» Articles » PMID: 35630517

Impact of the Introduction of a Two-Step Laboratory Diagnostic Algorithm in the Incidence and Earlier Diagnosis of Infection

Overview
Journal Microorganisms
Specialty Microbiology
Date 2022 May 28
PMID 35630517
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Our aim was to determine changes in the incidence of CD infection (CDI) following the introduction of a two-step diagnostic algorithm and to analyze CDI cases diagnosed in the study period. We retrospectively studied CDI (January 2009 to July 2018) in adults diagnosed by toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (2009−2012) or toxin-EIA + polymerase chain reaction (PCR) algorithm (2013 onwards). A total of 443 patients with a first episode of CDI were included, 297 (67.1%) toxin-EIA-positive and 146 (32.9%) toxin-EIA-negative/PCR-positive were only identified through the two-step algorithm including the PCR test. The incidence of CDI increased from 0.9 to 4.7/10,000 patient-days (p < 0.01) and 146 (32.9%) toxin-negative CDI were diagnosed. Testing rate increased from 24.4 to 59.5/10,000 patient-days (p < 0.01) and the percentage of positive stools rose from 3.9% to 12.5% (p < 0.01). CD toxin-positive patients had a higher frequency of severe presentation and a lower rate of immunosuppressive drugs and inflammatory bowel disease. Mortality (16.3%) was significantly higher in patients with hematological neoplasm, intensive care unit admission and complicated disease. Recurrences (14.9%) were significantly higher with proton pump inhibitor exposure. The two-step diagnostic algorithm facilitates earlier diagnosis, potentially impacting patient outcomes and nosocomial spread. CD-toxin-positive patients had a more severe clinical presentation, probably due to increased CD bacterial load with higher toxin concentration. This early and easy marker should alert clinicians of potentially more severe outcomes.

Citing Articles

Clinical significance of toxin EIA positivity in patients with suspected infection: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tansarli G, Falagas M, Fang F J Clin Microbiol. 2024; 63(1):e0097724.

PMID: 39665542 PMC: 11784090. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.00977-24.

References
1.
Gentry C, Campbell D, Williams R . Outcomes associated with recent guideline recommendations removing metronidazole for treatment of non-severe Clostridioides difficile infection: a retrospective, observational, nationwide cohort study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021; 57(3):106282. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106282. View

2.
Rodriguez-Pardo D, Almirante B, Bartolome R, Pomar V, Mirelis B, Navarro F . Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection and risk factors for unfavorable clinical outcomes: results of a hospital-based study in Barcelona, Spain. J Clin Microbiol. 2013; 51(5):1465-73. PMC: 3647904. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.03352-12. View

3.
Crobach M, Planche T, Eckert C, Barbut F, Terveer E, Dekkers O . European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016; 22 Suppl 4:S63-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2016.03.010. View

4.
Pinzon M, Buie R, Liou J, Shirley D, Evans C, Ramanathan S . Outcomes of Community and Healthcare-onset Clostridium difficile Infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2019; 68(8):1343-1350. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy715. View

5.
Naamnih W, Adler A, Miller-Roll T, Cohen D, Carmeli Y . Risk factors for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in a tertiary hospital in Israel. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018; 37(7):1281-1288. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-018-3247-1. View