Cargando…

2355. The Association Between Diagnostic Testing Method and Clostridium difficile Infection Severity

BACKGROUND: The optimal diagnostic strategy for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is not known, and no test is shown to clearly differentiate colonization from symptomatic infection. We hypothesized that detection and/or quantification of stool toxins would associate with severe disease and adve...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Menon, Anitha, Perry, Donald A, Motyka, Jonathan, Weiner, Shayna, Standke, Alexandra, Penkevich, Aline, Keidan, Micah, Young, Vincent B, Rao, Krishna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810784/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2033
_version_ 1783462327278895104
author Menon, Anitha
Perry, Donald A
Motyka, Jonathan
Weiner, Shayna
Standke, Alexandra
Penkevich, Aline
Keidan, Micah
Young, Vincent B
Rao, Krishna
author_facet Menon, Anitha
Perry, Donald A
Motyka, Jonathan
Weiner, Shayna
Standke, Alexandra
Penkevich, Aline
Keidan, Micah
Young, Vincent B
Rao, Krishna
author_sort Menon, Anitha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The optimal diagnostic strategy for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is not known, and no test is shown to clearly differentiate colonization from symptomatic infection. We hypothesized that detection and/or quantification of stool toxins would associate with severe disease and adverse outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among subjects with CDI diagnosed in 2016 at the University of Michigan. The clinical microbiology laboratory tested for glutamate dehydrogenase antigen and toxins A/B by enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Discordant results reflexed to PCR for the tcdB gene. Stool toxin levels were quantified via a modified cell cytotoxicity assay (CCA). C. difficile was isolated by anaerobic culture and ribotyped. Severe CDI was defined by the IDSA criteria: white blood cell count >15,000 cells/µL or a 1.5-fold increase in serum creatinine above baseline. The primary outcomes were all-cause 30-day mortality and a composite of colectomy, ICU admission, and/or death attributable to CDI within 30 days. Analysis included standard bivariable tests and adjusted models via logistic regression. RESULTS: From 565 adult patients, we obtained 646 samples; 199 (30.8%) contained toxins by EIA. Toxin positivity associated with IDSA severity (Table 1), but not our primary outcomes on unadjusted analysis. After adjustment for putative confounders, we still did not observe an association between toxin positivity and our primary outcomes. Stool toxin levels by CCA >6.4 ng/mL associated with IDSA severity (Table 1), but not the primary outcomes. Compared with the period from 2010 to 2013, the circulating ribotypes of C. difficile at our institution changed in 2016. Notably ribotype 106 newly emerged, accounting for 10.6% of strains, and ribotype 027 fell to 9.3% (Table 2). The incidence of ribotype 014-027 has remained stable at 18.9%, but this strain was associated with both IDSA severity and 30-day mortality (OR = 3.32; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Toxin detection by EIA/CCA associated with IDSA severity, but this study was unable to confirm an association with subsequent adverse outcomes. The molecular epidemiology of C. difficile has shifted, and this may have implications for the optimal diagnostic strategy for CDI. [Image: see text] [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6810784
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68107842019-10-28 2355. The Association Between Diagnostic Testing Method and Clostridium difficile Infection Severity Menon, Anitha Perry, Donald A Motyka, Jonathan Weiner, Shayna Standke, Alexandra Penkevich, Aline Keidan, Micah Young, Vincent B Rao, Krishna Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: The optimal diagnostic strategy for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is not known, and no test is shown to clearly differentiate colonization from symptomatic infection. We hypothesized that detection and/or quantification of stool toxins would associate with severe disease and adverse outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among subjects with CDI diagnosed in 2016 at the University of Michigan. The clinical microbiology laboratory tested for glutamate dehydrogenase antigen and toxins A/B by enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Discordant results reflexed to PCR for the tcdB gene. Stool toxin levels were quantified via a modified cell cytotoxicity assay (CCA). C. difficile was isolated by anaerobic culture and ribotyped. Severe CDI was defined by the IDSA criteria: white blood cell count >15,000 cells/µL or a 1.5-fold increase in serum creatinine above baseline. The primary outcomes were all-cause 30-day mortality and a composite of colectomy, ICU admission, and/or death attributable to CDI within 30 days. Analysis included standard bivariable tests and adjusted models via logistic regression. RESULTS: From 565 adult patients, we obtained 646 samples; 199 (30.8%) contained toxins by EIA. Toxin positivity associated with IDSA severity (Table 1), but not our primary outcomes on unadjusted analysis. After adjustment for putative confounders, we still did not observe an association between toxin positivity and our primary outcomes. Stool toxin levels by CCA >6.4 ng/mL associated with IDSA severity (Table 1), but not the primary outcomes. Compared with the period from 2010 to 2013, the circulating ribotypes of C. difficile at our institution changed in 2016. Notably ribotype 106 newly emerged, accounting for 10.6% of strains, and ribotype 027 fell to 9.3% (Table 2). The incidence of ribotype 014-027 has remained stable at 18.9%, but this strain was associated with both IDSA severity and 30-day mortality (OR = 3.32; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Toxin detection by EIA/CCA associated with IDSA severity, but this study was unable to confirm an association with subsequent adverse outcomes. The molecular epidemiology of C. difficile has shifted, and this may have implications for the optimal diagnostic strategy for CDI. [Image: see text] [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6810784/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2033 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. 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
Menon, Anitha
Perry, Donald A
Motyka, Jonathan
Weiner, Shayna
Standke, Alexandra
Penkevich, Aline
Keidan, Micah
Young, Vincent B
Rao, Krishna
2355. The Association Between Diagnostic Testing Method and Clostridium difficile Infection Severity
title 2355. The Association Between Diagnostic Testing Method and Clostridium difficile Infection Severity
title_full 2355. The Association Between Diagnostic Testing Method and Clostridium difficile Infection Severity
title_fullStr 2355. The Association Between Diagnostic Testing Method and Clostridium difficile Infection Severity
title_full_unstemmed 2355. The Association Between Diagnostic Testing Method and Clostridium difficile Infection Severity
title_short 2355. The Association Between Diagnostic Testing Method and Clostridium difficile Infection Severity
title_sort 2355. the association between diagnostic testing method and clostridium difficile infection severity
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810784/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2033
work_keys_str_mv AT menonanitha 2355theassociationbetweendiagnostictestingmethodandclostridiumdifficileinfectionseverity
AT perrydonalda 2355theassociationbetweendiagnostictestingmethodandclostridiumdifficileinfectionseverity
AT motykajonathan 2355theassociationbetweendiagnostictestingmethodandclostridiumdifficileinfectionseverity
AT weinershayna 2355theassociationbetweendiagnostictestingmethodandclostridiumdifficileinfectionseverity
AT standkealexandra 2355theassociationbetweendiagnostictestingmethodandclostridiumdifficileinfectionseverity
AT penkevichaline 2355theassociationbetweendiagnostictestingmethodandclostridiumdifficileinfectionseverity
AT keidanmicah 2355theassociationbetweendiagnostictestingmethodandclostridiumdifficileinfectionseverity
AT youngvincentb 2355theassociationbetweendiagnostictestingmethodandclostridiumdifficileinfectionseverity
AT raokrishna 2355theassociationbetweendiagnostictestingmethodandclostridiumdifficileinfectionseverity