Sequential introduction of a multistep testing algorithm and nucleic acid amplification testing leading to an increase in Clostridioides difficile detection and a trend toward increased strain diversity

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 1148-1153
Author(s):  
Andrew M. Skinner ◽  
Brian Yu ◽  
Adam Cheknis ◽  
Susan M. Pacheco ◽  
Dale N. Gerding ◽  
...  

AbstractBackground:Most clinical microbiology laboratories have replaced toxin immunoassay (EIA) alone with multistep testing (MST) protocols or nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) alone for the detection of C. difficile.Objective:Study the effect of changing testing strategies on C. difficile detection and strain diversity.Design:Retrospective study.Setting:A Veterans’ Affairs hospital.Methods:Initially, toxin EIA testing was replaced by an MST approach utilizing a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin EIA followed by tcdB NAAT for discordant results. After 18 months, MST was replaced by a NAAT-only strategy. Available patient stool specimens were cultured for C. difficile. Restriction endonuclease analysis (REA) strain typing and quantitative in vitro toxin testing were performed on recovered isolates.Results:Before MST (toxin EIA), 79 of 708 specimens (11%) were positive, and after MST (MST-A), 121 of 517 specimens (23%) were positive (P < .0001). Prior to NAAT-only testing (MST-B), 80 of the 490 specimens (16%) were positive by MST, and after NAAT-only testing was implemented, 67 of the 368 specimens (18%) were positive (P = nonsignificant). After replacing toxin EIA testing, REA strain group diversity increased (8, 13, 13, and 10 REA groups in the toxin EIA, MST-A, MST-B, and NAAT-only periods, respectively) and in vitro toxin concentration decreased. The average log10 toxin concentration of the isolates were 2.08, 1.88, 1.20 and 1.55 ng/mL for the same periods, respectively.Conclusions:MST and NAAT had similar detection rates for C. difficile. Compared to toxin testing alone, they detected increased diversity of C. difficile strains, many of which were low toxin producing.

2021 ◽  
Vol 138 ◽  
pp. 104792
Author(s):  
Bryan A. Stevens ◽  
Catherine A. Hogan ◽  
Kenji O. Mfuh ◽  
Ghazala Khan ◽  
Malaya K. Sahoo ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. T. Crobach ◽  
N. Duszenko ◽  
E. M. Terveer ◽  
C. M. Verduin ◽  
E. J. Kuijper

ABSTRACT Multistep algorithmic testing in which a sensitive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) is followed by a specific toxin A and toxin B enzyme immunoassay (EIA) is among the most accurate methods for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) diagnosis. The obvious shortcoming of this approach is that multiple tests must be performed to establish a CDI diagnosis, which may delay treatment. Therefore, we sought to determine whether a preliminary diagnosis could be made on the basis of the quantitative results of the first test in algorithmic testing, which provide a measure of organism burden. To do so, we retrospectively analyzed two large collections of samples ( n = 2,669 and n = 1,718) that were submitted to the laboratories of two Dutch hospitals for CDI testing. Both hospitals apply a two-step testing algorithm in which a NAAT is followed by a toxin A/B EIA. Of all samples, 208 and 113 samples, respectively, tested positive by NAAT. Among these NAAT-positive samples, significantly lower mean quantification cycle ( C q ) values were found for patients whose stool eventually tested positive for toxin, compared with patients who tested negative for toxin (mean C q values of 24.4 versus 30.4 and 26.8 versus 32.2; P < 0.001 for both cohorts). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to investigate the ability of C q values to predict toxin status and yielded areas under the curve of 0.826 and 0.854. Using the optimal C q cutoff values, prediction of the eventual toxin A/B EIA results was accurate for 78.9% and 80.5% of samples, respectively. In conclusion, C q values can serve as predictors of toxin status but, due to the suboptimal correlation between the two tests, additional toxin testing is still needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document