Evaluation of 4 molecular assays as part of a 2-step algorithm for the detection of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens

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.

Positive impact of a diagnostic stewardship intervention on syndromic panel ordering practices and inappropriate C. difficile treatment

OBJECTIVE

Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panels for stool testing may be used to diagnose Clostridioides difficile, which can circumvent more appropriate targeted C. difficile testing, resulting in treatment of incidentally detected colonization. We sought to reduce C. difficile diagnosis via a gastrointestinal pathogen panel (GIPP).

DESIGN

Quasi-experimental, pre/post, retrospective cohort study from January 1, 2022, to January 31, 2024.

SETTING

Mayo Clinic Arizona-a single academic medical center and associated clinics.

PATIENTS

Adult patients receiving C. difficile testing and/or treatment.

METHODS

Preferred C. difficile testing consisted of glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin antigen immunoassay, followed by toxin gene testing for discrepant results. The GIPP contained 22 targets during the baseline period with C. difficile removed during the postintervention period. Surveys were provided to provider and nursing groups, separately, to identify C. difficile ordering practices and knowledge gaps.

RESULTS

At baseline, from January 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023, 2,772 GIPPs were completed for 2,307 unique patients (∼7 per day), primarily for outpatients (1,805 of 2,772, 65%). The most common positive target was C. difficile (517 of 1,018, 51%), which resulted in treatment for C. difficile infection in 94.9% (337 of 355) of cases. Following GIPP C. difficile target removal, GIPP orders decreased from 3.23 to 2.7 per 1,000 patient visits (P < .001). Prescribing of C. difficile treatments decreased in the postintervention period in inpatient and outpatient settings. There were no cases of delayed C. difficile diagnosis during the postintervention period.

CONCLUSIONS

Removing C. difficile from the GIPP resulted in effective diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship without resulting in delayed diagnoses.

Accuracy of diagnostic assays for the detection of Clostridioides difficile: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Clostridioides difficile Infection (CDI) has been identified as one of the main causes of nosocomial infection all across the world. Rapid diagnosis of CDI is difficult and poses a significant challenge to physicians worldwide. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate rapid tests' diagnostic accuracy against toxigenic culture as the reference standard for CDI.

METHOD

We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain) and RevMan (version 5.3; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark).

RESULTS

We reviewed retrieved records and identified 63 studies that met the inclusion criteria. 26 were about enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (our main index test). The sensitivity of GDH and Tox A/B EIAs were 82% (95% CI: 79-84) and 75% (95% CI: 70-79), respectively. On the other hand, the specificity of GDH EIA was 91% (95% CI: 90-92) and the specificity of Tox A/B EIA was 95% (95% CI: 94-96). Among other index tests, BD Max with 92% has the most sensitivity and cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) has the most specificity (100%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that EIAs could be reliable methods for detecting CDI based on their sensitivity, specificity, time and cost-effectiveness, and simplicity in the procedure. Further work to improve rapid tests would benefit from improvements to the methodology.

Should asymptomatic bacteriuria be treated in lupus nephritis?

INTRODUCTION

The risk of infection in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is associated with factors related to disease activity and immunosuppressive treatment. Recently, the persistence of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) has been proposed as an environmental trigger for SLE and its flares, raising the question whether it should be treated systematically to reduce the risk of infection. To our knowledge, there is limited evidence on the screening and treatment of ASB in SLE.

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to analyze the occurrence of infection and flare in patients with lupus nephritis with and without ASB.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of a cohort of patients with lupus nephritis during induction therapy with high-dose cyclophosphamide regimen was carried out between January 2018 and 2020, with a total of 37 patients investigated. Urine and blood samples from the two groups (with ASB and without ASB) where taken before the administration of cyclophosphamide.

RESULTS

From the sampled 37 patients, 19 (51.4%) had ASB and 18 (48.6%) without ASB; both groups were well balanced in their demographics and clinical characteristics. No statistically significant association was found between the presence of ASB and the systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index score (p = 0.604), and neither with the 24-h urine protein and leukocyte count (p > 0.177). Urinary tract infection occurred in 5.3% (1) of the patients with ASB, while 5.6% (1) of the patients in the group without ASB presented the infection, and the RR was 0.944 (0.06, 16.33) 95% CI; in addition, no statistically significant association was found between the presence of ASB and the occurrence of infection (p = 1,000).

CONCLUSION

Our study did not find a statistically significant association of ASB with the occurrence of infection or disease activity. Further studies need it to clarify this, since treatment of ASB has been recognized as an important contributor to inappropriate antimicrobial use, which promotes emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

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.

Microbiota restoration for recurrent Clostridioides difficile: Getting one step closer every day!

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is an urgent health threat being the most common healthcare-associated infection, and its management is a clinical conundrum. Over 450 000 infections are seen in the United States with similar incidence seen in the rest of the developed world. The majority of infections seen are mild-moderate with fulminant disease and mortality being rare complications seen in the elderly and in those with comorbidities. The most common complication of CDI is recurrent infection with rates as high as 60% after three or more infections. A dilemma in the management of primary and recurrent CDI is testing due to the high sensitivity of the nucleic acid amplification tests such as the polymerase chain reaction, which leads to clinical false positives if patients are not chosen carefully (with symptoms) before testing. A newer testing regimen involving a 2-step strategy is emerging using glutamate dehydrogenase as a screening strategy followed by enzyme immunoassay for the C. difficile toxin. Microbiota restoration therapies are the cornerstone of management of recurrent CDI to prevent future recurrences. The most common modality of microbiota restoration is faecal microbiota transplantation, which has been tainted with heterogeneity and adverse events such as serious infectious transmission. The success rates for recurrence prevention from microbiota restoration therapies are over 90% compared with less than 50% of recurrence prevention with courses of antibiotics. This has led to development and emergence of standardized microbiota restoration therapies in capsule and enema forms. Capsule-based therapies include CP101 (positive phase II results), RBX7455 (positive phase I results), SER-109 (positive phase III results) and VE303 (ongoing phase II trial). Enema-based therapy includes RBX2660 (positive phase III data). This review summarizes the principles of management and diagnosis of CDI and focuses on emerging and existing data on faecal microbiota transplantation and standardized microbiota restoration therapies.

My Treatment Approach to Clostridioides difficile Infection

Clostridioides difficile infection is the most common cause of infectious diarrhea in hospitals with an increasing incidence in the community. Clinical presentation of C difficile infection ranges from diarrhea manageable in the outpatient setting to fulminant infection requiring intensive care admission. There have been significant advances in the management of primary and recurrent C difficile infection including diagnostics, newer antibiotics, antibody treatments, and microbiome restoration therapies. Because of the risk of clinical false-positive results with the polymerase chain reaction test, a two-step assay combining an enzyme immune assay for glutamate dehydrogenase and the C difficile toxin is being used. Cost permitting, I treat a first episode of C difficile infection preferably with fidaxomicin over vancomycin but not metronidazole. The most common complication after C difficile infection is recurrence. I manage a first recurrence with a vancomycin taper and pulse or fidaxomicin and recommend a single dose of intravenous bezlotoxumab (a monoclonal antibody against the toxin B) to reduce recurrence rates for those patients at high risk. Patients with multiply recurrent C difficile infection are managed with a course of antibiotics such as vancomycin or fidaxomicin followed by microbiota restoration. The success of fecal microbiota transplantation is greater than 85%, compared with the 40% to 50% success rate of antibiotics in this situation. Fecal microbiota transplantation is heterogeneous and has rare but serious risks such as transmission of infections. Standardized microbiota restoration therapies are in clinical development and have completed phase III clinical trials. This review answers common clinical questions in the management of C difficile infection.

The reference method influence on the sensitivity of the Clostridium difficile enzyme immunoassays: A meta analysis

The use of enzyme immunoassays to screen for toxins A and B produced by Clostridium difficile is a common procedure in algorithms designed for its detection. Moreover, the absence of a unique test capable of providing reliable results at low cost motivates a great discussion about which algorithm is the best. Thus, several studies have evaluated the performance of these enzyme immunoassays. However, all fail to provide sufficient explanations for the different behaviours observed in different studies that evaluate the same index test against a common reference method. Our main goal was to find out which factors affect the sensitivity of these assays, since the specificity is very close to 1. In this research, we verified that sensitivity increases with the prevalence rate and with the proportion of reported cases of onset diarrhea. Therefore, its use is advisable for high prevalence rates (e.g. in an epidemic setting). As far as reference methods are concerned, nucleic acid amplification tests can be used as a reference method, with a performance similar to the well-accepted toxigenic culture. The method chosen for toxigenicity screening in a toxigenic culture also seems to affect the evaluation performance of tests and should be better studied in the future.

Three different patterns of positive Clostridium difficile laboratory tests. A comparison of clinical behavior

Clostridium difficile (CD) diagnosis is very varied and under discussion. Different research groups disagree on the clinical significance of patients with negative direct toxin and positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or even more with direct toxin and glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) both negatives, but CD detected by toxigenic culture (TC). The objective was to analyze the characteristics of patients with 3 different diagnostic criteria. We compared these 3 groups of patients: group 1: (GDH+/direct toxin+/PCR+), group 2: (GDH+/direct toxin-/PCR+) and group 3: (GDH-/direct toxin-/PCR not done/TC+). The proportion of patients with CD infection (CDI) (not colonization) for groups 1 to 3 was, respectively, 90.3%, 95.4%, and 59.1%. No differences between severity (40.8%, 38.5%, 27.3%), recurrence (20.3%, 24.1%, 7.6%), or related mortality (12.5%, 5.2%, 0%) were found within the 3 groups of patients. Laboratory clinical results should not be used as the only tool to differentiate CDI versus colonization or severity. We recommend that PCR or a second-look TC be performed on all patients.