Literature DB >> 21697328

Impact of clinical symptoms on interpretation of diagnostic assays for Clostridium difficile infections.

Erik R Dubberke1, Zhuolin Han, Linda Bobo, Tiffany Hink, Brenda Lawrence, Susan Copper, Joan Hoppe-Bauer, Carey-Ann D Burnham, William Michael Dunne.   

Abstract

Asymptomatic Clostridium difficile colonization is common in hospitalized patients. Existing C. difficile assay comparisons lack data on severity of diarrhea or patient outcomes, limiting the ability to interpret their results in regard to the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI). The objective of this study was to measure how including patient presentation with the C. difficile assay result impacted assay performance to diagnose CDI. Stool specimens from 150 patients that met inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected. Nine methods to detect C. difficile in stool were evaluated. All patients were interviewed prospectively to assess diarrhea severity. We then assessed how different reference standards, with and without the inclusion of patient presentation, impact the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the assays to diagnose CDI. There were minimal changes in sensitivity; however, specificity was significantly lower for the assays Tox A/B II, C. diff Chek-60, BD GeneOhm Cdiff, Xpert C. difficile, and Illumigene C. difficile and for toxigenic culture (P was <0.01 for all except Tox A/B II from fresh stool, for which the P value was 0.016) when the reference standard was recovery of toxigenic C. difficile from stool plus the presence of clinically significant diarrhea compared to when the reference standard was having at least four assays positive while ignoring diarrhea severity. There were 15 patients whose assay result was reported as negative but subsequently found to be positive by at least four assays in the comparison. None suffered from any CDI-related adverse events. In conclusion, clinical presentation is important when interpreting C. difficile diagnostic assays.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21697328      PMCID: PMC3147743          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00891-11

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  22 in total

1.  Adverse effects of contact isolation.

Authors:  K B Kirkland; J M Weinstein
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-10-02       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Fecal lactoferrin, interleukin-1beta, and interleukin-8 are elevated in patients with severe Clostridium difficile colitis.

Authors:  T S Steiner; C A Flores; T T Pizarro; R L Guerrant
Journal:  Clin Diagn Lab Immunol       Date:  1997-11

3.  A Clostridium difficile infection "intervention": change in toxin assay results in fewer C difficile infection cases without changes in patient outcomes.

Authors:  Zhuolin Han; Kathleen M McMullen; Anthony J Russo; Susan M Copper; David K Warren; Erik R Dubberke
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 2.918

4.  Use of cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar and L-proline-aminopeptidase (PRO Discs) in the rapid identification of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  D P Fedorko; E C Williams
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Asymptomatic carriers are a potential source for transmission of epidemic and nonepidemic Clostridium difficile strains among long-term care facility residents.

Authors:  Michelle M Riggs; Ajay K Sethi; Trina F Zabarsky; Elizabeth C Eckstein; Robin L P Jump; Curtis J Donskey
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2007-09-04       Impact factor: 9.079

6.  Neutralization of Clostridium difficile toxin by Clostridium sordellii antitoxins.

Authors:  T W Chang; S L Gorbach; J B Bartlett
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 3.441

7.  Treatment of asymptomatic Clostridium difficile carriers (fecal excretors) with vancomycin or metronidazole. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Authors:  S Johnson; S R Homann; K M Bettin; J N Quick; C R Clabots; L R Peterson; D N Gerding
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-08-15       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in stool samples by real-time polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated diarrhea.

Authors:  Lance R Peterson; Rebecca U Manson; Suzanne M Paule; Donna M Hacek; Ari Robicsek; Richard B Thomson; Karen L Kaul
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2007-09-25       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Clostridium difficile--associated disease in a setting of endemicity: identification of novel risk factors.

Authors:  Erik R Dubberke; Kimberly A Reske; Yan Yan; Margaret A Olsen; L Clifford McDonald; Victoria J Fraser
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2007-12-15       Impact factor: 9.079

10.  Safety of patients isolated for infection control.

Authors:  Henry Thomas Stelfox; David W Bates; Donald A Redelmeier
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-08       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  67 in total

Review 1.  Clostridium difficile in the ICU: the struggle continues.

Authors:  Linda D Bobo; Erik R Dubberke; Marin Kollef
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  Ceftolozane-tazobactam activity against phylogenetically diverse Clostridium difficile strains.

Authors:  Mark D Gonzalez; Meghan A Wallace; Tiffany Hink; Erik R Dubberke; Carey-Ann D Burnham
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2015-08-17       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of the cell culture neutralization, Xpert C. difficile, Xpert C. difficile/Epi, and Illumigene C. difficile assays.

Authors:  P Pancholi; C Kelly; M Raczkowski; J M Balada-Llasat
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Implementing automated surveillance for tracking Clostridium difficile infection at multiple healthcare facilities.

Authors:  Erik R Dubberke; Humaa A Nyazee; Deborah S Yokoe; Jeanmarie Mayer; Kurt B Stevenson; Julie E Mangino; Yosef M Khan; Victoria J Fraser
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 3.254

5.  It Is Not about the Assay: Preanalytical Screening Is the Key to Reducing Clostridioides difficile Infection.

Authors:  Siu-Kei Chow; Azita Naderpour; Julianna Van Enk
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Comparison of BD GeneOhm Cdiff and Seegene Seeplex ACE PCR assays using toxigenic Clostridium difficile culture for direct detection of tcdB from stool specimens.

Authors:  Bo-Moon Shin; Se Jin Mun; Soo Jin Yoo; Eun Young Kuak
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Clostridium difficile testing: have we got it right?

Authors:  Wei-Yuen Su; Joanne Mercer; Sebastiaan J Van Hal; Michael Maley
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Reply to "Comparison of detection methods for Clostridium difficile".

Authors:  P Pancholi; C Kelly; M Raczkowski; J M Balada-Llasat
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Evaluation of Correlation between Pretest Probability for Clostridium difficile Infection and Clostridium difficile Enzyme Immunoassay Results.

Authors:  Jennie H Kwon; Kimberly A Reske; Tiffany Hink; C A Burnham; Erik R Dubberke
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 10.  Clostridium difficile infection: epidemiology, diagnosis and understanding transmission.

Authors:  Jessica S H Martin; Tanya M Monaghan; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 46.802

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.