Comparison of Nine Commercially Available Clostridium difficile Toxin Detection Assays,a Real-Time PCR Assay for C. difficile tcdB,and a Glutamate Dehydrogenase Detection Assay to Cytotoxin Testing and Cytotoxigenic Culture Methods

The continuing rise in the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection is a cause for concern, with implications for patients and health care systems. Laboratory diagnosis largely relies on rapid toxin detection kits, although assays detecting alternative targets, including glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin genes, are now available. Six hundred routine diagnostic diarrheal samples were tested prospectively using nine commercial toxin detection assays, cytotoxin assay (CYT), and cytotoxigenic culture (CYTGC) and retrospectively using a GDH detection assay and PCR for the toxin B gene. The mean sensitivity and specificity for toxin detection assays were 82.8% (range, 66.7 to 91.7%) and 95.4% (range, 90.9 to 98.8%), respectively, in comparison with CYT and 75.0% (range, 60.0 to 86.4%) and 96.1% (91.4 to 99.4%), respectively, in comparison with CYTGC. The sensitivity and specificity of the GDH assay were 90.1% and 92.9%, respectively, compared to CYT and 87.6% and 94.3%, respectively, compared to CYTGC. The PCR assay had the highest sensitivity of all the tests in comparison with CYT (92.2%) and CYTGC (88.5%), and the specificities of the PCR assay were 94.0% and 95.4% compared to CYT and CYTGC, respectively. All kits had low positive predictive values (range, 48.6 to 86.8%) compared with CYT, assuming a positive sample prevalence of 10% (representing the hospital setting), which compromises the clinical utility of single tests for the laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection. The optimum rapid single test was PCR for toxin B gene, as this had the highest negative predictive value. Diagnostic algorithms that optimize test combinations for the laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection need to be defined.Clostridium difficile is a major nosocomial pathogen causing a range of symptoms from mild to severe diarrhea and is the etiological agent of pseudomembranous colitis. The incidence of C. difficile infection has increased markedly in many countries, notably associated with the epidemic spread of PCR ribotype 027 (NAP1) since its recognition in the United States and Canada (6, 7, 13). It is essential to have accurate laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection to ensure patients receive appropriate treatment and that correct infection control measures are put in place. Also, inaccurate testing will potentially lead to poor quality surveillance data that may lead to inappropriate infection prevention measures.The cytotoxin assay (CYT), first described by Chang et al., detects the toxins produced by C. difficile in the supernatants of patient feces, using both antitoxin-protected and nonprotected cell monolayers (2). This assay is commonly used as the gold standard method for comparison in toxin kit evaluations, although its use in routine microbiology laboratories has largely been superseded. Cytotoxogenic culture (CYTGC) has been used as an alternative gold standard method to CYT testing, i.e., where CYT testing is performed using culture supernatants instead of directly from the fecal sample (1). These are lengthy assays, however, with results delayed for 24 to 48 h for the CYT and for more than 72 h for the CYTGC assay.Rapid, commercially available, toxin detection kits removed the need for laboratories to maintain the cell lines necessary for CYT testing. Although originally designed to detect either toxin A or toxin B, the kits currently available detect both toxins to enable detection of toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive strains. Alternative detection methods have now been developed, including an assay that detects a surface-associated enzyme of C. difficile, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH). Zheng et al. reported that the Techlab C. diff Chek-60 GDH assay had good sensitivity compared to CYT testing of 92%, but it had a low specificity of 89.1% and poor positive predictive value (PPV) of 57.7% (21). Commercial molecular diagnostic tests, such as the BD GeneOhm C. difficile PCR assay, which detects the tcdB toxin gene of C. difficile, are now available. A recent study compared this assay to CYT testing and found a sensitivity and specificity of 90.9% and 95.2%, respectively (15). The PPVs of the BD GeneOhm C. difficile PCR assay were only 70.2% compared with CYT testing and 89.5% compared with CYTGC (15), with a prevalence of toxin-positive fecal samples of 15.2%.Despite numerous evaluations of C. difficile testing methods, no evaluation has compared all methods on the same sample set. This study compared six commercially available enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and three lateral-flow assays for detection of C. difficile toxins A and B, a PCR assay for detection of the tcdB gene of C. difficile, and an assay for detection of C. difficile-specific GDH, with CYT testing and CYTGC.