Comparison of the Verigene Clostridium difficile, Simplexa C. difficile Universal Direct, BD MAX Cdiff, and Xpert C. difficile assays for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile

Comparison of the STANDARD M10 C. difficile, Xpert C. difficile, and BD MAX Cdiff assays as confirmatory tests in a two-step algorithm for diagnosing Clostridioides difficile infection

Current guidelines recommend a two-step algorithm rather than relying solely on a single test for diagnosing Clostridioides difficile infection. This algorithm starts with enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for detecting glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxins A/B, followed by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for GDH-positive but toxin-negative cases. This study compared the performance of three commercial NAATs: the STANDARD M10 C. difficile, Xpert C. difficile, and BD MAX Cdiff assays, utilized as confirmatory testing of the two-step algorithm. Two hundred archived stool specimens, previously tested GDH-positive but toxin-negative by EIA, were analyzed in parallel with these NAATs and toxigenic culture, which served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 89.1%, 92.6%, 94.6%, and 85.2%, respectively, for the M10 assay; 95.8%, 86.4%, 91.2%, and 93.3%, respectively, for the Xpert assay; and 89.8%, 91.4%, 93.8%, and 86.0%, respectively, for the BD MAX assay. The rates of invalid results were 1.0%, 0.5%, and 1.0% for the M10, Xpert, and BD MAX assays, respectively. In conclusion, the M10 assay is a reliable diagnostic tool, performing comparably to the Xpert and BD MAX assays when used as confirmatory testing in the two-step algorithm.IMPORTANCEWhile numerous studies have assessed nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) as stand-alone tests for diagnosing Clostridioides difficile infection, limited research has compared their performance as confirmatory tests in a two-step algorithm. This study evaluated the performance of three commercial NAATs (M10, Xpert, and BD MAX assays) using 200 archived stool specimens initially tested as glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)-positive but toxin-negative by GDH/toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay, the first step in the two-step algorithm. All three assays demonstrated high sensitivity (89.1% to 95.8%) and specificity (86.4% to 92.6%), with low rates of invalid results (≤1%). Our findings suggest that the M10 assay performs comparably to the Xpert and BD MAX assays when used as confirmatory testing in the two-step algorithm. Offering similar performance and turnaround time to these widely used assays at a slightly lower cost, the M10 assay serves as a practical alternative in this setting.

Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and Xpert C. difficile assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile in stool specimens

This study compared the performance of two commercial molecular assays, the STANDARD M10 Clostridioides difficile assay (M10) and the Xpert C. difficile assay (Xpert), for detecting toxigenic C. difficile in stool specimens. A total of 487 consecutive stool specimens submitted for routine C. difficile testing between June and November 2023 were included. Following routine testing using C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC), M10 and Xpert were tested in parallel, alongside toxigenic culture (reference standard). Additionally, two-step algorithms, using QCC on the first step and either M10 or Xpert on the second step, were assessed. Both M10 and Xpert demonstrated a sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. M10 exhibited significantly higher specificity and positive predictive value (PPV; 91.9% and 64.2%, respectively) than Xpert (90.3% and 59.8%, respectively). Both two-step algorithms showed a sensitivity and NPV of 98.4% and 99.8%, respectively. The specificity and PPV of the two-step algorithm using M10 (95.2% and 75.0%, respectively) were slightly higher than those of the one using Xpert (94.8% and 73.2%, respectively), without statistical significance. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, assessing the predictive ability of cycle threshold (Ct) values for the detection of free toxin, exhibited an area under the curve of 0.825 for M10 and 0.843 for Xpert. This indicates the utility of Ct values as predictors for the detection of free toxin in both assays. In conclusion, M10 proves to be an effective diagnostic tool with performance comparable to Xpert, whether utilized independently or as part of a two-step algorithm.

Overview of current detection methods and microRNA potential in Clostridioides difficile infection screening

Clostridioides difficile (formerly called Clostridium difficile, C. difficile) infection (CDI) is listed as an urgent threat on the 2019 antibiotic resistance threats report in the United States by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Early detection and appropriate disease management appear to be essential. Meanwhile, although the majority of cases are hospital-acquired CDI, community-acquired CDI cases are also on the rise, and this vulnerability is not limited to immunocompromised patients. Gastrointestinal treatments and/or gastrointestinal tract surgeries may be required for patients diagnosed with digestive diseases. Such treatments could suppress or interfere with the patient's immune system and disrupt gut flora homeostasis, creating a suitable microecosystem for C. difficile overgrowth. Currently, stool-based non-invasive screening is the first-line approach to CDI diagnosis, but the accuracy is varied due to different clinical microbiology detection methods; therefore, improving reliability is clearly required. In this review, we briefly summarised the life cycle and toxicity of C. difficile, and we examined existing diagnostic approaches with an emphasis on novel biomarkers such as microRNAs. These biomarkers can be easily detected through non-invasive liquid biopsy and can yield crucial information about ongoing pathological phenomena, particularly in CDI.

Development and clinical validation of an automated cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay for detecting Clostridioides difficile toxins in clinically relevant stools samples

OBJECTIVES

To improve the diagnostic accuracy of Clostridioides difficile infection, current U.S. and E.U. guidelines recommend multistep testing that detects the presence of C. difficile and toxin in clinically relevant stool samples to confirm active disease. An accepted gold standard to detect C. difficile toxins is the cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA). Although highly sensitive, the traditional CCNA has limitations. One such limitation is the subjective interpretation of an analyst to recognize cytopathic effects in cultured cells exposed to a fecal sample containing toxin. To overcome this limitation, an automated CCNA was developed that replaces most human pipetting steps with robotics and incorporates CellTiterGlo® for a semi-quantitative, non-subjective measure of cell viability instead of microscopy.

METHODS

To determine sample positivity and control for non-specific cytopathic effects, two thresholds were defined and validated by evaluating the sample with/without antitoxin antisera (sample-antitoxin/sample + antitoxin): 1) a >70% cell viability threshold was validated with samples containing anti-toxin, and 2) a >1.2-fold difference cut-off where sample results above the cut-off are considered positive.

RESULTS

Assay validation demonstrated excellent accuracy, precision, and sample linearity with an LOD of 126.9 pg/mL toxin-B in stool. The positivity cut-offs were clinically validated by comparing 322 diarrheal stool sample results with those run in a predicate, microscopic readout-based CCNA. The automated CCNA demonstrated 96% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared with the predicate CCNA.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the automated CCNA provides a specific, sensitive, and reproducible tool to support determination of CDI epidemiology or the efficacy of interventions such as vaccines.

Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile diagnostic assay: an update meta-analysis

Background

Accurate and rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is critical for effective patient management and implementation of infection control measures to prevent transmission.

Objectives

We updated our previous meta-analysis to provide a more reliable evidence base for the clinical diagnosis of Xpert C. difficile (Xpert C. difficile) assay.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) 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. Meta-regressions and subgroup analyses were performed to figure out the potential sources of heterogeneity. Model diagnostics were used to evaluate the veracity of the data.

Results

A total of 26 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for diagnosis was 0.97(0.95–0.98), and specificity was 0.96(0.95–0.97). The AUC was 0.99 (0.98–1.00). Model diagnostics confirmed the robustness of our meta-analysis’s results. Significant heterogeneity was still observed when we pooled most of the accuracy measures of selected studies. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses showed that the sample size and type, ethnicity, and disease prevalence might be the conspicuous sources of heterogeneity.

Conclusions

The up-to-date meta-analysis showed the Xpert CD assay had good accuracy for detecting CDI. However, the diagnosis of CDI must combine clinical presentation with diagnostic testing to better answer the question of whether the patient actually has CDI in the future, and inclusion of preanalytical parameters and clinical outcomes in study design would provide a more objective evidence base.

Clostridioides difficile laboratory diagnostic techniques: a comparative approach of rapid and molecular methods

Clostridioides difficile infection is a public health problem because of it is easily spread; with harmful consequences, it is essential to reduce hospital costs and prevent its dissemination by having a precise diagnosis. The gold standard for its diagnosis is polymerase chain reaction (PCR); however, the technique is not available for all laboratories due to the high cost. New approaches using non-molecular tests to detect C. difficile and toxin A/B production has been proposed to improve cost benefits. The objective of this study is to compare molecular methods (PCR) and rapid methods (immunochromatographic test and enzymatic immunoassay). A series of tests comprising these diagnostic techniques was performed with 50 patients with a clinical diagnosis for Clostridioides difficile on GeneXpert® devices test; a calculation of the sensitivity was executed, followed by a comparison of the efficiency of all techniques. Greater sensitivity was observed in the PCR-based methods (BD MAX™ and BioFire FilmArray®) and the GDH-based assays (RIDASCREEN® and Alere Techlab®). The proposed algorithm represents minor monetary disadvantages but a significant temporal optimization of 10%. Future studies concerning both positive and negative results could be advantageous because of the possibility of calculating more method concordance indexes, such as the specificity and Kappa index, in addition to being able to indicate a monetary profit if the proposed algorithm was applied due to the nonproceeding PCR cases.

Clinical evaluation of a non-purified direct molecular assay for the detection of Clostridioides difficile toxin genes in stool specimens

Recently, a new rapid assay for the detection of tcdB gene of Clostridioides difficile was developed using the GENECUBE. The assay can directly detect the tcdB gene from stool samples without a purification in approximately 35 minutes with a few minutes of preparation process. We performed a prospective comparative study of the performance of the assay at eight institutions in Japan. Fresh residual stool samples (Bristol stool scale ≥5) were used and comparisons were performed with the BD MAX Cdiff assay and toxigenic cultures. For the evaluation of 383 stool samples compared with the BD MAX Cdiff assay, the sensitivity, and specificity of the two assays was 99.0% (379/383), 98.1% (52/53), 99.1% (327/330), respectively. In the comparison with toxigenic culture, the total, sensitivity, and specificity were 96.6% (370/383), 85.0% (51/60), and 98.8% (319/323), respectively. The current investigation indicated the GENECUBE Clostridioides difficile assay has equivalent performance with the BD MAX Cdiff assay for the detection of tcdB gene of C. difficile.

An Overview of the Molecular Methods in the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Infectious Diseases

Gastrointestinal infectious diseases are very common worldwide and an important cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in infants in developing countries. Diarrhea and other intestinal infections are caused by a wide range of bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasites. Conventional diagnosis of these infections is performed by culture, microscopy, and antigen detection immunoassays. The traditional culture and microscopy procedures are time-consuming, lack sensitivity, and require special laboratory setup and well-trained staff. However, based on the advancement in the molecular diagnostics and with the introduction of commercially available tests, traditional diagnostic techniques have been continuously replaced by these newer rapid antigen detection and molecular-based methods. This review summarizes and discusses the availability, advantages, and disadvantages of molecular methods in the detection and identification of human gastrointestinal pathogens.

Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile

Clostridium (reclassified as " Clostridioides ") difficile is an anaerobic, gram-positive bacterium that causes significant disease through elaboration of two potent toxins in patients whose normal gut microbiota has been altered through antimicrobial or chemotherapeutic agents (dysbiosis). The optimum method of laboratory diagnosis is still somewhat controversial. Recent practice guidelines published by professional societies recommend a two-step approach beginning with a test for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), followed by a toxin test and/or a nucleic acid test. Alternatively, in institutions where established clinical algorithms guide testing, a nucleic acid test alone is acceptable. Nucleic acid tests are the methods of choice in approximately 50% of laboratories in the United States. These tests are considered as the most sensitive methods for detection of C. difficile in stool and are the least specific. Because of the lower specificity with nucleic acid tests, some clinicians believe that toxin enzyme immunoassays are better predictors of disease, despite their known poor performance in certain patient populations. This review will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the currently available test methods for the diagnosis of C. difficile with a brief mention of some novel assays that are currently in clinical trials.

A Multicenter Study of the Revogene C. difficile System for Detection of the Toxin B Gene from Unformed Stool Specimens

Clostridioides difficile is the leading cause of diarrhea in hospitalized U.S. patients and results in over 400,000 cases of C. difficile infection per year. C. difficile infections have mortality rates of 6 to 30% and significantly increase health care costs, because of increased length of stay and increased frequency of readmissions due to recurrences. Efforts to reduce the spread of C. difficile in hospitals have led to the development of rapid sensitive diagnostic methods. A multicenter study was performed to establish the performance characteristics of the Revogene C. difficile test (Meridian Bioscience, Cincinnati, OH, USA) for use in detection of the toxin B (tcdB) gene from toxigenic C. difficile The Revogene instrument is a new molecular platform that uses real-time PCR to detect nucleic acids in up to 8 specimens at a time. A total of 2,461 specimens from symptomatic patients that had been submitted for C. difficile testing were enrolled at 7 sites throughout the United States and Canada for evaluation of the assay. Each stool specimen was tested for the presence of the tcdB gene using the Revogene C. difficile test, and results were compared with those of the reference method, a combination of direct and enriched culture methods. Overall, the Revogene C. difficile test demonstrated a sensitivity of 85.0% (95% confidence interval, 80% to 88%) and a specificity of 97.2% (95% confidence interval, 96% to 98%). The Revogene C. difficile test, using clinical stool specimens for detection of tcdB in C. difficile, demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and specificity, with a short turnaround time.

The diagnostic performance and accuracy of 3 molecular assays for the detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples, compared with the Xpert® C. difficile assay

This research compares the performance and diagnostic accuracy of three molecular tests for the detection of Clostridium difficile in stool samples, with the Xpert® C. difficile assay. Fifty-nine positive and twenty-five stool negative samples were analyzed by the BDmax™ Cdiff, the Simplexa C. difficile Direct, and the GenomEra™ C. difficile, and compared with the Xpert® C. difficile routinely used in our laboratory. The highest sensitivity was 94.9% for the BDmax™ Cdiff, followed by GenomEra™ C. difficile with 93.2%, and Simplexa™ C. difficile Direct with 89.8%. The specificities of all assays were 100%. GenomEra™ C. difficile had the highest retesting rate (12%). Simplexa™ C. difficile Direct benefits from both short hands-on time and total-turnaround time and 0% retesting. The differences in performance and accuracy between these three molecular assays are insignificant and all may be used as part of the routine algorithm for detection of C. difficile.

Performance comparison of the cobas Liat and Cepheid GeneXpert systems for Clostridium difficile detection

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a high burden and significant cause of healthcare-acquired infectious diarrhea in the United States (US). Timely and accurate diagnosis of CDI enables the rapid initiation of antibiotic therapy and infection control policies to minimize disease transmission. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays have become a preferred modality for diagnosing CDI in the US. The cobas Liat Cdiff PCR test is a novel assay that can be performed on-demand for hospital-based testing with a rapid 20-minute turnaround time from specimen collection to result reporting. We compared the clinical performance of the cobas Liat Cdiff test to the previously introduced Xpert C. difficile/Epi test; both tests are FDA-cleared PCR assays that detect the toxin B (tcdB) gene of C. difficile. Prospectively collected and remnant stool specimens from 310 patients with suspected CDI were obtained for analysis. The cobas Liat Cdiff and Xpert PCR tests showed an overall percent agreement of 97.4% (302/310; 95% CI: 95.0–98.9). Low bacterial burdens of toxigenic C. difficile, indicated by significantly delayed PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, explained most of the discordance. Positive and negative percent agreement of the cobas Liat Cdiff test compared to the Xpert PCR test were 94.5% (52/55) and 98.0% (250/255), respectively. The clinical performance of the cobas Liat Cdiff test, combined with its simplicity of use and rapid result reporting, provides a reliable option for clinical laboratory use.

Simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic Clostridium difficile directly from clinical stool specimens

We employed a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) coupled with capillary electrophoresis (mPCR-CE) targeting six Clostridium difficile genes, including tpi, tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, cdtB, and a deletion in tcdC for simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic C. difficile directly from fecal specimens. The mPCR-CE had a limit of detection of 10 colony-forming units per reaction with no cross-reactions with other related bacterial genes. Clinical validation was performed on 354 consecutively collected stool specimens from patients with suspected C. difficile infection and 45 isolates. The results were compared with a reference standard combined with BD MAX Cdiff, real-time cell analysis assay (RTCA), and mPCR-CE. The toxigenic C. difficile species were detected in 36 isolates and 45 stool specimens by the mPCR-CE, which provided a positive rate of 20.3% (81/399). The mPCR-CE had a specificity of 97.2% and a sensitivity of 96.0%, which was higher than RTCA (x² = 5.67, P = 0.017) but lower than BD MAX Cdiff (P = 0.245). Among the 45 strains, 44 (97.8%) were determined as nonribotype 027 by the mPCR-CE, which was fully agreed with PCR ribotyping. Even though ribotypes 017 (n = 8, 17.8%), 001 (n = 6, 13.3%), and 012 (n = 7, 15.6%) were predominant in this region, ribotype 027 was an important genotype monitored routinely. The mPCR-CE provided an alternative diagnosis tool for the simultaneous detection of toxigenic C. difficile in stool and potentially differentiated between RT027 and non-RT027.

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.

Detection of toxigenic Clostridioides [Clostridium] difficile: Usefulness of two commercially available enzyme immunoassays and a PCR assay on stool samples and stool isolates

The best laboratory diagnostic approach to detect Clostridioides [Clostridium] difficile infection (CDI) is a subject of ongoing debate. With the aim of evaluating four laboratory diagnostic methods, 250 unformed stools from patients with suspected CDI submitted to nine medical center laboratories from November 2010 to December 2011, were studied using: (1) an immunochromatographic rapid assay test that combines the qualitative determination of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) plus toxins A and B (QAB), the CDIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE assay; (2) an enzyme immunoassay for qualitative determination of toxins A and B, the RIDASCREEN™ C. difficile Toxin A/B assay (RAB); (3) a PCR for the toxin B gene assay (PCR); and (4) the toxigenic culture (TC). C. difficile isolates from direct toxin negative stools by QAB, RAB and PCR were evaluated for toxigenicity by the same direct tests, in order to assess the contribution of the TC (QAB-TC, RAB-TC, PCR-TC). A combination of the cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCNA) in stools, and the same assay on isolates from direct negative samples (CCCNA-TC) was considered the reference method (CCCNA/CCCNA-TC). Of the 250 stools tested, 107 (42.8%) were positive by CCCNA/CCCNA-TC. The GDH and PCR/PCR-TC assays were the most sensitive, 91.59% and 87.62%, respectively. The QAB, RAB, QAB/QAB-TC and RAB/RAB-TC had the highest specificities, ca. 95%. A negative GDH result would rule out CDI, however, its low positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 3.97 indicates that a positive result should always be complemented with the detection of toxins. If the RAB, QAB, and PCR assays do not detect toxins from direct feces, the toxigenic culture should be performed. In view of our results, the most accurate and reliable methods to be applied in a clinical microbiology laboratory were the QAB/QAB-TC, and RAB/RAB-TC, with PLRs >10 and negative likelihood ratios <0.30.

Performance evaluation of the Verigene®Clostridium difficile nucleic acid test, an automated multiplex molecular testing system for detection of C. difficile toxin

The Verigene^®Clostridium difficile nucleic acid test (Verigene^® CDF test) is an automatic and rapid detection system for the genes encoding tcdA, tcdB, binary toxin, and the single nucleotide deletion at base pair 117 in the tcdC based on microarray and PCR amplification. We compared the performance of the Verigene^® CDF test to that of two enzyme immunoassays, C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE and X/Pect Toxin A/B, using 118 specimens. We found overall concordance rates of 81.4% and 78.8% between C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE and Verigene^® CDF test, and X/Pect Toxin A/B and Verigene^® CDF test. The Verigene^® CDF test showed the highest sensitivity (93.9%) and had a specificity of 96.5%. The sensitivity and specificity were respectively 45.5 and 94.1% for C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE and 27.3 and 100.0% for X/Pect Toxin A/B. These results indicated that the Verigene^® CDF test was highly accurate for the detection of C. difficile toxin in fecal specimens and supported its use in daily diagnostic practice.

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.

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.

Performance of the artus C. difficile QS-RGQ Kit for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile

OBJECTIVES

Nucleic acid amplification tests are commonly used for the direct detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of newly launched, artus C. difficile QS-RGQ Kit (artus C. difficile, QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany), in comparison with toxigenic culture (TC) and Xpert C. difficile (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).

DESIGN AND METHODS

In prospectively collected 261 diarrheal specimens, the artus C. difficile and the Xpert C. difficile assays were performed. TC using chromogenic agar (chromID CD agar, bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France) was used a reference method.

RESULTS

Based on TC, the sensitivity and specificity of the artus C. difficile were 98.2% and 93.6%, respectively, and those of the Xpert C. difficile were 94.6% and 94.6%, respectively; there was no statistical difference. The agreement between the artus C. difficile and the Xpert C. difficile was almost perfect (kappa=0.918). In the artus C. difficile, the cycle threshold (Ct) values of tcdA were constantly lower than those of tcdB in all positive specimens (mean Ct, 24.5 vs. 26.4; mean difference of 1.9). Three specimens were considered tcdA+/tcdB- by the difference of Ct cutoffs between tcdA and tcdB (38.3 and 36.5, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of the artus C. difficile is excellent compared with TC and is comparable to that of the Xpert C. difficile. Both PCR assays could be useful diagnostic options for the direct detection of toxigenic C. difficile in clinical laboratories. The optimal Ct cutoff of tcdA and tcdB for artus C. difficile may be further validated in following studies.

Comparison of Diagnostic Algorithms for Detecting Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Routine Practice at a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Korea

Since every single test has some limitations for detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile, multistep algorithms are recommended. This study aimed to compare the current, representative diagnostic algorithms for detecting toxigenic C. difficile, using VIDAS C. difficile toxin A&B (toxin ELFA), VIDAS C. difficile GDH (GDH ELFA, bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Etoile, France), and Xpert C. difficile (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, California, USA). In 271 consecutive stool samples, toxigenic culture, toxin ELFA, GDH ELFA, and Xpert C. difficile were performed. We simulated two algorithms: screening by GDH ELFA and confirmation by Xpert C. difficile (GDH + Xpert) and combined algorithm of GDH ELFA, toxin ELFA, and Xpert C. difficile (GDH + Toxin + Xpert). The performance of each assay and algorithm was assessed. The agreement of Xpert C. difficile and two algorithms (GDH + Xpert and GDH+ Toxin + Xpert) with toxigenic culture were strong (Kappa, 0.848, 0.857, and 0.868, respectively). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of algorithms (GDH + Xpert and GDH + Toxin + Xpert) were 96.7%, 95.8%, 85.0%, 98.1%, and 94.5%, 95.8%, 82.3%, 98.5%, respectively. There were no significant differences between Xpert C. difficile and two algorithms in sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV. The performances of both algorithms for detecting toxigenic C. difficile were comparable to that of Xpert C. difficile. Either algorithm would be useful in clinical laboratories and can be optimized in the diagnostic workflow of C. difficile depending on costs, test volume, and clinical needs.

Clostridium difficile outbreak caused by NAP1/BI/027 strain and non-027 strains in a Mexican hospital

Background

Clostridium difficile infections caused by the NAP1/B1/027 strain are more severe, difficult to treat, and frequently associated with relapses.

Methods

A case–control study was designed to examine a C. difficile infection (CDI) outbreak over a 12-month period in a Mexican hospital. The diagnosis of toxigenic CDI was confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction, PCR (Cepheid Xpert C. difficile/Epi).

Results

During the study period, 288 adult patients were evaluated and 79 (27.4%) patients had confirmed CDI (PCR positive). C. difficile strain NAP1/B1/027 was identified in 31 (39%) of the patients with confirmed CDI (240 controls were included). Significant risk factors for CDI included any underlying disease (p < 0.001), prior hospitalization (p < 0.001), and antibiotic (p < 0.050) or steroid (p < 0.001) use. Laboratory abnormalities included leukocytosis (p < 0.001) and low serum albumin levels (p < 0.002). Attributable mortality was 5%. Relapses occurred in 10% of patients. Risk factors for C. difficile NAP1/B1/027 strain infections included prior use of quinolones (p < 0.03).

Risk factors for CDI caused by non-027 strains included chronic cardiac disease (p < 0.05), chronic renal disease (p < 0.009), and elevated serum creatinine levels (p < 0.003). Deaths and relapses were most frequent in the 027 group (10% and 19%, respectively).

Conclusions

C. difficile NAP1/BI/027 strain and non-027 strains are established pathogens in our hospital. Accordingly, surveillance of C. difficile infections is now part of our nosocomial prevention program.

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.

A large scale clinical evaluation of the AmpliVue and Illumigene molecular tests for the identification of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adult and pediatric patients

The AmpliVue (Quidel, San Diego, CA, USA) and Illumigene (Meridian Biosciences, Cincinnati, OH, USA) molecular tests were compared for the detection of C. difficile toxin in fresh fecal samples from adult and pediatric patients. A total of 758 samples were collected, in 3 clinical sites: Nationwide Children's (Columbus, OH, USA), Penn State Hershey (Hershey, PA, USA), Primary Children's (Salt Lake City, UT, USA). Each site tested the fecal specimens using both assays. Any discordant results were resolved by performing toxigenic culture. There were 16 discordant samples among the 3 sites. Following discordant resolution, the combined performance for all 3 sites for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for AmpliVue was 96.1%, 99.2%, 96.1%, and 99.2%, respectively, while for Illumigene was 96.1%, 99.8%, 99.2%, and 99.2%, respectively. The AmpliVue and Illumigene methods are both relatively rapid and simple to use, sensitive, and specific for detection of C. difficile toxin and demonstrate similar performance.

Performance assessment of the BD MAX Cdiff assay in comparison to Xpert C. difficile assay in a setting with very low prevalence of toxigenic Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 027

In a clinical setting with low prevalence of 'epidemic' PCR ribotype 027, the BD MAX Cdiff assay was found to be a suitable alternative to the Xpert C. difficile assay for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in samples which are reflex PCR tested after obtaining a discrepant immunoassay result. There was no significant difference between the sensitivities and specificities of both commercial molecular assays.