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

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.

Clostridioides difficile Infection: Diagnosis and Treatment Challenges

Clostridioides difficile is the most important cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea in the United States. The high incidence and recurrence rates of C. difficile infection (CDI), associated with high morbidity and mortality, pose a public health challenge. Although antibiotics targeting C. difficile bacteria are the first treatment choice, antibiotics also disrupt the indigenous gut flora and, therefore, create an environment that is favorable for recurrent CDI. The challenge of treating CDI is further exacerbated by the rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of C. difficile, placing it among the top five most urgent antibiotic resistance threats in the USA. The evolution of antibiotic resistance in C. difficile involves the acquisition of new resistance mechanisms, which can be shared among various bacterial species and different C. difficile strains within clinical and community settings. This review provides a summary of commonly used diagnostic tests and antibiotic treatment strategies for CDI. In addition, it discusses antibiotic treatment and its resistance mechanisms. This review aims to enhance our current understanding and pinpoint knowledge gaps in antimicrobial resistance mechanisms in C. difficile, with an emphasis on CDI therapies.

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.

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.

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.

Performance Comparison of a Novel Rapid Stand-alone Molecular Test and a 2-Step Diagnostic Algorithm for Clostridioides difficile Detection in Children

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate diagnostic performance of the cobas® Liat® Cdiff test, a novel single-step automated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for rapid diagnosis of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in stool samples from children with clinical symptoms of CDI.

METHODS

Assessment of cobas Liat Cdiff diagnostic yield, time of analytical process and agreement of results with those of a 2-step diagnostic algorithm. The sequential algorithm combined an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) targeting antigen glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), enterotoxin-A and cytotoxin-B, and a confirmatory PCR in EIA GDH-positive and toxin-negative samples. Fresh stool samples were collected prospectively from patients 2-18 years of age that were attended in Hospital Sant Joan de Deu (Barcelona, Spain) during December 2018-August 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 122 specimens were collected from 91 children (mean age, 8 years; 69.7% male). cobas Liat Cdiff identified 24 (19.7%) positive samples. EIA yielded 97 (79.5%) GDH- and toxin-negative results, 11 (9.0%) GDH- and toxin-positive results, and 14 (11.5%) GDH-positive and toxin-negative results, of which 11 (9.0%) were positive for the toxin by the confirmatory PCR. Overall, GDH- and toxin-positive samples detected by the sequential algorithm were 22 (18.0%). Comparatively, the new test reduced time of the analytical process significantly (20 vs. 35.4 minutes, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Use of cobas Liat Cdiff showed similar detection yield compared with a 2-step diagnostic algorithm that combined an EIA and a confirmatory PCR while decreasing the time of the analytical process markedly in stool samples from children suspected of CDI.

Rapid detection assay of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile through PathOC RightGene, a novel high-speed polymerase chain reaction device

Nucleic acid amplification tests for diagnosing Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) are improving to become faster and more accurate. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of rapid detection of toxigenic C. difficile using the novel high-speed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) device, PathOC RightGene. These results were compared and evaluated with real-time PCR (qPCR) and enzyme immunoassays (EIA) kit. For this study, 102 C. difficile and 3 Clostridium species isolated from CDI patients were used. These C. difficile isolates were 85 toxigenic and 17 non-toxigenic strains. The results of qPCR served as a standard, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the PathOC Right Gene were 99.2%, 99.4%, 100%, 98.8%, and 99.3%, respectively. Turnaround time of qPCR and EIA was 85 and 30 minutes, whereas PathOC RightGene was only 25 minutes including DNA extraction. This novel high-speed PCR device detected toxigenic C. difficile rapidly and accurately.

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.

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.

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.

Performance of laboratory tests for detection for Clostridioides difficile: A multicenter prospective study in Japan

BACKGROUND

The optimal and practical laboratory diagnostic approach for detection of Clostridioides difficile to aid in the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI) is controversial. A two-step algorithm with initial detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) or nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) alone are recommended as a predominant method for C. difficile detection in developed countries. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of enzyme immunoassays (EIA) detecting toxins A and B, NAAT detecting the toxin B gene, and GDH compared to toxigenic culture (TC) for C. difficile as the gold standard, in patients prospectively and actively assessed with clinically significant diarrhea in 12 medical facilities in Japan.

METHODS

A total of 650 stool specimens were collected from 566 patients with at least three diarrheal bowel movements (Bristol stool grade 6-7) in the preceding 24 h. EIA and GDH were performed at each hospital, and NAAT and toxigenic C. difficile culture with enriched media were performed at the National Institute of Infectious Diseases. All C. difficile isolates recovered were analyzed by PCR-ribotyping.

RESULTS

Compared to TC, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of EIA were 41%, 96%, 75% and 84%, respectively, and for NAAT were 74%, 98%, 91%, and 92%, respectively. In 439 specimens tested with GDH, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 73%, 87%, 65%, and 91%, and for an algorithm (GDH plus toxin EIA, arbitrated by NAAT) were 71%, 96%, 85%, and 91%, respectively. Among 157 isolates recovered, 75% of isolates corresponded to one of PCR-ribotypes (RTs) 002, 014, 018/018", and 369; RT027 was not isolated. No clear differences in the sensitivities of any of EIA, NAAT and GDH for four predominant RTs were found.

CONCLUSION

The analytical sensitivities of NAAT and GDH-algorithm to detect toxigenic C. difficile in this study were lower than most previous reports. This study also found low PPV of EIAs. The optimal method to detect C. difficile or its toxins to assist in the diagnosis of CDI needs further investigation.

Evaluation of a nucleic acid amplification assay for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection

Clostridioides difficile is the leading cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea and the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) continues to be challenging. Accurate and rapid identification of C. difficile will reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and ensure contact isolation to control the spread of CDI. In this study, diagnostic performance of BD MAX Cdiff assay (Becton Dickinson, USA) was evaluated for the detection of C. difficile in 2502 fresh stool samples from hospitalized children and adult patients and the results were compared to toxigenic culture. The frequency of CDI in adults and pediatric patients were found as 3.3% and 6.2%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of BD MAX Cdiff assay were found as; 100%, 99.7%, 93%, and 100% for all patients; 100%, 99.7%, 96.2%, and 100% for pediatric patients; and 100%, 99.6%, 90.2%, and 100% for adult patients, respectively. We concluded that BD MAX Cdiff assay with high sensitivity, specificity, and PPV is useful for the diagnosis of CDI. With a high NPV of 100%, BD MAX Cdiff assay is also suitable for the exclusion of CDI.

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.

Simultaneous Detection of Clostridioides difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxin A/B: Comparison of the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE and RIDASCREEN Assays

Various commercial assays have recently been developed for detecting glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and/or toxin A/B to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). We compared the performance of two assays for the simultaneous detection of C. difficile GDH and toxin A/B, using 150 stool samples: C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC; TechLab, Blacksburg, VA, USA) and RIDASCREEN Clostridium difficile GDH (RC-GDH) and Toxin A/B (RC-Toxin A/B; R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany). For GDH detection, QCC and RC-GDH showed satisfactory sensitivity (95.7% and 94.3%, respectively) and specificity (92.5% and 93.8%, respectively) compared with C. difficile culture. For toxin A/B detection, QCC showed higher sensitivity than RC-Toxin A/B (60.0% vs 33.3%, P<0.001) compared with toxigenic C. difficile culture. When the results of QCC or RC-GDH+RC-Toxin A/B were used as the first step of a two-step algorithm for diagnosing CDI, QCC permitted more accurate discrimination than RC of positive or negative results for CDI (77.3% and 65.3%, respectively). QCC is useful for the simultaneous detection of C. difficile GDH and toxin A/B as a part of the two-step algorithm for diagnosing CDI.

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.

Host response to Clostridium difficile infection: Diagnostics and detection

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a significant healthcare concern worldwide, and C. difficile is recognised as the most frequent aetiological agent of infectious healthcare-associated diarrhoea in hospitalised adult patients. The clinical manifestation of CDI varies from self-limited diarrhoea to life-threatening colitis. Such a broad disease spectrum can be explained by the impact of host factors. Currently, a complex CDI aetiology is widely accepted, acknowledging the interaction between bacteria and the host. C. difficile strains producing clostridial toxins A and B are considered toxigenic and can cause disease; those not producing the toxins are non-pathogenic. A person colonised with a toxigenic strain will not necessarily develop CDI. It is imperative to recognise patients with active disease from those only colonised with this pathogen and to implement appropriate treatment. This can be achieved by diagnostics that rely on host factors specific to CDI. This review will focus on major aspects of CDI pathogenesis and molecular mechanisms, describing host factors in disease progression and assessment of the host response in order to facilitate the development of CDI-specific diagnostics.

Optimizing the diagnostic testing of Clostridium difficile infection

INTRODUCTION

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the leading cause of hospital-acquired diarrhea and is associated with a considerable health and cost burden. However, there is still not a clear consensus on the best laboratory diagnosis approach and a wide variation of testing methods and strategies can be encountered.

AREAS COVERED

We aim to review the most practical aspects of CDI diagnosis providing our own view on how to optimize CDI diagnosis. Expert commentary: Laboratory diagnosis in search of C. difficile toxins should be applied to all fecal diarrheic samples reaching the microbiology laboratory in patients > 2 years old, with or without classic risk factors for CDI. Detection of toxins either directly in the fecal sample or in the bacteria isolated in culture confirm CDI in the proper clinical setting. Nuclear Acid Assay techniques (NAAT) allow to speed up the process with epidemiological and therapeutic consequences.