Clostridium difficile infection: a comprehensive review

Clostridium difficile is one of the most important causes of healthcare acquired diarrhea. The disease spectrum caused by C. difficile infection ranges from mild, self-limited, illness to a severe, life-threatening colitis. The incidence of C. difficile associated disease has risen dramatically over the last decade, leading to increased research interest aiming at the discovery of new virulence factors and the development of new treatment and prevention regimens. This review summarizes the pathogenesis and changing epidemiology of C. difficile associated disease, the clinical spectrum and laboratory methods to diagnose C. difficile infection, and current treatment strategies.     

Clostridium difficile infection

Clostridium difficile is an anaerobic species consisting of bacilli with large, oval, subterminal spores, normally found in intestines. It uses two toxins, which produce cytopathic changes in the intestinal mucosae, causing diarrhea. Patients can present a spectrum of disease that varies from uncomplicated antibiotic-associated diarrhea to life threatening antibiotic-associated pseudomembranous colitis. C. difficile is the only species. There are no defined sterotypes. Toxigenic and nontoxigenic strains exist. The former produce varying amounts of toxin A (enterotoxin) and toxin B (Cytotoxin). Broad spectrum antiboiotic therapy eliminates much competing normal flora, permitting intestinal overgrowth of toxigenic C. difficile. There are no defined host defenses. Metronidazole and vancomycin should be used therapeutically, however, relapses can occur. Supportive therepy may be needed.     

Rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by multiplex real-time PCR

European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases - The gold standards for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs) are the cytotoxicity assay and the toxigenic...     

Rapid stool-based diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by real-time PCR in a children's hospital

Clostridium difficile is a major cause of nosocomial antibiotic-associated infectious diarrhea and pseudomembranous colitis. Detection of C. difficile by anaerobic bacterial culture and/or cytotoxicity assays has been largely replaced by rapid enzyme immunoassays (EIA). However, due to the lack of sensitivity of stool EIA, we developed a multiplex real-time PCR assay targeting the C. difficile toxin genes tcdA and tcdB. Stool samples from hospitalized pediatric patients suspected of having C. difficile-associated disease were prospectively cultured on cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar following alcohol shock. Six testing modalities were evaluated, including stool EIA, culture EIA, and real-time PCR (tcdA and tcdB) of cultured isolates and stool samples. Real-time PCR detection was performed with tcdA and tcdB gene-specific primers and hydrolysis probes using the LightCycler platforms (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN). A total of 157 samples from 96 pediatric patients were analyzed. The sensitivities of stool real-time PCR and stool EIA were 95% and 35%, respectively, with a specificity of 100% for both methods. The lower limit of detection of the stool real-time PCR was 30 CFU/ml of stool sample per reaction for tcdA and tcdB. This study highlights the poor performance of stool toxin EIAs in pediatric settings. Direct detection of C. difficile toxin genes in stool samples by real-time PCR showed sensitivity superior to that of stool and culture EIAs and performance comparable to that of real-time PCR assay of cultured isolates. Real-time PCR of DNA from stool samples is a rapid and cost-effective diagnostic modality for children that should facilitate appropriate patient management and halt the practice of serial testing by EIA.     

Nosocomial acquisition of Clostridium difficile infection

We studied the acquisition and transmission of Clostridium difficile infection prospectively on a general medical ward by serially culturing rectal-swab specimens from 428 patients admitted over an 11-month period. Immunoblot typing was used to differentiate individual strains of C. difficile. Seven percent of the patients (29) had positive cultures at admission. Eighty-three (21 percent) of the 399 patients with negative cultures acquired C. difficile during their hospitalizations. Of these patients, 52 (63 percent) remained asymptomatic and 31 (37 percent) had diarrhea; none had colitis. Patient-to-patient transmission of C. difficile was evidenced by time-space clustering of incident cases with identical immunoblot types and by significantly more frequent and earlier acquisition of C. difficile among patients exposed to roommates with positive cultures. Of the hospital personnel caring for patients with positive cultures, 59 percent (20) had positive cultures for C. difficile from their hands. The hospital rooms occupied by symptomatic patients (49 percent) as well as those occupied by asymptomatic patients (29 percent) were frequently contaminated. Eighty-two percent of the infected cohort still had positive cultures at hospital discharge, and such patients were significantly more likely to be discharged to a long-term care facility. We conclude that nosocomial C. difficile infection, which was associated with diarrhea in about one third of cases, is frequently transmitted among hospitalized patients and that the organism is often present on the hands of hospital personnel caring for such patients. Effective preventive measures are needed to reduce nosocomial acquisition of C. difficile.     

Mathematical modeling of Clostridium difficile infection

Clostridium difficile diarrhea is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitals. However, the number of cases in an outbreak is usually relatively small. This precludes many traditional statistical methods of modeling epidemics. Stochastic models are designed to deal with small numbers and are promising methods of understanding C. difficile epidemiology. This is illustrated by a reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo model based on the herd immunity hypothesis of C. difficile outbreaks.     

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.     

Clostridium difficile: clinical disease and diagnosis.

Clostridium difficile is an opportunistic pathogen that causes a spectrum of disease ranging from antibiotic-associated diarrhea to pseudomembranous colitis. Although the disease was first described in 1893, the etiologic agent was not isolated and identified until 1978. Since clinical and pathological features of C. difficile-associated disease are not easily distinguished from those of other gastrointestinal diseases, including ulcerative colitis, chronic inflammatory bowel disease, and Crohn's disease, diagnostic methods have relied on either isolation and identification of the microorganism or direct detection of bacterial antigens or toxins in stool specimens. The current review focuses on the sensitivity, specificity, and practical use of several diagnostic tests, including methods for culture of the etiologic agent, cellular cytotoxicity assays, latex agglutination tests, enzyme immunoassay systems, counterimmunoelectrophoresis, fluorescent-antibody assays, and polymerase chain reactions.     

Clostridium difficile mixed infection and reinfection

Isolates from consecutive Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) fecal samples underwent multilocus sequence typing. Potential reinfections with different genotypes were identified in 88/560 (16%) sample pairs taken 1 to 1,414 days (median, 24; interquartile range [IQR], 1 to 52 days) apart; odds of reinfection increased by 58% for every doubling of time between samples. Of 109 sample pairs taken on the same day, 3 (3%) had different genotypes. Considering samples 0 to 7 days apart as the same CDI, 7% of cases had mixed infections with >1 genotype.     

Mouse relapse model of Clostridium difficile infection

Clostridium difficile is the causative agent of primary and recurrent antibiotic-associated diarrhea and colitis in hospitalized patients. The disease is caused mainly by two exotoxins, TcdA and TcdB, produced by the bacteria. Recurrent C. difficile infection (CDI) constitutes one of the most significant clinical issues of this disease, occurs in more than 20% of patients after the first episode, and may be increasing in frequency. However, there is no well-established animal model of CDI relapse currently available for studying disease pathogenesis, prevention, and therapy. Here we report the establishment of a conventional mouse model of recurrence/relapse CDI. We found that the primary episode of CDI induced little or no protective antibody response against C. difficile toxins and mice continued shedding C. difficile spores. Antibiotic treatment of surviving mice induced a second episode of diarrhea, while a simultaneous reexposure of animals to C. difficile bacteria or spores elicited a full spectrum of CDI similar to that of the primary infection. Moreover, mice treated with immunosuppressive agents were prone to more severe and fulminant recurrent disease. Finally, utilizing this model, we demonstrated that vancomycin only delayed disease recurrence, whereas neutralizing polysera against both TcdA and TcdB completely protected mice against CDI relapse. In conclusion, we have established a mouse relapse CDI model that allows for future investigations of the role of the host immune response in the disease's pathogenesis and permits critical testing of new therapeutics targeting recurrent disease.     

How to: diagnose infection caused by Clostridium difficile

BackgroundClostridium difficile is recognized as the major agent responsible for nosocomial diarrhoea. In the context of recent increase in the incidence and severity of C. difficile infections (CDI), an accurate diagnosis is essential for optimal treatment and prevention, but continues to be challenging.AimsThe present article reviews each key step of CDI diagnosis including stool selection, methods and strategies used, and interpretation of the results.SourcesThe most recent guidelines for CDI diagnosis published by scientific societies were reviewed.ContentCDI diagnosis is based on clinical presentation and laboratory tests confirming the presence of toxigenic strain or toxins in stools. Stool selection is crucial and can be improved by implementing rejection criteria and a strict policy for appropriate testing. Multiple laboratory tests detecting different targets (free toxin or presence of a potentially toxigenic strain) are commercially available. However, none of these tests combine high sensitivity and specificity to diagnose CDI, low hands-on time and low cost. An optimized diagnosis can be achieved by implementing a two- or three-step algorithm. Algorithms currently recommended by the ESCMID comprise a screening test with high sensitivity followed by a more specific test to detect free toxins. Presence of free toxins in stools has been shown to better correlate with severe outcome whereas nucleic acid amplification tests may lead to an over-diagnosis by detecting asymptomatic carriers of a toxigenic strain.ImplicationTo date, no single test can accurately diagnose CDI. Guidelines from the ESCMID recommend a two- or three-step algorithm for optimal CDI detection.     

Clostridium difficile infection: New insights into therapeutic options

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is an important cause of mortality and morbidity in healthcare settings and represents a major social and economic burden. The major virulence determinants are large clostridial toxins, toxin A (TcdA) and toxin B (TcdB), encoded within the pathogenicity locus. Traditional therapies, such as metronidazole and vancomycin, frequently lead to a vicious circle of recurrences due to their action against normal human microbiome. New disease management strategies together with the development of novel therapeutic and containment approaches are needed in order to better control outbreaks and treat patients. This article provides an overview of currently available CDI treatment options and discusses the most promising therapies under development.     

Hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection: determinants for severe disease

Risk factors of severity (need for surgical intervention, intensive care or fatal outcome) were analysed in hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in a 777-bed community hospital. In a prospective analytical cross-sectional study, age (≥ 65 years), sex, CDI characteristics, underlying diseases, severity of comorbidity and PCR ribotypes were tested for associations with severe CDI. In total, 133 cases of hospital-acquired CDI (mean age 74.4 years) were identified, resulting in an incidence rate of 5.7/10,000 hospital-days. A recurrent episode of diarrhoea occurred in 25 cases (18.8%) and complications including toxic megacolon, dehydration and septicaemia in 69 cases (51.9%). Four cases (3.0%) required ICU admission, one case (0.8%) surgical intervention and 22 cases (16.5%) died within the 30-day follow-up period. Variables identified to be independently associated with severe CDI were severe diarrhoea (odds ratio [OR] 3.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-11.11, p=0.02), chronic pulmonary disease (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.08-8.40, p=0.04), chronic renal disease (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.07-7.81, p=0.04) and diabetes mellitus (OR 4.30, 95% CI 1.57-11.76, p=0.004). The case fatality of 16.5% underlines the importance of increased efforts in CDI prevention, in particular for patients with underlying diseases.     

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.