Impact of Clinical Symptoms on Interpretation of Diagnostic Assays for Clostridium difficile Infections
- 1 August 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Society for Microbiology in Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Vol. 49 (8), 2887-2893
- https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00891-11
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.This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Clostridium difficile infection “intervention”: Change in toxin assay results in fewer C difficile infection cases without changes in patient outcomesAmerican Journal of Infection Control, 2011
- Comparison of Two Commercial Molecular Assays to a Laboratory-Developed Molecular Assay for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile InfectionJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2011
- Point-Counterpoint: What Is the Current Role of Algorithmic Approaches for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection?Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2010
- Impact of Strain Type on Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile: Comparison of Molecular Diagnostic and Enzyme Immunoassay ApproachesJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2010
- Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults: 2010 Update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 2010
- Clostridium difficile Testing in the Clinical Laboratory by Use of Multiple Testing AlgorithmsJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2010
- Comparison of BD GeneOhm Cdiff Real-Time PCR Assay with a Two-Step Algorithm and a Toxin A/B Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Diagnosis of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile InfectionJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2010
- Comparison of Nine Commercially Available Clostridium difficile Toxin Detection Assays, a Real-Time PCR Assay for C . difficile tcdB , and a Glutamate Dehydrogenase Detection Assay to Cytotoxin Testing and Cytotoxigenic Culture MethodsJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2009
- Clostridium difficile--Associated Disease in a Setting of Endemicity: Identification of Novel Risk FactorsClinical Infectious Diseases, 2007
- Evaluation of Two Rapid Immunochromatography Tests for the Detection of Clostridium difficile ToxinsDigestive Diseases and Sciences, 2007