Cargando…

1665. Potential underreporting of treated patients using a Clostridioides difficile testing algorithm that screens with a nucleic acid amplification test

BACKGROUND: U.S. laboratories are increasingly using a two-step algorithm to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) that starts with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), and if positive, reflexes to a toxin enzyme immunoassay. Here only a NAAT+/toxin+ result is reported to the Center...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guh, Alice, Winston, Lisa Gail, Johnston, Helen, Basiliere, Elizabeth, Olson, Danyel M, Fridkin, Scott, Goodenough, Dana, Wilson, Christopher, Watkins, Jasmine, Korhonen, Lauren C, Gerding, Dale N
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9751601/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac492.131
_version_ 1784850511404466176
author Guh, Alice
Winston, Lisa Gail
Johnston, Helen
Basiliere, Elizabeth
Olson, Danyel M
Fridkin, Scott
Goodenough, Dana
Wilson, Christopher
Watkins, Jasmine
Korhonen, Lauren C
Gerding, Dale N
author_facet Guh, Alice
Winston, Lisa Gail
Johnston, Helen
Basiliere, Elizabeth
Olson, Danyel M
Fridkin, Scott
Goodenough, Dana
Wilson, Christopher
Watkins, Jasmine
Korhonen, Lauren C
Gerding, Dale N
author_sort Guh, Alice
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: U.S. laboratories are increasingly using a two-step algorithm to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) that starts with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), and if positive, reflexes to a toxin enzyme immunoassay. Here only a NAAT+/toxin+ result is reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) as a CDI laboratory-identified (LabID) event, but limited data suggest that NAAT+/toxin- results may also be considered CDI by clinicians. To explore this discrepancy, we compared the characteristics and treatment of NAAT+/toxin- and NAAT+/toxin+ patients. METHODS: CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) conducts population-based CDI surveillance. A case was defined as a positive C. difficile test in a person aged ≥1 year with no positive tests in the prior 8 weeks. We included cases detected by this two-step algorithm in 5 EIP sites during 2018–2020 that underwent a full chart review. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, epidemiologic classification, and CDI therapy were used to compare CDI-related complications (i.e., toxic megacolon, ileus, colectomy, or intensive-care unit stay) and recurrence between the two groups. RESULTS: Of 1250 NAAT+ cases, 897 (72%) were toxin- and 353 (28%) were toxin+. Lower percentages of toxin- versus toxin+ cases were aged ≥65 years (42% vs 58%; P< 0.0001), had diarrhea (779/831 [94%] vs 329/338 [97%]; P=0.01), or had white blood cell counts ≥15,000 cells/μL (183/811 [23%] vs 132/321 [42%]; P< 0.0001). CDI therapy was given to 683/882 (77%) toxin- versus 338/349 (97%) toxin+ cases (P< 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, toxin- status was protective for recurrence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32–0.74) but not for CDI-related complications (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.64–1.56). CONCLUSION: NAAT+/toxin- cases were less likely to have recurrence but were as likely to have CDI-related complications as NAAT+/toxin+ cases. More than twice as many potentially unreported NAAT+/toxin- cases were treated than the number of reported NAAT+/toxin+ treated cases. Use of this two-step algorithm likely results in underreporting of treated CDI cases to NHSN. DISCLOSURES: Scott Fridkin, MD, Pfizer: Grant/Research Support Dale N. Gerding, MD, Destiny Pharma plc.: Advisor/Consultant.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9751601
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97516012022-12-16 1665. Potential underreporting of treated patients using a Clostridioides difficile testing algorithm that screens with a nucleic acid amplification test Guh, Alice Winston, Lisa Gail Johnston, Helen Basiliere, Elizabeth Olson, Danyel M Fridkin, Scott Goodenough, Dana Wilson, Christopher Watkins, Jasmine Korhonen, Lauren C Gerding, Dale N Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: U.S. laboratories are increasingly using a two-step algorithm to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) that starts with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), and if positive, reflexes to a toxin enzyme immunoassay. Here only a NAAT+/toxin+ result is reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) as a CDI laboratory-identified (LabID) event, but limited data suggest that NAAT+/toxin- results may also be considered CDI by clinicians. To explore this discrepancy, we compared the characteristics and treatment of NAAT+/toxin- and NAAT+/toxin+ patients. METHODS: CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) conducts population-based CDI surveillance. A case was defined as a positive C. difficile test in a person aged ≥1 year with no positive tests in the prior 8 weeks. We included cases detected by this two-step algorithm in 5 EIP sites during 2018–2020 that underwent a full chart review. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, epidemiologic classification, and CDI therapy were used to compare CDI-related complications (i.e., toxic megacolon, ileus, colectomy, or intensive-care unit stay) and recurrence between the two groups. RESULTS: Of 1250 NAAT+ cases, 897 (72%) were toxin- and 353 (28%) were toxin+. Lower percentages of toxin- versus toxin+ cases were aged ≥65 years (42% vs 58%; P< 0.0001), had diarrhea (779/831 [94%] vs 329/338 [97%]; P=0.01), or had white blood cell counts ≥15,000 cells/μL (183/811 [23%] vs 132/321 [42%]; P< 0.0001). CDI therapy was given to 683/882 (77%) toxin- versus 338/349 (97%) toxin+ cases (P< 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, toxin- status was protective for recurrence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32–0.74) but not for CDI-related complications (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.64–1.56). CONCLUSION: NAAT+/toxin- cases were less likely to have recurrence but were as likely to have CDI-related complications as NAAT+/toxin+ cases. More than twice as many potentially unreported NAAT+/toxin- cases were treated than the number of reported NAAT+/toxin+ treated cases. Use of this two-step algorithm likely results in underreporting of treated CDI cases to NHSN. DISCLOSURES: Scott Fridkin, MD, Pfizer: Grant/Research Support Dale N. Gerding, MD, Destiny Pharma plc.: Advisor/Consultant. Oxford University Press 2022-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9751601/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac492.131 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Abstracts
Guh, Alice
Winston, Lisa Gail
Johnston, Helen
Basiliere, Elizabeth
Olson, Danyel M
Fridkin, Scott
Goodenough, Dana
Wilson, Christopher
Watkins, Jasmine
Korhonen, Lauren C
Gerding, Dale N
1665. Potential underreporting of treated patients using a Clostridioides difficile testing algorithm that screens with a nucleic acid amplification test
title 1665. Potential underreporting of treated patients using a Clostridioides difficile testing algorithm that screens with a nucleic acid amplification test
title_full 1665. Potential underreporting of treated patients using a Clostridioides difficile testing algorithm that screens with a nucleic acid amplification test
title_fullStr 1665. Potential underreporting of treated patients using a Clostridioides difficile testing algorithm that screens with a nucleic acid amplification test
title_full_unstemmed 1665. Potential underreporting of treated patients using a Clostridioides difficile testing algorithm that screens with a nucleic acid amplification test
title_short 1665. Potential underreporting of treated patients using a Clostridioides difficile testing algorithm that screens with a nucleic acid amplification test
title_sort 1665. potential underreporting of treated patients using a clostridioides difficile testing algorithm that screens with a nucleic acid amplification test
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9751601/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac492.131
work_keys_str_mv AT guhalice 1665potentialunderreportingoftreatedpatientsusingaclostridioidesdifficiletestingalgorithmthatscreenswithanucleicacidamplificationtest
AT winstonlisagail 1665potentialunderreportingoftreatedpatientsusingaclostridioidesdifficiletestingalgorithmthatscreenswithanucleicacidamplificationtest
AT johnstonhelen 1665potentialunderreportingoftreatedpatientsusingaclostridioidesdifficiletestingalgorithmthatscreenswithanucleicacidamplificationtest
AT basiliereelizabeth 1665potentialunderreportingoftreatedpatientsusingaclostridioidesdifficiletestingalgorithmthatscreenswithanucleicacidamplificationtest
AT olsondanyelm 1665potentialunderreportingoftreatedpatientsusingaclostridioidesdifficiletestingalgorithmthatscreenswithanucleicacidamplificationtest
AT fridkinscott 1665potentialunderreportingoftreatedpatientsusingaclostridioidesdifficiletestingalgorithmthatscreenswithanucleicacidamplificationtest
AT goodenoughdana 1665potentialunderreportingoftreatedpatientsusingaclostridioidesdifficiletestingalgorithmthatscreenswithanucleicacidamplificationtest
AT wilsonchristopher 1665potentialunderreportingoftreatedpatientsusingaclostridioidesdifficiletestingalgorithmthatscreenswithanucleicacidamplificationtest
AT watkinsjasmine 1665potentialunderreportingoftreatedpatientsusingaclostridioidesdifficiletestingalgorithmthatscreenswithanucleicacidamplificationtest
AT korhonenlaurenc 1665potentialunderreportingoftreatedpatientsusingaclostridioidesdifficiletestingalgorithmthatscreenswithanucleicacidamplificationtest
AT gerdingdalen 1665potentialunderreportingoftreatedpatientsusingaclostridioidesdifficiletestingalgorithmthatscreenswithanucleicacidamplificationtest