Search

ABSTRACTThere is no stand-alone Clostridium difficilediagnostic that can sensitively and rapidly detect fecal free toxins. We investigated the performance of the C. difficilePCR cycle threshold (CT) for predicting free toxin status. Consecutive stool samples (n= 312) positive for toxigenic C. difficileby the GeneXpert C. difficile/Epi tcdBPCR assay were tested with the rapid membrane C. Diff Quik Chek Complete immunoassay (RMEIA). RMEIA toxin-negative samples were tested with the cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) and tgcBIOMICS enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Using RMEIA alone or in combination with CCNA and/or ELISA as the reference method, the accuracy of CTwas measured at different CTcutoffs. Using RMEIA as the reference method, a CTcutoff of 26.35 detected toxin-positive samples with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 96.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.2% to 98.9%), 65.9% (95% CI, 59.0% to 72.2%), 57.4% (95% CI, 52.7% to 62%), and 97.1% (95% CI, 92.8% to 98.9), respectively. Inclusion of CCNA in the reference method improved CTspecificity to 78.0% (95% CI, 70.7% to 84.2%). Intercartridge lot CTvariability measured as the average coefficient of variation was 2.8% (95% CI, 1.2% to 3.2%). Standardizing the input stool volume did not improve CTtoxin specificity. The median CTvalues were not significantly different between stool samples with Bristol scores of 5, 6, and 7, between pediatric and adult samples, or between presumptive 027 and non-027 strains. In addition to sensitively detecting toxigenic C. difficilein stool, on-demand PCR may also be used to accurately predict toxin-negative stool samples, thus providing additional results in PCR-positive stool samples to guide therapy.

ABSTRACTClostridium difficileinfection (CDI) is the most common cause of infectious diarrhea in health care settings, and for patients presumed to have CDI, their isolation while awaiting laboratory results is costly. Newer rapid tests for CDI may reduce this burden, but the economic consequences of different testing algorithms remain unexplored. We used decision analysis from the hospital perspective to compare multiple CDI testing algorithms for adult inpatients with suspected CDI, assuming patient management according to laboratory results. CDI testing strategies included combinations of on-demand PCR (odPCR), batch PCR, lateral-flow diagnostics, plate-reader enzyme immunoassay, and direct tissue culture cytotoxicity. In the reference scenario, algorithms incorporating rapid testing were cost-effective relative to nonrapid algorithms. For every 10,000 symptomatic adults, relative to a strategy of treating nobody, lateral-flow glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)/odPCR generated 831 true-positive results and cost $1,600 per additional true-positive case treated. Stand-alone odPCR was more effective and more expensive, identifying 174 additional true-positive cases at $6,900 per additional case treated. All other testing strategies were dominated by (i.e., more costly and less effective than) stand-alone odPCR or odPCR preceded by lateral-flow screening. A cost-benefit analysis (including estimated costs of missed cases) favored stand-alone odPCR in most settings but favored odPCR preceded by lateral-flow testing if a missed CDI case resulted in less than $5,000 of extended hospital stay costs and <2 transmissions, if lateral-flow GDH diagnostic sensitivity was >93%, or if the symptomatic carrier proportion among the toxigenic culture-positive cases was >80%. These results can aid guideline developers and laboratory directors who are considering rapid testing algorithms for diagnosing CDI.