Potential Underreporting of Treated Patients Using a Testing Algorithm That Screens with a Nucleic Acid Amplification Test

Overview

Journal Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol

Publisher Cambridge University Press

Specialties Health Services
Infectious Diseases
Nursing
Public Health

Date 2024 Jan 25

PMID 38268440

Authors

Alice Y Guh

Scott Fridkin

Dana Goodenough

Lisa G Winston

Helen Johnston

Elizabeth Basiliere

Danyel Olson

Christopher D Wilson

Jasmine J Watkins

Lauren Korhonen

Dale N Gerding

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Patients tested for infection (CDI) using a 2-step algorithm with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) followed by toxin assay are not reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network as a laboratory-identified CDI event if they are NAAT positive (+)/toxin negative (-). We compared NAAT+/toxin- and NAAT+/toxin+ patients and identified factors associated with CDI treatment among NAAT+/toxin- patients.

Design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: The study was conducted across 36 laboratories at 5 Emerging Infections Program sites.

Patients: We defined a CDI case as a positive test detected by this 2-step algorithm during 2018-2020 in a patient aged ≥1 year with no positive test in the previous 8 weeks.

Methods: We used multivariable logistic regression to compare CDI-related complications and recurrence between NAAT+/toxin- and NAAT+/toxin+ cases. We used a mixed-effects logistic model to identify factors associated with treatment in NAAT+/toxin- cases.

Results: Of 1,801 cases, 1,252 were NAAT+/toxin-, and 549 were NAAT+/toxin+. CDI treatment was given to 866 (71.5%) of 1,212 NAAT+/toxin- cases versus 510 (95.9%) of 532 NAAT+/toxin+ cases ( < .0001). NAAT+/toxin- status was protective for recurrence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77) but not CDI-related complications (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.28). Among NAAT+/toxin- cases, white blood cell count ≥15,000/µL (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.28-2.74), ≥3 unformed stools for ≥1 day (aOR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.40-2.59), and diagnosis by a laboratory that provided no or neutral interpretive comments (aOR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.23-4.68) were predictors of CDI treatment.

Conclusion: Use of this 2-step algorithm likely results in underreporting of some NAAT+/toxin- cases with clinically relevant CDI. Disease severity and laboratory interpretive comments influence treatment decisions for NAAT+/toxin- cases.

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.

Diagnosis of infection and impact of testing.

Viprey V, Clark E, Davies K J Med Microbiol. 2024; 73(12).

PMID: 39625750 PMC: 11614105. DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.001939.

When less is more: the art of communicating clinical microbiology results.

Buchan B J Clin Microbiol. 2024; 62(8):e0070324.

PMID: 38953652 PMC: 11323566. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.00703-24.

References

Origuen J, Corbella L, Orellana M, Fernandez-Ruiz M, Lopez-Medrano F, San Juan R . 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. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017; 24(4):414-421. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.07.033. View

Hecker M, Son A, Zuccaro P, Conti J, Donskey C . Real-world evaluation of a two-step testing algorithm for infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023; 44(9):1494-1496. DOI: 10.1017/ice.2022.313. View

Miller R, Morillas J, Brizendine K, Fraser T . Predictors of Clostridioides difficile Infection-Related Complications and Treatment Patterns among Nucleic Acid Amplification Test-Positive/Toxin Enzyme Immunoassay-Negative Patients. J Clin Microbiol. 2020; 58(3). PMC: 7041579. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01764-19. View

Humphries R, Uslan D, Rubin Z . Performance of Clostridium difficile toxin enzyme immunoassay and nucleic acid amplification tests stratified by patient disease severity. J Clin Microbiol. 2012; 51(3):869-73. PMC: 3592059. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02970-12. View

Lowe C, Shakeraneh S, Lee C, Sharma A, Leung V . Optimizing the interpretation of two-step diagnostic algorithm results through antimicrobial stewardship. Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol. 2023; 2(1):e201. PMC: 9879867. DOI: 10.1017/ash.2022.350. View

Burnham C, Carroll K . Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013; 26(3):604-30. PMC: 3719497. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00016-13. View

Dbeibo L, Lucky C, Fadel W, Sadowski J, Beeler C, Kelley K . Two-step algorithm-based Clostridioides difficile testing as a tool for antibiotic stewardship. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023; 29(6):798.e1-798.e4. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.02.008. View

McDonald L, Gerding D, Johnson S, Bakken J, Carroll K, Coffin S . 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). Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 66(7):e1-e48. PMC: 6018983. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix1085. View

Baker I, Leeming J, Reynolds R, Ibrahim I, Darley E . Clinical relevance of a positive molecular test in the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect. 2013; 84(4):311-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2013.05.006. View

10.

Hogan C, Hitchcock M, Frost S, Kapphahn K, Holubar M, Tompkins L . Clinical Outcomes of Treated and Untreated C. difficile PCR-Positive/Toxin-Negative Adult Hospitalized Patients: a Quasi-Experimental Noninferiority Study. J Clin Microbiol. 2022; 60(6):e0218721. PMC: 9199396. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.02187-21. View

11.

Lessa F, Mu Y, Winston L, Dumyati G, Farley M, Beldavs Z . Determinants of Clostridium difficile Infection Incidence Across Diverse United States Geographic Locations. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2015; 1(2):ofu048. PMC: 4281776. DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofu048. View

12.

Hitchcock M, Holubar M, Hogan C, Tompkins L, Banaei N . 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. J Clin Microbiol. 2019; 57(11). PMC: 6812995. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01288-19. View

13.

Guh A, Hatfield K, Winston L, Martin B, Johnston H, Brousseau G . Toxin Enzyme Immunoassays Detect Clostridioides difficile Infection With Greater Severity and Higher Recurrence Rates. Clin Infect Dis. 2019; 69(10):1667-1674. PMC: 6612464. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz009. View

14.

Zou J, Leung V, Champagne S, Hinch M, Wong A, Lloyd-Smith E . Clinical heterogeneity of patients with stool samples testing PCR+/Tox- from a two-step Clostridium difficile diagnostic algorithm. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018; 37(12):2355-2359. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-018-3383-7. View

15.

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

16.

Polage C, Gyorke C, Kennedy M, Leslie J, Chin D, Wang S . Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection in the Molecular Test Era. JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175(11):1792-801. PMC: 4948649. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4114. View

17.

Evans M, McCauley B, Simbartl L . Association between infection testing results and decision to treat. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021; 43(12):1940-1941. DOI: 10.1017/ice.2021.333. View

18.

Kociolek L, Gerding D, Carrico R, Carling P, Donskey C, Dumyati G . Strategies to prevent infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023; 44(4):527-549. PMC: 10917144. DOI: 10.1017/ice.2023.18. View

19.

Planche T, Davies K, Coen P, Finney J, Monahan I, Morris K . Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013; 13(11):936-45. PMC: 3822406. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70200-7. View

20.

Gerding D . To treat or not to treat: infection (CDI) guidelines, diagnostic algorithms, and CDI reporting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023; 44(9):1369-1370. DOI: 10.1017/ice.2023.55. View