Cargando…

529. Overdiagnosis of Clostridioides difficile with a Multiplex PCR Panel

BACKGROUND: While advantageous by casting a wider diagnostic net, multiplex panels can be problematic if the pretest probability is low. A significant increase in reported Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) was noted at our institution following introduction of a multiplex comprehensive GI (C...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arora, Vaneet, Burgess, Donna R, Ribes, Julie A, Cotner, Sarah, Wallace, Katie L, Forster, Derek
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6253210/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.538
_version_ 1783373445239668736
author Arora, Vaneet
Burgess, Donna R
Ribes, Julie A
Cotner, Sarah
Wallace, Katie L
Forster, Derek
author_facet Arora, Vaneet
Burgess, Donna R
Ribes, Julie A
Cotner, Sarah
Wallace, Katie L
Forster, Derek
author_sort Arora, Vaneet
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: While advantageous by casting a wider diagnostic net, multiplex panels can be problematic if the pretest probability is low. A significant increase in reported Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) was noted at our institution following introduction of a multiplex comprehensive GI (CGI) panel which includes an analyte for C. difficile. Owing to these concerns, the C. difficile analyte result was suppressed when reporting and providers were advised to order a standalone C. difficile PCR (CDPCR) test if CDI was a concern. The objective of this study was to investigate concerns of false positive C. difficile results from the CGI panel. METHODS: C. difficile diagnostic practices were prospectively evaluated from April to August 2017. Patient charts were reviewed in response to a positive C. difficile analyte on the CGI panel. CDPCR results were reviewed if ordered. If not ordered, chart review and discussion with the provider was conducted to investigate clinical suspicion for CDI. The results were analyzed to examine the performance of the C. difficile analyte on the CGI panel. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 1,611 CGI panels were performed with C. difficile being detected in 156 specimens. Of these positive results, a subanalysis was performed on 123 positive specimens for whom complete data was available. A CDPCR was performed in 80 (65%) of these specimens. Among those, only 44 (55%) were CDPCR positive and 22 (28%) were CDPCR negative (likely a false-positive CGI result), and 14 (17%) were rejected because of specimen consistency. For the remaining 43 C. difficile-positive CGI panel specimens that did not have an accompanying CDPCR, seven were in children below 2 years of age. Direct provider discussion occurred in the remaining 36 cases. Providers declined CDPCR testing in 24 of those cases due to a lack of clinical concern. CONCLUSION: The use of the CGI panel for C. difficile led to over diagnosis of CDI. This could have significant consequences for clinical care and the reporting of hospital acquired infections. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6253210
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62532102018-11-28 529. Overdiagnosis of Clostridioides difficile with a Multiplex PCR Panel Arora, Vaneet Burgess, Donna R Ribes, Julie A Cotner, Sarah Wallace, Katie L Forster, Derek Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: While advantageous by casting a wider diagnostic net, multiplex panels can be problematic if the pretest probability is low. A significant increase in reported Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) was noted at our institution following introduction of a multiplex comprehensive GI (CGI) panel which includes an analyte for C. difficile. Owing to these concerns, the C. difficile analyte result was suppressed when reporting and providers were advised to order a standalone C. difficile PCR (CDPCR) test if CDI was a concern. The objective of this study was to investigate concerns of false positive C. difficile results from the CGI panel. METHODS: C. difficile diagnostic practices were prospectively evaluated from April to August 2017. Patient charts were reviewed in response to a positive C. difficile analyte on the CGI panel. CDPCR results were reviewed if ordered. If not ordered, chart review and discussion with the provider was conducted to investigate clinical suspicion for CDI. The results were analyzed to examine the performance of the C. difficile analyte on the CGI panel. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 1,611 CGI panels were performed with C. difficile being detected in 156 specimens. Of these positive results, a subanalysis was performed on 123 positive specimens for whom complete data was available. A CDPCR was performed in 80 (65%) of these specimens. Among those, only 44 (55%) were CDPCR positive and 22 (28%) were CDPCR negative (likely a false-positive CGI result), and 14 (17%) were rejected because of specimen consistency. For the remaining 43 C. difficile-positive CGI panel specimens that did not have an accompanying CDPCR, seven were in children below 2 years of age. Direct provider discussion occurred in the remaining 36 cases. Providers declined CDPCR testing in 24 of those cases due to a lack of clinical concern. CONCLUSION: The use of the CGI panel for C. difficile led to over diagnosis of CDI. This could have significant consequences for clinical care and the reporting of hospital acquired infections. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2018-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6253210/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.538 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Arora, Vaneet
Burgess, Donna R
Ribes, Julie A
Cotner, Sarah
Wallace, Katie L
Forster, Derek
529. Overdiagnosis of Clostridioides difficile with a Multiplex PCR Panel
title 529. Overdiagnosis of Clostridioides difficile with a Multiplex PCR Panel
title_full 529. Overdiagnosis of Clostridioides difficile with a Multiplex PCR Panel
title_fullStr 529. Overdiagnosis of Clostridioides difficile with a Multiplex PCR Panel
title_full_unstemmed 529. Overdiagnosis of Clostridioides difficile with a Multiplex PCR Panel
title_short 529. Overdiagnosis of Clostridioides difficile with a Multiplex PCR Panel
title_sort 529. overdiagnosis of clostridioides difficile with a multiplex pcr panel
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6253210/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.538
work_keys_str_mv AT aroravaneet 529overdiagnosisofclostridioidesdifficilewithamultiplexpcrpanel
AT burgessdonnar 529overdiagnosisofclostridioidesdifficilewithamultiplexpcrpanel
AT ribesjuliea 529overdiagnosisofclostridioidesdifficilewithamultiplexpcrpanel
AT cotnersarah 529overdiagnosisofclostridioidesdifficilewithamultiplexpcrpanel
AT wallacekatiel 529overdiagnosisofclostridioidesdifficilewithamultiplexpcrpanel
AT forsterderek 529overdiagnosisofclostridioidesdifficilewithamultiplexpcrpanel