Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: A prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection
Background: Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is controversial because of many laboratory methods, compounded by two reference methods. Cytotoxigenic culture detects toxigenic C difficile and gives a positive result more frequently (eg, because of colonisation, which means that individual...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2013
|
| _version_ | 1826257600434405376 |
|---|---|
| author | Planche, T Davies, K Coen, P Finney, J Monahan, I Morris, K O'Connor, L Oakley, S Pope, C Wren, M Shetty, N Crook, D Wilcox, M |
| author_facet | Planche, T Davies, K Coen, P Finney, J Monahan, I Morris, K O'Connor, L Oakley, S Pope, C Wren, M Shetty, N Crook, D Wilcox, M |
| author_sort | Planche, T |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Background: Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is controversial because of many laboratory methods, compounded by two reference methods. Cytotoxigenic culture detects toxigenic C difficile and gives a positive result more frequently (eg, because of colonisation, which means that individuals can have the bacterium but no free toxin) than does the cytotoxin assay, which detects preformed toxin in faeces. We aimed to validate the reference methods according to clinical outcomes and to derive an optimum laboratory diagnostic algorithm for C difficile infection. Methods: In this prospective, multicentre study, we did cytotoxigenic culture and cytotoxin assays on 12 420 faecal samples in four UK laboratories. We also performed tests that represent the three main targets for C difficile detection: bacterium (glutamate dehydrogenase), toxins, or toxin genes. We used routine blood test results, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality to clinically validate the reference methods. Data were categorised by reference method result: group 1, cytotoxin assay positive; group 2, cytotoxigenic culture positive and cytotoxin assay negative; and group 3, both reference methods negative. Findings: Clinical and reference assay data were available for 6522 inpatient episodes. On univariate analysis, mortality was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (72/435 [16·6%] vs 20/207 [9·7%], p=0·044) and in group 3 (503/5880 [8·6%], p<0·001), but not in group 2 compared with group 3 (p=0·4). A multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders confirmed the mortality differences between groups 1 and 3 (OR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31). Multistage algorithms performed better than did standalone assays. Interpretation: We noted no increase in mortality when toxigenic C difficile alone was present. Toxin (cytotoxin assay) positivity correlated with clinical outcome, and so this reference method best defines true cases of C difficile infection. A new diagnostic category of potential C difficile excretor (cytotoxigenic culture positive but cytotoxin assay negative) could be used to characterise patients with diarrhoea that is probably not due to C difficile infection, but who can cause cross-infection. Funding: Department of Health and Health Protection Agency, UK. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:20:45Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:0633f78b-c696-4baa-b2ff-a889df0e8bb6 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:20:45Z |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:0633f78b-c696-4baa-b2ff-a889df0e8bb62022-03-26T09:01:18ZDifferences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: A prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infectionJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:0633f78b-c696-4baa-b2ff-a889df0e8bb6EnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2013Planche, TDavies, KCoen, PFinney, JMonahan, IMorris, KO'Connor, LOakley, SPope, CWren, MShetty, NCrook, DWilcox, MBackground: Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection is controversial because of many laboratory methods, compounded by two reference methods. Cytotoxigenic culture detects toxigenic C difficile and gives a positive result more frequently (eg, because of colonisation, which means that individuals can have the bacterium but no free toxin) than does the cytotoxin assay, which detects preformed toxin in faeces. We aimed to validate the reference methods according to clinical outcomes and to derive an optimum laboratory diagnostic algorithm for C difficile infection. Methods: In this prospective, multicentre study, we did cytotoxigenic culture and cytotoxin assays on 12 420 faecal samples in four UK laboratories. We also performed tests that represent the three main targets for C difficile detection: bacterium (glutamate dehydrogenase), toxins, or toxin genes. We used routine blood test results, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality to clinically validate the reference methods. Data were categorised by reference method result: group 1, cytotoxin assay positive; group 2, cytotoxigenic culture positive and cytotoxin assay negative; and group 3, both reference methods negative. Findings: Clinical and reference assay data were available for 6522 inpatient episodes. On univariate analysis, mortality was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (72/435 [16·6%] vs 20/207 [9·7%], p=0·044) and in group 3 (503/5880 [8·6%], p<0·001), but not in group 2 compared with group 3 (p=0·4). A multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders confirmed the mortality differences between groups 1 and 3 (OR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31). Multistage algorithms performed better than did standalone assays. Interpretation: We noted no increase in mortality when toxigenic C difficile alone was present. Toxin (cytotoxin assay) positivity correlated with clinical outcome, and so this reference method best defines true cases of C difficile infection. A new diagnostic category of potential C difficile excretor (cytotoxigenic culture positive but cytotoxin assay negative) could be used to characterise patients with diarrhoea that is probably not due to C difficile infection, but who can cause cross-infection. Funding: Department of Health and Health Protection Agency, UK. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. |
| spellingShingle | Planche, T Davies, K Coen, P Finney, J Monahan, I Morris, K O'Connor, L Oakley, S Pope, C Wren, M Shetty, N Crook, D Wilcox, M Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: A prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection |
| title | Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: A prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection |
| title_full | Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: A prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection |
| title_fullStr | Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: A prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection |
| title_full_unstemmed | Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: A prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection |
| title_short | Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: A prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C difficile infection |
| title_sort | differences in outcome according to clostridium difficile testing method a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of c difficile infection |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT planchet differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT daviesk differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT coenp differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT finneyj differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT monahani differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT morrisk differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT oconnorl differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT oakleys differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT popec differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT wrenm differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT shettyn differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT crookd differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection AT wilcoxm differencesinoutcomeaccordingtoclostridiumdifficiletestingmethodaprospectivemulticentrediagnosticvalidationstudyofcdifficileinfection |