Laboratory Diagnosis Of Clostridium Difficile Infection Research Articles

Point-Counterpoint: What Is the Optimal Approach for Detection of Clostridium difficile Infection?

INTRODUCTIONIn 2010, we published an initial Point-Counterpoint on the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). At that time, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) were just becoming commercially available, and the idea of algorithmic approaches to CDI was being explored. Now, there are numerous NAATs in the marketplace, and based on recent proficiency test surveys, they have become the predominant method used for CDI diagnosis in the United States. At the same time, there is a body of literature that suggests that NAATs lack clinical specificity and thus inflate CDI rates. Hospital administrators are taking note of institutional CDI rates because they are publicly reported. They have become an important metric impacting hospital safety ratings and value-based purchasing; hospitals may have millions of dollars of reimbursement at risk. In this Point-Counterpoint using a frequently asked question approach, Ferric Fang of the University of Washington, who has been a consistent advocate for a NAAT-only approach for CDI diagnosis, will discuss the value of a NAAT-only approach, while Christopher Polage of the University of California Davis and Mark Wilcox of Leeds University, Leeds, United Kingdom, each of whom has recently written important articles on the value of toxin detection in the diagnosis, will discuss the impact of toxin detection in CDI diagnosis.

European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection

In 2009 the first European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guideline for diagnosing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) was launched. Since then newer tests for diagnosing CDI have become available, especially nucleic acid amplification tests. The main objectives of this update of the guidance document are to summarize the currently available evidence concerning laboratory diagnosis of CDI and to formulate and revise recommendations to optimize CDI testing. This update is essential to improve the diagnosis of CDI and to improve uniformity in CDI diagnosis for surveillance purposes among Europe. An electronic search for literature concerning the laboratory diagnosis of CDI was performed. Studies evaluating a commercial laboratory test compared to a reference test were also included in a meta-analysis. The commercial tests that were evaluated included enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) detecting glutamate dehydrogenase, EIAs detecting toxins A and B and nucleic acid amplification tests. Recommendations were formulated by an executive committee, and the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence were graded using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. No single commercial test can be used as a stand-alone test for diagnosing CDI as a result of inadequate positive predictive values at low CDI prevalence. Therefore, the use of a two-step algorithm is recommended. Samples without free toxin detected by toxins A and B EIA but with positive glutamate dehydrogenase EIA, nucleic acid amplification test or toxigenic culture results need clinical evaluation to discern CDI from asymptomatic carriage.

Trends and changes in Clostridium difficile diagnostic policies and their impact on the proportion of positive samples: a national survey

In June 2012, Israeli guidelines for laboratories were published defining the recommended methods for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). We conducted this survey to examine the effects of the new recommendations on the proportions of rejected and positive samples by the different methods. A survey was mailed to the directors of all general hospital (GH) and health maintenance organization (HMO) clinical microbiology laboratories. The report was divided into two periods, before and after implementation of the guidelines. Surveys were completed by 13/28 GH laboratories and 5/6 HMO laboratories. All 18 of these laboratories used C. difficile toxin (CDT) enzyme immunoassay alone during the first period of the survey. In the second period, nine laboratories (Group A) used CDT-PCR: two of them used this method exclusively while the other seven used it to resolve most (>90%) of the discrepant results (glutamate dehydrogenase antigen (GDH) +/CDT−]. The other nine laboratories (Group B) used combined GDH/CDT assay, using CDT PCR in only a minority (< 20%) of GDH+/CDT− cases. The overall proportion of rejected samples increased from 9.5% in the first period to 13.9% in the second (p <0.001). Between the first and second periods the proportion of positive samples increased from 9.0% to 11.6% in group A laboratories (p <0.001), but decreased from 12.9% to 9.7% in group B laboratories (p <0.001). Implementation of the guidelines has resulted in a significant increase in the proportion of rejected samples and in the proportion testing positive, suggesting more appropriate test utilization and improved sensitivity in the laboratory diagnosis of CDI.