Cargando…

Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is controversial because of many laboratory methods, compounded by two reference methods. Cytotoxigenic culture detects toxigenic C difficile and gives a positive result more frequently (eg, because of colonisation, which means that individual...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Planche, Timothy D, Davies, Kerrie A, Coen, Pietro G, Finney, John M, Monahan, Irene M, Morris, Kirsti A, O'Connor, Lily, Oakley, Sarah J, Pope, Cassie F, Wren, Mike W, Shetty, Nandini P, Crook, Derrick W, Wilcox, Mark H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Science ;, The Lancet Pub. Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822406/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24007915
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70200-7
_version_ 1782290408512946176
author Planche, Timothy D
Davies, Kerrie A
Coen, Pietro G
Finney, John M
Monahan, Irene M
Morris, Kirsti A
O'Connor, Lily
Oakley, Sarah J
Pope, Cassie F
Wren, Mike W
Shetty, Nandini P
Crook, Derrick W
Wilcox, Mark H
author_facet Planche, Timothy D
Davies, Kerrie A
Coen, Pietro G
Finney, John M
Monahan, Irene M
Morris, Kirsti A
O'Connor, Lily
Oakley, Sarah J
Pope, Cassie F
Wren, Mike W
Shetty, Nandini P
Crook, Derrick W
Wilcox, Mark H
author_sort Planche, Timothy D
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is controversial because of many laboratory methods, compounded by two reference methods. Cytotoxigenic culture detects toxigenic C difficile and gives a positive result more frequently (eg, because of colonisation, which means that individuals can have the bacterium but no free toxin) than does the cytotoxin assay, which detects preformed toxin in faeces. We aimed to validate the reference methods according to clinical outcomes and to derive an optimum laboratory diagnostic algorithm for C difficile infection. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre study, we did cytotoxigenic culture and cytotoxin assays on 12 420 faecal samples in four UK laboratories. We also performed tests that represent the three main targets for C difficile detection: bacterium (glutamate dehydrogenase), toxins, or toxin genes. We used routine blood test results, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality to clinically validate the reference methods. Data were categorised by reference method result: group 1, cytotoxin assay positive; group 2, cytotoxigenic culture positive and cytotoxin assay negative; and group 3, both reference methods negative. FINDINGS: Clinical and reference assay data were available for 6522 inpatient episodes. On univariate analysis, mortality was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (72/435 [16·6%] vs 20/207 [9·7%], p=0·044) and in group 3 (503/5880 [8·6%], p<0·001), but not in group 2 compared with group 3 (p=0·4). A multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders confirmed the mortality differences between groups 1 and 3 (OR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12–2·31). Multistage algorithms performed better than did standalone assays. INTERPRETATION: We noted no increase in mortality when toxigenic C difficile alone was present. Toxin (cytotoxin assay) positivity correlated with clinical outcome, and so this reference method best defines true cases of C difficile infection. A new diagnostic category of potential C difficile excretor (cytotoxigenic culture positive but cytotoxin assay negative) could be used to characterise patients with diarrhoea that is probably not due to C difficile infection, but who can cause cross-infection. FUNDING: Department of Health and Health Protection Agency, UK.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3822406
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Elsevier Science ;, The Lancet Pub. Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38224062013-11-12 Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection Planche, Timothy D Davies, Kerrie A Coen, Pietro G Finney, John M Monahan, Irene M Morris, Kirsti A O'Connor, Lily Oakley, Sarah J Pope, Cassie F Wren, Mike W Shetty, Nandini P Crook, Derrick W Wilcox, Mark H Lancet Infect Dis Articles BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is controversial because of many laboratory methods, compounded by two reference methods. Cytotoxigenic culture detects toxigenic C difficile and gives a positive result more frequently (eg, because of colonisation, which means that individuals can have the bacterium but no free toxin) than does the cytotoxin assay, which detects preformed toxin in faeces. We aimed to validate the reference methods according to clinical outcomes and to derive an optimum laboratory diagnostic algorithm for C difficile infection. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre study, we did cytotoxigenic culture and cytotoxin assays on 12 420 faecal samples in four UK laboratories. We also performed tests that represent the three main targets for C difficile detection: bacterium (glutamate dehydrogenase), toxins, or toxin genes. We used routine blood test results, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality to clinically validate the reference methods. Data were categorised by reference method result: group 1, cytotoxin assay positive; group 2, cytotoxigenic culture positive and cytotoxin assay negative; and group 3, both reference methods negative. FINDINGS: Clinical and reference assay data were available for 6522 inpatient episodes. On univariate analysis, mortality was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (72/435 [16·6%] vs 20/207 [9·7%], p=0·044) and in group 3 (503/5880 [8·6%], p<0·001), but not in group 2 compared with group 3 (p=0·4). A multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders confirmed the mortality differences between groups 1 and 3 (OR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12–2·31). Multistage algorithms performed better than did standalone assays. INTERPRETATION: We noted no increase in mortality when toxigenic C difficile alone was present. Toxin (cytotoxin assay) positivity correlated with clinical outcome, and so this reference method best defines true cases of C difficile infection. A new diagnostic category of potential C difficile excretor (cytotoxigenic culture positive but cytotoxin assay negative) could be used to characterise patients with diarrhoea that is probably not due to C difficile infection, but who can cause cross-infection. FUNDING: Department of Health and Health Protection Agency, UK. Elsevier Science ;, The Lancet Pub. Group 2013-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3822406/ /pubmed/24007915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70200-7 Text en © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use.
spellingShingle Articles
Planche, Timothy D
Davies, Kerrie A
Coen, Pietro G
Finney, John M
Monahan, Irene M
Morris, Kirsti A
O'Connor, Lily
Oakley, Sarah J
Pope, Cassie F
Wren, Mike W
Shetty, Nandini P
Crook, Derrick W
Wilcox, Mark H
Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection
title Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection
title_full Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection
title_fullStr Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection
title_full_unstemmed Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection
title_short Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection
title_sort differences in outcome according to clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of c difficile infection
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822406/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24007915
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70200-7
work_keys_str_mv AT planchetimothyd differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT davieskerriea differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT coenpietrog differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT finneyjohnm differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT monahanirenem differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT morriskirstia differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT oconnorlily differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT oakleysarahj differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT popecassief differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT wrenmikew differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT shettynandinip differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT crookderrickw differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection
AT wilcoxmarkh differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection