The never-ending struggle with laboratory testing for Clostridium difficile infection

Budget Impact Analysis of Adopting a One-Step Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing (NAAT) Alone Diagnostic Pathway for Clostridioides difficile in Japan Compared to a Two-Step Algorithm with Glutamate Dehydrogenase/Toxin Followed by NAAT

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a major healthcare-associated infection that leads to a significant health economic burden in Japan. Using a decision tree model, we evaluated the budget impact of adopting a one-step nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) alone pathway compared to a two-step diagnostic algorithm with glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin antigen, followed by NAAT. The analysis was conducted from the government payer's perspective for 100,000 symptomatic, hospitalized adults requiring a CDI diagnostic test. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted for all data inputs. The NAAT alone strategy costed JPY 225,886,360 (USD 2,424,714) more, but was more effective, resulting in 1749 more patients accurately diagnosed and 91 fewer deaths compared to the two-step algorithm. Additionally, the NAAT alone pathway costed JPY 26,146 (USD 281) less per true positive CDI diagnosed. The total budget impact, and cost per CDI diagnosed was most sensitive to GDH sensitivity in one-way sensitivity analysis, where a lower GDH sensitivity resulted in greater cost savings with the NAAT alone pathway. Findings from this budget impact analysis can guide the adoption of a NAAT alone pathway for CDI diagnosis in Japan.

Laboratory-developed test for detection of acute Clostridium difficile infections with the capacity for quantitative sample normalization

We describe a laboratory-developed test intended for the detection of acute Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) with the capacity for quantitative sample normalization. The test is based on the detection of the tcdB gene. However, this biomarker is also present among people without symptoms, implying that individuals with diarrhea, not caused by C. difficile may nonetheless test positive. Therefore, clinical diagnosis based on this format of testing can be challenging. In order to improve diagnostic assays capability, tcdB-based quantification methods were suggested as a potential solution, however they did not increase clinical specificity. We report methodology for a dual biomarker monitoring (total bacterial load and tcdB assay), allowing for the calculation of the relative presence of tcdB in the total bacterial population in the tested samples. We believe that this approach is clinically relevant to current assays and can improve CDI testing algorithms.

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.

Clinical Practice and Infrastructure Review of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Clostridium difficile Infection

A substantial proportion of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) cases recur after completion of antibiotic therapy, and antibiotic cure rates diminish with each recurrence of CDI. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective therapy for recurrent FMT, which otherwise requires prolonged or indefinite antibiotic treatment. FMT is performed by introducing the fecal microbial community obtained from a healthy donor or pool of donors into the stomach, small intestine, or colon of a patient with CDI. Multiple clinical trials support the usefulness of FMT in treating recurrent CDI, and CDI treatment guidelines now include consideration of FMT at the third CDI recurrence. However, there remain challenges to incorporating FMT into clinical practice. First, methods of fecal bacterial community processing vary, as do methods of FMT administration. Second, the optimal dosing strategy and expected benefit of FMT for refractory CDI, particularly for severe and severe complicated cases, are uncertain. Third, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers FMT an investigational treatment. Fourth, insurance reimbursement for FMT usually falls short of FMT administration costs. In the setting of rising C difficile incidence and growing evidence for FMT efficacy, the demand for FMT has increased. However, uncertainty surrounding optimal FMT preparation and administration methods, FDA oversight, and insurance reimbursement presently limits the clinical practice of FMT.