In 2009 the first European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guideline for diagnosing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) was launched. Since then newer tests for diagnosing CDI have become available, especially nucleic acid amplification tests. The main objectives of this update of the guidance document are to summarize the currently available evidence concerning laboratory diagnosis of CDI and to formulate and revise recommendations to optimize CDI testing. This update is essential to improve the diagnosis of CDI and to improve uniformity in CDI diagnosis for surveillance purposes among Europe. An electronic search for literature concerning the laboratory diagnosis of CDI was performed. Studies evaluating a commercial laboratory test compared to a reference test were also included in a meta-analysis. The commercial tests that were evaluated included enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) detecting glutamate dehydrogenase, EIAs detecting toxins A and B and nucleic acid amplification tests. Recommendations were formulated by an executive committee, and the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence were graded using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. No single commercial test can be used as a stand-alone test for diagnosing CDI as a result of inadequate positive predictive values at low CDI prevalence. Therefore, the use of a two-step algorithm is recommended. Samples without free toxin detected by toxins A and B EIA but with positive glutamate dehydrogenase EIA, nucleic acid amplification test or toxigenic culture results need clinical evaluation to discern CDI from asymptomatic carriage.

The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the available evidence on laboratory diagnosis of CDI and to formulate recommendations to optimize CDI testing. In comparison with cell culture cytotoxicity assay (CCA) and toxigenic culture (TC) of stools, we analyzed the test characteristics of 13 commercial available enzyme immunoasssays (EIA) detecting toxins A and/or B, 4 EIAs detecting Clostridium difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), and a real-time PCR for C. difficile toxin B gene. In comparison with CCA and TCA and assuming a prevalence of CDI of 5%, PPV and NPV varied between 0.28-0.77, 0.12-0.65 and 0.98-1.00, 0.97-1.00, respectively. Only if the tests were performed in a population with a CDI prevalence of 50 percent, would PPVs be acceptable (ranging from 0.71 to 1.00).To overcome the problem of a low PPV, we propose a two step approach, with a second test or a reference method in case of a positive first test. Further reducing the number of false negative results would require either retesting of all subjects with a negative first test, or re-testing all subjects with a negative second test, after an initially positive test. This approach resulted in non-significant improvements, and emphasizes the need for better diagnostic tests. Further studies to validate the applicability of two-step testing, including assessment of clinical features, are required.

is the main causative agent of antibiotic-associated and health care-associated infective diarrhea. Recently, there has been growing interest in alternative sources of other than patients with infection (CDI) and the hospital environment. Notably, the role of -colonized patients as a possible source of transmission has received attention. In this review, we present a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of colonization. Findings from gut microbiota studies yield more insights into determinants that are important for acquiring or resisting colonization and progression to CDI. In discussions on the prevalence of colonization among populations and its associated risk factors, colonized patients at hospital admission merit more attention, as findings from the literature have pointed to their role in both health care-associated transmission of and a higher risk of progression to CDI once admitted. colonization among patients at admission may have clinical implications, although further research is needed to identify if interventions are beneficial for preventing transmission or overcoming progression to CDI.

The emergence of the plasmid-mediated mcr colistin resistance gene in the community poses a potential threat for treatment of patients, especially when hospitalized. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of all currently known mcr mediated colistin resistance gene in fecal samples of patients attending a tertiary care hospital. From November 2014 until July 2015, fecal samples of patients attending the Leiden University Medical Center were collected and screened for presence of mcr using real-time PCR. Two of 576 patients were positive for mcr-1, resulting in a prevalence of 0.35%, whereas no mcr-2 was found. One of these samples was culture negative, the second sample contained a blaCMY-2 and mcr-1 containing E.coli. This strain belonged to Sequence Type 359 and serotype O177:H21. The mcr-1 containing E.coli was phenotypically susceptible to colistin with a MIC of ≤ 0.25mg/l, due to a 1329bp transposon IS10R inserted into the mcr-1 gene as identified by WGS. This prevalence study shows that mcr-1 is present in low levels patients out of the community attending a hospital. Furthermore the study underlines the importance of phenotypical confirmation of molecular detection of a mcr-1 gene.

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) can be challenging. First of all, there has been debate on which of the two reference assays, cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) or toxigenic culture (TC) should be considered the gold standard for CDI detection. Although the CCNA suffers most from suboptimal storage conditions and subsequent toxin degradation, TC is reported to falsely increase CDI detection rates as it cannot differentiate CDI patients from patients asymptomatically colonised by toxigenic C. difficile. Several rapid assays are available for CDI detection and fall into three broad categories: (1) enzyme immunoassays for glutamate dehydrogenase, (2) enzyme immunoassays for toxins A/B and (3) nucleic acid amplification tests detecting toxin genes. All three categories have their own limitations, being suboptimal specificity and/or sensitivity or the inability to discern colonised patients from CDI patients. In light of these limitations, multi-step algorithmic testing has now been advocated by international guidelines in order to optimize diagnostic accuracy. Despite these recommendations, testing methods between hospitals vary widely, which impacts CDI incidence rates. CDI incidence rates are also influenced by sample selection criteria, as several studies have shown that if not all unformed stool samples are tested for CDI, many cases may be missed due to an absence of clinical suspicion. Since methods for diagnosing CDI remain imperfect, there has been a growing interest in alternative testing strategies like faecal biomarkers, immune modulating interleukins, cytokines and imaging methods. At the moment, these alternative methods might play an adjunctive role, but they are not suitable to replace conventional CDI testing strategies.