Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2001, p. 1855-1858, Vol. 39, No. 5
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.5.1855-1858.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Evaluation of Biosite Triage Clostridium
difficile Panel for Rapid Detection of Clostridium
difficile in Stool Samples
Marie L.
Landry,1,2,*
Jeffrey
Topal,3,4
David
Ferguson,1,2
Darlene
Giudetti,4 and
Yajarayma
Tang5
Departments of Laboratory Medicine1
and Internal Medicine,3 Yale University
School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520; Clinical
Virology Laboratory2 and Department of
Quality Improvement and Support Services,4 Yale
New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut 06504; and
Department of Internal Medicine; University of California
Davis, Sacramento, California 958175
Received 5 September 2000/Returned for modification 2 January
2001/Accepted 22 February 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
One hundred two stool samples were tested by both the rapid Triage
Clostridium difficile Panel (Triage Panel) and the
cytotoxin cell culture assay. Five samples positive by both the
C. difficile toxin A (Tox A) and common antigen components
of the Triage Panel had cytotoxin titers of
10,000. Twenty-three
samples were Triage Panel Tox A negative but common antigen positive.
Ten of these had cytotoxin titers of 10 to 1,000, but 13 were cytotoxin
negative. Bacterial isolates obtained from 8 of these 13 specimens were analyzed for Tox A and B genes by PCR, and only two contained toxigenic
bacteria. Thus, the majority of samples positive only for C. difficile common antigen contained nontoxigenic bacteria. A
Triage Panel Tox A-positive result indicated a
sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and
negative predictive value (NPV) of 33.3, 100, 100, and 88.2%,
respectively. A Triage Panel common antigen-positive result indicated a
sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 100, 82.7, 53.6, and
100%, respectively. The high NPV of the Triage Panel common antigen,
together with rapid reporting of results, should prove useful in
avoiding unnecessary use of contact precautions and antibiotic
treatment for C. difficile-negative patients. However, with
Triage Panel common antigen-positive patients, a sensitive
cytotoxin assay should be used to distinguish true cytotoxin-positive
patients from C. difficile carriers.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
C. difficile is the most
important identifiable nosocomial pathogen causing infectious diarrhea
in hospitalized patients. Despite reliable diagnostic assays, effective
antibiotic therapy, and the use of infection control measures, C. difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) and colitis remain
significant problems. Pathogenic strains of C. difficile
produce two toxins, toxin A (Tox A), which results in fluid secretion,
inflammation, and damage to the intestinal mucosa in animal models, and
Tox B, which is a potent cytotoxin in cell cultures but not enterotoxic
in animals.
C. difficile infection is usually acquired in the hospital,
since environmental contamination is common and health care workers may
carry the organism on their hands or on contaminated instruments or
equipment. Though colonization of healthy ambulatory adults with
C. difficile is uncommon, among hospitalized patients, the rate of colonization rises rapidly from 13% for patients hospitalized 1 to 2 weeks to 50% for patients hospitalized >4 weeks.
(2). Following colonization with C. difficile,
the disruption of normal bacterial flora of the colon through exposure
to antibiotics, as well as the presence of certain host factors, can
result in the release of Tox A and B from toxigenic strains of C. difficile (8). Nevertheless, the majority of
colonized patients remain asymptomatic and only 20% of
antibiotic-associated diarrhea without colitis is due to C. difficile (9). Therefore, the need to distinguish
CDAD from asymptomatic colonization in a patient with diarrhea due to
another source is crucial to prevent inadvertent antibiotic
treatment and the unnecessary use of infection control procedures.
However, distinguishing colonization by C. difficile from
infection with toxin-producing strains is problematic. Culture is slow,
requiring bacterial isolation followed by a toxin assay. Detection of
cytotoxin (Tox B) in cell culture has been the most sensitive and
specific assay to date. Positive results are available as early as
4 h, but negative results require up to 48 h. In addition, cell culture techniques are beyond the expertise of many laboratories. Even with the availability of commercial kits, the sensitivity of
cytotoxicity results can vary significantly among laboratories due to
differences in cell culture sensitivities (1) and the starting dilutions of stools tested (12). Detection of Tox
A and B by enzyme immunoassays (EIA) provides more rapid results, but
sensitivity remains suboptimal (8, 12, 13). The reagent in
the latex agglutination test for C. difficile common antigen reacts with both toxigenic and nontoxigenic strains and also
cross-reacts with other anaerobes and other clostridia. PCR can be used
to identify toxigenic strains (7, 10) but remains too
expensive and specialized for routine use in the laboratory.
The Triage C. difficile Panel (Triage Panel) is a new rapid
15-min EIA for the simultaneous detection of both C. difficile Tox A and C. difficile common antigen. In
this report, the Triage Panel was compared with the cytotoxicity assay.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Stool samples.
Stool samples submitted to the Clinical
Virology Laboratory at Yale New Haven Hospital for C. difficile testing were assayed prospectively by both the standard
cytotoxin assay and the Triage Panel (Biosite Diagnostics, San Diego,
Calif.) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After chart
review, duplicate stools from individual patients and stools submitted
for follow-up during or after treatment for CDAD were excluded from analysis.
Cytotoxicity assay.
Stool samples (0.5 ml) were added to 0.5 ml of phosphate-buffered saline with antibiotics (vancomycin,
gentamicin, and amphotericin B) and then vortexed, and the toxin was
allowed to elute for 5 min. After centrifugation of a sample for 10 min
in a microcentrifuge, the supernate was removed and passed through a
0.45-µm-pore-size filter. Then, 20 µl of filtrate was inoculated
onto foreskin fibroblast monolayers (MRHF cells; BioWhittaker,
Walkersville, Md.) in 96-well plates using serial 10-fold dilutions
(1:10 to 1:10,000) C. difficile antitoxin (20 µl; TechLab,
Inc., Blacksburg, Va.) was added to duplicate wells of the 1:10 and
1:100 dilutions. Monolayers were read at 4, 24, and 48 h after
inoculation using an inverted microscope. A known positive control, run
with each assay, was required to show cytotoxicity in the expected
range. A positive result consisted of cytotoxicity that was neutralized
by C. difficile antitoxin. Results were given as the highest
dilution showing specific cytotoxicity.
Triage Panel.
The Triage Panel (Biosite Diagnostics) was
performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Briefly, 0.5 ml of specimen or a level spoonful of sample was transferred to 4.5 ml
of specimen diluent in a 15-ml centrifuge tube. After vortexing, a
filter was inserted into the centrifuge tube and the sample was
centrifuged for 5 min at 1,500 × g. Five hundred
microliters of the filtrate obtained was added to the center of the
detection zone of the test device and allowed to soak in completely.
Then, 140 µl of enzyme conjugate was added, followed by wash solution
and substrate. The results were read for the one negative and two
positive control zones. If a color bar appeared in the negative control
zone, the sample was retested using one-quarter of the initial sample
volume. A sample was positive for C. difficile Tox A and
common antigen if the respective sample color bars were positive.
Culture of C. difficile from stool specimens.
C. difficile was cultured from stool specimens in plates
containing cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar as previously described (3, 7) by using a dilution method.
DNA amplification and detection of Tox A and B genes.
DNA
was extracted from bacterial cells, followed by DNA amplification and
detection of the Tox A and B genes, as previously described
(10).
Patient selection.
Patients who had specimens sent for
evaluation for C. difficile must have had the presence of
diarrhea clearly documented in their medical records. The severity of
the diarrhea could not be reliably determined. Only one stool specimen
per patient within a 7-day period during the period of diarrhea was
included in the analysis. Follow-up stool samples from patients already
treated for CDAD and stools from patients who did not have diarrhea
were excluded from the analysis.
The following demographic data were collected by an epidemiology
technician from Yale New Haven Hospital Epidemiology & Infection Control: date of admission, date of discharge, antibiotic history, date
of onset of diarrhea, use of contact precautions, antibiotic treatment
for C. difficile, and the start and stop dates of such antibiotic treatment.
 |
RESULTS |
A total of 102 patients were enrolled in the study, and their
specimens were evaluated using both the cytotoxicity assay and the
Triage Panel. A high level of background staining was observed in 19 of
the first 80 samples tested, but improvements in the Triage Panel
membrane eliminated this problem. For five specimens, the Triage Panel
result could not be read, even after repeat testing, due to diffuse
staining of the membrane. After chart review, 7 of the remaining 97 patients did not meet clinical criteria for suspected CDAD and were
omitted from the final analysis. These seven specimens were both
cytotoxin assay and Triage Panel negative. Consequently, 90 nonduplicate patient results were included in the final analysis.
Antibiotic administration in the previous 90 days was documented in the
charts of 81 patients and was unknown for 7 patients. It was stated in
the charts of two patients that they had not received antibiotics.
Of these 90 stool specimens, 29 (32.2%) were positive by one or both
assays, including one positive specimen from a patient with an unknown
antibiotic history. As shown in Table 1,
the Triage Panel was positive for Tox A only when the cytotoxin titer was
10,000. Ten samples that were Triage Panel Tox A negative but
common antigen positive had cytotoxin titers of 1,000 (n = 2), 100 (n = 5), and 10 (n = 3).
One sample was positive only for cytotoxin, at a titer of 10. Thirteen
samples positive for C. difficile common antigen only were
cytotoxin negative. Ten of these 13 were cultured, as were the 4 samples with cytotoxin titers of 10. Bacterial isolates were analyzed
for Tox A and B genes by PCR. The results are shown in Table
2.
Of note, the sample positive by the cytotoxin assay only did not grow
C. difficile. On initial reading, this sample was recorded as questionable despite neutralization by antitoxin since the pattern
of cytotoxicity was atypical. Thus, this was most likely a
false-positive cytotoxin result. Two common antigen-positive samples
also did not yield bacteria on culture. These two specimens had minimal
stool remaining for culture, and thus lack of growth was likely due to
insufficient sample for testing. Eight samples positive for common
antigen only grew C. difficile on culture, but only two
(25%) of the eight isolates carried the Tox A and B genes. Thus, the
majority of samples positive for C. difficile common antigen
only contained nontoxigenic bacteria (4).
If the corrected cytotoxin results are taken as the true positives, a
Triage Panel common antigen-positive result indicated a sensitivity,
specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive
value (NPV) of 100, 82.7, 53.6, and 100%, respectively. A Triage Panel
Tox A-positive result indicated a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and
NPV of 33.3, 100, 100, and 88.2%, respectively.
An estimate of cost savings based on empiric institution of contact
precautions for all patients with suspected CDAD, same-day reporting of
Triage Panel results, a $16 list price for the Triage Panel, and a $4
list price for the cytotoxin assay is shown in Table
3. In our setting, an average savings of
$7.16 per nonduplicate stool tested was determined. Importantly,
submission of duplicate stools, which is common practice for negative
samples (13), or follow-up stools for treated patients
would result in an overall increase in costs of up to $12 per sample
(Triage Panel list price minus the cost of the cytotoxin assay).
 |
DISCUSSION |
Although the cytotoxin test is considered the "gold standard,"
it requires cell culture expertise and 48 h to report negative results. Thus, many hospitals now use a rapid C. difficile Tox A or Tox A+B EIA to diagnose CDAD, despite
sensitivities in the range of 84 to 92% compared to the cytotoxin
assay (12, 13). Since previous studies in our laboratory
(M. L. Landry and D. Ferguson, unpublished data) have found Tox A
or A-B EIA to miss all cytotoxin assay-positive samples with titers of
10 and many cytotoxin assay-positive samples with titers of 100, we
have continued to perform our in-house cytotoxin assay. The Triage
Panel test, in contrast, detected all true cytotoxin positives
indirectly, by detecting the C. difficile bacteria and not
the Triage Panel Tox A component. Thus, the greatest advantage of the
Triage Panel rapid test over the commonly used C. difficile
immunoassays was its very high NPV, since the vast majority of samples
were ultimately reported as negative. Seventy percent of samples were
negative by the Triage Panel in the present study. The rapid reporting of negative results provided by the Triage Panel should reduce the need
for private rooms and contact isolation precautions and prevent the
occasional delays in hospital discharges incurred while waiting for
C. difficile test results. Contact precautions require the
use of a private room and the donning of a gown and gloves upon
entering a patient's room (5). A disposable gown and
gloves cost an estimated $0.90. At an average of 10 patient contacts
per day, this results in a cost of $18.00 for 48 h until a
negative cytotoxin assay result is reported. Furthermore, the rapid
negative test result would obviate most of the empiric treatment for
CDAD which now occurs with the delay in cytotoxin results. While the
cost of oral metronidazole treatment is minimal, exposure to
metronidazole has been identified a risk factor for the acquisition of
vancomycin-resistant enterococci (6, 11).
The Tox A component of the test had a very low sensitivity for the
detection of cytotoxin. Only 5 of 15 samples (33%) considered true
positives for cytotoxin were detected by the Tox A component of the
Triage Panel, and all of these had cytotoxin titers of
10,000. The
Triage Panel was most effective in detecting the presence of the
C. difficile bacteria. Twenty-three samples were positive by
Triage Panel for common antigen only. Only 10 of these 23 (44%) were
found to be cytotoxin assay positive, and an additional two patients
carried toxigenic bacteria. Previous work in DNA fingerprinting of
multiple colonies from the same patient, performed by Y. Tang
(unpublished data), has shown that the vast majority of patients are
colonized with a single strain of C. difficile. Thus, it is
unlikely that toxigenic strains were missed. Without the use of the
cytotoxin assay, or culture followed by PCR, it would not be possible
to distinguish asymptomatic carriers from those with toxin-producing
bacteria. Treating all common antigen-positive, Tox A-negative patients
with antibiotics and contact precautions would double the number of
positive patients that would be treated based on the cytotoxin assay
results. Besides the added expense, unnecessary treatment may increase
the risk of acquiring vancomycin-resistant enterococci (6,
11). Finally, asymptomatic carriers of C. difficile
appear to have a lower risk of CDAD than noncarriers (14);
thus, overtreatment of carriers may increase the incidence of future
CDAD cases.
Therefore, if the Triage Panel is used, we envision a two-step
approach. The Triage Panel would be used to screen all stools submitted
for C. difficile testing. Triage Panel-negative samples and
samples positive for both Triage Panel Tox A and common antigen would
be reported immediately. However, samples positive for common antigen
only would then be tested by the cytotoxin assay to prevent inadvertent
treatment of carriers. In our patient population, approximately 25% of
samples would require both assays.
The Triage Panel is expensive at $16 per test (list price), plus
repeats, although some discount can be anticipated depending on the
volume of testing performed. In our laboratory, the in-house cytotoxin
assay costs only $3.67 per sample. The increase in cost for the Triage
Panel can be justified if savings are gained on the ward from avoiding
empiric contact precautions, unnecessary antibiotic therapy, and
occasional delays in hospital discharges. These savings can be
realized, however, only if hospital policy requires that empiric
contact precautions are routinely implemented when stools are sent for
C. difficile testing and if duplicate stool specimens are
not submitted.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Sandra Cohen, Robin Garner, and Maria Hernandez for
their assistance and acknowledge Biosite Diagnostics for providing the
Triage Panel kits for the study.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Laboratory Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box
208035, New Haven, CT 06520-8035. Phone: (203) 688-3475. Fax: (203)
688-8177. E-mail: marie.landry{at}yale.edu.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Chang, T. W.,
M. Lauermann, and J. G. Bartlett.
1979.
Cytotoxicity assay in antibiotic-associated colitis.
J. Infect. Dis.
140:765-770[Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Clabots, C. R.,
S. Johnson,
M. M. Olson,
L. R. Peterson, and D. N. Gerding.
1992.
Acquisition of Clostridium difficile by hospitalized patients: evidence for colonized new admission as the source of infection.
J. Infect. Dis.
166:561-567[Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Cohen, S. H.,
Y. J. Tang,
J. Muenzer,
P. H. Gumerlock, and J. Silva, Jr.
1997.
Isolation of various genotypes of Clostridium difficile from patients and the environment in an oncology ward.
Clin. Infect. Dis.
24:889-893[Medline].
|
| 4.
|
Fluit, A. C.,
M. J. H. M. Wolfhagen,
G. P. H. T. Verdonk,
M. Jansze,
R. Torensma, and J. Verhoef.
1991.
Nontoxigenic strains of Clostridium difficile lack the genes for both toxin A and toxin B.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
29:2666-2667[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 5.
|
Garner, J. S.
1996.
Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.
Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.
17:53-80[Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Gerding, D. N.
1997.
Is there a relationship between vancomycin-resistant enterococcal infection and Clostridium difficile infection?
Clin. Infect. Dis.
25:S206-S210.
|
| 7.
|
Gumerlock, P. H.,
Y. J. Tang,
F. J. Meyers, and J. Silva, Jr.
1991.
Use of polymerase chain reaction for the specific and direct detection of Clostridium difficile in human feces.
Rev. Infect. Dis.
13:1053-1060[Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Johnson, S., and D. N. Gerding.
1998.
Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea.
Clin. Infect. Dis.
26:1027-1036[Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Kelly, C. P.,
C. Pothoulakis, and J. T. Lamont.
1994.
Clostridium difficile colitis.
N. Engl. J. Med.
330:257-262[Free Full Text].
|
| 10.
|
Kuhl, S. J.,
Y. J. Tang,
L. Navarro,
P. H. Gumerlock, and J. Silva, Jr.
1993.
Diagnosis and monitoring of Clostridium difficile infections with the polymerase chain reaction.
Clin. Infect. Dis.
16(Suppl. 4):S234-S238.
|
| 11.
|
Lucas, G. M.,
N. Lechtzin,
D. W. Puryear,
L. L. Yau,
C. W. Flexner, and R. D. Moore.
1998.
Vancomycin-resistant and vancomycin-susceptible enterococcal bacteremia: comparison of clinical features and outcomes.
Clin. Infect. Dis.
26:1127-1133[Medline].
|
| 12.
|
Lyerly, D. M.,
L. M. Neville,
D. T. Evans,
J. Fill,
S. Allen,
W. Greene,
R. Sautter,
P. Hnatuck,
D. J. Torpey, and R. Schwalbe.
1998.
Multicenter evaluation of the Clostridium difficile TOX A/B TEST.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
36:184-190[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 13.
|
Manabe, Y. C.,
J. M. Vinetz,
R. D. Moore,
C. Merz,
P. Charache, and J. G. Bartlett.
1995.
Clostridium difficile colitis: an efficient clinical approach to diagnosis.
Ann. Intern. Med.
123:835-840[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 14.
|
Shim, J. K.,
S. Johnson,
M. H. Samore,
D. Z. Bliss, and D. N. Gerding.
1998.
Primary asymptomatic colonization by Clostridium difficile is associated with a decreased risk of subsequent C. difficile diarrhea.
Lancet
351:633-666[CrossRef][Medline].
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2001, p. 1855-1858, Vol. 39, No. 5
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.5.1855-1858.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Ticehurst, J. R., Aird, D. Z., Dam, L. M., Borek, A. P., Hargrove, J. T., Carroll, K. C.
(2006). Effective Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile by a Two-Step Algorithm Including Tests for Antigen and Cytotoxin.. J. Clin. Microbiol.
44: 1145-1149
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Snell, H., Ramos, M., Longo, S., John, M., Hussain, Z.
(2004). Performance of the TechLab C. DIFF CHEK-60 Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) in Combination with the C. difficile Tox A/B II EIA Kit, the Triage C. difficile Panel Immunoassay, and a Cytotoxin Assay for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea. J. Clin. Microbiol.
42: 4863-4865
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Belanger, S. D., Boissinot, M., Clairoux, N., Picard, Francois. J., Bergeron, M. G.
(2003). Rapid Detection of Clostridium difficile in Feces by Real-Time PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 730-734
[Abstract]
[Full Text]