Cargando…

468. Diagnosis of Clinical Clostridium difficile Infection: An Unmet Challenge

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is challenging. The reason is two-fold: (a) lack of unique symptoms and (b) lack of a gold standard test for CDI. We studied variation in CDI rates when different diagnostic algorithms were utilized. In addition, we compared patients who...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vyas, Neeti, She, Rosemary C, Nanda, Neha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6253871/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.477
_version_ 1783373593554452480
author Vyas, Neeti
She, Rosemary C
Nanda, Neha
author_facet Vyas, Neeti
She, Rosemary C
Nanda, Neha
author_sort Vyas, Neeti
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is challenging. The reason is two-fold: (a) lack of unique symptoms and (b) lack of a gold standard test for CDI. We studied variation in CDI rates when different diagnostic algorithms were utilized. In addition, we compared patients who met the clinical definition of CDI with different diagnostic assays. METHODS: This is a retrospective study at an academic medical center (401-bed) conducted over 12 months (January 2017–December 2017). A stool sample that tested positive by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for C. difficile (n = 81) was then tested for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Additionally, all PCR-positive cases were also tested for toxin production by cytotoxic neutralization assay (CCNA). Clinical C. difficile was defined as three or more loose stools within 24-hour time period. Clinical data were obtained from review of charts. This definition was applied to all community-onset and hospital-onset cases. RESULTS: C. difficile was detected in 81 symptomatic patients by PCR test. Of these, 41.9% met the clinical definition of diarrhea. Of the 81 patients, toxin EIA and GDH were positive in 29.6% (24/81) and 4% met the clinical definition. CCNA was positive in 66.67% (54/81) and only 9% met the clinical definition. The CDI rate (per 10,000 patient days) was 10.2 in the PCR positive group; 3.02 in toxin EIA and GDH group and 6.81 in CCNA group. Duration of diarrhea was longer when functional assays (toxin EIA and/or CCNA) were positive, i.e., 48 hours after diagnosis, 22.7% (18/79) of patients with a positive CCNA and EIA had diarrhea while only 6% (3/49) of the patients with GDH and PCR positive tests (nonfunctional assays) had diarrhea (P = 0.013). The difference was statistically significant. All 81 patients were started on CDI treatment within 24 hours of diagnosis. Of note, there was no laxative use contributing to symptoms in these cases. CONCLUSION: CDI rates differ with various diagnostic algorithms. Duration of diarrhea was significantly longer when functional assays (CCNA or toxin EIA) were positive. Inclusion of both a functional assay (EIA and/or CCNA) and a clinical definition of CDI can improve the diagnostic accuracy of CDI. A combination of clinical judgment and functional assays is required for an accurate diagnosis of CDI. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6253871
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62538712018-11-28 468. Diagnosis of Clinical Clostridium difficile Infection: An Unmet Challenge Vyas, Neeti She, Rosemary C Nanda, Neha Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is challenging. The reason is two-fold: (a) lack of unique symptoms and (b) lack of a gold standard test for CDI. We studied variation in CDI rates when different diagnostic algorithms were utilized. In addition, we compared patients who met the clinical definition of CDI with different diagnostic assays. METHODS: This is a retrospective study at an academic medical center (401-bed) conducted over 12 months (January 2017–December 2017). A stool sample that tested positive by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for C. difficile (n = 81) was then tested for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Additionally, all PCR-positive cases were also tested for toxin production by cytotoxic neutralization assay (CCNA). Clinical C. difficile was defined as three or more loose stools within 24-hour time period. Clinical data were obtained from review of charts. This definition was applied to all community-onset and hospital-onset cases. RESULTS: C. difficile was detected in 81 symptomatic patients by PCR test. Of these, 41.9% met the clinical definition of diarrhea. Of the 81 patients, toxin EIA and GDH were positive in 29.6% (24/81) and 4% met the clinical definition. CCNA was positive in 66.67% (54/81) and only 9% met the clinical definition. The CDI rate (per 10,000 patient days) was 10.2 in the PCR positive group; 3.02 in toxin EIA and GDH group and 6.81 in CCNA group. Duration of diarrhea was longer when functional assays (toxin EIA and/or CCNA) were positive, i.e., 48 hours after diagnosis, 22.7% (18/79) of patients with a positive CCNA and EIA had diarrhea while only 6% (3/49) of the patients with GDH and PCR positive tests (nonfunctional assays) had diarrhea (P = 0.013). The difference was statistically significant. All 81 patients were started on CDI treatment within 24 hours of diagnosis. Of note, there was no laxative use contributing to symptoms in these cases. CONCLUSION: CDI rates differ with various diagnostic algorithms. Duration of diarrhea was significantly longer when functional assays (CCNA or toxin EIA) were positive. Inclusion of both a functional assay (EIA and/or CCNA) and a clinical definition of CDI can improve the diagnostic accuracy of CDI. A combination of clinical judgment and functional assays is required for an accurate diagnosis of CDI. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2018-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6253871/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.477 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
Vyas, Neeti
She, Rosemary C
Nanda, Neha
468. Diagnosis of Clinical Clostridium difficile Infection: An Unmet Challenge
title 468. Diagnosis of Clinical Clostridium difficile Infection: An Unmet Challenge
title_full 468. Diagnosis of Clinical Clostridium difficile Infection: An Unmet Challenge
title_fullStr 468. Diagnosis of Clinical Clostridium difficile Infection: An Unmet Challenge
title_full_unstemmed 468. Diagnosis of Clinical Clostridium difficile Infection: An Unmet Challenge
title_short 468. Diagnosis of Clinical Clostridium difficile Infection: An Unmet Challenge
title_sort 468. diagnosis of clinical clostridium difficile infection: an unmet challenge
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6253871/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.477
work_keys_str_mv AT vyasneeti 468diagnosisofclinicalclostridiumdifficileinfectionanunmetchallenge
AT sherosemaryc 468diagnosisofclinicalclostridiumdifficileinfectionanunmetchallenge
AT nandaneha 468diagnosisofclinicalclostridiumdifficileinfectionanunmetchallenge