Performance of laboratory tests for detection for Clostridioides difficile: A multicenter prospective study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The optimal and practical laboratory diagnostic approach for detection of Clostridioides difficile to aid in the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI) is controversial. A two-step algorithm with initial detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) or nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) alone are recommended as a predominant method for C. difficile detection in developed countries. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of enzyme immunoassays (EIA) detecting toxins A and B, NAAT detecting the toxin B gene, and GDH compared to toxigenic culture (TC) for C. difficile as the gold standard, in patients prospectively and actively assessed with clinically significant diarrhea in 12 medical facilities in Japan. METHODS: A total of 650 stool specimens were collected from 566 patients with at least three diarrheal bowel movements (Bristol stool grade 6-7) in the preceding 24 h. EIA and GDH were performed at each hospital, and NAAT and toxigenic C. difficile culture with enriched media were performed at the National Institute of Infectious Diseases. All C. difficile isolates recovered were analyzed by PCR-ribotyping. RESULTS: Compared to TC, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of EIA were 41%, 96%, 75% and 84%, respectively, and for NAAT were 74%, 98%, 91%, and 92%, respectively. In 439 specimens tested with GDH, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 73%, 87%, 65%, and 91%, and for an algorithm (GDH plus toxin EIA, arbitrated by NAAT) were 71%, 96%, 85%, and 91%, respectively. Among 157 isolates recovered, 75% of isolates corresponded to one of PCR-ribotypes (RTs) 002, 014, 018/018", and 369; RT027 was not isolated. No clear differences in the sensitivities of any of EIA, NAAT and GDH for four predominant RTs were found. CONCLUSION: The analytical sensitivities of NAAT and GDH-algorithm to detect toxigenic C. difficile in this study were lower than most previous reports. This study also found low PPV of EIAs. The optimal method to detect C. difficile or its toxins to assist in the diagnosis of CDI needs further investigation.

Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection burden in Japan: A multicenter prospective study.

Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile is the leading cause of healthcare-associated infectious diarrhea in the developed world. Retrospective studies have shown a lower incidence of C. difficile infection (CDI) in Japan than in Europe or North America. Prospective studies are needed to determine if this is due lack of testing for C. difficile or a true difference in CDI epidemiology. A prospective cohort study of CDI was conducted from May 2014 to May 2015 at 12 medical facilities (20 wards) in Japan. Patients with at least three diarrheal bowel movements (Bristol stool grade 6-7) in the preceding 24 h were enrolled. CDI was defined by positive result on enzyme immunoassay for toxins A/B, nucleic acid amplification test for the toxin B gene or toxigenic culture. C. difficile isolates were subjected to PCR-ribotyping (RT), slpA-sequence typing (slpA-ST), and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The overall incidence of CDI was 7.4/10,000 patient-days (PD). The incidence was highest in the five ICU wards (22.2 CDI/10,000 PD; range: 13.9-75.5/10,000 PD). The testing frequency and CDI incidence rate were highly correlated (R2 = 0.91). Of the 146 isolates, RT018/018″ was dominant (29%), followed by types 014 (23%), 002 (12%), and 369 (11%). Among the 15 non-ICU wards, two had high CDI incidence rates (13.0 and 15.9 CDI/10,000 PD), with clusters of RT018/slpA-ST smz-02 and 018"/smz-01, respectively. Three non-RT027 or 078 binary toxin-positive isolates were found. All RT018/018" isolates were resistant to moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, clindamycin, and erythromycin. This study identified a higher CDI incidence in Japanese hospitals than previously reported by actively identifying and testing patients with clinically significant diarrhea. This suggests numerous patients with CDI are being overlooked due to inadequate diagnostic testing in Japan.