The perils of PCR-based diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infections: Painful lessons from clinical trials

Diagnostic tests favoured to detect C. difficile infections (CDI) have undergone successive changes. The problem of over-diagnosis with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing is recognized in the clinical setting; here we discuss the parallel of the clinical trial setting. We summarize and discuss four examples of the impact of method used to diagnose CDI on clinical trial outcomes. Bezlotoxumab, a human monoclonal antibody neutralizing toxin B, was found to be protective against recurrent CDI (rCDI) in clinical trials. A post hoc analysis showed that the magnitude of the relative reduction in rCDI rates of bezlotoxumab over placebo in patients diagnosed with toxin-based testing was almost double that in patients diagnosed with PCR. SER-109, a microbiome therapeutic developed to prevent rCDI, showed promise in a phase 1b trial, but results were not replicated in a phase 2 trial in which diagnosis was in majority PCR-based. Surotomycin, an oral lipopeptide antibiotic, was found to be non-inferior to vancomycin in phase 2 study, but development was discontinued after unfavourable phase 3 results in which the majority of CDI were diagnosed by PCR. Finally, a C. difficile vaccine program for a toxoid vaccine developed by Sanofi/Pasteur was terminated after interim analysis of a phase 3 trial, in which CDI diagnosis was based solely on PCR. We highlighted the perils of using PCR alone in studies involving different aspects of C. difficile clinical research, including immunotherapies, microbiome-based therapies, treatments, and vaccines. The importance of designing C. difficile clinical trials with careful consideration to the diagnostic testing method cannot be overemphasized. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.