Role of fecal Clostridium difficile load in discrepancies between toxin tests and PCR: is quantitation the next step in C. difficile testing?

Direct tests for Clostridium difficile are 30-50 % more sensitive than tests for C. difficile toxins but the reasons for this discrepancy are incompletely understood. In addition to toxin degradation and strain differences, we hypothesized that C. difficile concentration could be important in determining whether toxins are detected in fecal samples. We performed standard curves on an FDA-approved real-time PCR test for the C. difficile tcdB gene (Xpert C. difficile/Epi, Cepheid) during a prospective comparison of a toxin immunoassay (Meridian Premier), PCR and toxigenic culture. Immunoassay-negative, PCR-positive samples were retested with a cell cytotoxin assay (TechLab). Among 107 PCR-positive samples, 46 (43.0 %) had toxins detected by immunoassay and an additional 18 (16.8 %) had toxin detected by the cytotoxin assay yielding 64 (59.8 %) toxin-positive and 43 (40.2 %) toxin-negative samples. Overall, toxin-negative samples with C. difficile had 10(1)-10(4) fewer DNA copies than toxin-positive samples and most discrepancies between toxin tests and PCR were associated with a significant difference in C. difficile quantity. Of the toxin-positive samples, 95 % had ≥ 4.1 log(10) C. difficile tcdB DNA copies/mL; 52 % of immunoassay-negative samples and 70 % of immunoassay and cytotoxin negative samples had <4.1 log(10) C. difficile tcdB DNA copies/mL. These findings suggest that fecal C. difficile concentration is a major determinant of toxin detection and C. difficile quantitation may add to the diagnostic value of existing test methods. Future studies are needed to validate the utility of quantitation and determine the significance of low concentrations of C. difficile in the absence of detectable toxin.

The role of 16S rRNA gene sequencing in identification of microorganisms misidentified by conventional methods.

Traditional methods for microbial identification require the recognition of differences in morphology, growth, enzymatic activity, and metabolism to define genera and species. Full and partial 16S rRNA gene sequencing methods have emerged as useful tools for identifying phenotypically aberrant microorganisms. We report on three bacterial blood isolates from three different College of American Pathologists-certified laboratories that were referred to ARUP Laboratories for definitive identification. Because phenotypic identification suggested unusual organisms not typically associated with the submitted clinical diagnosis, consultation with the Medical Director was sought and further testing was performed including partial 16S rRNA gene sequencing. All three patients had endocarditis, and conventional methods identified isolates from patients A, B, and C as a Facklamia sp., Eubacterium tenue, and a Bifidobacterium sp. 16S rRNA gene sequencing identified the isolates as Enterococcus faecalis, Cardiobacterium valvarum, and Streptococcus mutans, respectively. We conclude that the initial identifications of these three isolates were erroneous, may have misled clinicians, and potentially impacted patient care. 16S rRNA gene sequencing is a more objective identification tool, unaffected by phenotypic variation or technologist bias, and has the potential to reduce laboratory errors.