Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection in symptomatic patients: what can we do better?

The laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is challenging since this bacteria may be detected in healthy people and toxin production detection is not sensitive enough to be used alone. Thus, there is no single test with adequate sensitivity and specificity to be used in laboratory diagnosis. We evaluated the performance of tests used in the diagnosis of CDI in symptomatic patients with risk factors in hospitals in southern Brazil. Enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for glutamate dehydrogenase antigen (GDH) and toxins A/B, real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), GeneXpert system, and a two-step algorithm comprising GDH/TOXIN EIA performed simultaneously followed by GeneXpert for outliers were evaluated. Toxigenic strain in stool culture was considered CDI positive (gold standard). Among 400 samples tested, 54 (13.5%) were positive for CDI and 346 (86.5%) were negative. The diagnosis of the two-step algorithm and qPCR had an excellent performance with an accuracy of 94.5% and 94.2%, respectively. The Youden index showed that GeneXpert as a single test (83.5%) and the two-step algorithm (82.8%) were the most effective assays. Diagnosing CDI and non-CDI diarrhea could be successfully attained by the combination of clinical data with accuracy of laboratory tests.

A rapid multiplex real-time PCR detection of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile directly from fecal samples.

This study developed a new single-tube multiplex real-time PCR method for detecting toxigenic C. difficile directly from fecal samples using tcdA, tcdB, cdtB, and internal gene tpi as targets, which could be performed on kinds of polymerase chain reaction device including point-of-care testing (POCT), with improved detection efficiency. The specificity, sensitivity, and repeatability of each gene was evaluated using 69 C. difficile isolates and 74 fecal samples. Results were compared with established PCR, qPCR, and ELISA methods. Interspecies specificity was 100% based on six common intestinal pathogens (Escherichia coli, Enterococcus Faecium, Enterococcus faecalis, Clostridium perfringens, Bacteroides fragilis, Clostridium botulinum). The lower detection limit (LDL) for tcdA, tcdB, and cdtB with pure C. difficile DNA was 101,100, and 100 copies/µL, respectively, the coefficients of variation among different experimental batches and within each experimental batch were both less than 3%, which shows that this method has strong repeatability. And the LDL of fecal DNA was 5 × 100, 5 × 103, and 5 × 102 colony-forming units (CFU)/g, respectively. In addition, the efficiency for detection of tcdA was compared with established PCR and real-time PCR methods, demonstrating high consistency (98.4%) and similar sensitivity. ELISA was used to confirm inconsistent results, which were identical with our method. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting toxigenic C. difficile in fecal samples were 96.49% and 94.12% compared with the toxigenic culture (TC). This method effectively identified the toxigenic and non-toxigenic strains with high specificity, sensitivity, and repeatability, and could reduce the false positive rate of tcdA, and accurately identify the typical Asian strain RT017, making it potentially contribute to the surveillance of CDI in China. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13205-022-03434-6.

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.

Prospective Evaluation of the mariPOC Test for Detection of Clostridioides difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxins A/B.

The objective of this study was to evaluate a novel automated random-access test, mariPOC CDI (ArcDia Ltd., Finland), for the detection of Clostridioides difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxins A and B directly from fecal specimens. The mariPOC test was compared with both the GenomEra C. difficile PCR assay (Abacus Diagnostica Oy, Finland) and the TechLab C. diff Quik Chek Complete (Alere Inc.; now Abbot) membrane enzyme immunoassay (MEIA). Culture and the Xpert C. difficile assay (Cepheid Inc., USA) were used to resolve discrepant results. In total, 337 specimens were tested with the mariPOC CDI test and GenomEra PCR. Of these specimens, 157 were also tested with the TechLab MEIA. The sensitivity of the mariPOC test for GDH was slightly lower (95.2%) than that obtained with the TechLab assay (100.0%), but no toxin-positive cases were missed. The sensitivity of the mariPOC test for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile by analyzing toxin expression was better (81.6%) than that of the TechLab assay (71.1%). The analytical specificities for the mariPOC and the TechLab tests were 98.3% and 100.0% for GDH and 100.0% and 99.2% for toxin A/B, respectively. The analytical specificity of the GenomEra method was 100.0%. The mariPOC and TechLab GDH tests and GenomEra PCR had high negative predictive values of 99.3%, 98.3%, and 99.7%, respectively, in excluding infection with toxigenic C. difficile The mariPOC toxin A/B test and GenomEra PCR had an identical analytical positive predictive value of 100%, providing highly reliable information about toxin expression and the presence of toxin genes, respectively.

Implementing a Clostridium difficile testing algorithm and its effect on isolation duration and treatment initiation: a pre- and post-implementation study.

A proportion of patients suspected of Clostridium difficile infection are unnecessarily placed in contact isolation. By introducing a random-access glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) test for C. difficile, we aimed to reduce isolation time. In addition, we investigated whether the result of the toxin A&B enzyme immunoassay (EIA) was associated with the decision to initiate antibiotic treatment against C. difficile. This retrospective pre- and post-implementation study was from June 3, 2016, to June 4, 2018. Pre-implementation, only a NAAT was performed. In the post-implementation period, a GDH test was performed; if positive, a toxin A&B EIA followed the same day and subsequently a NAAT. Contact isolation for CDI was discontinued when the GDH test was negative. Median time in isolation was 50.8 h pre-implementation (n = 189) versus 28.0 h post-implementation (n = 119), p < 0.001. The GDH test had a negative predictive value of 98.8% (95% CI 97.9-99.4). In 7/31 (22.6%) patients with a positive NAAT and GDH test and a negative toxin A&B EIA, no antibiotics against C. difficile were initiated versus 4/28 (14.3%) patients who were NAAT, GDH and toxin A&B EIA positive. Introducing a random-access screening test resulted in a significant decrease in patient isolation time. The GDH test had a high negative predictive value making it suitable to determine whether contact isolation can be discontinued. Furthermore, the result of a toxin A&B EIA had limited added value on the percentage of patients in whom antibiotic treatment against C. difficile was initiated.

Evaluation of a Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel Immunoassay in Stool Testing of Patients with Suspected Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile Infection.

Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI) is the most common causative pathogen of health care-associated gastrointestinal infections; however, due to the overlap of clinical symptoms with those of other causes of acute gastroenteritis, the selection of the most appropriate laboratory test is difficult. From April to October 2018, 640 stool samples requested for CDI testing were examined using the mariPOC CDI and Gastro test (ArcDia), which allows the detection of C. difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B, norovirus genogroups GI and GII.4, rotavirus, adenovirus, and Campylobacter spp. In parallel, the C. Diff Quik Chek Complete test (Alere) was used as a routine diagnostic assay, and C. difficile toxigenic culture was used as a reference method. The sensitivity of the mariPOC CDI and Gastro test was comparable to that of C. Diff Quik Chek Complete for the detection of GDH (96.40% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 91.81% to 98.82%] versus 95.68% [95% CI, 90.84 to 98.40%]; P = 1.00) and was higher for the detection of toxin A/B (66.67% [95% CI, 57.36 to 75.11%] versus 55.56% [95% CI, 46.08 to 64.74%]; P = 0.00). The specificity of the mariPOC CDI and Gastro test was lower than that of C. Diff Quik Chek Complete for GDH detection (95.21% [95% CI, 92.96% to 96.91%] versus 97.60% [95% CI, 95.85% to 98.76%]; P = 0.04) and comparable to that of C. Diff Quik Chek Complete for toxin A/B detection (99.24 [95% CI, 98.05% to 99.79%] versus 99.81% [95% CI, 98.94% to 100.0%]; P = 0.37). In 29 cases (4.53%), other causative agents of diarrhea were detected (Campylobacter spp. [n = 17], rotavirus [n = 7], and norovirus genogroup GII.4 [n = 5]).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Low sensitivity of fecal toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection in immunocompromised patients.

The optimal approach in laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is still not well defined. Toxigenic culture (TC) or alternatively fecal toxin assay by cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay are considered to be the reference standard, but these methods are time-consuming and labor intensive. In many medical centers, diagnosis of CDI is therefore still based on fecal toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay (EIA) directly from stool alone, balancing cost and speed against limited diagnostic sensitivity. The aim of the study was to assess in which patient population the additional workload of TC is justified. All consecutive stool specimens submitted for diagnosis of suspected CDI between 2004 and 2011 at a tertiary-care center were examined by toxin EIA and TC. Clinical data of patients with established diagnosis of CDI were collected in a standardized case-report form. From 12,481 stool specimens submitted to the microbiologic laboratory, 480 (3.8%) fulfilled CDI criteria; 274 (57.1%) were diagnosed by toxin EIA; and an additional 206 (42.9%) were diagnosed by TC when toxin EIA was negative. Independent predictors for negative toxin EIA but positive TC were high-dose corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 2.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50-5.90, p 0.002), leukocytopenia <1000/µL (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.22-5.23, p 0.013) and nonsevere CDI (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.39-3.50, p 0.001). There was no difference in outcomes such as in-hospital mortality and recurrence between both groups. In conclusion, negative toxin EIA does not rule out CDI in immunocompromised patients in the setting of relevant clinical symptoms. Methods with improved sensitivity such as TC or PCR should be used, particularly in this patient population.

CLINICAL APPLICATION OF CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE TOXIN A/B DETECTION IN THE OUTSIDE HOSPITAL AND NOSOCOMIAL INFECTION IN TAISHAN AREA / 现代医院

Objective To investigate the application of Clostridium difficile toxin A/B detection on the out-side hospital and nosocomial infection in Taishan area .Methods The stool samples of 528 diarrhea patients newly admitted from May 2013 to October 2014 were collected as the outside hospital suspicious group , and the patients were aged 8 to 75 years old, including 249 males and 279 females.Relatively, the stool samples of 523 patients hos-pitalized more than a week and treated with antibiotics more than 3 days were collected as the nosocomial suspicious group, and the patients aged 7 to 74 years, 209 males and 314 females.Clostridium difficile toxin A/B was detected, and the comprehensive statistical analysis combined with thebacterial culture results , clinical diagnosis and curative effect was made .Results The clostridium difficile infection rate outside the hospital was 4% and the infection rate in hospital after using antibiotics was 16%.By Clostridium difficile toxin A/B detection , the positive rate of outside hospital infection was 85%, and that of nosocomial infection was 90%.Conclusion The Clostridium difficile toxin A/B detection is worthy of clinical application for its rapid and accurate outside hospital and nosocomial infection de -tection in Taishan area .

Clinical relevance of a positive molecular test in the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the Department of Health advised that a two-stage test approach should be used to improve accuracy of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) diagnosis. No specific test protocol was established at that time. AIM: To compare clinical features of inpatient CDI cases identified by toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA) with those identified as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive but toxin EIA negative. METHODS: During a six-month period (2011-2012), 2181 liquid faeces samples submitted to North Bristol NHS Trust were tested by EIA for both toxin and glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH). A total of 215 toxin or GDH EIA-positive samples were tested by Cepheid Xpert PCR assay; 128 clinically evaluable inpatients were grouped by test result, and their duration of diarrhoea and 14-day mortality compared. FINDINGS: Inpatients with a positive PCR but negative toxin EIA had a significantly lower 14-day all-cause mortality [11%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4-23%] than patients with a positive PCR and positive toxin EIA test (37%; 95% CI: 19-59%; P = 0.01), and a smaller proportion of patients had prolonged diarrhoea (>5 days or unresolved at death: 19%; CI: 9-32%, vs 67%; CI: 45-84%; P < 0.001). A positive toxin EIA test was a significant independent predictor of death [odds ratio (OR): 4.7, 95% CI: 1.4-15.4; P = 0.01] and prolonged diarrhoea (OR: 8.6; CI: 2.9-25.6; P < 0.001), but a positive PCR (given positive GDH EIA) was not. CONCLUSION: The clinical significance of a positive PCR result without a positive toxin EIA is questionable; such a result is associated with a significantly lower mortality and shorter duration of symptoms than patients with a positive toxin EIA.