OBJECTIVES: Nucleic acid amplification tests are commonly used for the direct detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of newly launched, artus C. difficile QS-RGQ Kit (artus C. difficile, QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany), in comparison with toxigenic culture (TC) and Xpert C. difficile (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).
DESIGN AND METHODS: In prospectively collected 261 diarrheal specimens, the artus C. difficile and the Xpert C. difficile assays were performed. TC using chromogenic agar (chromID CD agar, bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France) was used a reference method.
RESULTS: Based on TC, the sensitivity and specificity of the artus C. difficile were 98.2% and 93.6%, respectively, and those of the Xpert C. difficile were 94.6% and 94.6%, respectively; there was no statistical difference. The agreement between the artus C. difficile and the Xpert C. difficile was almost perfect (kappa=0.918). In the artus C. difficile, the cycle threshold (Ct) values of tcdA were constantly lower than those of tcdB in all positive specimens (mean Ct, 24.5 vs. 26.4; mean difference of 1.9). Three specimens were considered tcdA+/tcdB- by the difference of Ct cutoffs between tcdA and tcdB (38.3 and 36.5, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The performance of the artus C. difficile is excellent compared with TC and is comparable to that of the Xpert C. difficile. Both PCR assays could be useful diagnostic options for the direct detection of toxigenic C. difficile in clinical laboratories. The optimal Ct cutoff of tcdA and tcdB for artus C. difficile may be further validated in following studies.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the performance of four commercial nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs: Xpert C. difficile, BD MAX Cdiff, IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000, and Illumigene C. difficile) for direct and rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxin genes.
METHODS: We compared four NAATs on the same set of 339 stool specimens (303 prospective and 36 retrospective specimens) with toxigenic culture (TC).
RESULTS: Concordance rate among four NAATs was 90.3% (306/339). Based on TC results, the sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% and 92.9% for Xpert; 86.3% and 89.3% for Max; 84.3% and 94.4% for IMDx; and 82.4% and 93.7% for Illumigene, respectively. For 306 concordant cases, there were 11 TC-negative/NAATs co-positive cases and 6 TC-positive/NAATs co-negative cases. Among 33 discordant cases, 18 were only single positive in each NAAT (Xpert, 1; Max, 12; IMDx, 1; Illumigene, 4). Positivity rates of the four NAATs were associated with those of semi-quantitative cultures, which were maximized in grade 3 (>100 colony-forming unit [CFU]) compared with grade 1 (<10 CFU).
CONCLUSIONS: Commercial NAATs may be rapid and reliable methods for direct detection of tcdA and/or tcdB in stool specimens compared with TC. Some differences in the sensitivity of the NAATs may partly depend on the number of toxigenic C. difficile in stool specimens.
Accurate diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is essential for disease management. A clinical and molecular analysis of C. difficile isolated from symptomatic patients at Groote Schuur Hospital, South Africa, was conducted to establish the most suitable clinical test for the diagnosis and characterization of locally prevalent strains. C. difficile was detected in stool samples using enzyme-based immunoassays (EIA) and nucleic acid amplification methods, and their performance was compared with that of C. difficile isolation using direct selective culture combined with specific PCR to detect the C. difficile tpi gene, toxin A and B genes and binary toxin genes. Toxigenic isolates were characterized further by ribotyping. Selective culture isolated 32 C. difficile strains from 145 patients (22 %). Of these, the most prevalent (50 %) were of ribotype 017 (toxin A- B+) while 15.6 % were ribotype 001 (toxin A+B+). No ribotype 027 strains or binary toxin genes (cdtA and cdtB) were detected. The test sensitivities and specificities, respectively, of four commercial clinical diagnostic methods were as follows: ImmunoCard Toxins A & B (40 % and 99.1 %), VIDAS C. difficile Toxin A & B (50 % and 99.1 %), GenoType CDiff (86.7 % and 88.3 %) and Xpert C. difficile (90 % and 97.3 %). Ribotype 001 and 017 strains had a 100 % detection rate by Xpert C. difficile, 100 % and 93.3 % by GenoType CDiff, 75 % and 53.3 % by ImmunoCard and 75 % and 60 % by VIDAS, respectively. The overall poor performance of EIA suggests that a change to PCR-based testing would assist diagnosis and ensure reliable detection of locally prevalent C. difficile 017 strains.
Since every single test has some limitations for detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile, multistep algorithms are recommended. This study aimed to compare the current, representative diagnostic algorithms for detecting toxigenic C. difficile, using VIDAS C. difficile toxin A&B (toxin ELFA), VIDAS C. difficile GDH (GDH ELFA, bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France), and Xpert C. difficile (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, California, USA). In 271 consecutive stool samples, toxigenic culture, toxin ELFA, GDH ELFA, and Xpert C. difficile were performed. We simulated two algorithms: screening by GDH ELFA and confirmation by Xpert C. difficile (GDH + Xpert) and combined algorithm of GDH ELFA, toxin ELFA, and Xpert C. difficile (GDH + Toxin + Xpert). The performance of each assay and algorithm was assessed. The agreement of Xpert C. difficile and two algorithms (GDH + Xpert and GDH+ Toxin + Xpert) with toxigenic culture were strong (Kappa, 0.848, 0.857, and 0.868, respectively). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of algorithms (GDH + Xpert and GDH + Toxin + Xpert) were 96.7%, 95.8%, 85.0%, 98.1%, and 94.5%, 95.8%, 82.3%, 98.5%, respectively. There were no significant differences between Xpert C. difficile and two algorithms in sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV. The performances of both algorithms for detecting toxigenic C. difficile were comparable to that of Xpert C. difficile. Either algorithm would be useful in clinical laboratories and can be optimized in the diagnostic workflow of C. difficile depending on costs, test volume, and clinical needs.
We compared the Qiagen artus C. difficile QS-RGQ kit, a new nucleic acid amplification test for the detection of Clostridium difficile toxins in stool specimens, with the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile test. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the Qiagen artus C. difficile QS-RGQ test were 100%, 89.5%, 60.9%, and 100%, and those for the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile test were 100%, 90%, 62.2%, and 100%, respectively.
We evaluated the performance of the 3 automated systems (Cepheid Xpert, BD MAX, and IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000) detecting Clostridium difficile toxin gene compared to toxigenic culture. Of the 254 stool specimens tested, 87 (48 slight, 35 moderate, and 4 heavy growth) were toxigenic culture positive. The overall sensitivities and specificities were 82.8% and 98.8% for Xpert, 81.6% and 95.8% for BD MAX, and 62.1% and 99.4% for IMDx, respectively. The specificity was significantly higher in IMDx than BD MAX (P= 0.03). All stool samples underwent toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay testing, and of the 254 samples, only 29 samples were positive and 2 of them were toxigenic culture negative. Considering the rapidity and high specificity of the real-time PCR assays compared to the toxigenic culture, they can be used as the first test method for C. difficile infection/colonization.
The diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) requires the detection of toxigenic C. difficile or its toxins and a clinical assessment. We evaluated the performance of four nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) detecting toxigenic C. difficile directly from faeces compared to routine toxigenic culture. In total, 300 faecal samples from Danish hospitalised patients with diarrhoea were included consecutively. Culture was performed in duplicate (routine and 'expanded toxigenic culture': prolonged and/or re-culture) and genotypic toxin profiling by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), PCR ribotyping and toxinotyping (TT) were performed on culture-positive samples. In parallel, the samples were analysed by four NAATs; two targeting tcdA or tcdB (illumigene C. difficile and PCRFast C. difficile A/B) and two multi-target real-time (RT) PCR assays also targeting cdt and tcdC alleles characteristic of epidemic and potentially more virulent PCR ribotypes 027, 066 and 078 (GeneXpert C. difficile/Epi and an 'in-house RT PCR' two-step algorithm). The multi-target assays were significantly more sensitive compared to routine toxigenic culture (p < 0.05) and significantly more robust to inhibition compared to PCRFast (p < 0.001). Duplicate 'expanded toxigenic culture' increased the culture-positive rate by 29% compared to routine culture. The ability of the GeneXpert and in-house assays to correctly classify PCR ribotype 027 was high (>95%), and in-house PCR displayed 100% correct identification of PCR ribotypes 066 and 078. Furthermore, the presence of the PCR enhancer bovine serum albumin (BSA) was found to be related to high sensitivity and low inhibition rate. Rapid laboratory diagnosis of toxigenic C. difficile by RT PCR was accurate.
We compared the Verigene Clostridium difficile test (Nanosphere, Northbrook, IL, USA), the Simplexa C. difficile Universal Direct (Focus Diagnostics, Cypress, CA, USA), the BD MAX Cdiff (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), and the Xpert C. difficile (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) assays for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile. One hundred and ninety deidentified, remnant diarrheal specimens were included in this study. After resolution of discordant results by toxigenic culture, the Xpert C. difficile assay displayed the highest sensitivity (100%), with a specificity of 98.8%. The sensitivity and specificity were 95.2% and 99.4% and 87% and 100% for the Verigene CDF and Simplexa Universal Direct assays, respectively. Finally, the BD MAX assay showed a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 98.8%. Despite differences in the overall performance of these assays, these results support the routine use of these platforms for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile in the clinical laboratory.
ANTECEDENTES: El objetivo de este estudio multicéntrico fue establecer un algoritmo de diagnóstico utilizando métodos moleculares para el diagnóstico de la infección asociada a C. difficile (CDI). Además se tomaron datos específicos del paciente en cuenta para la interpretación de los resultados.
Métodos: Se compararon el rendimiento de seis pruebas de PCR diferentes disponibles en el mercado, dos inmunoensayos de toxinas, y una prueba de glutamat-deshidrogenasa mediante el análisis de muestras de heces líquidas de pacientes con sospecha de CDI. cultura toxigénico en CLO-agar se utilizó como método de referencia.
RESULTADOS: En total, 250 muestras de heces se recogieron en dos sitios de estudio. 77 (30,8%) muestras de heces fueron cultivo positivo para C. difficile toxigénico. 173 (69,2%) especímenes no mostraron crecimiento de C. difficile. Como resultado, cada uno de los ensayos de PCR probados para C. difficile tenían una sensibilidad significativamente mayor (94,8% - 100%) y NPV (97,6% - 100%) que el TOX-EIA con una sensibilidad del 57,1% y NPV del 83,8 %. La especificidad de las pruebas de PCR fue del 94,1% al 96,0% y VPP entre el 86,5% y el 91,6%. El análisis de los datos del paciente reveló una diferencia significativa (p-valor 0,0202) entre los pacientes toxina positiva y negativa con respecto a la toxina tratamiento antibiótico previo, especialmente para las cefalosporinas.
Conclusiones: Nuestros resultados apoyan la recomendación de limitar el uso de antibióticos como la piedra angular en la prevención de la CDI. Llegamos a la conclusión de que todos los ensayos de PCR evaluados en este estudio se puede aplicar en un algoritmo diagnóstico.
We evaluated the fully automated molecular BD MAX Cdiff assay (BD Diagnostics) and the Xpert C. difficile test (Cepheid) for rapid detection of Clostridium difficile infection. Culture was done on chromogenic agar followed by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry identification and toxin detection. Repeat testing was required for 1.8% and 6.0% of the BD MAX and Xpert tests, respectively. Sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) were 90.5%, 97.9%, 89.3%, and 98.1%, respectively, for BD MAX and 97.3%, 97.9%, 90.0%, and 99.5%, respectively, for Xpert.
Nucleic acid amplification tests are commonly used for the direct detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of newly launched, artus C. difficile QS-RGQ Kit (artus C. difficile, QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany), in comparison with toxigenic culture (TC) and Xpert C. difficile (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).
DESIGN AND METHODS:
In prospectively collected 261 diarrheal specimens, the artus C. difficile and the Xpert C. difficile assays were performed. TC using chromogenic agar (chromID CD agar, bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France) was used a reference method.
RESULTS:
Based on TC, the sensitivity and specificity of the artus C. difficile were 98.2% and 93.6%, respectively, and those of the Xpert C. difficile were 94.6% and 94.6%, respectively; there was no statistical difference. The agreement between the artus C. difficile and the Xpert C. difficile was almost perfect (kappa=0.918). In the artus C. difficile, the cycle threshold (Ct) values of tcdA were constantly lower than those of tcdB in all positive specimens (mean Ct, 24.5 vs. 26.4; mean difference of 1.9). Three specimens were considered tcdA+/tcdB- by the difference of Ct cutoffs between tcdA and tcdB (38.3 and 36.5, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS:
The performance of the artus C. difficile is excellent compared with TC and is comparable to that of the Xpert C. difficile. Both PCR assays could be useful diagnostic options for the direct detection of toxigenic C. difficile in clinical laboratories. The optimal Ct cutoff of tcdA and tcdB for artus C. difficile may be further validated in following studies.
