The value of fecal calprotectin in Clostridioides difficile infection: A systematic review

Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection: past, present and future

Clostridioides difficile is a gram-positive, spore-forming anaerobic enteropathogen responsible for a wide spectrum of clinical diseases ranging from mild diarrhoea to pseudomembranous colitis or toxic megacolon. It is the main cause of healthcare-associated diarrhoea, but community-associated Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) have been increasingly reported in the past few years. This narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the methods and most recommended strategy, and a brief description of the main pitfalls and new developments in CDI diagnosis. Underdiagnosis still remains important due to a lack of physicians' awareness for CDI. Appropriate selection of stool samples, and implementation of rejection criteria at the lab level are essential to provide an accurate diagnosis of CDI. Methods used for the diagnosis are usually classified into 3 groups according to their targets: those detecting the presence of C. difficile (culture, enzyme immunoassays [EIA] for glutamate dehydrogenase [GDH]), those detecting free toxins in stools (EIA for toxins) and those detecting a toxigenic C. difficile strain (nucleic acid amplification test [NAAT], toxigenic culture). No stand-alone method can be used for the CDI diagnosis. The European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) recommends a two-step algorithm with a sensitive screening test (NAAT or GDH EIA). If the screening test is negative, the CDI diagnosis can be ruled out. If the screening test is positive, a second highly specific test targeting free toxins should be used, such as EIA for toxin A/B. Implementing this strategy enables a better accuracy of CDI diagnosis, thus improving patient's management and clinical outcomes.

Diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection and impact of testing

Diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains challenging as it involves in the first instance recognition (clinical awareness) of the patients' symptoms for clinical suspicion of CDI to warrant testing, and secondly, different laboratory tests have been described for CDI. Due to the overwhelming amount of information in the literature on CDI tests and their performance, with separately published guidelines, this review aims to provide a comprehensive but concise summary of the current state of CDI diagnostic testing. Current knowledge and the impact of using different laboratory diagnostic procedures for CDI, including the most recommended approach as a two-step algorithm and the concept of diagnostic stewardship, are being discussed. This review provides an updated overview and valuable take-home messages in the field of CDI laboratory testing and highlights that timely diagnosis is important for the clinical management of CDI and that the recommended testing procedures are increasingly becoming more widely accepted.

miR-155 and miR-21 as Diagnostic and Therapeutic Biomarkers for Ulcerative Colitis: There Is Still a Long Way to Go

(1) Elucidating the role of miRNAs (miRs) in ulcerative colitis may provide new insights into disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring We aimed to investigate whether plasma levels of miR-21-5p and miR-155-5p may be used to differentiate between patients with organic disease such as ulcerative colitis (UC) and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), and patients with functional disease such as irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D). (2) Serological samples were collected to quantify miR-155 and -21 expression, which was carried out through quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), from 84 patients: 34 with acute UC (group 1), 17 with CDI (group 2), and 33 with IBS-D (control group). (3) In this study, we found that the expression levels of miR-155-5p were almost the same for the two conditions and the control group (UC: 4.22 ± 1.61, CDI: 3.94 ± 1.62, IBS-D: 4.26 ± 1.26), with no significant differences either for ΔCt- or for ΔΔCt-derived parameters (p = 0.74 and p = 0.73, respectively). For miR-21, ΔCt levels presented significantly higher values among the ulcerative colitis group (p < 0.01), but the most important expression fold change was noticed in patients with CDI (UC:4.11 ± 8,46, CDI: 4.94 ± 9.68, IBS-D: 2.83 ± 5.41). (4) Circulating miR-155 and miR-21 were upregulated in UC, CDI, and IBS-D, but differentiation was not possible among them. But their involvement in the pathogenesis of the three diseases makes them suitable for improving the accuracy of diagnosis and facilitating the development of personalized treatment strategies.

Clostridioides difficile infection: history, epidemiology, risk factors, prevention, clinical manifestations, treatment, and future options

SUMMARYClostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is one of the major issues in nosocomial infections. This bacterium is constantly evolving and poses complex challenges for clinicians, often encountered in real-life scenarios. In the face of CDI, we are increasingly equipped with new therapeutic strategies, such as monoclonal antibodies and live biotherapeutic products, which need to be thoroughly understood to fully harness their benefits. Moreover, interesting options are currently under study for the future, including bacteriophages, vaccines, and antibiotic inhibitors. Surveillance and prevention strategies continue to play a pivotal role in limiting the spread of the infection. In this review, we aim to provide the reader with a comprehensive overview of epidemiological aspects, predisposing factors, clinical manifestations, diagnostic tools, and current and future prophylactic and therapeutic options for C. difficile infection.

Predictive value of fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin levels for negative outcomes in Clostridioides difficile infection

PURPOSE

We investigated the role of fecal calprotectin (FC) and lactoferrin (FL) as predictive biomarkers in Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI).

METHODS

We assembled a prospective cohort including all patients with a laboratory-confirmed CDI diagnosis between January and December 2017. FL and FC levels were measured at diagnosis by commercial ELISA and EIA kits. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of FC and FL to predict CDI recurrence and severity (study outcomes) and explored optimal cut-off values in addition to those proposed by the manufacturers (200 µg/g and 7.2 µg/mL, respectively).

RESULTS

We included 170 CDI cases (152 first episodes and 18 recurrences). The rates of recurrence (first episodes only) and severity (entire cohort) were 9.2% (14/152) and 46.5% (79/170). Both FL and FC levels were significantly higher in patients who developed study outcomes. Optimal cut-off values for FC and FL to predict CDI recurrence were 1052 µg/g and 6.0 µg/mL. The optimal cut-off value for FC yielded higher specificity (60.9%) and positive predictive value (PPV) (16.9%) than that proposed by the manufacturer. Regarding CDI severity, the optimal cut-off value for FC (439 µg/g) also provided higher specificity (43.9%) and PPV (54.1%) than that of the manufacturer, whereas the optimal cut-off value for FL (4.6 µg/mL) resulted in an improvement of PPV (57.5%).

CONCLUSION

By modifying the thresholds for assay positivity, the measurement of FC and FL at diagnosis is useful to predict recurrence and severity in CDI. Adding these biomarkers to current clinical scores may help to individualize CDI management.