OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of Clostridium difficile colonization among patients who meet the 2017 IDSA/SHEA C. difficile infection (CDI) Clinical Guideline Update criteria for the preferred patient population for C. difficile testing. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary-care hospital in St. Louis, Missouri.PatientsPatients whose diarrheal stool samples were submitted to the hospital's clinical microbiology laboratory for C. difficile testing (toxin EIA) from August 2014 to September 2016.InterventionsElectronic and manual chart review were used to determine whether patients tested for C. difficile toxin had clinically significant diarrhea and/or any alternate cause for diarrhea. Toxigenic C. difficile culture was performed on all stool specimens from patients with clinically significant diarrhea and no known alternate cause for their diarrhea. RESULTS: A total of 8,931 patients with stool specimens submitted were evaluated: 570 stool specimens were EIA positive (+) and 8,361 stool specimens were EIA negative (-). Among the EIA+stool specimens, 107 (19% of total) were deemed eligible for culture. Among the EIA- stool specimens, 515 (6%) were eligible for culture. One EIA+stool specimen (1%) was toxigenic culture negative. Among the EIA- stool specimens that underwent culture, toxigenic C. difficile was isolated from 63 (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients tested for C. difficile do not have clinically significant diarrhea and/or potential alternate causes for diarrhea. The prevalence of toxigenic C. difficile colonization among EIA- patients who met the IDSA/SHEA CDI guideline criteria for preferred patient population for C. difficile testing was 12%.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of Clostridium difficile colonization among patients who meet the 2017 IDSA/SHEA C. difficile infection (CDI) Clinical Guideline Update criteria for the preferred patient population for C. difficile testing. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary-care hospital in St. Louis, Missouri.PatientsPatients whose diarrheal stool samples were submitted to the hospital's clinical microbiology laboratory for C. difficile testing (toxin EIA) from August 2014 to September 2016.InterventionsElectronic and manual chart review were used to determine whether patients tested for C. difficile toxin had clinically significant diarrhea and/or any alternate cause for diarrhea. Toxigenic C. difficile culture was performed on all stool specimens from patients with clinically significant diarrhea and no known alternate cause for their diarrhea. RESULTS: A total of 8,931 patients with stool specimens submitted were evaluated: 570 stool specimens were EIA positive (+) and 8,361 stool specimens were EIA negative (-). Among the EIA+stool specimens, 107 (19% of total) were deemed eligible for culture. Among the EIA- stool specimens, 515 (6%) were eligible for culture. One EIA+stool specimen (1%) was toxigenic culture negative. Among the EIA- stool specimens that underwent culture, toxigenic C. difficile was isolated from 63 (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients tested for C. difficile do not have clinically significant diarrhea and/or potential alternate causes for diarrhea. The prevalence of toxigenic C. difficile colonization among EIA- patients who met the IDSA/SHEA CDI guideline criteria for preferred patient population for C. difficile testing was 12%.
Authors: Lars F Westblade; Robin R Chamberland; Duncan MacCannell; Rachel Collins; Erik R Dubberke; W Michael Dunne; Carey-Ann D Burnham Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: L Clifford McDonald; Dale N Gerding; Stuart Johnson; Johan S Bakken; Karen C Carroll; Susan E Coffin; Erik R Dubberke; Kevin W Garey; Carolyn V Gould; Ciaran Kelly; Vivian Loo; Julia Shaklee Sammons; Thomas J Sandora; Mark H Wilcox Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Anna Kaltsas; Matt Simon; Larissa H Unruh; Crystal Son; Danielle Wroblewski; Kimberlee A Musser; Kent Sepkowitz; N Esther Babady; Mini Kamboj Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Erik R Dubberke; Zhuolin Han; Linda Bobo; Tiffany Hink; Brenda Lawrence; Susan Copper; Joan Hoppe-Bauer; Carey-Ann D Burnham; William Michael Dunne Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2011-06-22 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Kathleen A Quan; Jennifer Yim; Doug Merrill; Usme Khusbu; Keith Madey; Linda Dickey; Amish A Dangodara; Scott E Rudkin; Margaret O'Brien; Daniel Thompson; Nimisha Parekh; C Gregory Albers; William C Wilson; Lauri Thrupp; Cassiana E Bittencourt; Susan S Huang; Shruti K Gohil Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 3.254
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
Authors: John I Robinson; William H Weir; Jan R Crowley; Tiffany Hink; Kimberly A Reske; Jennie H Kwon; Carey-Ann D Burnham; Erik R Dubberke; Peter J Mucha; Jeffrey P Henderson Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Jennie H Kwon; Caroline A O'Neil; Tiffany Hink; Kimberly A Reske; Rachel E Bosserman; Erik R Dubberke; Carey-Ann D Burnham Journal: J Appl Lab Med Date: 2022-03-02
Authors: Skye Rs Fishbein; John I Robinson; Tiffany Hink; Kimberly A Reske; Erin P Newcomer; Carey-Ann D Burnham; Jeffrey P Henderson; Erik R Dubberke; Gautam Dantas Journal: Elife Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 8.140