Literature DB >> 21635969

Repeat stool testing to diagnose Clostridium difficile infection using enzyme immunoassay does not increase diagnostic yield.

Abhishek Deshpande1, Vinay Pasupuleti, Preethi Patel, Gati Ajani, Geraldine Hall, Bo Hu, Anil Jain, David D K Rolston.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a hospital-acquired infection with increasing incidence and severity. The most frequently used test to diagnose CDI is an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for toxins A and B in stool samples. It is common to test 2 or more stool samples, based on the assumption that this detects CDI with greater sensitivity than analysis of 1 sample. We investigated whether repeat stool testing significantly improves the diagnostic yield for CDI.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of hospitalized patients who were tested for CDI using EIA. From year 2005 to 2008, 39,402 stool samples from 17,971 patients with 29,373 diarrhea episodes were tested. Transition probabilities were calculated based on results from repeated tests.
RESULTS: A total of 2692 diarrheal episodes (9.17%) were diagnosed with CDI. Based on results of 3 consecutive tests, 2675 (99.36%) were diagnosed with CDI. The first stool sample tested produced positive results for 90.7% of cases. When samples were tested consecutively, for the second and third time, an additional 6.6% and 2% patients had positive test results, respectively. If the first test result was negative, the probability of the second test result being positive was 2.7%. If the first 2 test results were negative, the probability of the third test result being positive was 2.3%.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had multiple stool samples tested for CDI by EIA, almost 91% were accurately diagnosed based on the results of a single stool sample alone. Subsequent testing yielded a positive result in only 8.6% of patients. We therefore recommend that repeat testing not be done on a routine basis because it does not significantly improve diagnostic yield.
Copyright © 2011 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21635969     DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.04.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  12 in total

Review 1.  Laboratory diagnosis of bacterial gastroenteritis.

Authors:  Romney M Humphries; Andrea J Linscott
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 26.132

2.  Role of fecal Clostridium difficile load in discrepancies between toxin tests and PCR: is quantitation the next step in C. difficile testing?

Authors:  J L Leslie; S H Cohen; J V Solnick; C R Polage
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 3.267

3.  Impact of an electronic hard-stop clinical decision support tool to limit repeat Clostridioides difficile toxin enzyme immunoassay testing on test utilization.

Authors:  Jennie H Kwon; Kimberly A Reske; Tiffany Hink; Ronald Jackups; Carey-Ann D Burnham; Erik R Dubberke
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 3.254

4.  Implementation of Polymerase Chain Reaction to Rule Out Clostridium difficile Infection Is Associated With Reduced Empiric Antibiotic Duration of Therapy.

Authors:  William J Peppard; Nathan A Ledeboer
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2014-07

Review 5.  Clostridium difficile Diarrhea in the Elderly: Current Issues and Management Options.

Authors:  Masako Mizusawa; Shira Doron; Sherwood Gorbach
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.923

6.  Impact of changes in Clostridium difficile testing practices on stool rejection policies and C. difficile positivity rates across multiple laboratories in the United States.

Authors:  Jessica Cohen; Brandi Limbago; Ghinwa Dumyati; Stacy Holzbauer; Helen Johnston; Rebecca Perlmutter; John Dunn; Joelle Nadle; Carol Lyons; Erin Phipps; Zintars Beldavs; Leigh Ann Clark; Fernanda C Lessa
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection in the Molecular Test Era.

Authors:  Christopher R Polage; Clare E Gyorke; Michael A Kennedy; Jhansi L Leslie; David L Chin; Susan Wang; Hien H Nguyen; Bin Huang; Yi-Wei Tang; Lenora W Lee; Kyoungmi Kim; Sandra Taylor; Patrick S Romano; Edward A Panacek; Parker B Goodell; Jay V Solnick; Stuart H Cohen
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 21.873

8.  The Role of Diagnostic Stewardship in Clostridioides difficile Testing: Challenges and Opportunities.

Authors:  Frances J Boly; Kimberly A Reske; Jennie H Kwon
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 3.725

Review 9.  Clostridium difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  Lisa Saidel-Odes; Abraham Borer; Selwyn Odes
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2011

10.  Stool cultures at the ICU: get rid of it!

Authors:  Carolin F Manthey; Darja Dranova; Martin Christner; Laura Berneking; Stefan Kluge; Ansgar W Lohse; Valentin Fuhrmann
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 6.925

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.