2359. Prospective Feasibility Study for Novel Ultrasensitive Multiplexed Immunoassay for Clostridiodes difficile Toxins A and B

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of Clostridiodes difficile infection is challenging. A wide array of diagnostic tests are used in practice; however, each available test has important limitations. We examined the feasibility and analytical performance of a novel ultrasensitive multiplexed immunoassay designed by Meso Scale Diagnostics (MSD) compared with five current diagnostic assays for detection of C. difficile toxin A and B. METHODS: Stool, serum and urine samples from 44 admitted inpatients were collected within 72 hours of a standard of care nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) result (23 positive, 21 negative). These specimens underwent five standard diagnostic assays: enzyme immunoassay for toxins A and B (EIA), cytotoxin cell assay, bacterial culture isolation, and two different NAATs to determine presence of viable C. difficile cells, toxins, and toxin-encoding genes (Table 1). The concentration (fg/mL) of toxin A and toxin B in all stool samples was then quantified using MSD’s multiplexed immunoassay (Table 1). RESULTS: At least one of the five standard diagnostic tests for C. difficile was positive in 16 of the 23 clinically positive patients. The MSD multiplex immunoassay detected toxin A and/or toxin B in 15 of these 16 samples and quantified low levels of toxin A in one clinically positive sample that was negative for all other tests. In contrast, only 2 of the 16 positive samples were positive by EIA, demonstrating the benefits of the ultrasensitive assay over standard immunoassay methods. All clinically negative specimens were negative in all tests. Toxin detection in urine and serum samples was negligible. In stool samples, the MSD test had an estimated sensitivity of 93% (95% CI: 70–99%) and specificity of 93% (95% CI: 78–98%) compared with the clinically used NAAT. CONCLUSION: The MSD multiplex toxin assay is a feasible test to move forward for further evaluation. Ultimately, future studies should examine the performance of this test compared with standard of care in a prospective randomized trial assessing clinical outcomes. [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.