Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-8gtf8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-19T18:06:42.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2020

Andrew M. Skinner*
Affiliation:
Edward Hines, Jr, Veterans’ Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois (Present affiliation: Metro Infectious Diseases Consultants, Burr Ridge, Illinois [B.Y.].)
Brian Yu
Affiliation:
Edward Hines, Jr, Veterans’ Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois (Present affiliation: Metro Infectious Diseases Consultants, Burr Ridge, Illinois [B.Y.].)
Adam Cheknis
Affiliation:
Edward Hines, Jr, Veterans’ Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois
Susan M. Pacheco
Affiliation:
Edward Hines, Jr, Veterans’ Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois (Present affiliation: Metro Infectious Diseases Consultants, Burr Ridge, Illinois [B.Y.].)
Dale N. Gerding
Affiliation:
Edward Hines, Jr, Veterans’ Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois
Stuart Johnson*
Affiliation:
Edward Hines, Jr, Veterans’ Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois (Present affiliation: Metro Infectious Diseases Consultants, Burr Ridge, Illinois [B.Y.].)
*
Authors for correspondence: Stuart Johnson, E-mail: stuart.johnson2@va.gov. Or Andrew Skinner, E-mail: andrew.skinner@lumc.edu
Authors for correspondence: Stuart Johnson, E-mail: stuart.johnson2@va.gov. Or Andrew Skinner, E-mail: andrew.skinner@lumc.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

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.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.

Since the late 1980s, enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for toxins A and B have been the primary method for laboratory detection of C. difficile.Reference McDonald, Gerding and Johnson1 EIA offered laboratories a relatively rapid test compared to older cell cytotoxicity assays.Reference Burnham and Carroll2 However, toxin A and B EIAs were plagued by variable detection sensitivity; reports indicate that the sensitivity varies from 47% to 83%.Reference De Jong, De Jong and Bartels3,Reference Eastwood, Else, Charlett and Wilcox4 These variable sensitivities in testing make it difficult for hospitals to determine the number of true C. difficile infections (CDIs).Reference Planche, Aghaizu and Holliman5

To overcome the relative insensitivity of toxin EIAs, many clinical microbiology laboratories adopted a multistep algorithm. A glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assay was added as the initial screening test in combination with toxin A and B EIAs. GDH has a much higher sensitivity as a common antigen found in all C. difficile isolates (toxigenic and non-toxigenic), but it lacks the specificity of the toxin EIA.Reference Burnham and Carroll2,Reference Eastwood, Else, Charlett and Wilcox4 In combination, GDH testing and toxin A and B EIA resulted in increased sensitivity and specificity for C. difficile diagnosis.Reference Burnham and Carroll2,Reference Eastwood, Else, Charlett and Wilcox4,Reference Planche, Aghaizu and Holliman5 In 2009, C. difficile detection via nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) became commercially available.Reference Burnham and Carroll2 The most commonly used gene target for testing is tcdB, which corresponds with the potential for toxin B production.Reference Burnham and Carroll2,Reference Voth and Ballard6,Reference Denève, Janoir, Poilane, Fantinato and Collignon7 In a study comparing 9 toxin detection assays, tcdB NAAT had similar specificity compared to cell cytotoxicity assay and cytotoxigenic culture.Reference Eastwood, Else, Charlett and Wilcox4 However, because of the increased sensitivity with NAAT, it has a limited capacity to differentiate between CDI and asymptomatic carriage of C. difficile.Reference Koo, Van and Zhao8

As C. difficile testing strategies continue to evolve, data regarding the impact these different testing strategies have on C. difficile strain diversity detection are limited. In this study, we investigated the impact that testing strategy changes had on C. difficile detection as well as the strain diversity of the C. difficile isolates detected.

Methods

In 2010 and 2012, the Edward Hines, Jr, Veterans’ Affairs Hospital underwent sequential changes to C. difficile testing protocols. Prior to December 2010, C. difficile was detected via toxin A and B EIAs (Vidas, bioMèrieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France). In December 2010 a multistep approach (MST) was adopted for the detection of C. difficile. GDH and toxin A/B EIA (C. diff Quick Chek Complete, Techlab/Wampole, Blacksburg, VA) were used as initial screening tests. Specimens that were positive for C. difficile by GDH but negative by toxin EIA were further analyzed by molecular testing for tcdB by polymerase chain reaction (PCR, GeneXpert, Cepheid, Sunnyvale CA). Notably, in December 2010, testing was further restricted by no longer allowing >1 stool specimen per patient per week to be tested for C. difficile. Another change in testing strategy took place in June 2012, with the introduction of NAAT-only testing (GeneXpert, Cepheid) to replace the MST protocol.

We conducted a retrospective analysis of C. difficile positive stool specimens comparing the 6 months prior to and the 6 months after testing protocols were changed (Fig. 1). The 6-month periods were labeled by testing modality: (1) the toxin EIA period (June 1, 2010, through November 30, 2010), (2) the MST-A period (January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2011), (3) the MST-B period (December 1, 2011, through May 31, 2012), and (4) the NAAT-only period (July 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012). The 1-month washout periods between both testing changes, December 2010 and June 2012, were excluded from analysis.

Fig. 1. Graphical representation of the periods analyzed and when the C. difficile testing strategies were implemented. Note. EIA, enzyme immunoassay; MST, multistep testing; NAAT, nucleic-acid amplification test.

All stool samples that tested positive for C. difficile in the clinical laboratory were frozen for subsequent testing. In the 6-month period in which toxin EIA was the only method of detection, there were 79 positive C. difficile tests and 57 specimens were available with sufficient amount of stool for further analysis. In the 6-month study period after the implementation of MST, there were 121 positive C. difficile tests. Of these 121 positive tests, 91 specimens had adequate stool for further analysis. In the 6 months prior to changing from the MST strategy to a NAAT-only testing strategy, there were 80 positive C. difficile tests, of which 49 specimens had sufficient stool for further analysis. During the 6 months after the NAAT-only testing strategy was adopted, there were 67 positive C. difficile tests with 39 specimens available for further testing. Patients with recurrent episodes of C. difficile within the study period were excluded from further analysis.

Culture

Frozen stool samples from patients that tested positive for C. difficile were thawed and inoculated on taurocholate-cefoxitin-cycloserine-fructose agar plates (TCCFA) and were incubated for 48–72 hours in an anaerobic chamber. After incubation, distinct colonies with typical C. difficile morphology were subcultured onto BBL anaerobic blood agar and were incubated anaerobically for 48–72 hours. After duplicate stool specimens were excluded, C. difficile was recovered from 39 of 46 stools prior to the MST testing algorithm, from 67 of 70 stools after the addition of the multistep testing, from 49 of 80 stools prior to NAAT-only testing, and from 39 of 67 of stools after changing to the NAAT-only testing strategy. The C. difficile isolates were frozen at −80°C prior to subsequent analysis.

Restriction endonuclease analysis typing

Restriction endonuclease analysis (REA) typing was performed on the recovered C. difficile isolates by HindIII digestion of total cellular DNA.Reference Clabots, Johnson and Bettin9 DNA fragments were separated by electrophoresis on a 0.7% agarose gel, as previously described.Reference Clabots, Johnson and Bettin9 The resulting HindIII restriction patterns were compared with previously characterized strains. Patterns showing a 90% similarity index were placed in the same REA group (letter designations). Identical patterns were given specific REA type (subgroup) number designations (eg, BI 12, BI 11, etc). The most common BI group pattern includes 3 very closely related patterns and is designated as BI 6/8/17.

Quantitative in vitro toxin production

One isolate from each non-BI group and 1 isolate from each BI subgroup were selected during each 6-month period for quantitative toxin production. The C. difficile isolates were incubated on BBL anaerobic blood agar for 48 hours. Colonies of C. difficile were then placed into brain heart infusion (BHI) broth and incubated anaerobically for 48 hours. The samples were then centrifuged, and the supernatants were separated. The supernatants were tested for total toxin concentrations using a toxin A/B kit (TechLab, Blacksburg, VA) as recommended by the manufacturer. Concentrations were extrapolated from a standard curve created using purified toxin A of known concentrations. Low toxin levels were arbitrarily defined as <log10 2.5 ng/mL (316 ng/mL), and very low toxin levels were arbitrarily defined as <log10 1.1 ng/mL (12.6 ng/mL).

Results

Change from toxin EIA to MST diagnostic testing

From June 1, 2010, to November 30, 2010 (toxin EIA period), 708 stool specimens were tested and 79 specimens tested positive for C. difficile by toxin EIA (11%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9%–14%) (Table 1). During this time, the average number of positive C. difficile tests was 13 and the average total number of tests was 116.7 per month (Table 1). From January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2011 (MST-A period), 121 of 517 total stool specimens tested were positive for C. difficile (23%; 95% CI, 20%–27%; P < .0001 for the toxin EIA period vs MST-A period comparison). During the MST-A period, toxin EIA was positive for 68 specimens of 121 positive tests. (56.2%; 95% CI, 47%–65%). The remaining 53 positive tests were determined by NAAT to resolve discrepant GDH–EIA results. Positive C. difficile tests were more frequent during the MST-A period, with 20.2 per month, but the total number of tests performed also decreased (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of Tests Performed and Results During Sequential Toxin EIA, Multistep Testing (MST), and Nucleic Acid Amplification (NAAT) Testing Periods

a The rate of positive stool tests increased significantly between Toxin EIA and MST-A periods.

b The rate of positive stool tests did not increased significantly between MST-B and NAAT-only periods.

In total, 105 C. difficile isolates were strain typed by REA; 39 isolates prior to MST (toxin EIA period) and 65 isolates after MST(MST-A period). During the toxin EIA period, a total of 8 different REA group strains were identified (Fig. 2). During the MST-A period, 13 different REA groups were detected. In addition, an organism other than C. difficile was identified in 2 of the 66 stool specimens that tested positive by the MST protocol.

Fig. 2. Frequency and distribution of C. difficile REA group strains during 4 separate periods. Toxin EIA period represents the 6 months prior changing to a multistep testing (MST) diagnostic algorithm using EIA toxin as the sole diagnostic method. MST-A period represent the 6 months after changing to an MST algorithm. MST-B period represents and the final 6 months of using the MST algorithm. NAAT-only period represents the 6 months after the test CDI testing strategy changed to nucleic acid amplification testing only.

Overall, 18 isolates (46.2%) from the toxin EIA period and 36 isolates (55.4%) from the MST-A period belonged to the epidemic REA BI group. The BI 6/8/17 subgroup was the most frequently identified BI subgroup before and after the change in testing, consistent with previous epidemiological studies at our institution.Reference Wieczorkiewicz, Lopansri and Cheknis10

Representative C. difficile isolates from each REA group before and after the implementation of MST were analyzed for quantitative toxin production in vitro (Fig. 3). The average log10 toxin concentration during the toxin EIA period and MST-A period were 2.08 ng/mL and 1.88 ng/mL, respectively (Fig. 3). The largest range of toxin production occurred during the MST-A period (0–3.69 ng/mL) (Fig. 3). The BI group strains had the highest toxin levels throughout the study (Fig. 4). Prior to the MST protocol, 5 of 8 REA strain groups had low toxin production (<log10 2.5 ng/mL), and after the change to an MST algorithm, 9 of 13 REA strain groups demonstrated low toxin levels. Of these low toxin producers, 1 REA strain group was deemed a very low toxin producer (<log10 1.1 ng/mL) during the toxin EIA period, and 2 REA strain groups were deemed as such during the MST-A period.

Fig. 3. A box-and-whisker plot of the log10 total toxin A/B concentration (ng/mL) of each representative REA group strain from each period. The X indicates the mean during each period. Outliers represented by 0. During MST-A period, 2 isolates had no toxin production by in vitro analysis which were identified as a nontoxigenic REA group M and a non-specific REA pattern strain.

Fig. 4. A box-and-whisker plot of the in vitro Log10 total toxin A/B concentration (ng/mL) of REA group BI strains and Non-BI group strains. The X indicates the mean during each period. Outliers represented by 0.

Change from MST to NAAT-only diagnostic testing

From December 1, 2011, to May 31, 2012 (MST-B period) 490 stool specimens were tested by MST, yielding 80 positive C. difficile tests (16%; 95% CI, 13%–20%). Toxin EIA was positive in 34 tests, and the remaining 46 were detected by NAAT. From July 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012 (NAAT-only period) 368 stool specimens were tested, yielding 67 positive tests (18%; 95% CI, 15%–23%; P = .52). Compared to the MST-B period, the total number of tests per month during the NAAT-only period decreased from 80.3 to 60 tests.

In total, 88 C. difficile isolates underwent REA typing during these 2 periods: 49 isolates from the MST-B period and 39 isolates from the NAAT-only period. Moreover, 13 different REA groups were detected during the MST-B period and 10 REA groups were detected in the NAAT-only period (Fig. 2).

Of the isolates that underwent REA typing, 19 isolates (38.8%) were typed as REA group BI during the MST-B period and 8 isolates (20.5%) were classified as REA group BI during the NAAT-only period. This reflects a 47.2% decrease in REA BI group isolates from MST-B period to the NAAT-only period (P = .10). REA BI 6/8/17 accounted for 16 of 19 and 4 of 8 BI isolates during the MST-B period and NAAT-only period, respectively.

Representative C. difficile isolates from each REA group before and after the implementation of NAAT-only test strategy were analyzed for quantitative toxin production in vitro (Fig. 3). During the MST-B period and the NAAT-only period, REA BI isolates were the only strain group not to be labeled as a low-toxin group. The average log10 toxin concentrations were 1.20 ng/mL and 1.55 ng/mL during the MST-B period and the NAAT-only period. In the final 6 months of the MST testing protocol, 12 of 13 REA group strains were classified as low toxin producers, and after the change to a NAAT-only testing strategy, 9 of 10 REA group strains were classified as low toxin producers. These findings are reflected in a narrower distribution of in vitro toxin quantification (Fig. 3). Of these low toxin-producing strains, 6 were very low toxin producers during the MST-B period and 2 strain were labeled as such during the NAAT-only period.

Twelve-month epidemiologic comparison

When comparing the first 12 months (toxin EIA period and MST-A period) to the second 12 months (MST-B period and NAAT-only period), REA group BI C. difficile isolates decreased from 51.9% to 30.7% (P = .0034) and REA group J decreased from 12.5% to 1.1% (P = .002). Conversely, REA group Y and nonspecific REA groups increased from 8.7% to 18.2% (P = .056) and from 0.96% to 9.1% (P = .0124), respectively.

Discussion

From 2010 to 2012, our hospital underwent sequential methodologic changes for detecting C. difficile, similar to the changes made in clinical laboratories across the United States during this period.Reference Gould, Edwards and Cohen11,Reference Moehring, Lofgren and Anderson12 After incorporating diagnostic testing strategies with increased sensitivity, we noted an increased detection rate of C. difficile that was associated with a trend toward increased strain diversity. These changes were most notable after switching to the MST algorithm where NAAT was used to resolve discrepancies between discordant GDH and toxin EIA results. After changing from an MST algorithm to a NAAT-only testing protocol, the detection rate and strain diversity did not change appreciably.

These data revealing increased detection rates are consistent with previous findings that MST algorithms and NAAT-only testing are much more sensitive in the detection of C. difficile.Reference Burnham and Carroll2Reference Planche, Aghaizu and Holliman5 The implementation of both the MST and the NAAT testing protocols at our hospital led to an increase in the rate at which C. difficile was detected despite a decrease in the number of stools tested, further validating the increased sensitivity of these tests. Our findings suggest that the higher detection rate was driven by the detection of additional C. difficile strains not recovered by toxin testing alone.

After the implementation of high-sensitivity testing strategies, strain diversity nearly doubled and remained elevated throughout the remainder of our study. The trend toward increased strain diversity corresponded with an increase in the detection of isolates that we characterized as low and very low toxin producing. After the implementation of the MST algorithm and the eventual transition to a NAAT-only protocol, low-toxin strains accounted for the majority of isolates recovered.

Changes in the epidemiology of CDI may have influenced the findings our study. The epidemic REA group BI was the most common strain at our hospital 3 to 4 years prior to this study accounting for 72% of first CDI episodes.Reference Wieczorkiewicz, Lopansri and Cheknis10 We noted a progressive decrease in the percentage of BI during the transition from MST testing to NAAT testing in this study. After MST had been in place for nearly a year, the number of stools tested were nearly identical (85.7 and 80.3 per month for MST-A and -B periods, respectively), but the number of positive C. difficile decreased by 30.3% (P = .005). We postulate that this decrease in detection is linked to the decrease in REA group BI isolates, which decreased by 40.8% between the two 12-month intervals. REA group BI, which corresponds to PCR ribotype 027 and NAP1 by PFGE, has notable high levels of toxins A and B in vitro and was responsible for multiple hospital outbreaks of severe disease in the early 2000s.Reference Warny, Pepin and Fang13,Reference Killgore, Thompson and Johnson14

Following the decrease of REA group BI in the latter half of our study, most isolates recovered were low and very low toxin-producing strains (Fig. 3). We postulate that detection of low toxin-producing strains accounted for the increased sensitivity of testing during the MST periods when nearly 66% of the positive test results required NAAT to settle a discordant GDH-positive/toxin EIA-negative test result.

The second most common group strain in this study was REA group Y, which is historically among the more common strains identified in North America.Reference Cheknis, Johnson and Chesnel15 Our data show that toxin production in this strain group was variable, ranging from high toxin to very low toxin production in vitro. Although they are not typically associated with significant morbidity and mortality, REA group Y is a fully toxigenic strain carrying both tcdA and tcdB genes and is associated with clinical disease.Reference Warny, Pepin and Fang13,Reference Vohra and Poxton16Reference Knight, Squire, Collins and Riley18

The MST algorithm and the NAAT-only testing strategy were both more sensitive than toxin EIA testing, but they do have potential drawbacks. As with any test, as sensitivity increases, the chance for a false-positive test increases as well.Reference Lalkhen and McCluskey19 The presence of the tcdB gene does not always correlate with active C. difficile infection and could indicate colonization with C. difficile and diarrhea due to another cause.Reference Planche, Davies and Coen20Reference Bartlett and Gerding23

For these reasons, the IDSA/SHEA CDI guidelines recommend using NAAT-only testing when there is an institutional agreement to limit testing to patients not on laxatives who have new onset of significant diarrhea.Reference McDonald, Gerding and Johnson24 In addition, limiting testing for outpatients to those with risk factors such as antibiotic and healthcare-associated exposures should improve specificity.

Recently, increasing evidence has supported toxin EIA testing in conjunction with NAAT testing.Reference Guh, Hatfield and Winston25 A recent study of close to 5,000 patients found that stools that test positive by GDH and toxin EIA reflexed to NAAT for discrepant results were associated with increased risk for recurrence as well as greater severity of disease compared to NAAT alone.Reference Guh, Hatfield and Winston25 Since this study by Guh et al, some hospitals have implemented the use of C. difficile toxin testing to confirm a positive C. difficile NAAT test.

The limitations of our study include potential confounding by the changing epidemiology of C. difficile over time as noted above for strain REA group BI. Other limitations include potential confounding by changes in clinical testing practice, such as the limitation on the number of stool tests submitted per week between the toxin EIA and MST-A periods. The number of positive tests decreased significantly between the MST-A and MST-B periods, suggesting a possible population bias. We tried to minimize this bias by focusing our analysis on the immediate periods before and after changes in diagnostic tests.

In conclusion, our results confirm that toxin EIA testing alone lacks optimal sensitivity to detect C. difficile when compared to high-sensitivity testing strategies such as MST and NAAT-only protocols. More notably, our results reveal a possible increase in C. difficile strain diversity when changing from a toxin EIA strategy to an MST algorithm. In contrast, the change from MST to NAAT-only testing was not associated with any significant change in detection rate for C. difficile or change in strain diversity suggesting that MST algorithms that use NAAT for resolution of discrepant GDH/toxin EIA results are comparable in sensitivity to NAAT-only testing if they are used in the appropriate clinical setting. The increased sensitivity of these test may be related to the detection of low toxin-producing isolates. Further investigation is needed to determine whether detection of these low toxin-producing strains correlate with clinical infection or colonization.

Acknowledgments

We thank Stacey Spadoni and Bruce Dunn from the Hines VA clinical microbiology laboratory and the VISN12 pathology service line for their help and for facilitating this study. We also thank Susan Sambol for help with the in vitro toxin testing and David Lyerly for supplying the toxin A standard for the quantitative toxin assay.

Financial support

Dr Stuart Johnson and Dr Dale Gerding are supported by the US Department of Veterans’ Affairs Research Service.

Conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

McDonald, LC, Gerding, DN, Johnson, S, et al.Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults and children: 2017 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin Infect Dis 2018;66(7):e1e48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, CAD, Carroll, KC.Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013;26:604630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Jong, E, De Jong, AS, Bartels, CJMet al.Clinical and laboratory evaluation of a real-time PCR for Clostridium difficile toxin A and B genes. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;31:22192225.10.1007/s10096-012-1558-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eastwood, K, Else, P, Charlett, A, Wilcox, M.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. J Clin Microbiol 2009;47:32113217.10.1128/JCM.01082-09CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planche, T, Aghaizu, A, Holliman, R, et al.Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by toxin detection kits: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:777784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voth, DE, Ballard, JD.Clostridium difficile toxins: mechanism of action and role in disease. Clin Microbiol Rev 2005;18:247263.10.1128/CMR.18.2.247-263.2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denève, C, Janoir, C, Poilane, I, Fantinato, C, Collignon, A.New trends in clostridium difficile virulence and pathogenesis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009;33 suppl 1:S24S28.10.1016/S0924-8579(09)70012-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koo, HL, Van, JN, Zhao, M, et al.Real-time polymerase chain reaction detection of asymptomatic Clostridium difficile colonization and rising C. difficile–associated disease rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:667673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clabots, CR, Johnson, S, Bettin, KM, et al.Development of a rapid and efficient restriction endonuclease analysis typing system for Clostridium difficile and correlation with other typing systems. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:18701875.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wieczorkiewicz, JT, Lopansri, BK, Cheknis, A, et al.Fluoroquinolone and macrolide exposure predict Clostridium difficile infection with the highly fluoroquinolone- and macrolide-resistant epidemic C. difficile strain BI/NAP1/027. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016;60:418423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, CV, Edwards, JR, Cohen, J, et al.Effect of nucleic acid amplification testing on population-based incidence rates of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 2013;57:13041307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moehring, RW, Lofgren, ET, Anderson, DJ.Impact of change to molecular testing for Clostridium difficile infection on healthcare facility–associated incidence rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:10551061.10.1086/673144CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warny, M, Pepin, J, Fang, A, et al.Toxin production by an emerging strain of Clostridium difficile associated with outbreaks of severe disease in North America and Europe. Lancet 2005;366:10791084.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Killgore, G, Thompson, A, Johnson, S, et al.Comparison of seven techniques for typing international epidemic strains of Clostridium difficile: restriction endonuclease analysis, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, PCR-ribotyping, multilocus sequence typing, multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat an. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:431437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheknis, A, Johnson, S, Chesnel, L, et al.Molecular epidemiology of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile strains recovered from clinical trials in the US, Canada, and Europe from 2006–2009 to 2012–2015. Anaerobe. 2018;53:3842.10.1016/j.anaerobe.2018.05.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vohra, P, Poxton, IR.Comparison of toxin and spore production in clinically relevant strains of Clostridium difficile. Microbiology 2011;157:13431353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furuya-Kanamori, L, Riley, TV, Paterson, DL, et al.Comparison of Clostridium difficile ribotypes circulating in Australian hospitals and communities. J Clin Microbiol 2017;55:216225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, DR, Squire, MM, Collins, DA, Riley, TV.Genome analysis of Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 014 lineage in australian pigs and humans reveals a diverse genetic repertoire and signatures of long-range interspecies transmission. Front Microbiol 2017;7:2138.10.3389/fmicb.2016.02138CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lalkhen, AG, McCluskey, A.Clinical tests: sensitivity and specificity. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain 2008;8:221223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planche, TD, Davies, KA, Coen, PG, et al.Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection. Lancet Infect Dis 2013;13:936945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polage, CR, Gyorke, CE, Kennedy, MA, et al.Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection in the molecular test era. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:17921801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polage, CR, Solnick, JV, Cohen, SH.Nosocomial diarrhea: evaluation and treatment of causes other than clostridium difficile. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:982989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartlett, JG, Gerding, DN.Clinical recognition and diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46 suppl 1:S12S18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, LC, Gerding, DN, Johnson, S, et al.Clinical practice guidelines for clostridium difficile infection in adults and children: 2017 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin Infect Dis 2018;66(7):e1e48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guh, AY, Hatfield, KM, Winston, LG, et al.Toxin enzyme immunoassays detect clostridioides difficile infection with greater severity and higher recurrence rates. Clin Infect Dis 2019;69:16671674.10.1093/cid/ciz009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Graphical representation of the periods analyzed and when the C. difficile testing strategies were implemented. Note. EIA, enzyme immunoassay; MST, multistep testing; NAAT, nucleic-acid amplification test.

Figure 1

Table 1. Number of Tests Performed and Results During Sequential Toxin EIA, Multistep Testing (MST), and Nucleic Acid Amplification (NAAT) Testing Periods

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Frequency and distribution of C. difficile REA group strains during 4 separate periods. Toxin EIA period represents the 6 months prior changing to a multistep testing (MST) diagnostic algorithm using EIA toxin as the sole diagnostic method. MST-A period represent the 6 months after changing to an MST algorithm. MST-B period represents and the final 6 months of using the MST algorithm. NAAT-only period represents the 6 months after the test CDI testing strategy changed to nucleic acid amplification testing only.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. A box-and-whisker plot of the log10 total toxin A/B concentration (ng/mL) of each representative REA group strain from each period. The X indicates the mean during each period. Outliers represented by 0. During MST-A period, 2 isolates had no toxin production by in vitro analysis which were identified as a nontoxigenic REA group M and a non-specific REA pattern strain.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. A box-and-whisker plot of the in vitro Log10 total toxin A/B concentration (ng/mL) of REA group BI strains and Non-BI group strains. The X indicates the mean during each period. Outliers represented by 0.