Evaluation of a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

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.

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.

Rapid-format recombinant antibody-based methods for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection: Recent advances and perspectives

Clostridioides difficile, the most common cause of nosocomial diarrhea, has been continuously reported as a worldwide problem in healthcare settings. Additionally, the emergence of hypervirulent strains of C. difficile has always been a critical concern and led to continuous efforts to develop more accurate diagnostic methods for detection of this recalcitrant pathogen. Currently, the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI) is based on clinical manifestations and laboratory tests for detecting the bacterium and/or its toxins, which exhibit varied sensitivity and specificity. In this regard, development of rapid diagnostic techniques based on antibodies has demonstrated promising results in both research and clinical environments. Recently, application of recombinant antibody (rAb) technologies like phage display has provided a faster and more cost-effective approach for antibody production. The application of rAbs for developing ultrasensitive diagnostic tools ranging from immunoassays to immunosensors, has allowed the researchers to introduce new platforms with high sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, DNA encoding antibodies are directly accessible in these approaches, which enables the application of antibody engineering to increase their sensitivity and specificity. Here, we review the latest studies about the antibody-based ultrasensitive diagnostic platforms for detection of C. difficile bacteria, with an emphasis on rAb technologies.

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.

Laboratory Diagnostic Methods for Clostridioides difficile Infection: the First Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Korea

Background

Various methods are used for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). We systematically analyzed and investigated the performance of current laboratory diagnostic methods for CDI.

Methods

We performed systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed. The following methods were evaluated glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassays (GDH EIAs), toxin A and B detection by enzyme immunoassays (toxin AB EIAs), and nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for C. difficile toxin genes. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each method were calculated.

Results

Based on 39 studies, the pooled sensitivities/specificities were 92.7%/94.6%, 57.9%/97.0%, and 90.0%/95.8% for GDH EIAs, toxin AB EIAs, and NAATs, respectively, compared with those of toxigenic culture. The pooled sensitivities of automated EIAs were significantly higher than those of non-automated EIAs for both GDH and toxins A and B. The pooled sensitivity of Xpert C. difficile was significantly higher than those of other NAATs. PPVs increased as CDI prevalence increased, and NPVs were excellent when CDI prevalence was low; at CDI prevalence of 5%, PPV = 37%-65% and NPV = 97%-100%; at CDI prevalence of 50%, PPV = 92%-97% and NPV = 65%-98%.

Conclusions

Toxin AB EIAs still show unsatisfactory sensitivity, whereas GDH EIAs and NAATs show relatively high sensitivity. However, toxin AB EIAs are the most specific tests. This study may provide useful information for CDI diagnosis.

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.

Clostridioides difficile Infection: The Challenge, Tests, and Guidelines

Clostridioides difficile is a dangerous human pathogen because it can grow to high numbers in the intestine, cause colitis with its potent toxins, and persist as spores. C. difficile infection (CDI) is the primary hospital-acquired infection in North America and Europe, and it now is a global disease. Even with newer laboratory tests, there still is confusion on accurately diagnosing this disease. Three guidelines from three different healthcare-affiliated societies have recently been published. Consensus consolidated recommendations from these guidelines should be recognized by healthcare professionals, who need to understand why this disease continues to be difficult to diagnose and need a clear understanding of the advantages and limitations of current tests. Hopefully, these combined efforts will lead to an improvement in the recognition of this pathogen and a reduction in the suffering and economic loss caused by CDI.

Molecular and non-molecular approaches to etiologic diagnosis of gastroenteritis

Gastroenteritis is a major cause of mortality and morbidity globally and rapid identification of the causative pathogen is important for appropriate treatment and patient management, implementation of effective infection control measures, reducing hospital length of stay, and reducing overall medical costs. Although stool culture and microscopic examination of diarrheal stool has been the primary method for laboratory diagnosis, culture-independent proteomic and genomic tests are receiving increased attention. Antigen tests for stool pathogens are routinely implemented as rapid and simple analytics whereas molecular tests are now available in various formats from high complexity to waived point-of-care tests. In addition, metagenomic next-generation sequencing stands poised for use as a method for both diagnosis and routine characterization of the gut microbiome in the very near future. Analysis of host biomarkers as indicators of infection status and pathogenesis may also become important for prediction, diagnosis, and monitoring of gastrointestinal infection. Here we review current methods and emerging technologies for the etiologic diagnosis of gastroenteritis in the clinical laboratory. Benefits and limitations of these evolving methods are highlighted.

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.

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.

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.

Fecal Calprotectin Level Reflects the Severity of Clostridium difficile Infection

Clostridium difficile is a significant nosocomial and community-acquired pathogen, and is the leading cause of antibiotic-induced diarrhea associated with high morbidity and mortality. Given that the treatment outcome depends on the severity of C. difficile infection (CDI), we aimed to establish an efficient method of assessing severity, and focused on the stool biomarker fecal calprotectin (FC). FC directly reflects the intestinal inflammation status of a patient, and can aid in interpreting the current guidelines, which requires the integration of indirect laboratory parameters. The distinction of 80 patients with CDI versus 71 healthy controls and 30 severe infection cases versus 50 mild cases was possible using FC as a marker. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.821 and 0.746 with a sensitivity of 75% and 70% and specificity of 79% and 80%, for severe versus mild cases, respectively. We suggest FC as a predictive marker for assessing CDI severity, which is expected to improve the clinical management of CDI.

Evaluation of the performance of C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE and its usefulness in a hospital setting with a high prevalence of Clostridium difficile infection

Rapid and accurate diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is crucial for patient care, infection control, and efficient surveillance. We evaluated C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC; TechLab), which detects glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen (QCC-Ag) and toxin A/B (QCC-Tox) simultaneously, and compared it to the laboratory diagnostics for CDI currently in use in a tertiary hospital setting with a high prevalence of CDI. QCC, RIDASCREEN C. difficile toxin A/B assay (Toxin EIA; R-Biopharm AG), chromID C. difficile agar (bioMérieux) culture (ChromID culture), and Xpert C. difficile PCR assay (Xpert PCR; Cepheid) were performed according to the manufacturers' instructions. Performances of the assays were compared against that of Xpert PCR as a reference. Of the 231 loose stool specimens, 83 (35.9%) were positive by Xpert PCR. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 97.6%, 93.9%, 90.0%, and 98.6%, respectively, for QCC-Ag and 55.4%, 100%, 100%, and 80.0%, respectively, for QCC-Tox. The median threshold cycle values of the QCC-Tox(+) specimens were lower than those of the QCC-Tox(-) specimens. Results of QCC as an initial screening test were confirmed in 81.0% (187/231) of samples; these specimens did not require further testing. QCC is a rapid, easy, and cost-effective method that would be a useful first-line screening assay for laboratory diagnosis of CDI in a tertiary hospital with a high prevalence of CDI. A two-step algorithm using QCC as an initial screening tool, followed by Xpert PCR as a confirmatory test, is a practical and cost-effective approach.

European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection

In 2009 the first European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guideline for diagnosing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) was launched. Since then newer tests for diagnosing CDI have become available, especially nucleic acid amplification tests. The main objectives of this update of the guidance document are to summarize the currently available evidence concerning laboratory diagnosis of CDI and to formulate and revise recommendations to optimize CDI testing. This update is essential to improve the diagnosis of CDI and to improve uniformity in CDI diagnosis for surveillance purposes among Europe. An electronic search for literature concerning the laboratory diagnosis of CDI was performed. Studies evaluating a commercial laboratory test compared to a reference test were also included in a meta-analysis. The commercial tests that were evaluated included enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) detecting glutamate dehydrogenase, EIAs detecting toxins A and B and nucleic acid amplification tests. Recommendations were formulated by an executive committee, and the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence were graded using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. No single commercial test can be used as a stand-alone test for diagnosing CDI as a result of inadequate positive predictive values at low CDI prevalence. Therefore, the use of a two-step algorithm is recommended. Samples without free toxin detected by toxins A and B EIA but with positive glutamate dehydrogenase EIA, nucleic acid amplification test or toxigenic culture results need clinical evaluation to discern CDI from asymptomatic carriage.

The Role of Glutamate Dehydrogenase (GDH) Testing Assay in the Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infections: A High Sensitive Screening Test and an Essential Step in the Proposed Laboratory Diagnosis Workflow for Developing Countries like China

The incidence and severity of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in North America and Europe has increased significantly since the 2000s. However, CDI is not widely recognized in China and other developing countries due to limited laboratory diagnostic capacity and low awareness. Most published studies on laboratory workflows for CDI diagnosis are from developed countries, and thus may not be suitable for most developing countries. Therefore, an alternative strategy for developing countries is needed. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the Glutamate Dehydrogenase (GDH) test and its associated workflow on 416 fecal specimens from suspected CDI cases. The assay exhibited excellent sensitivity (100.0%) and specificity (92.8%), compared to culture based method, and thus could be a good screening marker for C. difficile but not for indication of toxin production. The VIDAS CDAB assay, which can detect toxin A/B directly from fecal specimens, showed good specificity (99.7%) and positive predictive value (97.2%), but low sensitivity (45.0%) and negative predictive value (88.3%), compared with PCR-based toxin gene detection. Therefore, we propose a practical and efficient GDH test based workflow strategy for the laboratory diagnosis of CDI in developing countries like China. By applying this new workflow, the CDI laboratory diagnosis rate was notably improved in our center, yet the increasing cost was kept at a minimum level. Furthermore, to gain some insights into the genetic population structure of C. difficile isolates from our hospital, we performed MLST and PCR toxin gene typing.