SummaryBackgroundDiagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is controversial because of many laboratory methods, compounded by two reference methods. Cytotoxigenic culture detects toxigenic C difficile and gives a positive result more frequently (eg, because of colonisation, which means that individuals can have the bacterium but no free toxin) than does the cytotoxin assay, which detects preformed toxin in faeces. We aimed to validate the reference methods according to clinical outcomes and to derive an optimum laboratory diagnostic algorithm for C difficile infection.MethodsIn this prospective, multicentre study, we did cytotoxigenic culture and cytotoxin assays on 12 420 faecal samples in four UK laboratories. We also performed tests that represent the three main targets for C difficile detection: bacterium (glutamate dehydrogenase), toxins, or toxin genes. We used routine blood test results, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality to clinically validate the reference methods. Data were categorised by reference method result: group 1, cytotoxin assay positive; group 2, cytotoxigenic culture positive and cytotoxin assay negative; and group 3, both reference methods negative.FindingsClinical and reference assay data were available for 6522 inpatient episodes. On univariate analysis, mortality was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (72/435 [16·6%] vs 20/207 [9·7%], p=0·044) and in group 3 (503/5880 [8·6%], p<0·001), but not in group 2 compared with group 3 (p=0·4). A multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders confirmed the mortality differences between groups 1 and 3 (OR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12–2·31). Multistage algorithms performed better than did standalone assays.InterpretationWe noted no increase in mortality when toxigenic C difficile alone was present. Toxin (cytotoxin assay) positivity correlated with clinical outcome, and so this reference method best defines true cases of C difficile infection. A new diagnostic category of potential C difficile excretor (cytotoxigenic culture positive but cytotoxin assay negative) could be used to characterise patients with diarrhoea that is probably not due to C difficile infection, but who can cause cross-infection.FundingDepartment of Health and Health Protection Agency, UK.

Background: Variations in testing for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) may hinder patient care, increase

No abstract

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the major cause of infective diarrhoea in healthcare environments. As part of the European, multicentre, prospective, biannual, point-prevalence study of Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalised patients with diarrhoea (EUCLID), the largest C. difficile epidemiological study of its type, PCR ribotype distribution of C. difficile isolates in Europe was investigated. PCR ribotyping was performed on 1,196 C. difficile isolates from diarrhoeal samples sent to the European coordinating laboratory in 2012-13 and 2013 (from two sampling days) by 482 participating hospitals from 19 European countries. A total of 125 ribotypes were identified, of which ribotypes 027 (19%, n =222), 001/072 (11%, n = 134) and 014/020 (10%, n = 119) were the most prevalent. Distinct regional patterns of ribotype distribution were noted. Of 596 isolates from patients with toxin-positive stools (CDI cases), ribotype 027 accounted for 22% (32/144) of infections in cases aged from 18 to less than 65 years, but the prevalence decreased in those aged ≥ 65 years (14% (59/412)) and further decreased in those aged ≥ 81 years (9% (18/195)). The prevalence of ribotype 027 and 176, but not other epidemic strains, was inversely proportional to overall ribotype diversity (R(2) = 0.717). This study highlights an increased diversity of C. difficile ribotypes across Europe compared with previous studies, with considerable intercountry variation in ribotype distribution. Continuous surveillance programmes are necessary to monitor the changing epidemiology of C. difficile.