Indeterminate tcdB using a Clostridium difficile PCR assay: a retrospective cohort study

BMC Infectious Diseases

Susan M Poutanen⁶  Allison McGeer⁶  Susy Hota⁷  Paula Raggiunti¹  George Broukhanski²  Dylan R Pillai⁴  Zahir Hirji³  John Ng⁵  Wayne L Gold⁷  Jerome A Leis⁷ 

[1]Rouge Valley Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada

[2]Public Health Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada

[3]Bridgepoint Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

[4]Current address: Calgary Lab Services and Department of Pathology and Laboratory and Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

[5]Department of Microbiology, University Health Network/Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

[6]Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

[7]Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

关键词: False negative results;    Toxin B gene;    Polymerase chain reaction;    Clostridium difficile;   

Others  :  1147052
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2334-13-324

 received in 2013-01-20, accepted in 2013-07-08,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

C. difficile (CD) real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for toxin B gene (tcdB) is more sensitive, and reduces turnaround time when compared to toxin immunoassay. We noted typical amplification curves with high tcdB cycle thresholds (Ct) and low endpoints (Ept) that are labeled negative by the Xpert® C. difficile assay (Cepheid) and undertook this study to determine their significance.

Methods

We defined an indeterminate CD assay result as detection of a typical PCR amplification curve with an Ept >10 that was interpreted as negative by the Xpert® assay. Samples with indeterminate Xpert® result were collected for 5 months and retested by Xpert®, cultured for toxigenic CD, and isolates subjected to PCR ribotyping, detection of toxin genes and multilocus variable-number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA) typing. Chart reviews were completed to assess if patients met the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and the Infectious Diseases Society of America CD infection (CDI) clinical case definition. Illness severity was compared with tcdB Ct and culture results.

Results

During the 5-month study period, 48/3620 (1%) of specimens were indeterminate and 387/3620 (11%) were positive. Of the 48 patients with indeterminate results, 39 (81%) met the clinical case definition of CDI, and 7 of these (18%) met criteria for severe CDI. Toxigenic stool cultures were positive for 86% (6/7) of patients with severe CDI, 19% (6/32) of patients with non-severe CDI, and 44% (4/9) of patients who did not meet the clinical case definition of CDI (p = 0.002). Lower tcdB Ct and higher Ept were associated with greater likelihood of toxigenic culture positivity (p = 0.03) and more severe symptoms (p = 0.06). Indeterminate results were not associated with a particular technologist or instrument module, or CD strain type.

Conclusions

A subset of specimens (1%) using the Xpert® C. difficile assay have typical amplification curves and are interpreted as negative. At least one-third of these results are associated with positive CD culture. The mechanism of these indeterminate results is not technique-related, equipment-related, or due to particular CD strains. Clinicians should be aware that even PCR testing has the potential to miss CDI cases and further highlights the importance of clinical context when interpreting results.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Leis et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Poutanen SM, Simor AE: Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults. CMAJ 2004, 171(1):51-58.
• [2]Tenover FC, Novak-Weekley S, Woods CW, Peterson LR, Davis T, Schreckenberger P, Fang FC, Dascal A, Gerding DN, Nomura JH, Goering RV, Akerlund T, Weissfeld AS, Baron EJ, Wong E, Marlowe EM, Whitmore J, Persing DH: Impact of strain type on detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of molecular diagnostic and enzyme immunoassay approaches. J Clin Microbiol 2010, 48(10):3719-3724.
• [3]Viala C, Le Monnier A, Maatoaoui N, Rousseau C, Colignon A, Poilane I: Comparison of commercial molecular assays for toxigenic Clostridium difficile detection in stools: BD GeneOhm Cdiff, XPert C. difficile and illumigene C. difficile. J Microbiol Methods 2012, 90(2):83-85.
• [4]Zidarič V, Kevorkijan BK, Oresic N, Janezic S, Rupnik M: Comparison of two commercial molecular tests for the detection of Clostridium difficile in the routine diagnostic laboratory. J Med Microbiol 2011, 60(Pt 8):1131-1136.
• [5]Shin S, Kim M, Kim M, Lim H, Kim H, Lee K, Chong Y: Evaluation of the Xpert Clostridium difficile assay for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Ann Lab Med 2012, 32(5):355-358.
• [6]Cohen SH, Gerding DN, Johnson S, Kelly CP, Loo VG, McDonald LC, Pepin J, Wilcox MH: 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). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010, 31(5):431-455.
• [7]Zar FA, Bakkanagari SR, Moorthi KM, Davis MB: A comparison of vancomycin and metronidazole for the treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, stratified by disease severity. Clin Infect Dis 2007, 45(3):302-307.
• [8]Arroyo LG, Rousseau J, Willey BM, Low DE, Staempfli H, McGeer A, Weese JS: Use of selective enrichment broth to recover Clostridium difficile from stool swabs stored under different conditions. J Clin Microbiol 2005, 43(10):5341-5343.
• [9]Broukhanski G, Low DE, Pillai DR: Modified multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis for rapid identification and typing of Clostridium difficile during institutional outbreaks. J Clin Microbiol 2011, 49(5):1983-1986.
• [10]Indra A, Huhulesu S, Schneeweis M, Hasenberger P, Kernbichler S, Fiedler A, Wewalka G, Allerberger F, Kuijper EJ: Characterization of Clostridium difficile isolates using capillary gel electrophoresis-based PCR ribotpying. J Med Microbiol 2008, 57(Pt11):1377-1382.
• [11]Huang H, Weintraub A, Fang H, Nord CE: Comparison of a commercial multiplex real-time PCR to the cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay for diagnosis of clostridium difficile infections. J Clin Microbiol 2009, 47(11):3729-3731.
• [12]Goldenberg SD, Dieringer T, French GL: Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in diarrheal stools by rapid real-time polymerase chain reaction. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2010, 67(3):304-307.
• [13]Peterson LR, Manson RU, Paule SM, Hacek DM, Robicsek A, Thomson RB Jr, Kaul KL: Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in stool samples by real-time polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Clin Infect Dis 2007, 45(9):1152-1160.
• [14]Dubberke ER, Han Z, Bobo L, Hink T, Lawrence B, Copper S, Hoppe-Bauer J, Burnham CA, Dunne WM Jr: Impact of clinical symptoms on interpretation of diagnostic assays for Clostridium difficile infections. J Clin Microbiol 2011, 49(8):2887-2893.
• [15]Deshpande A, Cadnum J, Sitz Lar B, Kundrapu S, Donskey C: Evaluation of a Commercial PCR Assay for Detection of Environmental Contamination with Clostridium difficile. San Diego, CA: ID week, Epidemiology and Infection Control; [2012 Oct 18; cited 2013 Jan 10]. Poster number 327 (Session number 51) available from: https://idsa.confex.com/idsa/2012/viewsessionpdf.cgi webcite
• [16]Sunkesula VC, Kundrapu S, Muganda C, Sethi AK, Donskey CJ: Does empirical Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) Therapy Result in False-Negative CDI Diagnostic Test Results? Clin Infect DisE-published ahead of print (accessed June 27, 2013)
• [17]Donskey CJ, Sethi AK, Sunkesula VC, Sitzlar B, Jury LA, Kundrapu S: Easily modified factors contribute to delays in diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection: a Cohort Study and Intervention. J Clin Microbiol 2013. E-published ahead of print (accessed June 27, 2013)