Correlation between Clostridium difficile Bacterial Load, Commercial Real-Time PCR Cycle Thresholds, and Results of Diagnostic Tests Based on Enzyme Immunoassay and Cell Culture Cytotoxicity Assay

ABSTRACT The impact of Clostridium difficile fecal loads on diagnostic test results is poorly understood, but it may have clinical importance. In this study, we investigated the relationship between C. difficile fecal load and the results of four assays: a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassay (EIA), a toxin A/B antigen EIA (ToxAB), a cell culture cytotoxicity assay (CCA), and PCR targeting the tcdB gene. We also compared the PCR cycle threshold (CT ) with the results of quantitative culture using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Finally, we sequenced the genomes of 24 strains with different detection profiles. A total of 203 clinical samples harboring toxigenic C. difficile were analyzed and sorted into one of four groups: 17 PCR+ (group 1), 37 PCR+ GDH+ (group 2), 24 PCR+ GDH+ CCA+ (group 3), and 125 PCR+ GDH+ ToxAB+ (group 4). The overall median fecal load in log10 CFU/g was 6.67 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.57 to 7.54). The median fecal bacterial load of groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 4.15 (IQR, 3.00 to 4.98), 5.74 (IQR, 4.75 to 6.16), 6.20 (IQR, 5.23 to 6.80), and 7.08 (IQR, 6.35 to 7.83), respectively. Group 1 samples had lower fecal loads than those from each of the other groups (P < 0.001). Group 2 samples had lower fecal loads than those from groups 3 and 4 (P < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between PCR CT and fecal loads (ρ = −0.697; P < 0.001). NAP1 strains were associated with the detection of toxins by EIA or CCA (P = 0.041). This study demonstrates an association between C. difficile fecal load and the results of routinely used diagnostic tests.

[1]  C. Polage,et al.  Evaluation of Clostridium difficile Fecal Load and Limit of Detection during a Prospective Comparison of Two Molecular Tests, the illumigene C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile/Epi Tests , 2012, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[2]  C. Polage,et al.  Role of fecal Clostridium difficile load in discrepancies between toxin tests and PCR: is quantitation the next step in C. difficile testing? , 2012, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

[3]  T. Riley,et al.  Improved recovery of Clostridium difficile spores with the incorporation of synthetic taurocholate in cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar (CCFA) , 2012, Pathology.

[4]  M. Feizabadi,et al.  Rapid, cost-effective, sensitive and quantitative detection of Acinetobacter baumannii from pneumonia patients , 2011, Iranian journal of microbiology.

[5]  M. Nei,et al.  MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. , 2011, Molecular biology and evolution.

[6]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of real-time polymerase chain reaction in detection of Clostridium difficile in the stool samples of patients with suspected Clostridium difficile Infection: a meta-analysis. , 2011, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[7]  P. Naaber,et al.  Quantification of Clostridium difficile in Antibiotic-Associated-Diarrhea Patients , 2011, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[8]  G. French,et al.  Lack of effect of strain type on detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile by glutamate dehydrogenase and polymerase chain reaction. , 2011, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[9]  T. Kirn,et al.  Effective utilization of evolving methods for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. , 2011, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[10]  E. Kuijper,et al.  Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: a hospital-based survey , 2011, The Lancet.

[11]  François Laviolette,et al.  Ray: Simultaneous Assembly of Reads from a Mix of High-Throughput Sequencing Technologies , 2010, J. Comput. Biol..

[12]  P. Gilligan,et al.  Point-Counterpoint: What Is the Current Role of Algorithmic Approaches for Diagnosis ofClostridium difficile Infection? , 2010, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[13]  C. Stratton,et al.  Assessment of Clostridium difficile Infections by Quantitative Detection of tcdB Toxin by Use of a Real-Time Cell Analysis System , 2010, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[14]  Ellen Jo Baron,et al.  Impact of Strain Type on Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile: Comparison of Molecular Diagnostic and Enzyme Immunoassay Approaches , 2010, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[15]  M. Landry,et al.  Comparison of BD GeneOhm Cdiff Real-Time PCR Assay with a Two-Step Algorithm and a Toxin A/B Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Diagnosis of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile Infection , 2009, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[16]  Richard Holliman,et al.  Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection by toxin detection kits: a systematic review. , 2008, The Lancet. Infectious diseases.

[17]  A. Robicsek,et al.  Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in stool samples by real-time polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. , 2007, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[18]  K. Carroll,et al.  Yield of Stool Culture with Isolate Toxin Testing versus a Two-Step Algorithm Including Stool Toxin Testing for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile , 2007, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[19]  C. Donskey,et al.  Vegetative Clostridium difficile Survives in Room Air on Moist Surfaces and in Gastric Contents with Reduced Acidity: a Potential Mechanism To Explain the Association between Proton Pump Inhibitors and C. difficile-Associated Diarrhea? , 2007, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[20]  S. Gillespie,et al.  Principles and Practice of Clinical Bacteriology: Gillespie/Principles and Practice of Clinical Bacteriology, Second Edition , 2006 .

[21]  Ken Dewar,et al.  A predominantly clonal multi-institutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  J. Ballard,et al.  Clostridium difficile Toxins: Mechanism of Action and Role in Disease , 2005, Clinical Microbiology Reviews.

[23]  M. Delmée,et al.  Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea: a plea for culture. , 2005, Journal of medical microbiology.

[24]  L. Peterson,et al.  Comparison of the VIDAS Clostridium difficile toxin A immunoassay with C. difficile culture and cytotoxin and latex tests , 1992, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[25]  J. Vincelette,et al.  Usefulness of semi-quantitative cultures in the diagnosis ofClostridium difficile associated disease , 1991, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

[26]  S. Trottier,et al.  Impact of the type of diagnostic assay on Clostridium difficile infection and complication rates in a mandatory reporting program. , 2013, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[27]  Guang-xi Li,et al.  Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults:2010 update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America(SHEA)and the Infectious Diseases Society of America(IDSA) , 2011 .

[28]  G. French,et al.  Two-step glutamate dehydrogenase antigen real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. , 2010, The Journal of hospital infection.

[29]  L. Lemée,et al.  Multilocus sequence typing for Clostridium difficile. , 2010, Methods in molecular biology.

[30]  S. Gillespie,et al.  Principles and practice of clinical bacteriology , 2005 .

[31]  D. Dionisio Textbook-Atlas of Intestinal Infections in AIDS , 2003, Springer Milan.