Evaluation of the Fully Automated BD MAX Cdiff and Xpert C. difficile Assays for Direct Detection of Clostridium difficile in Stool Specimens

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.     

Comparison of GenomEra C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile as Confirmatory Tests in a Multistep Algorithm for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection

We compared two multistep diagnostic algorithms based on C. Diff Quik Chek Complete and, as confirmatory tests, GenomEra C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 87.2%, 99.7%, 97.1%, and 98.3%, respectively, for the GenomEra-based algorithm and 89.7%, 99.4%, 95.5%, and 98.6%, respectively, for the Xpert-based algorithm. GenomEra represents an alternative to Xpert as a confirmatory test of a multistep algorithm for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) diagnosis.     

Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile/Epi and Meridian Bioscience illumigene C. difficile Assays for Detecting Clostridium difficile Ribotype 033 Strains

Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 033 (RT033) is found in the gastrointestinal tracts of production animals and, occasionally, humans. The illumigene C. difficile assay (Meridian Bioscience, Inc.) failed to detect any of 52 C. difficile RT033 isolates, while all strains signaled positive for the binary toxin genes but were reported as negative for C. difficile by the Xpert C. difficile/Epi assay (Cepheid).     

Multicenter Clinical Evaluation of the Portrait Toxigenic C. difficile Assay for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile Strains in Clinical Stool Specimens

We compared the Portrait Toxigenic C. difficile Assay, a new semiautomated sample-to-result molecular test, to a toxigenic bacterial culture/cell cytotoxin neutralization assay (TBC/CCNA) for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in 549 stool specimens. Stool specimens were also tested by one of three alternative FDA-cleared molecular tests for toxigenic C. difficile (Xpert C. difficile, Illumigene C. difficile, or GeneOhm Cdiff). The sensitivities and specificities of the molecular tests compared to TBC/CCNA were as follows: 98.2% and 92.8% for the Portrait assay, 100% and 91.7% for the Xpert assay, 93.3% and 95.1% for the Illumigene assay, and 97.4% and 98.5% for the GeneOhm assay, respectively. The majority of Portrait false-positive results (20/31; 64.5%) were also positive for C. difficile by an alternative molecular test, suggesting an increased sensitivity compared to the culture-based “gold standard” method. The Portrait test detected an assay input of 30 CFU in 100% of spiked samples and detected an input of 10 CFU in 96.7% of samples tested.     

Role of fecal Clostridium difficile load in discrepancies between toxin tests and PCR: is quantitation the next step in C. difficile testing?

Direct tests for Clostridium difficile are 30–50?% more sensitive than tests for C. difficile toxins but the reasons for this discrepancy are incompletely understood. In addition to toxin degradation and strain differences, we hypothesized that C. difficile concentration could be important in determining whether toxins are detected in fecal samples. We performed standard curves on an FDA-approved real-time PCR test for the C. difficile tcdB gene (Xpert C. difficile/Epi, Cepheid) during a prospective comparison of a toxin immunoassay (Meridian Premier), PCR and toxigenic culture. Immunoassay-negative, PCR-positive samples were retested with a cell cytotoxin assay (TechLab). Among 107 PCR-positive samples, 46 (43.0?%) had toxins detected by immunoassay and an additional 18 (16.8?%) had toxin detected by the cytotoxin assay yielding 64 (59.8?%) toxin-positive and 43 (40.2?%) toxin-negative samples. Overall, toxin-negative samples with C. difficile had 10¹–10⁴ fewer DNA copies than toxin-positive samples and most discrepancies between toxin tests and PCR were associated with a significant difference in C. difficile quantity. Of the toxin-positive samples, 95?% had ≥4.1 log₁₀ C. difficile tcdB DNA copies/mL; 52?% of immunoassay-negative samples and 70?% of immunoassay and cytotoxin negative samples had <4.1 log₁₀ C. difficile tcdB DNA copies/mL. These findings suggest that fecal C. difficile concentration is a major determinant of toxin detection and C. difficile quantitation may add to the diagnostic value of existing test methods. Future studies are needed to validate the utility of quantitation and determine the significance of low concentrations of C. difficile in the absence of detectable toxin.     

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.     

Performance Characteristics of the Cepheid Xpert vanA Assay for Rapid Identification of Patients at High Risk for Carriage of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

We compared the performance characteristics of culture and the Cepheid Xpert vanA assay for routine surveillance of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) from rectal swabs in patients at high risk for VRE carriage. The Cepheid Xpert vanA assay had a limit of detection of 100 CFU/ml and correctly detected 101 well-characterized clinical VRE isolates with no cross-reactivity in 27 non-VRE and related culture isolates. The clinical sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the Xpert vanA PCR assay were 100%, 96.9%, 91.3%, and 100%, respectively, when tested on 300 consecutively collected rectal swabs. This assay provides excellent predictive values for prompt identification of VRE-colonized patients in hospitals with relatively high rates of VRE carriage.     

Comparative evaluation of two fully-automated real-time PCR methods for MRSA admission screening in a tertiary-care hospital

We evaluated two fully-automated real-time PCR systems, the novel QIAGEN artus MRSA/SA QS-RGQ and the widely used BD MAX MRSA assay, for their diagnostic performance in MRSA admission screening in a tertiary-care university hospital. Two hundred sixteen clinical swabs were analyzed for MRSA DNA using the BD MAX MRSA assay. In parallel, the same specimens were tested with the QIAGEN artus MRSA/SA QS-RGQ. Automated steps included lysis of bacteria, DNA extraction, real-time PCR and interpretation of results. MRSA culture was additionally performed as a reference method for MRSA detection. Sensitivity values were similar for both assays (80 %), while the QIAGEN artus MRSA/SA QS-RGQ reached a slightly higher specificity (95.8 % versus 90.0 %). Positive (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) were 17.4 % and 99.4 % for the BD MAX MRSA assay and 33.3 % and 99.5 % for the QIAGEN artus MRSA/SA QS-RGQ, respectively. Total turn-around time (TAT) for 24 samples was 3.5 hours for both assays. In conclusion, both assays represent reliable diagnostic tools due to their high negative predictive values, especially for the rapid identification of MRSA negative patients in a low prevalence MRSA area.     

Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Clostridium difficile Epi assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection and typing of the NAP1 strain at a cancer hospital

Clostridium difficile is the most common cause of health care-associated diarrhea. Accurate and rapid diagnosis is essential to improve patient outcome and prevent disease spread. We compared our two-step diagnostic algorithm, an enzyme immunoassay for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) followed by the cytotoxin neutralization test (CYT) with a turnaround time of 24 to 48 h, versus the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile Epi assay, a PCR-based assay with a turnaround time of <1 h. In the first phase of the study, only GDH-positive stool samples were tested by both CYT and Xpert PCR. Discordant results were resolved by toxigenic culture. In the second phase, all stool samples were tested by GDH and Xpert PCR. Only GDH-positive stools were further tested by CYT. Genotypic characterization of 45 Xpert PCR-positive stools was performed by sequencing of the tcdC gene and PCR ribotyping. In phase 1, the agreement between the GDH-CYT and the GDH-Xpert PCR was 72%. The sensitivities and specificities of GDH-CYT and GDH-Xpert PCR were 57% and 97% and 100% and 97%, respectively. In phase 2, the agreement between GDH-CYT and Xpert PCR alone was 95%. As in phase 1, sensitivity of the Xpert PCR was higher than that of the GDH-CYT. The correlation between PCR-ribotyping, sequencing, and Xpert PCR for detection of NAP1 strains was excellent (>90%). The excellent sensitivity and specificity and the rapid turnaround time of the Xpert PCR assay as well as its strain-typing capability make it an attractive option for diagnosis of C. difficile infection.     

Evaluation of a New Automated Homogeneous PCR Assay,GenomEra C. difficile,for Rapid Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Fecal Specimens

We evaluated a new automated homogeneous PCR assay to detect toxigenic Clostridium difficile, the GenomEra C. difficile assay (Abacus Diagnostica, Finland), with 310 diarrheal stool specimens and with a collection of 33 known clostridial and nonclostridial isolates. Results were compared with toxigenic culture results, with discrepancies being resolved by the GeneXpert C. difficile PCR assay (Cepheid). Among the 80 toxigenic culture-positive or GeneXpert C. difficile assay-positive fecal specimens, 79 were also positive with the GenomEra C. difficile assay. Additionally, one specimen was positive with the GenomEra assay but negative with the confirmatory methods. Thus, the sensitivity and specificity were 98.8% and 99.6%, respectively. With the culture collection, no false-positive or -negative results were observed. The analytical sensitivity of the GenomEra C. difficile assay was approximately 5 CFU per PCR test. The short hands-on (<5 min for 1 to 4 samples) and total turnaround (<1 h) times, together with the high positive and negative predictive values (98.8% and 99.6%, respectively), make the GenomEra C. difficile assay an excellent option for toxigenic C. difficile detection in fecal specimens.     

Comparison of Multilocus Sequence Typing and the Xpert C. difficile/Epi Assay for Identification of Clostridium difficile 027/NAP1/BI

Clostridium difficile 027/NAP1/BI is the most common C. difficile strain in the United States. The Xpert C. difficile/Epi assay allows rapid, presumptive identification of C. difficile NAP1. We compared Xpert C. difficile/Epi to multilocus sequence typing for identification of C. difficile NAP1 and found “very good” agreement at 97.9% (κ = 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.91).     

Evaluation of Clostridium difficile Fecal Load and Limit of Detection during a Prospective Comparison of Two Molecular Tests,the illumigene C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi Tests

In a large prospective comparison, the illumigene test detected Clostridium difficile in 98% of toxin-positive and 58% of toxin-negative samples confirmed positive by other methods. The Xpert was uniformly sensitive. Most samples with discrepant results had C. difficile concentrations below the illumigene limit of detection. The significance of low-level C. difficile detection needs investigation.     

Clinical Characteristics of Patients Who Test Positive for Clostridium difficile by Repeat PCR

The high sensitivity of PCR assays for diagnosing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has greatly reduced the need for repeat testing after a negative result. Nevertheless, a small subset of patients do test positive within 7 days of a negative test. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics of these patients to determine when repeat testing may be appropriate. The results of all Xpert C. difficile PCR (Cepheid, Sunnyvale CA) tests performed in the clinical microbiology laboratory at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center (NYPH/CUMC) from 1 May 2011 through 6 September 2013, were reviewed. A retrospective case-control study was performed, comparing patients who tested positive within 7 days of a negative test result to a random selection of 50 controls who tested negative within 7 days of a negative test result. During the study period, a total of 14,875 tests were performed, of which 1,066 were repeat tests (7.2%). Eleven of these repeat tests results were positive (1.0%). The only risk factor independently associated with repeat testing positive was history of a prior CDI (odds ratio [OR], 19.6 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 4.0 to 19.5], P < 0.001). We found that patients who test positive for C. difficile by PCR within 7 days of a negative test are more likely to have a history of CDI than are patients who test negative with repeat PCR. This finding may be due to the high rate of disease relapse or the increased likelihood of empirical therapy leading to false-negative results in these patients.     

Comparison of strain typing results for Clostridium difficile isolates from North America

Accurate strain typing is critical for understanding the changing epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infections. We typed 350 isolates of toxigenic C. difficile from 2008 to 2009 from seven laboratories in the United States and Canada. Typing was performed by PCR-ribotyping, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and restriction endonuclease analysis (REA) of whole-cell DNA. The Cepheid Xpert C. difficile test for presumptive identification of 027/NAP1/BI isolates was also tested directly on original stool samples. Of 350 isolates, 244 (70%) were known PCR ribotypes, 224 (68%) were 1 of 8 common REA groups, and 187 (54%) were known PFGE types. Eighty-four isolates typed as 027, NAP1, and BI, and 83 of these were identified as presumptive 027/NAP1/BI by Xpert C. difficile. Eight additional isolates were called presumptive 027/NAP1/BI by Xpert C. difficile, of which three were ribotype 027. Five PCR ribotypes contained multiple REA groups, and three North American pulsed-field (NAP) profiles contained both multiple REA groups and PCR ribotypes. There was modest concordance of results among the three methods for C. difficile strains, including the J strain (ribotype 001 and PFGE NAP2), the toxin A-negative 017 strain (PFGE NAP9 and REA type CF), the 078 animal strain (PFGE NAP7 and REA type BK), and type 106 (PFGE NAP11 and REA type DH). PCR-ribotyping, REA, and PFGE provide different but overlapping patterns of strain clustering. Unlike the other methods, the Xpert C. difficile 027/NAP1/BI assay gave results directly from stool specimens, required only 45 min to complete, but was limited to detection of a single strain type.     

Clostridium difficile Testing in the Clinical Laboratory by Use of Multiple Testing Algorithms

The incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has risen almost 3-fold in the United States over the past decade, emphasizing the need for rapid and accurate tests for CDI. The Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay is an integrated, closed, nucleic acid amplification system that automates sample preparation and real-time PCR detection of the toxin B gene (tcdB). A total of 432 stool specimens from symptomatic patients were tested by a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assay, a toxin A and B enzyme immunoassay (EIA), the Xpert C. difficile assay, and a cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCN). The results of these methods, used individually and in combination, were compared to those of toxigenic culture. Results for the Xpert C. difficile assay alone showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.4, 96.3, 84.0, and 98.8%, while the EIA alone gave corresponding values of 58.3, 94.7, 68.9, and 91.9%, respectively. An algorithm using the GDH assay and the EIA (plus the CCCN if the EIA was negative) showed corresponding values of 83.1, 96.7, 83.1, and 96.1%. The Xpert C. difficile assay was statistically superior to the EIA (P, <0.001 by Fisher''s exact test) and to the GDH-EIA-CCCN algorithm (P, 0.0363). Combining the GDH and Xpert C. difficile assays lowered both the sensitivity and the NPV of the Xpert assay. The GDH-EIA-CCCN procedure required, on average, 2 days to complete testing on GDH-positive results, while testing by the Xpert C. difficile assay was completed, on average, in less than 1 h. Xpert C. difficile testing yielded the highest sensitivity and NPV, in the least amount of time, of the individual- and multiple-test algorithms evaluated in this study.Clostridium difficile is the main cause of infectious health care-associated diarrhea in the United States and around the world. C. difficile infections (CDI) can vary from a mild diarrhea to the potentially fatal pseudomembranous colitis, toxic megacolon, and sepsis (7, 19). C. difficile colonization of the bowel often follows disruption of normal flora after the patient receives antimicrobial therapy. The incidence and severity of C. difficile has increased in both hospital and long-term care settings, due in part to the emergence of several novel strains, including the epidemic J strain described by Johnson et al. and the hypervirulent NAP1/027/BI strain (16, 19). Strain NAP1/027/BI produces high quantities of spores, which disseminate easily in the hospital environment, and is associated with high mortality rates (1, 5, 9, 11, 17, 32).Historically, the cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCN), which detects cytotoxin production in monolayers of cells, such as human diploid fibroblasts, has been the gold standard for C. difficile detection in the laboratory. However, cell culture is labor-intensive, and many laboratories have adopted other testing methods, such as enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for toxins A and B, which are easier and faster to perform than CCCN (22, 27, 33). However, recent reports have highlighted the lack of sensitivity of the toxin A/B EIAs, which show sensitivities as low as 48% (2, 28). Although toxigenic culture of the organism has now been reaccepted as the true gold standard (25), this method requires substantial laboratory resources, and results are not available in a short enough time frame to be clinically useful (18, 24, 28). Thus, other approaches to improving both the sensitivity and the cost-effectiveness of C. difficile testing have been introduced (2, 22). Testing algorithms using a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assay (which has presumptively higher sensitivity but lacks specificity) to screen for C. difficile in stool samples, with reflex testing using a more specific assay, such as a toxin A/B EIA or the CCCN, have been proposed (26, 29, 31). GDH assays detect antigen present in both toxigenic and nontoxigenic strains of C. difficile directly in stool samples. The time necessary to perform the GDH assay with EIA or CCCN confirmation can be as long as 3 days (34). Gilligan noted that EIAs often lack sufficient sensitivity for confirmation of positive GDH assay results (14). In this algorithm, the need to confirm GDH-positive specimens increases the turnaround time (TAT) for positive results, delaying the notification of the physician ordering the test. PCR assays for various targets have been developed as a potential replacement for the less-sensitive (EIA) and less-specific (GDH) assays for C. difficile detection (3, 4, 6, 23, 30). Such assays include both “home brew” PCR assays and FDA-cleared commercial assays (15, 20, 28, 30). Cepheid (Sunnyvale, CA) has recently developed a GeneXpert cartridge-based assay for detection of the C. difficile toxin B gene (tcdB) directly from stool. In this study, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of the Xpert C. difficile PCR assay to those of the GDH assay and the EIA, individually and within specific testing algorithms, using toxigenic culture as the gold standard for a positive specimen.(This work was previously presented as a poster at the 109th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, 2009.)     

Comparison of the Xpert MTB/RIF and Cobas TaqMan MTB Assays for Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Respiratory Specimens

The Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) is a fully automated, cartridge-based real-time PCR assay designed to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampin resistance within 2 h. The performance of the Xpert assay has been evaluated in various clinical settings. However, there are few data comparing the Xpert assay to the Cobas TaqMan MTB test (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), one of the most widely utilized molecular assays for M. tuberculosis detection. In this prospective study, 320 consecutive respiratory specimens were processed simultaneously using acid-fast bacillus (AFB) staining, mycobacterial cultures with both solid and liquid media, and the Cobas and Xpert assays. The Xpert assay was performed with direct respiratory specimens, while the Cobas assay was done with decontaminated concentrated specimens. Based on the culture as a reference method, the overall sensitivities of the Cobas and Xpert assays were 71.4% and 67.9%, respectively. When AFB smear results were taken into consideration, the sensitivities of the Cobas assay for smear-positive and -negative specimens were 87% and 54%, while those of the Xpert assay were 67% and 69%, respectively. The Cobas assay showed 100% specificity and 100% positive predictive value (PPV) regardless of smear results, while the Xpert assay showed 100% specificity and 100% PPV for smear-positive specimens but 98% specificity and 60% PPV for smear-negative specimens. In conclusion, the Xpert assay showed performance that was slightly inferior to that of the Cobas assay but seems useful for the rapid detection of M. tuberculosis, considering that it was performed without laborious and time-consuming decontamination and concentration procedures.     

Impact of Strain Type on Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile: Comparison of Molecular Diagnostic and Enzyme Immunoassay Approaches

A multicenter clinical trial assessed the performance of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay on stool specimens collected from patients suspected of having Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). A total of 2,296 unformed stool specimens, collected from seven study sites, were tested by Xpert C. difficile enrichment culture followed by cell culture cytotoxicity testing of the isolates (i.e., toxigenic culture with enrichment) and the study sites'' standard C. difficile test methods. The methods included enzyme immunoassay (EIA), direct cytotoxin testing, and two- and three-step algorithms using glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) screening followed by either EIA or EIA and an in-house PCR assay. All C. difficile strains were typed by PCR-ribotyping. Compared to results for toxigenic culture with enrichment, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Xpert assay were 93.5, 94.0, 73.0, and 98.8%, respectively. The overall sensitivity of the EIAs compared to that of enrichment culture was 60.0%, and the sensitivity of combined GDH algorithms was 72.9%; both were significantly lower than that of Xpert C. difficile (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). The sensitivity of the EIA was significantly lower than that of the Xpert C. difficile assay for detection of ribotypes 002, 027, and 106 (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.004, respectively, Fisher''s exact test), and the sensitivity of GDH algorithms for ribotypes other than 027 was lower than that for Xpert C. difficile (P < 0.001). The Xpert C. difficile assay is a simple, rapid, and accurate method for detection of toxigenic C. difficile in unformed stool specimens and is minimally affected by strain type compared to EIA and GDH-based methods.Clostridium difficile continues to be a significant cause of infectious diarrheal disease among hospitalized patients, particularly in the United States and Europe (2, 11, 13). C. difficile isolates are capable of causing, in addition to diarrheal disease, serious syndromes, such as pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon, which may result in death (11, 13). This organism is also responsible for increasing numbers of community-acquired infections (14, 16). Hypervirulent strains of C. difficile have emerged, including the J strain (9) and 027/NAP1/BI strain (20), the latter of which has been responsible for a series of hospital outbreaks around the world (10, 12, 20, 22). Recent studies indicate that several of the rapid enzyme immunoassay (EIA) methods used to diagnose C. difficile infection (CDI) are less sensitive than previously indicated (1, 29). The sensitivity of EIAs was often assessed initially using direct cytotoxin testing of stool samples, often in high-prevalence or outbreak settings (5). More-recent studies have compared the results of EIA methods against those of toxigenic culture, i.e., culturing C. difficile isolates from stool samples (often using broth enrichment) and testing the organism recovered in culture for cytotoxin production, which has higher sensitivity than direct cytotoxin testing (5, 25). The renewed use of toxigenic culture, particularly in North America, as the reference method has encouraged microbiologists to reassess diagnostic methods for CDI.Another change in the diagnostic landscape has been the introduction of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) screening of stool specimens as part of two- or three-step algorithms in an attempt to enhance the sensitivity of C. difficile detection. Data from studies reported by Reller et al. (27) and Ticehurst et al. (36) supported the use of this approach, although a study by Gilligan raised concerns about using less-sensitive toxin EIAs for confirming GDH-positive assays (6).More recently, PCR-based amplification methods for the detection of chromosomal genes encoding C. difficile toxin B (tcdB) or toxin regulatory genes (tcdC) directly in stool samples have been described (7, 15, 24, 29). Evaluations of several commercial amplification methods that target tcdB for detection of C. difficile in stool samples have been reported (8, 23, 30, 31). Three commercial amplification methods have received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance in the United States.The goal of this study was to assess the accuracy of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay in a multilaboratory study using the results of toxigenic culture with broth enrichment (i.e., “enrichment toxigenic culture”) as the reference method. The accuracy of the two commercial EIAs, direct cytotoxin testing, and two algorithms that incorporate GDH screening that were the standard-of-care methods at the study sites was also assessed. We also evaluated the sensitivity of EIA, GDH, and Xpert C. difficile assays for detecting multiple PCR ribotypes of C. difficile, including ribotype 027.     

Clinical Evaluation of the Cartridge-Based GeneXpert Human Papillomavirus Assay in Women Referred for Colposcopy

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing is now being introduced as a potential primary screening test for improved detection of cervical precancer and cancer. Current U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved tests are batch tests that take several hours to complete. A rapid, non-batch test might permit point-of-care (POC) testing, which can facilitate same-day screen and management strategies. For a non-batch, random-access platform (GeneXpert; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA), a prototype hrHPV assay (Xpert) has been developed where testing for 14 hrHPV types can be completed in 1 h. In the first clinical evaluation, Xpert was compared to two validated hrHPV tests, the cobas HPV test (cobas, Roche Molecular Systems) and Hybrid Capture 2 (hc2, Qiagen), and to histologic outcomes using specimens from colposcopy referral populations at 7 clinical sites in the United States (n = 697). The sensitivity of Xpert for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe diagnoses (CIN2+) (n = 141) was equal to that of cobas (90.8% versus 90.8%, P = 1) and greater than that of hc2 (90.8% versus 81.6%, P = 0.004). Xpert was more specific than cobas (42.6% versus 39.6%, P = 0.02) and less specific than hc2 (42.6% versus 47.7%, P < 0.001). Similar results were observed for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) (n = 91). HPV16 detection by Xpert identified 41.8% of the CIN2+ specimens with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 54.6%. By comparison, HPV16 detection by cobas identified 42.6% of the CIN2+ specimens with a PPV of 55.0%. hrHPV detection by the Xpert demonstrated excellent clinical performance for identifying women with CIN2+ and CIN3+ that was comparable to that of currently available clinically validated tests.     

Multicenter Evaluation of the Verigene Clostridium difficile Nucleic Acid Assay

The Verigene Clostridium difficile Nucleic Acid test (Verigene CDF test) (Nanosphere, Northbrook, IL) is a multiplex qualitative PCR assay that utilizes a nanoparticle-based array hybridization method to detect C. difficile tcdA and tcdB in fecal specimens. In addition, the assay detects binary toxin gene sequences and the single base pair deletion at nucleotide 117 (Δ 117) in tcdC to provide a presumptive identification of the epidemic strain 027/NAP1/BI (referred to here as ribotype 027). This study compared the Verigene CDF test with anaerobic direct and enriched toxigenic culture on stool specimens from symptomatic patients among five geographically diverse laboratories within the United States. The Verigene CDF test was performed according to the manufacturer''s instructions, and the reference methods performed by a central laboratory included direct culture onto cycloserine cefoxitin fructose agar (CCFA) and enriched culture using cycloserine cefoxitin mannitol broth with taurocholate and lysozyme. Recovered isolates were identified as C. difficile using gas liquid chromatography and were tested for toxin using a cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay. Strains belonging to ribotype 027 were determined by PCR ribotyping and bidirectional sequencing for Δ 117 in tcdC. A total of 1,875 specimens were evaluable. Of these, 275 specimens (14.7%) were culture positive by either direct or enriched culture methods. Compared to direct culture alone, the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the Verigene CDF test were 98.7%, 87.5%, 42%, and 99.9%, respectively. Compared to combined direct and enriched culture results, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values of the Verigene CDF test were 90.9%, 92.5%, 67.6%, and 98.3%, respectively. Of the 250 concordantly culture-positive specimens, 59 (23.6%) were flagged as “hypervirulent”; 53 were confirmed as ribotype 027, and all 59 possessed Δ 117 in tcdC. Time to results was approximately 2.5 h per specimen. The Verigene CDF test is a novel nucleic acid microarray that reliably detects both C. difficile toxins A and B in unformed stool specimens and appears to adequately identify ribotype 027 isolates.     

Comparison of Perirectal versus Rectal Swabs for Detection of Asymptomatic Carriers of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile

For long-term care and spinal cord injury patients, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of perirectal versus rectal cultures for detection of asymptomatic carriers of Clostridium difficile were 95%, 100%, 100%, and 97%, respectively. Perirectal cultures provide an accurate method to detect asymptomatic carriers of C. difficile.