Cargando…

Clinical and economic impact of the introduction of a nucleic acid amplification assay for Clostridium difficile

BACKGROUND: The clinical outcomes and cost implications of a diagnostic shift from an EIA- to PCR-based assay for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) have not been completely described in the literature. METHODS: The impact of the PCR-based assay on the incidence and duration of CDI therapy was co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guinta, Margaret M., Bunnell, Kristen, Harrington, Amanda, Bleasdale, Susan, Danziger, Larry, Wenzler, Eric
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5713042/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29202797
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12941-017-0252-7
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The clinical outcomes and cost implications of a diagnostic shift from an EIA- to PCR-based assay for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) have not been completely described in the literature. METHODS: The impact of the PCR-based assay on the incidence and duration of CDI therapy was compared to the EIA assay for patients with a negative CDI diagnostic result. Secondary clinical and economic outcomes were also evaluated. Independent predictors of receipt of antibiotic therapy were assessed via logistic regression. RESULTS: 141 EIA and 140 PCR patients were included. Significantly more patients were started or continued on anti-CDI antibiotic therapy after a known negative assay result in the EIA group (26 patients vs. 8 patients, P = 0.002). Duration of antibiotic therapy after a known negative result was significantly shorter in the PCR group (1 vs. 4 days, P = 0.029) and a 23% reduction in the number of tests obtained per patient was observed (1.41 ± 0.86 vs. 1.82 ± 1.35, P = 0.007). The over fourfold difference in per-test cost of the EIA assay ($8.33 vs. $42.86, P < 0.0001) was offset by the overall medication costs required for the increased treatment in the EIA group ($546.60 vs. $188.96, P = 0.191). Utilization of the EIA-based CDI assay was associated with increased odds of CDI treatment after a negative test (aOR 4.71, 95% CI 1.93–11.46, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The transition from an EIA to PCR-based assay for diagnosing CDI resulted in a significant decrease in the number of patients treated and the duration of treatment in response to a negative test result. This significant decrease in treatment resulted in decreased costs offsetting the utilization of a more expensive molecular test for patients with a negative CDI diagnostic result.