Literature DB >> 30463889

Toxin B PCR Amplification Cycle Threshold Adds Little to Clinical Variables for Predicting Outcomes in Clostridium difficile Infection: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Julia Origüen1, María Ángeles Orellana2, Mario Fernández-Ruiz3, Laura Corbella3, Rafael San Juan3, María Ruiz-Ruigómez3, Francisco López-Medrano3, Manuel Lizasoain3, Tamara Ruiz-Merlo3, Guillermo Maestro-de la Calle3, Patricia Parra3, Jennifer Villa2, Rafael Delgado2, José María Aguado3.   

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the value of the PCR cycle threshold (CT ) for predicting the recurrence/severity of infection compared to that of toxin detection plus clinical variables. First episodes of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) diagnosed during 2015 at our institution were included. Samples were tested for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B by use of a single enzyme immunoassay (EIA). The Xpert C. difficile PCR assay was performed on GDH-positive samples. Medical data were reviewed by investigators blinded to diagnostic results for comparison of patients with and without recurrence or a poor outcome (severe/severe-complicated CDI episodes and all-cause death). We generated two sets of predictive models by incorporating the presence of a positive toxin EIA ("EIA-including model") or the optimal PCR CT cutoff value ("PCR-including model") into the clinical variables. Among 227 episodes of CDI included in the study, the rates of recurrence and poor outcome were 15.8% and 30.8%, respectively. The mean PCR CT was lower for episodes with recurrence (24.00 ± 3.28 versus 26.02 ± 4.54; P = 0.002) or a poor outcome (24.9 ± 4.24 versus 26.05 ± 4.47; P = 0.07). The optimal cutoff value for recurrence was 25.65 (sensitivity, 77.8% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 60.9 to 89.9]; and specificity, 46.6% [95% CI, 39.4 to 53.9]). The area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (auROC) for the "PCR-including model" was similar to that for the "EIA-including model" (0.785 versus 0.775, respectively). The optimal PCR CT value for poor outcome was 27.55 (sensitivity, 78.6% [95% CI, 67.1 to 87.5]; and specificity, 35.7% [95% CI, 28.2 to 43.7]). The auROC of the "PCR-including model" was again similar to that of the "EIA-including model" (0.804 versus 0.801). Despite the inverse correlation between PCR CT and the risk of CDI recurrence/severity, this determination does not meaningfully increase the predictive value of clinical variables plus toxin EIA.
Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clostridium difficilezzm321990; PCR CTzzm321990; outcome; predictive model; recurrence; retrospective study

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30463889      PMCID: PMC6355545          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01125-18

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


  18 in total

1.  PCR cycle threshold value predicts the course of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  N Jazmati; M Hellmich; B Ličanin; G Plum; A J Kaasch
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 8.067

2.  Toxin B PCR cycle threshold as a predictor of poor outcome of Clostridium difficile infection: a derivation and validation cohort study.

Authors:  E Reigadas; L Alcalá; M Valerio; M Marín; A Martin; E Bouza
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 5.790

3.  Clostridium difficile PCR Cycle Threshold Predicts Free Toxin.

Authors:  Fiona Senchyna; Rajiv L Gaur; Saurabh Gombar; Cynthia Y Truong; Lee F Schroeder; Niaz Banaei
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 4.  Diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile in adults: a systematic review.

Authors:  Natasha Bagdasarian; Krishna Rao; Preeti N Malani
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Potential of real-time PCR threshold cycle (CT) to predict presence of free toxin and clinically relevant C. difficile infection (CDI) in patients with cancer: A reply.

Authors:  Stephanie Wilmore; Simon D Goldenberg
Journal:  J Infect       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 6.072

6.  Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: 2017 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA).

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

7.  Comparison of the clinical course of Clostridium difficile infection in glutamate dehydrogenase-positive toxin-negative patients diagnosed by PCR to those with a positive toxin test.

Authors:  J Origüen; L Corbella; M Á Orellana; M Fernández-Ruiz; F López-Medrano; R San Juan; M Lizasoain; T Ruiz-Merlo; A Morales-Cartagena; G Maestro; P Parra; J Villa; R Delgado; J M Aguado
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 8.067

8.  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

9.  Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection.

Authors:  Timothy D Planche; Kerrie A Davies; Pietro G Coen; John M Finney; Irene M Monahan; Kirsti A Morris; Lily O'Connor; Sarah J Oakley; Cassie F Pope; Mike W Wren; Nandini P Shetty; Derrick W Crook; Mark H Wilcox
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 25.071

10.  Derivation and validation of a simple clinical bedside score (ATLAS) for Clostridium difficile infection which predicts response to therapy.

Authors:  Mark A Miller; Thomas Louie; Kathleen Mullane; Karl Weiss; Arnold Lentnek; Yoav Golan; Yin Kean; Pam Sears
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 3.090

View more
  5 in total

1.  Dual Reporting of Clostridioides difficile PCR and Predicted Toxin Result Based on PCR Cycle Threshold Reduces Treatment of Toxin-Negative Patients without Increases in Adverse Outcomes.

Authors:  Matthew M Hitchcock; Marisa Holubar; Catherine A Hogan; Lucy S Tompkins; Niaz Banaei
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Ultrasensitive and Quantitative Toxin Measurement Correlates With Baseline Severity, Severe Outcomes, and Recurrence Among Hospitalized Patients With Clostridioides difficile Infection.

Authors:  Carolyn D Alonso; Ciarán P Kelly; Kevin W Garey; Anne J Gonzales-Luna; David Williams; Kaitlyn Daugherty; Christine Cuddemi; Javier Villafuerte-Gálvez; Nicole C White; Xinhua Chen; Hua Xu; Rebecca Sprague; Caitlin Barrett; Mark Miller; Agnès Foussadier; Aude Lantz; Alice Banz; Nira R Pollock
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 20.999

3.  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

4.  Composition of gut microbiota in patients with toxigenic Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile: Comparison between subgroups according to clinical criteria and toxin gene load.

Authors:  Sung-Hee Han; Joowon Yi; Ji-Hoon Kim; SangWon Lee; Hee-Won Moon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection: An official clinical practice guideline of the Spanish Society of Chemotherapy (SEQ), Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) and the working group of Postoperative Infection of the Spanish Society of Anesthesia and Reanimation (SEDAR).

Authors:  E Bouza; J M Aguado; L Alcalá; B Almirante; P Alonso-Fernández; M Borges; J Cobo; J Guardiola; J P Horcajada; E Maseda; J Mensa; N Merchante; P Muñoz; J L Pérez Sáenz; M Pujol; E Reigadas; M Salavert; J Barberán
Journal:  Rev Esp Quimioter       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 1.553

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.