Evaluation of methods for detection of toxins in specimens of feces submitted for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea

Clostridium difficile is the principal pathogen associated with hospital-acquired acute diarrheal disease. We have evaluated the performances of six approaches for diagnosis of C. difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD). Consecutive stool specimens (n = 200) from 133 patients were examined by cytotoxin assay, by culture of C. difficile on cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar, and by toxin detection using four rapid immunoassay systems (Oxoid Toxin A test, ImmunoCard Toxin A test, TechLab Tox A/B II test, and Premier Toxins A&B test). A diagnosis of CDAD was established for 35 (27%) patients (representing 29% of specimens). The adjusted sensitivity and specificity of the methods were, respectively, 98 and 99% for the cytotoxin assay, 54 and 99% for ImmunoCard, 50 and 98% for Oxoid, 79 and 98% for TechLab, 80 and 98% for Premier, and 57 and 100% for culture. The TechLab and Premier assays are acceptable tests for diagnosis of CDAD but are not equivalent to the cytotoxin assay.     

Multicenter evaluation of four methods for Clostridium difficile detection: ImmunoCard C. difficile, cytotoxin assay, culture, and latex agglutination.

A three-center study was undertaken to compare several test methods for the detection of Clostridium difficile, associated toxin, or related markers by using 927 stool specimens. Methods included direct assay of cytotoxin in stool by tissue culture, C. difficile bacterial culture followed by cytotoxin assay, bacterial culture alone, latex agglutination assay, and the ImmunoCard C. difficile test (Meridian Diagnostics, Inc.). The sensitivities, as determined against direct cytotoxin assay results, of the ImmunoCard C. difficile and latex agglutination assays were 84 and 67%, respectively (92 and 77%, respectively, when adjusted for bacterial culture outcomes). Evaluation for C. difficile-associated disease (CDAD) among 864 patients was based on clinical criteria for antibiotic-associated diarrhea combined with laboratory evidence of toxin or toxin-producing C. difficile in stool specimens. The sensitivity of each test method for screening of CDAD was as follows: bacterial culture, 95%; culture with cytotoxin assay of isolates, 90%; ImmunoCard C. difficile test, 83%; cytotoxin assay 82%; and latex agglutination assay, 67% (P < or = 0.05 versus all other methods). The standard deviations of the test sensitivity statistics between study sites were ranked as follows: cytotoxin assay (+/- 3.1%) < ImmunoCard C. difficile test (+/- 5.7%) < latex agglutination assay (+/- 12.3%) < culture (+/- 24.7%) < culture with cytotoxin assay (+/- 28.0%). The data support the use of the ImmunoCard C. difficile test as an adjunct for the diagnosis of CDAD.     

Comparison of three enzyme immunoassays, a cytotoxicity assay, and toxigenic culture for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea.

Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) based on monoclonal antibodies for the detection of Clostridium difficile toxins have recently been developed for clinical use. The aim of this study was to compare three commercially available EIAs, two for toxin A (Premier C. difficile Toxin A; Meridian, Osi, Elancourt, France; and Vidas C. difficile Toxin A; bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France) and one for toxins A and B (Cytoclone A + B EIA; Cambridge Biotech Corp., Codiapharm, Evian, France), with a cytotoxicity assay and toxigenic culture for the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD). The study was performed with 285 fresh stools from 285 patients with suspected CDAD. In case of disagreement, the tests were repeated on a frozen aliquot of the same stool sample, and the patient's chart was reviewed. CDAD diagnosis was established in 55 cases (incidence, 19.3%). The sensitivities and specificities of the methods were, respectively, 92.7 and 100% for the cytotoxicity assay, 96.4 and 99.1% for toxigenic culture, 75.5 and 97.8% for Cytoclone, 65.4 and 99.6% for Premier, and 65.4 and 100% for Vidas. The results were uninterpretable in 3.2% of cases with Cytoclone, 0.3% with Premier, and 2.5% with Vidas. We conclude that the cytotoxicity assay and toxigenic culture remain the best methods for the diagnosis of CDAD even though they lack standardization and require 48 to 96 h to obtain the result. Despite their rapidity and simplicity, EIAs are not sensitive enough to be relied on as the sole laboratory test.     

Development and evaluation of a PCR method for detection of the Clostridium difficile toxin B gene in stool specimens

A PCR assay detecting Clostridium difficile toxin B gene in stool specimens was compared to the cytotoxicity assay as the reference standard for the diagnosis of C. difficile antibiotic-associated diarrhea (CDAD). Overall, 118 stool samples were tested. All of the specimens that were negative by the cytotoxicity assay (59 out of 118) were also negative by the PCR method (specificity of 100%). Of the 59 cytotoxin-positive samples, 54 were PCR positive (sensitivity of 91.5%). This PCR method is promising for rapid diagnosis of CDAD.     

Comparison of real-time PCR for detection of the tcdC gene with four toxin immunoassays and culture in diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

We have developed a rapid real-time PCR method using fluorescence resonance energy transfer probes and the LightCycler (Roche Diagnostics), which will detect the presence of the tcdC gene of Clostridium difficile in stool samples. Our PCR method also will identify the presence of base pair deletions, one of which (18 bp) has been associated with the "epidemic" toxin-hyperproducing strains. We compared the results of this PCR with those of three C. difficile toxin-detecting enzyme immunoassays (EIAs), an EIA for the detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), and culture of C. difficile. A total of 200 stool specimens were studied by the methods under comparison. C. difficile was isolated from 49 specimens by culture, and 44 of these were confirmed as containing one of the genes associated with toxin production ("toxigenic culture"). Using toxigenic culture as the "gold standard", the sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values, respectively, of the assays were 48%, 98%, 88%, and 87% for the Premier toxin A and B test; 48%, 99%, 91%, and 87% for the ImmunoCard toxin A & B test; 48%, 84%, 46%, and 85% for the Xpect C. difficile toxin A/B test; 32%, 100%, 100%, and 84% for the Triage C. difficile panel (for toxin A); and 86%, 97%, 90%, and 96% for the LightCycler PCR. Thus, in comparison to the sensitivity of toxigenic culture, the sensitivities of the toxin immunoassays were unacceptably low, while the LightCycler real-time PCR assay for the detection of the tcdC gene of C. difficile is sensitive and specific.     

Specific detection of toxigenic strains of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens.

Clostridium difficile is the infectious agent responsible for antibiotic-associated colitis. We report the use of the polymerase chain reaction technique to identify toxigenic strains of C. difficile in human stool specimens. A set of primers based on the nucleotide sequence of the toxin B gene, which amplified a 399-bp fragment from isolates producing toxin B, was designed. We examined 28 known toxigenic strains, which were all positive by this assay. DNAs from the nontoxigenic strains examined and from strains of Clostridium sordellii and C. bifermentans were not amplified with these primers. The sensitivity of this assay allowed us to identify as little as 10% toxigenic C. difficile cells in the presence of 90% nontoxigenic cells and to detect the toxin B gene in 1 pg of DNA from a toxigenic strain. DNAs extracted from 18 clinical stool specimens that were positive for toxin B by the tissue culture cytotoxicity assay were also positive by this assay. In addition, we detected toxin B sequences in DNA from 2 of 18 stool specimens that were negative for toxin B by the cytotoxicity assay. These two stool specimens were from patients who had a clinical pattern of colitis that was compatible with C. difficile causation. This rapid, sensitive assay will be useful for specific identification of toxigenic C. difficile and for revealing cases that are undetected by analysis of fecal samples for toxin B alone.     

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification compared to real-time PCR and enzyme immunoassay for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection

Clostridium difficile infection is the primary cause of health care-associated diarrhea. While most laboratories have been using rapid antigen tests for detecting C. difficile toxins, they have poor sensitivity; newer molecular methods offer rapid results with high test sensitivity and specificity. This study was designed to compare the performances of two molecular assays (Meridian illumigene and BD GeneOhm) and two antigen assays (Wampole Quik Chek Complete and TechLab Tox A/B II) to detect toxigenic C. difficile. Fecal specimens from hospitalized patients (n = 139) suspected of having C. difficile infection were tested by the four assays. Nine specimens were positive and 109 were negative by all four methods. After discrepant analysis by toxigenic culture (n = 21), the total numbers of stool specimens classified as positive and negative for toxigenic C. difficile were 21 (15%) and 118 (85%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were as follows: GeneOhm (95.2%, 100%, 100%, and 99.2%), illumigene (95.2%, 96.6%, 83.3%, and 99.2%), Tox A/B II (52.4%, 97.5%, 78.6%, and 92.4%), and Quik Chek Complete (47.6%, 100%, 100%, and 91.9%). The illumigene assay performed comparably to the GeneOhm assay with a slight decrease in test specificity; the sensitivities of both far exceeded those of the antigen assays. The clinical characteristics of the concordant and discrepant study patients were similar, including stool consistency and frequency. In the era of rapid molecular-based tests for toxigenic C. difficile, toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) should no longer be considered the standard of care.     

Development of a rapid enzyme immunoassay for Clostridium difficile toxin A and its use in the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated disease.

A rapid (2.5 h) direct enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for Clostridium difficile toxin A was developed for clinical use. Specimen centrifugation and filtration were not required. The EIA detected toxin A levels in patient stool as low as 20 pg (2 ng/ml of stool). The test was 5,000 times more sensitive for toxin A than it was for toxin B and did not react with a panel of other bacterial species with the exception of one highly toxigenic strain of Clostridium sordellii. The EIA was compared with the cytotoxin assay, culture of toxigenic C. difficile (toxigenic culture), and latex agglutination by using 313 fresh stool specimens submitted from patients with suspected C. difficile-associated disease. Results read visually and with a plate reader were similar. Sixty-two specimens were positive by one or more tests, but only 22 (35%) were positive by all four laboratory methods. The EIA was 84.1% sensitive and 98.9% specific when it was compared with the cytotoxin assay. The use of toxigenic culture to referee discrepant results (EIA versus cytotoxin assay) showed the EIA sensitivity and specificity to be 95.1 and 99.3%, respectively, with respect to other laboratory methods. Patient charts were reviewed for antibiotic-associated diarrhea on 108 specimens, including all those that were positive by at least one test method. Of 34 patients determined to have C. difficile-associated disease, 29 (85.3%) were positive by EIA, 32 (94.1%) were positive by the cytotoxin assay, 27 (79.4%) were positive by toxigenic culture, and 20 (58.8%) were positive by latex agglutination. Seven patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhea had a positive latex result, but results were negative by EIA, the cytotoxin assay, and toxigenic culture. The EIA demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity for C. difficile-associated disease cases. The test can be used alone or in combination with the cytotoxin assay or toxigenic culture to provide rapid and sensitive results.     

Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile disease

The laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile -associated disease (CDAD) is based on culture and toxin detection in fecal specimens. Culture is performed on a commercially available selective media. C. difficile colony morphology is typical when viewed under a dissecting microscope. Definitive identification is best obtained by gas liquid chromatography. Culture is very sensitive but, when used alone without toxin testing, it leads to low specificity and misdiagnosis of CDAD when high rates of asymptomatic carriage exist. Toxin detection by a tissue culture cytotoxin assay followed by neutralisation with specific antiserum is often considered the standard. However, this approach lacks sensitivity and has not detected up to 30% of patients with confirmed CDAD. Multiple enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) have been introduced by various manufacturers for the detection of toxin A alone or for both toxins A and B. Some of these are designed to give results in less than 1 h. Comparative studies of EIA kits reported that the sensitivity and specificity are slightly lower than cytotoxin assays. Toxigenic culture tests C. difficile isolates for toxin production: colonies isolated on selective media are tested for in-vitro toxin production either by a cytotoxicity assay or by direct EIA. It has higher sensitivity than the cytotoxicity assay and equivalent specificity. In the routine laboratory, culture and toxin detection should be performed on every specimen and, in culture-positive and fecal toxin-negative cases, toxigenic cultures should be performed on isolated colonies.     

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of a real-time PCR for Clostridium difficile toxin A and B genes

Many laboratories use enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). More recently, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnosis has been described as a sensitive test. Real-time PCR for the detection of C. difficile toxin A and B genes was evaluated. A prospective evaluation was performed on stool samples from 150 hospitalized adult patients and 141 healthy volunteers. PCR was compared to toxigenic culture (TC), direct cytotoxicity test (CTT), ImmunoCard? Toxin A and B (Meridian Bioscience), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Vidas). The results were correlated with clinical data using a standardized questionnaire. The diagnostic yield of the PCR was further evaluated after implementation. Using toxigenic culture as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of PCR were 100 and 99.2%, respectively. Patients were categorized as follows: TC/PCR-positive (n?=?17) and negative TC (n?=?133). The differences in these groups were more frequent use of antibiotics and leukocytosis (p?相似文献   

Yield of stool culture with isolate toxin testing versus a two-step algorithm including stool toxin testing for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile

We examined the incremental yield of stool culture (with toxin testing on isolates) versus our two-step algorithm for optimal detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Per the two-step algorithm, stools were screened for C. difficile-associated glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen and, if positive, tested for toxin by a direct (stool) cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA). In parallel, stools were cultured for C. difficile and tested for toxin by both indirect (isolate) CCNA and conventional PCR if the direct CCNA was negative. The "gold standard" for toxigenic C. difficile was detection of C. difficile by the GDH screen or by culture and toxin production by direct or indirect CCNA. We tested 439 specimens from 439 patients. GDH screening detected all culture-positive specimens. The sensitivity of the two-step algorithm was 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 84%), and that of culture was 87% (95% CI, 80 to 92%). PCR results correlated completely with those of CCNA testing on isolates (29/29 positive and 32/32 negative, respectively). We conclude that GDH is an excellent screening test and that culture with isolate CCNA testing detects an additional 23% of toxigenic C. difficile missed by direct CCNA. Since culture is tedious and also detects nontoxigenic C. difficile, we conclude that culture is most useful (i) when the direct CCNA is negative but a high clinical suspicion of toxigenic C. difficile remains, (ii) in the evaluation of new diagnostic tests for toxigenic C. difficile (where the best reference standard is essential), and (iii) in epidemiologic studies (where the availability of an isolate allows for strain typing and antimicrobial susceptibility testing).     

Evaluation of Two Rapid Assays for Detection of Clostridium difficile Toxin A in Stool Specimens

Rapid laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) is highly desirable in the setting of hospital cost containment. We tested 654 stool specimens to compare the performance of two assays for rapid detection of toxin A, the Immunocard Toxin A test (Meridian Diagnostics, Inc.) and the Culturette Brand Toxin CD enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Becton Dickinson Microbiology Systems), with a cytotoxin assay (Cytotoxi Test; Advanced Clinical Diagnostics) and culture on cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar followed by determination of the production of toxins A and B. A chart review was performed for patients whose stool specimens provided positive results on one to three of the assays. With the "gold standard" of all four assays positive or chart review evidence of CDAD, 97 (14.8%) stool specimens were positive by one or more assays and 557 (85.2%) were negative by all methods. Total agreement for all assays was 90.5% (592 of 654). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for toxigenic culture were 94.7, 98.6, 87.1, and 99.5%, respectively, for toxigenic culture; 87.7, 98.6, 86.2, and 98.8%, respectively, for the cytotoxin assay; 71.9, 99.3, 91.1, and 97.3%, respectively, for the Immunocard; and 68.4, 99.1, 88.6, and 96.9%, respectively, for the Culturette EIA. While easy to perform and highly specific, these rapid assays do not appear to be sufficient for accurate diagnosis of CDAD.     

Comparison of three commercial methods for rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxins A and B from fecal specimens

Three rapid enzyme immunoassays (X/pect Clostridium difficile Toxin A/B test, Wampole Tox A/B Quik Chek, and ImmunoCard Toxins A&B) were compared for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Of the 367 stool specimens tested, 102 (27.8%) were positive for toxigenic C. difficile when a combination of direct cytotoxicity assay and cytotoxic culture was used as the gold standard. Sensitivity/specificity values were 49.0%/95.8%, 54.9%/95.5%, and 66.7%/95.1%, respectively. The median times to test five stool specimens were 28, 30, and 24 min, respectively. The ImmunoCard test was the quickest and most sensitive test of the three enzyme immunoassays evaluated.     

Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis: usefulness of Premier Cytoclone A+B enzyme immunoassay for combined detection of stool toxins and toxigenic C. difficile strains

Detection of Clostridium difficile toxins A and B in stools by Premier Cytoclone A+B enzyme immunoassay (EIA) was compared with detection by stool culture for C. difficile followed by detection of toxigenic isolates using the same EIA. Chart reviews were performed to evaluate the likelihood of C. difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis (CADC) for all patients with at least one positive toxin assay. While the toxins were detected in 58 of 85 consecutive CADC patients by both assays, CADC in 5 patients was detected only by stool toxin assay, and in 22 patients CADC was detected only by toxigenic culture. Our results suggest that for laboratories using a rapid toxin A+B EIA, direct toxin detection in stools should be combined with toxigenic culture in cases in which there is a negative stool toxin assay.     

Clostridium difficile testing algorithms using glutamate dehydrogenase antigen and C. difficile toxin enzyme immunoassays with C. difficile nucleic acid amplification testing increase diagnostic yield in a tertiary pediatric population

We evaluated the performance of the rapid C. diff Quik Chek Complete's glutamate dehydrogenase antigen (GDH) and toxin A/B (CDT) tests in two algorithmic approaches for a tertiary pediatric population: algorithm 1 entailed initial testing with GDH/CDT followed by loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), and algorithm 2 entailed GDH/CDT followed by cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) for adjudication of discrepant GDH-positive/CDT-negative results. A true positive (TP) was defined as positivity by CCNA or positivity by LAMP plus another test (GDH, CDT, or the Premier C. difficile toxin A and B enzyme immunoassay [P-EIA]). A total of 141 specimens from 141 patients yielded 27 TPs and 19% prevalence. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 56%, 100%, 100%, and 90% for P-EIA and 81%, 100%, 100%, and 96% for both algorithm 1 and algorithm 2. In summary, GDH-based algorithms detected C. difficile infections with superior sensitivity compared to P-EIA. The algorithms allowed immediate reporting of half of all TPs, but LAMP or CCNA was required to confirm the presence or absence of toxigenic C. difficile in GDH-positive/CDT-negative specimens.     

Comparison of the Oxoid Clostridium difficile toxin A detection kit with cytotoxin detection by a cytopathic effect method examined at 4, 6, 24 and 48 h

Objective: To evaluate the Oxoid Toxin A test in comparison with a rapid cytotoxin method for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile diarrhea in a UK tertiary referral hospital.
Methods: One hundred previously tested samples were examined using a cytopathic effect (CPE) method and the Oxoid Toxin A test. Culture and toxin B titer measurement of the samples were performed to evaluate discrepancies between the tests.
Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the Oxoid Toxin A test were 72% and 94%, respectively. This was similar to the CPE method read at 6 h: 67% and 94% in comparison. At 48 h, the sensitivity and specificity of the CPE method reached 98% and 100%. Toxigenic strains of C. difficile were cultured from 58 of 100 samples, and toxin was detected in 48 of 58. Following 4 weeks of storage at -20°C, seven of 47 previously toxin B-positive stool filtrates had no detectable toxin.
Conclusions: The Oxoid Toxin A test does not demonstrate a high enough sensitivity and specificity to be used as a primary test for C. difficile in hospitals where CPE testing is possible. Toxigenic strains of C. difficile can be cultured from a significant number of samples where no toxins are detected. Toxin B titers in fecal samples and especially in stool filtrates, stored at -20°C, diminish after thawing.     

Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of the cell culture neutralization, Xpert C. difficile, Xpert C. difficile/Epi, and Illumigene C. difficile assays

Clostridium difficile is the most important cause of nosocomial diarrhea. Several laboratory techniques are available to detect C. difficile toxins or the genes that encode them in fecal samples. We evaluated the Xpert C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi (Cepheid, CA) that detect the toxin B gene (tcdB) and tcdB, cdt, and a deletion in tcdC associated with the 027/NAP1/BI strain, respectively, by real-time PCR, and the Illumigene C. difficile (Meridian Bioscience, Inc.) that detects the toxin A gene (tcdA) by loop-mediated isothermal amplification in stool specimens. Toxigenic culture was used as the reference method for discrepant stool specimens. Two hundred prospective and fifty retrospective diarrheal stool specimens were tested simultaneously by the cell cytotoxin neutralization assay (CCNA) and the Xpert C. difficile, Xpert C. difficile/Epi, and Illumigene C. difficile assays. Of the 200 prospective stools tested, 10.5% (n = 23) were determined to be positive by CCNA, 17.5% (n = 35) were determined to be positive by Illumigene C. difficile, and 21.5% (n = 43) were determined to be positive by Xpert C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi. Of the 50 retrospective stools, previously determined to be positive by CCNA, 94% (n = 47) were determined to be positive by Illumigene C. difficile and 100% (n = 50) were determined to be positive by Xpert C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi. Of the 11 discrepant results (i.e., negative by Illumigene C. difficile but positive by Xpert C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi), all were determined to be positive by the toxigenic culture. A total of 21% of the isolates were presumptively identified by the Xpert C. difficile/Epi as the 027/NAP1/BI strain. The Xpert C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi assays were the most sensitive, rapid, and easy-to use assays for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile in stool specimens.     

Latex agglutination test for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin in stool samples

A total of 163 stool specimens were tested for detection of Clostridium difficile and its toxin by cytotoxicity assay with tissue culture, latex agglutination test, and isolation of the organism. From 33 specimens which were positive for toxin by cytotoxicity, 30 were positive by the latex agglutination test; the organism was isolated from 21. The total number of samples which were positive with the latex agglutination test was 44. The predictive value of a positive latex agglutination result relative to the cytotoxicity test was 68%, and the predictive value of a negative result was 97.5%. The specificity and sensitivity of the latex agglutination test relative to the cytotoxicity assay and the low cost and simple facilities required indicate that the latex agglutination test is a useful procedure for screening for C. difficile toxins, provided that positive latex results are confirmed by cytotoxicity assay.     

Development and Validation of Digital Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Ultrasensitive Detection and Quantification of Clostridium difficile Toxins in Stool

The currently available diagnostics for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) have major limitations. Despite mounting evidence that toxin detection is paramount for diagnosis, conventional toxin immunoassays are insufficiently sensitive and cytotoxicity assays too complex; assays that detect toxigenic organisms (toxigenic culture [TC] and nucleic acid amplification testing [NAAT]) are confounded by asymptomatic colonization by toxigenic C. difficile. We developed ultrasensitive digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for toxins A and B using single-molecule array technology and validated the assays using (i) culture filtrates from a panel of clinical C. difficile isolates and (ii) 149 adult stool specimens already tested routinely by NAAT. The digital ELISAs detected toxins A and B in stool with limits of detection of 0.45 and 1.5 pg/ml, respectively, quantified toxins across a 4-log range, and detected toxins from all clinical strains studied. Using specimens that were negative by cytotoxicity assay/TC/NAAT, clinical cutoffs were set at 29.4 pg/ml (toxin A) and 23.3 pg/ml (toxin B); the resulting clinical specificities were 96% and 98%, respectively. The toxin B digital ELISA was 100% sensitive versus cytotoxicity assay. Twenty-five percent and 22% of the samples positive by NAAT and TC, respectively, were negative by the toxin B digital ELISA, consistent with the presence of organism but minimal or no toxin. The mean toxin levels by digital ELISA were 1.5- to 1.7-fold higher in five patients with CDI-attributable severe outcomes, versus 68 patients without, but this difference was not statistically significant. Ultrasensitive digital ELISAs for the detection and quantification of toxins A and B in stool can provide a rapid and simple tool for the diagnosis of CDI with both high analytical sensitivity and high clinical specificity.     

Rapid detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal samples by magnetic immuno PCR assay.

Rapid detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in fecal samples was accomplished with the magnetic immuno PCR assay (MIPA). Elaborate DNA extraction techniques were unnecessary. First, we generated a mouse monoclonal antibody (MAb) reactive with only C. difficile, Clostridium sordellii, and Clostridium bifermentans. Then, magnetic beads were coated with the MAb, incubated with fecal samples to allow binding with C. difficile, extracted from the stool with a magnet, and processed in the PCR with primers specific for the toxin B gene. After optimizing MIPA by raising the number of PCR cycles from 35 to 40 and adding Chelex 100 to the PCR mixture, we found a sensitivity of 96.7%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 94.1% when compared with the culture of cytotoxic C. difficile from fecal samples. MIPA is a rapid, easy, and sensitive PCR method for demonstrating the presence of toxigenic C. difficile in stool samples and avoids the disadvantage of elaborate extraction of DNA from fecal samples.