Susan M. Novak-Weekley

This commentary will introduce lean concepts into the clinical microbiology laboratory. The practice of lean in the clinical microbiology laboratory can remove waste, increase efficiency, and reduce costs. Lean, Six Sigma, and other such management initiatives are useful tools and can provide dividends but must be accompanied by organizational leadership commitment to sustaining the lean culture in the laboratory setting and providing resources and time to work through the process.

The Xpert Flu Assay cartridge is a next-generation nucleic acid amplification system that provides multiplexed PCR detection of the influenza A, influenza A 2009 H1N1, and influenza B viruses in approximately 70 min with minimal hands-on time. Six laboratories participated in a clinical trial comparing the results of the new Cepheid Xpert Flu Assay to those of culture or real-time PCR with archived and prospectively collected nasal aspirate-wash (NA-W) specimens and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from children and adults. Discrepant results were resolved by DNA sequence analysis. After discrepant-result analysis, the sensitivities of the Xpert Flu Assay for prospective NA-W specimens containing the influenza A, influenza A 2009 H1N1, and influenza B viruses compared to those of culture were 90.0%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, while the sensitivities of the assay for prospective NP swabs compared to those of culture were 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. The sensitivities of the Xpert Flu Assay for archived NA-W specimens compared to those of Gen-Probe ProFlu+ PCR for the influenza A, influenza A 2009 H1N1, and influenza B viruses were 99.4%, 98.4%, and 100%, respectively, while the sensitivities of the Xpert Flu Assay for archived NP swabs compared to those of ProFlu+ were 98.1%, 100%, and 93.8%, respectively. The sensitivities of the Xpert Flu Assay with archived NP specimens compared to those of culture for the three targets were 97.5%, 100%, and 93.8%, respectively. We conclude that the Cepheid Xpert Flu Assay is an accurate and rapid method that is suitable for on-demand testing for influenza viral infection.

The incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has risen almost 3-fold in the United States over the past decade, emphasizing the need for rapid and accurate tests for CDI. The Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay is an integrated, closed, nucleic acid amplification system that automates sample preparation and real-time PCR detection of the toxin B gene ( tcdB ). A total of 432 stool specimens from symptomatic patients were tested by a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assay, a toxin A and B enzyme immunoassay (EIA), the Xpert C. difficile assay, and a cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCN). The results of these methods, used individually and in combination, were compared to those of toxigenic culture. Results for the Xpert C. difficile assay alone showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.4, 96.3, 84.0, and 98.8%, while the EIA alone gave corresponding values of 58.3, 94.7, 68.9, and 91.9%, respectively. An algorithm using the GDH assay and the EIA (plus the CCCN if the EIA was negative) showed corresponding values of 83.1, 96.7, 83.1, and 96.1%. The Xpert C. difficile assay was statistically superior to the EIA ( P , P , 0.0363). Combining the GDH and Xpert C. difficile assays lowered both the sensitivity and the NPV of the Xpert assay. The GDH-EIA-CCCN procedure required, on average, 2 days to complete testing on GDH-positive results, while testing by the Xpert C. difficile assay was completed, on average, in less than 1 h. Xpert C. difficile testing yielded the highest sensitivity and NPV, in the least amount of time, of the individual- and multiple-test algorithms evaluated in this study.

Clostridium difficile causes nosocomial diarrhea and is responsible for complications such as pseudomembranous colitis, megacolon, and perforation. Using 442 stool specimens, we compared the sensitivities and specificities of the Premier toxin A and B (Meridian Bioscience, Inc.) and C. difficile TOX A/B II (TechLab, Inc., Blacksburg, VA) immunoassays in the Virology Department of the Kaiser Permanente Regional Reference Laboratories. The Premier toxin A and B assay demonstrated a higher sensitivity (97.44%) and a higher positive predictive value (79.17%) than the C. difficile TOX A/B II assay (87.18% and 75.56%, respectively), while assay specificities and negative predictive values were similar. We also performed experiments using serially diluted, purified toxin A and B antigens to understand the basis for assay differences. The two assays’ toxin A antibodies detected toxin A at comparable levels. Preliminary results indicated that the toxin B antibody in the Premier toxin A and B assay could detect toxin B at a concentration of 125 pg/100 μl, while the toxin B antibody in the C. difficile TOX A/B II assay could not detect toxin B below a concentration of 250 pg/100 μl. Therefore, the Premier toxin A and B assay provides greater sensitivity than the C. difficile TOX A/B II assay, perhaps due to a superior detection ability of its toxin B antibody.