Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remain a serious issue in the United States. Fast and accurate diagnosis of CDI is paramount to achieve immediate infection control initiation, triaging, and isolation, as well as appropriate antibiotic treatment. However, both, over- and underdiagnosis can lead to adverse patient outcomes, such as unnecessary administration of antibiotics or unwanted spread of spores in any hospital setting, respectively. In this prospective study, we evaluated the FDA-cleared Aries C. difficile assay and compared its performance and workflow characteristics to those of the BD Max Cdiff and Xpert C. difficile/Epi assays. Out of 302 samples tested, 55 (18.2%) samples were positive, and 234 (77.5%) samples were negative for C. difficile by all three testing methods. Comparison results showed a positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA, respectively) between the Aries and Xpert assays of 95.2% (59/62) and 99.2% (238/240), respectively. The PPA and NPA between the Aries and BD Max assays were 91.8% (56/61) and 96.6% (230/238), respectively. Invalid result rates were determined to be 2.6% for the BD Max assay, 1.0% for the Aries assay, and 0% for the Xpert assay. Hands-on time (HoT) and total turnaround time (TAT) varied considerably depending on the sample number and instrument throughput. The HoT ranged from 1.2 to 3.5 min per sample, and the TAT was 1 to 2.3 h. Overall, the results demonstrated that the Aries assay is a rapid and sensitive method for the diagnosis of CDI in clinical laboratories.
Keywords: Aries; BD Max; C. difficile infection; Clostridioides difficile; Clostridium difficile; Xpert; molecular assays; real-time PCR; toxins.
Copyright © 2019 Juretschko et al.