Premarket Evaluations of the IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 Assay and the BD Max Cdiff Assay

Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea is a well-recognized complication of antibiotic use. Historically, diagnosing C. difficile has been difficult, as antigen assays are insensitive and culture-based methods require several days to yield results. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are quickly becoming the standard of care. We compared the performance of two automated investigational/research use only (IUO/RUO) NAATs for the detection of C. difficile toxin genes, the IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 Assay (IMDx) and the BD Max Cdiff Assay (Max). A prospective analysis of 111 stool specimens received in the laboratory for C. difficile testing by the laboratory''s test of record (TOR), the BD GeneOhm Cdiff Assay, and a retrospective analysis of 88 specimens previously determined to be positive for C. difficile were included in the study. One prospective specimen was excluded due to loss to follow-up discrepancy analysis. Of the remaining 198 specimens, 90 were positive by all three methods, 9 were positive by TOR and Max, and 3 were positive by TOR only. One negative specimen was initially inhibitory by Max. The remaining 95 specimens were negative by all methods. Toxigenic C. difficile culture was performed on the 12 discrepant samples. True C. difficile-positive status was defined as either positive by all three amplification assays or positive by toxigenic culture. Based on this definition, the sensitivity and specificity were 96.9% and 95% for Max and 92.8% and 100% for IMDx. In summary, both highly automated systems demonstrated excellent performance, and each has individual benefits, which will ensure that they will both have a niche in clinical laboratories.     

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 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.     

Evaluation of a New Molecular Test, the BD Max Cdiff, for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Fecal Samples

A new molecular assay detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile, the BD Max Cdiff (Becton, Dickinson), was evaluated with 360 diarrheal feces samples. It exhibited high sensitivity (97.7%) and specificity (99.7%). The positive (97.7%) and negative (99.7%) predictive values of this test allow an accurate answer within 2 h.     

Comparison of five cultural procedures for isolation of Clostridium difficile from stools.

Several procedures have been described for the culture of Clostridium difficile from stool specimens. The goal of this study was to determine the effectiveness of five of these methods for the isolation of C. difficile from feces of patients suspected of having C. difficile-associated illness. A total of 564 stool specimens were cultured by using heat shock, ethanol treatment (ET), and direct plating on Carr-Scarborough cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar (CCFA) with horse blood (C/S medium), BBL CCFA medium, and Remel C. difficile agar. Cytotoxin assays were performed on all specimens. A total of 113 specimens (20%) were positive for C. difficile by one or more methods. The numbers of positive cultures by using heat shock, ET, and direct plating on C/S medium, BBL CCFA medium, and Remel C. difficile agar were 79 (70%), 89 (79%), 91 (81%), 79 (70%), and 52 (46%), respectively. We concluded that ET and direct plating on C/S medium were the most effective procedures for isolating C. difficile from stool specimens and found significant variation in the performance of modified CCFA from different manufacturers.     

Use of gas-liquid chromatography as a screening test for toxigenic Clostridium difficile in diarrhoeal stools

In order to determine if gas-liquid chromatography (GLC) on concentrated stool extracts could be substituted to cell culture assay for cytotoxicity, we prospectively studied 154 diarrhoeal stools submitted for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin. Isocaproic-positive samples were cultured on egg yolk agar supplemented with cycloserine, cefoxitin and fructose for isolation of C difficile, and on egg yolk agar plus kanamycin for isolation of other clostridium species. Of the 154 samples, 129 were GLC-negative (height of the isocaproic peak less than 1.2 cm) and were toxin-negative. Twenty-five stools yielded isocaproic acid; C difficile isolated from 13 of them, six of which were also toxin-positive. Four other isocaproic-positive samples yielded C bifermentans and C sordellii; all were toxin-negative. These results indicate that a negative GLC is an excellent screening test for excluding C difficile infection; positive results must be checked by toxin testing and culture since they are not necessarily associated with the presence of C difficile or its toxin.     

Comparison of BD GeneOhm Cdiff and Seegene Seeplex ACE PCR Assays Using Toxigenic Clostridium difficile Culture for Direct Detection of tcdB from Stool Specimens

We evaluated the performances of 2 PCR assays (BD GeneOhm and Seegene ACE) for direct detection of tcdB from stool specimens. The concordance rate between BD and Seegene was 96.3%. The sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) of BD and Seegene were 95.7%, 96.5%, 91.8%, and 98.2% and 90.0%, 97.1%, 92.6%, and 96.0%, respectively.     

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.     

Comparison between the two-step and the three-step algorithms for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile

Purpose: To evaluate usefulness of applying either the two-step algorithm (Ag-EIAs and CCNA) or the three-step algorithm (all three assays) for better confirmation of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. The antigen enzyme immunoassays (Ag-EIAs) can accurately identify the glutamate dehydrogenase antigen of toxigenic and nontoxigenic Clostridium difficile. Therefore, it is used in combination with a toxin-detecting assay [cell line culture neutralization assay (CCNA), or the enzyme immunoassays for toxins A and B (TOX-A/BII EIA)] to provide specific evidence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea. Materials and Methods: A total of 151 nonformed stool specimens were tested by Ag-EIAs, TOX-A/BII EIA, and CCNA. All tests were performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and the results of Ag-EIAs and TOX-A/BII EIA were read using a spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 450 nm. Results: A total of 61 (40.7%), 38 (25.3%), and 52 (34.7%) specimens tested positive with Ag-EIA, TOX-A/BII EIA, and CCNA, respectively. Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value for Ag-EIA were 94%, 87%, 96.6%, and 80.3%, respectively. Whereas for TOX-A/BII EIA, the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 73.1%, 100%, 87.5%, and 100%, respectively. With the two-step algorithm, all 61 Ag-EIAs-positive cases required 2 days for confirmation. With the three-step algorithm, 37 (60.7%) cases were reported immediately, and the remaining 24 (39.3%) required further testing by CCNA. By applying the two-step algorithm, the workload and cost could be reduced by 28.2% compared with the three-step algorithm. Conclusions: The two-step algorithm is the most practical for accurately detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile, but it is time-consuming.     

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.     

Novel portable platform for molecular detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in faeces: a diagnostic accuracy study

European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases - A novel portable platform for nucleic acid amplification enables rapid detection of diarrhoea causing toxigenic Clostridium...     

Comparison of media for screening of diarrheic stools for the recovery of Clostridium difficile.

Recoveries of Clostridium difficile from stool specimens by using three media, cycloserine-mannitol agar (M-CMA), cycloserine-mannitol-blood agar (M-CMBA), and cycloserine-cefoxitin agar (M-CCA), were compared. Of 321 clinical specimens, 37 yielded C. difficile. Thirty-four were positive on M-CCA, 21 were positive on M-CMA, and 20 were positive on M-CMBA. M-CCA recovered significantly more C. difficile than did M-CMBA or M-CMA.     

Comparison of two commercial molecular assays to a laboratory-developed molecular assay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection

We compared two commercial PCR assays, the Prodesse ProGastro CD assay and the BD GeneOhm Cdiff assay, with a laboratory-developed Clostridium difficile toxin PCR assay with previously established performance characteristics. Results of all methods were in agreement for 333 (96%) of 346 stool specimens. No significant difference in performance among the assays was found (P values, >0.05).     

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.     

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.     

Cultures for Clostridium difficile in stools containing a cytotoxin neutralized by Clostridium sordellii antitoxin.

Stools from patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhea or colitis were cultured to detect the presence of Clostridium difficile. All specimens contained a cytotoxin which was neutralized by Clostridium sordellii antitoxin. Initial testing employed several methods with comparative merits in recovering this organism. These included the use of nonselective media, antibiotic-incorporated media, alcohol shock, and paracresol-containing broth. Optimal results were achieved with primary plating of serial dilutions onto a selective agar containing cycloserine and cefoxitin. This technique was then employed in a large number of specimens. The overall results showed that C. difficile was recovered in specimens from 71 of 73 patients. All isolates of C. difficile produced a cytotoxin which was neutralized by C. sordellii antitoxin in vitro. These results verify the utility of this medium and support the concept that C. difficile accounts for the cytotoxin found in stools in nearly all cases.     

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.     

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.)     

Effective detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile by a two-step algorithm including tests for antigen and cytotoxin

We evaluated a two-step algorithm for detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile: an enzyme immunoassay for glutamate dehydrogenase antigen (Ag-EIA) and then, for antigen-positive specimens, a concurrent cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA). Antigen-negative results were > or = 99% predictive of CCNA negativity. Because the Ag-EIA reduced cell culture workload by approximately 75 to 80% and two-step testing was complete in < or = 3 days, we decided that this algorithm would be effective. Over 6 months, our laboratories' expenses were US dollar 143,000 less than if CCNA alone had been performed on all 5,887 specimens.