Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Quantitation as Predictor of Toxin Presence in Clostridium difficile Infection

• Published in: Journal of clinical microbiology Vol. 56; no. 3
• Main Authors: Crobach, M J T, Duszenko, N, Terveer, E M, Verduin, C M, Kuijper, E J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Society for Microbiology 01-03-2018
• Subjects: Bacteriology; NAAT quantitation; Clostridium difficile; diagnostic
• ISSN: 0095-1137; 1098-660X
• DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01316-17

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
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 (
= 2,669 and
= 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 (
) values were found for patients whose stool eventually tested positive for toxin, compared with patients who tested negative for toxin (mean
values of 24.4 versus 30.4 and 26.8 versus 32.2;
< 0.001 for both cohorts). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to investigate the ability of
values to predict toxin status and yielded areas under the curve of 0.826 and 0.854. Using the optimal
cutoff values, prediction of the eventual toxin A/B EIA results was accurate for 78.9% and 80.5% of samples, respectively. In conclusion,
values can serve as predictors of toxin status but, due to the suboptimal correlation between the two tests, additional toxin testing is still needed.