversity of gut microbiota; however, minor changes in community composition were observed. Treatment of C. difficile-challenged hamsters with CamSA doubled the mean time to death, compared to control hamsters. However, CamSA alone was insufficient to prevent CDI in hamsters. CamSA in conjunction with suboptimal concentrations of vancomycin led to complete protection from CDI in 70% of animals. Protected animals remained disease-free at least 30 days postchallenge and showed no signs of colonic tissue damage. In a delayed-treatment model of hamster CDI, CamSA was unable to prevent infection signs and death. These data support a putative model in which CamSA reduces the number of germinating C. difficile spores but does not keep all of the spores from germinating. Vancomycin halts division of any vegetative cells that are able to grow from spores that escape CamSA.

A Decade of Development of Chromogenic Culture Media for Clinical Microbiology in an Era of Molecular Diagnostics

In the last 25 years, chromogenic culture media have found widespread application in diagnostic clinical microbiology. In the last decade, the range of media available to clinical laboratories has expanded greatly, allowing specific detection of additional pathogens, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, group B streptococci, Clostridium difficile, Campylobacter spp., and Yersinia enterocolitica. New media have also been developed to screen for pathogens with acquired antimicrobial resistance, including vancomycin-resistant enterococci, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp., and Enterobacteriaceae with extended-spectrum β-lactamases and carbapenemases. This review seeks to explore the utility of chromogenic media in clinical microbiology, with particular attention given to media that have been commercialized in the last decade. The impact of laboratory automation and complementary technologies such as matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is also assessed. Finally, the review also seeks to demarcate the role of chromogenic media in an era of molecular diagnostics.

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: Early history, diagnosis and molecular strain typing methods

Recognised as the leading cause of nosocomial antibiotic-associated diarrhoea, the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) remains high despite efforts to improve prevention and reduce the spread of the bacterium in healthcare settings. In the last decade, many studies have focused on the epidemiology and rapid diagnosis of CDI. In addition, different typing methods have been developed for epidemiological studies. This review explores the history of C. difficile and the current scope of the infection. The variety of available laboratory tests for CDI diagnosis and strain typing methods are also examined.

A comparison of Clostridium difficile diagnostic methods for identification of local strains in a South African centre

Accurate diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is essential for disease management. A clinical and molecular analysis of C. difficile isolated from symptomatic patients at Groote Schuur Hospital, South Africa, was conducted to establish the most suitable clinical test for the diagnosis and characterization of locally prevalent strains. C. difficile was detected in stool samples using enzyme-based immunoassays (EIA) and nucleic acid amplification methods, and their performance was compared with that of C. difficile isolation using direct selective culture combined with specific PCR to detect the C. difficile tpi gene, toxin A and B genes and binary toxin genes. Toxigenic isolates were characterized further by ribotyping. Selective culture isolated 32 C. difficile strains from 145 patients (22 %). Of these, the most prevalent (50 %) were of ribotype 017 (toxin A^-B⁺) while 15.6 % were ribotype 001 (toxin A⁺B⁺). No ribotype 027 strains or binary toxin genes (cdtA and cdtB) were detected. The test sensitivities and specificities, respectively, of four commercial clinical diagnostic methods were as follows: ImmunoCard Toxins A & B (40 % and 99.1 %), VIDAS C. difficile Toxin A & B (50 % and 99.1 %), GenoType CDiff (86.7 % and 88.3 %) and Xpert C. difficile (90 % and 97.3 %). Ribotype 001 and 017 strains had a 100 % detection rate by Xpert C. difficile, 100 % and 93.3 % by GenoType CDiff, 75 % and 53.3 % by ImmunoCard and 75 % and 60 % by VIDAS, respectively. The overall poor performance of EIA suggests that a change to PCR-based testing would assist diagnosis and ensure reliable detection of locally prevalent C. difficile 017 strains.

Isolation and Identification of Clostridium difficile Using ChromID C. difficile Medium Combined With Gram Staining and PRO Disc Testing: A Proposal for a Simple Culture Process

Background

ChromID C. difficile agar (CDIF; bioMérieux, France), a chromogenic medium, allows for the isolation and identification of Clostridium difficile strains within 24 hr regardless of pretreatment of stool specimens with heat or alcohol shock. In the present study, we designed and evaluated a simple procedure for the implementation C. difficile cultures using CDIF medium in a tertiary hospital setting.

Methods

We designed a simple protocol for untreated stool specimens using CDIF medium followed by Gram staining and PRO disc (PRO disc K1532B, Key Scientific Products, USA) testing for the identification of C. difficile in colonies produced on CDIF agar. A total of 1,402 prospectively collected stool specimens from patients with suspected C. difficile infection were tested. The protocol was evaluated by phenotypic or molecular identification of C. difficile using Vitek 2 ANC card (bioMérieux) or 16S rDNA/tpi gene sequencing, respectively.

Results

Of 1,402 stool specimens, 650 isolates were cultured in CDIF. Overall, 235 (36.2%, 235/650) strains could be presumptively identified as C. difficile by using Gram staining and PRO disc testing. Of those, 231 (98.3%, 231/235) isolates were confirmed as true C. difficile by molecular assays.

Conclusions

The use of CDIF combined with Gram staining and PRO disc testing of untreated stool specimens would allow for isolation and accurate identification of C. difficile strains and would be advantageous in reducing the multistep process for C. difficile culture.

Evaluation of 3 automated real-time PCR (Xpert C. difficile assay, BD MAX Cdiff, and IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 assay) for detecting Clostridium difficile toxin gene compared to toxigenic culture in stool specimens

We evaluated the performance of the 3 automated systems (Cepheid Xpert, BD MAX, and IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000) detecting Clostridium difficile toxin gene compared to toxigenic culture. Of the 254 stool specimens tested, 87 (48 slight, 35 moderate, and 4 heavy growth) were toxigenic culture positive. The overall sensitivities and specificities were 82.8% and 98.8% for Xpert, 81.6% and 95.8% for BD MAX, and 62.1% and 99.4% for IMDx, respectively. The specificity was significantly higher in IMDx than BD MAX (P= 0.03). All stool samples underwent toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay testing, and of the 254 samples, only 29 samples were positive and 2 of them were toxigenic culture negative. Considering the rapidity and high specificity of the real-time PCR assays compared to the toxigenic culture, they can be used as the first test method for C. difficile infection/colonization.