The Bristol Stool Scale and Its Relationship to Clostridium difficile Infection

The Bristol stool form scale classifies the relative density of stool samples. In a prospective cohort study, we investigated the associations between stool density, C. difficile assay positivity, hospital-onset C. difficile infection, complications, and severity of C. difficile. We describe associations between the Bristol score, assay positivity, and clinical C. difficile infection.     

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.     

Stool caproic acid for screening of Clostridium difficile

Clostridium difficile is the prime etiologic agent in the production of pseudomembranous colitis by its powerful cytotoxin. The most common test for the toxin is a tissue culture method with neutralization of cytopathic effect by a C. difficile antiserum. This method is expensive and requires a minimum of 72 hours before results can be obtained. Attempts to create a rapid method, counterimmunoelectrophoresis, enzyme-linked immunosorbent, latex agglutination, and fluorescent antibody test are fraught with many problems. This report describes a rapid method for the identification of C. difficile, using gas-liquid chromatography (GLC) for the demonstration of caproic acid, a product of the organisms fatty acid metabolism.     

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.     

Ultrasensitive Detection and Quantification of Toxins for Optimized Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection

Recently developed ultrasensitive and quantitative methods for detection of Clostridium difficile toxins provide new tools for diagnosis and, potentially, for management of C. difficile infection (CDI). Compared to methods that detect toxigenic organism, ultrasensitive toxin detection may allow diagnosis of CDI with increased clinical specificity, without sacrificing clinical sensitivity; measurement of toxin levels may also provide information relevant to disease prognosis. This minireview provides an overview of these new toxin detection technologies and considers what these new tools might add to the field.     

Performance of Clostridium difficile Toxin Enzyme Immunoassay and Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests Stratified by Patient Disease Severity

Many clinical laboratories in the United States are transitioning from toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIA) to nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) as the primary diagnostic test for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). While it is known that the analytical sensitivity of the toxin EIA is poor, there are limited clinical data on the performance of these assays for patients with mild or severe CDI. Two hundred ninety-six hospital inpatients with diarrhea and clinical suspicion for CDI were tested prospectively by toxin EIA, by C. difficile NAAT, and with a reference standard toxigenic culture. Following completion of laboratory testing, retrospective chart reviews were performed to stratify patients into mild and severe disease groups based on clinical criteria using a standard point-based system. One hundred forty-three patients with CDI confirmed by toxigenic culture were evaluated in this study. Among the patients with mild CDI, 49% tested positive by toxin EIA and 98% tested positive by NAAT. Among patients with severe CDI, 58% tested positive by toxin EIA and 98% tested positive by NAAT. Increased CDI disease severity was not associated with an increased sensitivity of EIA (P = 0.31). These data demonstrate that toxin EIA performs poorly both for patients with severe CDI and for those with mild CDI and support the routine use of NAAT for the diagnosis of CDI. The presence of stool toxin measured by EIA does not correlate with disease severity.     

Comparison of BD GeneOhm Cdiff Real-Time PCR Assay with a Two-Step Algorithm and a Toxin A/B Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Diagnosis of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile Infection

The BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, a real-time PCR assay for the detection of the Clostridium difficile toxin B (tcdB) gene, was compared with the toxin A/B (Tox A/B) II enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and a two-step algorithm which includes a C. Diff Chek-60 glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen assay followed by cytotoxin neutralization. Four hundred liquid or semisolid stool samples submitted for diagnostic C. difficile testing, 200 GDH antigen positive and 200 GDH antigen negative, were selected for analysis. All samples were tested by the C. Diff Chek-60 GDH antigen and cytotoxin neutralization assays, the Tox A/B II ELISA, and the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay. Specimens with discrepant results were tested by toxigenic culture as an independent “gold standard.” Of 200 GDH-positive samples, 71 were positive by the Tox A/B II ELISA, 88 were positive by the two-step method, 93 were positive by PCR, and 96 were positive by the GDH antigen assay only. Of 200 GDH-negative samples, 3 were positive by PCR only. Toxigenic culture was performed for 41 samples with discrepant results, and 39 were culture positive. Culture resolution of discrepant results showed the Tox A/B II assay to have detected 70 (66.7%), the two-step method to have detected 87 (82.9%), and PCR to have detected 96 (91.4%) of 105 true positives. The BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay was more sensitive in detecting toxigenic C. difficile than the Tox A/B II assay (P < 0.0001); however, the difference between PCR and the two-step method was not significant (P = 0.1237). Enhanced sensitivity and rapid turnaround time make the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay an important advance in the diagnosis of toxigenic C. difficile infection.Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is emerging as the most common infectious cause of nosocomial diarrhea, yet sensitive and specific commercially available diagnostic tests with rapid turnaround times are lacking (10). Toxigenic culture is considered to be the ultimate reference standard but is tedious, takes up to a week to complete, and is considered too time-consuming for clinical use. While the cytotoxin neutralization assay is the current clinical “gold standard,” it is utilized only by a minority of clinical laboratories because it requires cell culture expertise and up to 48 h to report some positive and all negative results (4). Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) for detection of toxins A and B (Tox A/B) are the most commonly employed tests, since they use readily available technology, are inexpensive, and have rapid turnaround times, but they lack sensitivity (3, 19). Recently, a two-step protocol has been recommended: testing for an abundant C. difficile antigen, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), by a rapid and sensitive ELISA, followed by cytotoxin testing of GDH-positive samples to confirm toxin production in vivo (8, 20, 25, 27). This method achieves relatively high sensitivity and specificity and can rapidly report results for most samples that are negative for C. difficile but can still take up to 48 h to report low-level cytotoxin positivity.In December 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first commercially available real-time PCR assay (the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay; BD Diagnostics, San Diego, CA) to directly detect the toxin B (tcdB) gene in stool to aid in the diagnosis of CDI. Reports of two prospective studies comparing the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, a cytotoxicity assay, and toxigenic culture have been published (2, 24). Both found the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay to have higher sensitivity than the cytotoxicity assay by using toxigenic culture as the gold standard. Neither study compared the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay to a toxin ELISA, which is the most widely used diagnostic method for CDI, or to a two-step testing algorithm. Other studies of PCR assays reported in the literature utilized in-house tests with small numbers of positive results, making it difficult to propose general recommendations (1, 5, 9, 15, 17, 23, 26).The objective of this study was to compare the performance of the BD GeneOhm Cdiff PCR assay for detection of the C. difficile toxin B gene with that of a two-step method (the C. Diff Chek-60 GDH antigen assay followed by cytotoxin neutralization) and that of the Tox A/B II ELISA. Toxigenic culture was used to resolve findings for samples with discrepant results.(This research was presented at the 109th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, Philadelphia, PA, 17 to 21 May 2009.)     

Identification of Toxin A-Negative, Toxin B-Positive Clostridium difficile by PCR

Toxigenic strains of Clostridium difficile have been reported to produce both toxins A and B nearly always, and nontoxigenic strains have been reported to produce neither of these toxins. Recent studies indicate that it is not always true. We established a PCR assay to differentiate toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive (toxin A−, toxin B+) strains from both toxin-positive (toxin A+, toxin B+) strains and both toxin-negative (toxin A−, toxin B−) strains as an alternative to cell culture assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). By using the PCR primer set NK11 and NK9 derived from the repeating sequences of the toxin A gene, a shorter segment (ca. 700 bp) was amplified from toxin A−, toxin B+ strains compared to the size of the segment amplified from toxin A+, toxin B+ strains (ca. 1,200 bp), and no product was amplified from toxin A−, toxin B− strains. We examined a total of 421 C. difficile isolates by PCR. Of these, 48 strains showed a shorter segment by the PCR, were negative by ELISAs for the detection of toxin A, and were positive by cell culture assay. Although the cytotoxin produced by the toxin A−, toxin B+ strains was neutralized by anti-toxin B serum, the appearance of the cytotoxic effects on Vero cell monolayers was distinguishable from that of toxin A+, toxin B+ strains. By immunoblotting, the 44 toxin A−, toxin B+ strains were typed to serogroup F and the remaining four strains were serogroup X. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis separated the 48 strains into 19 types. The PCR assay for the detection of the repeating sequences combined with PCR amplification of the nonrepeating sequences of either the toxin A or the toxin B gene is indicated to be useful for differentiating toxin A−, toxin B+ strains from toxin A+, toxin B+ and toxin A−, toxin B− strains and will contribute to elucidation of the precise role of toxin A−, toxin B+ strains in intestinal diseases.     

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection: an Ongoing Conundrum for Clinicians and for Clinical Laboratories

SUMMARY

Clostridium difficile is a formidable nosocomial and community-acquired pathogen, causing clinical presentations ranging from asymptomatic colonization to self-limiting diarrhea to toxic megacolon and fulminant colitis. Since the early 2000s, the incidence of C. difficile disease has increased dramatically, and this is thought to be due to the emergence of new strain types. For many years, the mainstay of C. difficile disease diagnosis was enzyme immunoassays for detection of the C. difficile toxin(s), although it is now generally accepted that these assays lack sensitivity. A number of molecular assays are commercially available for the detection of C. difficile. This review covers the history and biology of C. difficile and provides an in-depth discussion of the laboratory methods used for the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI). In addition, strain typing methods for C. difficile and the evolving epidemiology of colonization and infection with this organism are discussed. Finally, considerations for diagnosing C. difficile disease in special patient populations, such as children, oncology patients, transplant patients, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease, are described. As detection of C. difficile in clinical specimens does not always equate with disease, the diagnosis of C. difficile infection continues to be a challenge for both laboratories and clinicians.     

Comparison of Illumigene,Simplexa, and AmpliVue Clostridium difficile Molecular Assays for Diagnosis of C. difficile Infection

We compared the performance of the Simplexa Universal Direct (Focus Diagnostics) and AmpliVue (Quidel Corporation) assays to that of the Illumigene assay (Meridian Bioscience, Inc.) for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Two hundred deidentified remnant diarrheal stool specimens were tested by the Simplexa, AmpliVue, and Illumigene methods. Specimens with discrepant results among the three assays and a representative number of concordant specimens were further evaluated by toxigenic culture. The sensitivity and specificity were 98 and 100% and 96 and 100% for the Simplexa Universal Direct and AmpliVue assays, respectively. Both assays are easy to perform, with rapid turn-around-times, supporting their utility in the clinical laboratory as routine diagnostic platforms.     

Problems Associated with Counterimmunoelectrophoresis Assays for Detecting Clostridium difficile Toxin

The antitoxins currently used for the detection of Clostridium difficile by counterimmunoelectrophoresis react with other C. difficile antigens in addition to the toxins produced by the bacterium.     

Evaluation of a New Commercial TaqMan PCR Assay for Direct Detection of the Clostridium difficile Toxin B Gene in Clinical Stool Specimens

The ProGastro Cd assay (Prodesse, Inc., Waukesha, WI) is a new commercial TaqMan PCR assay that detects tcdB. The ProGastro Cd assay was compared to the Wampole Clostridium difficile toxin B test (TOX-B test; TechLab, Blacksburg, VA), a cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCNA), and to anaerobic toxigenic bacterial culture, as the “gold standard,” for 285 clinical stool specimens. Assays were independently performed according to manufacturers'' directions. A 1.0-ml sample was removed from the stool specimen, of which 20 μl was used for extraction on the NucliSENS easyMAG platform (bioMérieux, Inc., Durham, NC) for the Prodesse ProGastro Cd assay and 200 μl of the stool filtrate was used for the TOX-B CCCNA. Anaerobic toxigenic culture was done by heating an additional 1.0 ml of the stool sample to 80°C for 10 min before inoculation onto modified cycloserine, cefoxitin, and fructose agar with horse blood (Remel, Lenexa, KS) and into a prereduced chopped meat glucose broth (BBL, BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD). The prevalence of toxin-producing strains of C. difficile was 15.7% (n = 44) as determined by anaerobic toxigenic culture. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Prodesse ProGastro Cd assay compared to the TOX-B test were 83.3%, 95.6%, 69.4%, and 98%, respectively. Compared to toxigenic culture, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Prodesse ProGastro Cd assay were 77.3%, 99.2%, 94.4%, and 95.9%, respectively, and those of the TOX-B test were 63.6%, 99.2%, 93.3%, and 93.6%, respectively. Although no statistical difference (Fisher''s exact test) was detected (P = 0.242) between the sensitivities of the Prodesse ProGastro Cd assay and a standard CCCNA compared to anaerobic culture for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile, the Prodesse ProGastro Cd assay did detect more toxigenic C. difficile isolates than the CCCNA.The severity of disease associated with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) can vary from asymptomatic colonization or mild gastroenteritis to severe manifestations, such as colitis, pseudomembrane formation, and toxic megacolon (2, 3, 7). The increased recognition of CDI-associated morbidity and mortality with the apparent rise of hypervirulent C. difficile epidemic strains (BI/NAP1/027) necessitates a dependable diagnostic assay for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile as fast as possible (7, 8).A large number of diagnostic methods are available for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile in stool samples. Individual laboratories must balance the performance characteristics with test complexity, costs, and time to results. The cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCNA), once considered a “gold standard,” has been replaced in most laboratories by more rapid technologies. Rapid traditional methods for detection of toxins A and B, i.e., lateral flow devices and enzyme immunoassay methods, are quicker, less complex, and less expensive, but their performances differ with regard to sensitivity and specificity (1, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, 21). Although time-consuming, the most sensitive and specific method is anaerobic culture with selective media for C. difficile followed by testing of recovered isolates for cytotoxin production (1, 6, 12, 15-17, 21). A few real-time PCR assays have been evaluated in routine clinical laboratories for direct detection of toxin A and/or toxin B directly in stool, but only three PCR assays have been directly compared to anaerobic toxigenic culture (1, 4, 12, 15, 17-20). The only consensus on testing methods is that a rapid, sensitive, and specific assay that differentiates between toxigenic and nontoxigenic C. difficile isolates is the preferred tool to assist clinicians in their decision-making process.The real-time PCR assay manufactured by Prodesse, Inc. (Waukesha, WI), is performed on stool after extraction with the NucliSENS easyMAG platform (bioMérieux, Inc., Durham, NC). The PCR assay uses TaqMan chemistry and consists of proprietary primers specific to the toxin B gene (tcdB) as well as an internal control (IC), incorporated into every reaction, that is amplified on the Cepheid SmartCycler II (Sunnyvale, CA). The IC, added on initial processing of the stool sample, acts as a general process control and monitors for the presence of PCR inhibitors. In this study, we compared the ProGastro Cd assay (Prodesse, Inc., Waukesha, WI) to the Wampole C. difficile toxin B test (TOX-B test; TechLab, Blacksburg, VA) for a Prodesse (Waukesha, WI)-sponsored clinical trial. In addition, both assays were also compared to an anaerobic toxigenic culture method that was not a component of the sponsored clinical trial.(This research was presented in part at the 25th Annual Clinical Virology Symposium, Daytona Beach, FL, 19 to 22 April 2009.)     

Rapid Molecular Characterization of Clostridium difficile and Assessment of Populations of C. difficile in Stool Specimens

Our laboratory has developed testing methods that use real-time PCR and pyrosequencing analysis to enable the rapid identification of potential hypervirulent Clostridium difficile strains. We describe a real-time PCR assay that detects four C. difficile genes encoding toxins A (tcdA) and B (tcdB) and the binary toxin genes (cdtA and cdtB), as well as a pyrosequencing assay that detects common deletions in the tcdC gene in less than 4 h. A subset of historical and recent C. difficile isolates (n = 31) was also analyzed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis to determine the circulating North American pulsed-field (NAP) types that have been isolated in New York State. Thirteen different NAP types were found among the 31 isolates tested, 13 of which were NAP type 1 strains. To further assess the best approach to utilizing our conventional and molecular methods, we studied the populations of C. difficile in patient stool specimens (n = 23). Our results indicated that 13% of individual stool specimens had heterogeneous populations of C. difficile when we compared the molecular characterization results for multiple bacterial isolates (n = 10). Direct molecular analysis of stool specimens gave results that correlated well with the results obtained with cultured stool specimens; the direct molecular analysis was rapid, informative, and less costly than the testing of multiple patient stool isolates.Clostridium difficile is one of the leading causes of infectious antibiotic-associated diarrhea and pseudomembranous colitis worldwide (2, 16). This is illustrated by the increased incidence and severity of C. difficile infection, suggesting the emergence of a new hypervirulent strain (5, 13-15, 17, 25, 32).While TcdB, a cytotoxin, is the known established virulence factor of C. difficile, toxin A (TcdA), a cytotoxic enterotoxin, works synergistically with TcdB, causing damage to the intestinal mucosa in cases of C. difficile infection (17). The genes that encode these toxins are located on the pathogenicity locus of C. difficile (4, 10, 24). Additionally, several deletions in the tcdC gene, a putative negative regulator of the expression of the toxin A (tcdA) and the toxin B (tcdB) genes, have been identified, and these deletions result in higher levels of cytotoxin expression (11). Furthermore, research has shown that some C. difficile strains produce another toxin, known as the binary toxin (19, 22, 28). The genes that encode this toxin, cdtA and cdtB, together produce an actin-specific ADP-ribosyltransferase that induces damage to the actin skeleton, leading to cytopathic effects in cell lines (1). It has been suggested that the binary toxin genes and deletions in the tcdC gene are potential virulence factors in the recent emerging hypervirulent strain (22, 29).The “gold standard” for the detection of C. difficile toxin production is a cytotoxin assay with stool specimens or isolates from anaerobic culture. The cytotoxin assay is difficult to perform and time-consuming, and it is often less sensitive than molecular assays (20, 23, 26). Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) are used most often, and recent reports suggest that manufacturers have improved the performance of EIA kits since their introduction; however, the disadvantages of EIAs include the lower levels of sensitivity and specificity compared to those of the gold standard methods. More importantly, culture is not specific for the identification of toxigenic strains. The laboratory at the Wadsworth Center has developed a multiplex real-time PCR assay and a tcdC gene pyrosequencing assay that rapidly identify potential virulence factors of C. difficile strains and that can be used to directly test patient stool specimens for C. difficile.(Part of this report was presented at the 107th American Society for Microbiology General Meeting in 2007 [Toronto, Canada].)     

Posttreatment Follow-Up of Helicobacter pylori Infection Using a Stool Antigen Immunoassay

The Helicobacter pylori stool antigen enzyme immunoassay (HpSA) was evaluated during posttreatment follow-up of patients in a country with a very high prevalence of H. pylori infection. From among 273 dyspeptic individuals (18 to 55 years) initially recruited from a shantytown in Lima, Peru, 238 participants who met the inclusion criteria and were suspected to be H. pylori positive based on ¹⁴C urea breath test (UBT) results underwent endoscopy. Participants with endoscopy-proven infections received standard eradication therapy and were monitored by UBT and HpSA at 1 month following treatment and at 3-month intervals for 9 months posttreatment. A second endoscopy was performed if UBT results showed evidence of treatment failure or H. pylori recurrence. Biopsy results were considered the “gold standard” in all analyses. Among patients who underwent endoscopy, HpSA had a pretreatment sensitivity of 93%. Two-hundred thirty patients completed the treatment regimen, of whom 201 (93%) were considered to have had successful treatment outcomes based on a negative follow-up UBT. Thirty-two patients with UBT-defined treatment failures or H. pylori recurrences at any point during the 9-month follow-up underwent a second endoscopy. In the posttreatment setting, HpSA had an overall sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 67%. Agreement between UBT and HpSA diminished throughout the follow-up. Among 14 participants in whom HpSA remained positive at 1 month following treatment despite UBT evidence of treatment success, 12 (86%) became HpSA negative within 3 months posttreatment. Although this study confirmed the validity of the HpSA in the initial assessment of dyspeptic patients, the test demonstrated a reduced overall accuracy in the detection of treatment failures and H. pylori recurrences during 9 months of posttreatment follow-up. Furthermore, in some patients it may take up to 3 months after successful eradication for antigen shedding to diminish to levels within the negative HpSA range.