A Clostridium difficile infection "intervention": change in toxin assay results in fewer C difficile infection cases without changes in patient outcomes

Multiplexed Gastrointestinal PCR Panels for the Evaluation of Diarrhea in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Recipients

Multiplexed gastrointestinal PCR panels (MGPPs) are frequently used to aid the diagnosis and management of diarrhea in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) recipients. Many issues related to the optimal use of MGPPs in HCT patients remain to be clarified. We aimed to better define MGPP diagnostic and therapeutic stewardship in HCT recipients, including indications for and benefits of testing, optimal timing of tests, and interpretation of results. We retrieved 463 consecutive MGPPs ordered on 651 consecutive first HCT (312 allogeneic, 339 autologous) performed at our institution between June 2015 and June 2023. One hundred and sixteen of the 463 MGPPs (25%) identified at least 1 diarrheagenic pathogen, and 12 (3%) identified more than 1 diarrheagenic pathogen. A positive result was more likely if the test was ordered within 48 hours of a hospital admission (41%; 32 of 78) or as an outpatient (41%; 46 of 111) compared with evaluation of hospital-onset diarrhea (14%; 38 of 274). Among the positive results, the most frequent pathogens identified included Clostridioides difficile (64%), diarrheagenic Escherichia coli (20%), norovirus (9%), and adenovirus 40/41 (5%). Thirty-eight percent of the positive C. difficile MGPP determinations were associated with a positive test for toxin. In our allogeneic HCT cohort, 3% of MGPPs for hospital-onset diarrhea yielded an organism other than C. difficile. Fifty-six percent of positive and 14% of all submitted tests resulted in a change in treatment. For organisms other than C. difficile, only 1% of all tests and 5% of positive tests resulted in initiation of therapy. For patients at risk for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), a positive or negative MGPP result was not predictive of a new diagnosis of aGVHD in proximity to diarrhea onset. These results suggest that MGPP testing is most useful when performed at hospital admission or on an outpatient basis. Because MGPPs are sensitive and do not distinguish between colonization and causes of diarrhea, caution is needed when interpreting results, especially for toxin-negative C. difficile and diarrheagenic gram-negative organisms.

An Algorithm Addressing the Problem of Overdiagnoses of Clostridioides difficile Infections in Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplant Recipients: Effects on CDI Rates and Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Diarrhea of other causes and Clostridioides difficile colonization are common in patients hospitalized for hematopoietic stem-cell transplants (HSCT). It has been well recognized that these issues tend to decrease the specificity of stool testing for C. difficile infection (CDI). The best way to address this problem is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

In September 2018, we initiated a project with the goal of addressing the apparent problem of overdiagnosis of CDIs in our HSCT population. Using the quality improvement tool Model for Improvement we introduced a C. difficile stool testing and CDI diagnosis algorithm with the aim of decreasing unnecessary inpatient CDI diagnoses and treatments. In this study we examine the effects of the algorithm.

STUDY DESIGN

We reviewed all HSCT admissions for the 2 years before the algorithm introduction and the 3 years following recording all stool submissions for C. difficile determination and CDI. At the close of the study, we recruited our advanced practice providers (APPs) to review all CDI following algorithm initiation and provide feedback on the ease of use of the algorithm and potential improvements to the overall process.

RESULTS

Stool submissions for C. difficile determination decreased from 38.0 to 20.6/1000 inpatient days (p=<0.001) and CDI from 5.5 to 2.4/1000 days (p=0.007). Patients admitted for a first allogeneic-HSCT, a first autologous-HSCT, or an HSCT readmission showed similar proportionate reductions. No detrimental effects on length of stay, overall survival, progression free survival, rates of readmission following transplant, incidence of acute graft vs. host disease, or incidence of recurrent CDI were noted following algorithm introduction. A strategy of education, monitoring/feedback, and ease of algorithm access proved effective in inducing provider compliance. APPs rated the algorithm high on ease of use.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an algorithm defining criteria for C. difficile testing, diagnosis, and treatment was associated with significantly decreased CDI diagnoses on a HSCT inpatient unit without apparent adverse effects.

Are Clostridioides difficile infections being overdiagnosed in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients?

BACKGROUND

Because both diarrhea due to other causes and gastrointestinal colonization with toxigenic Clostridioides difficile are common in HSCT, there is a possibility of false-positive diagnoses of C difficile infections (CDI).

METHODS

We estimated the probability of a patient being colonized by toxigenic C difficile by testing non-diarrheal surveillance stools from 223 HSCT recipients and the probability that a specimen submitted for C difficile testing was not CDI by determining the number of clinical tests that returned negative from this cohort. The number of expected false-positive CDI was estimated using these probabilities and compared with observed clinical test results.

RESULTS

The expected false-positive and the observed numbers of positive clinical results were similar. The 20 patients diagnosed with CDI were also similar to 142 patients with diarrhea and C difficile-negative stools in number of stools on day of testing, associated symptoms, and the recorded number of days to formed stools. C difficile colonization was most commonly detected during the first week and CDI during the second. Retrospective analysis of 837 patients showed that 18 stools were submitted for each diagnosis of CDI. Ribotyping of the surveillance samples showed 17 ribotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although several assumptions could impact the accuracy of our false-positive CDI estimates, it appears that many HSCT recipients diagnosed with CDI may actually represent colonized status and an alternative cause of diarrhea. Diagnostic stewardship, including limiting CDI diagnoses to patients with positive toxin and restricting stool submissions to patients with more severe symptoms, may decrease the number of false-positive diagnoses.

Global burden of Clostridium difficile infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Clostridium difficile is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in several countries. However, there are limited evidence characterizing its role as a global public health problem. We conducted a systematic review to provide a comprehensive overview of C. difficile infections (CDI) rates.

Methods

Seven databases were searched (January 2016) to identify studies and surveillance reports published between 2005 and 2015 reporting CDI incidence rates. CDI incidence rates for health care facility-associated (HCF), hospital onset-health care facility-associated, medical or general intensive care unit (ICU), internal medicine (IM), long-term care facility (LTCF), and community-associated (CA) were extracted and standardized. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model.

Results

229 publications, with data from 41 countries, were included. The overall rate of HCF-CDI was 2.24 (95% confidence interval CI = 1.66-3.03) per 1000 admissions/y and 3.54 (95%CI = 3.19-3.92) per 10 000 patient-days/y. Estimated rates for CDI with onset in ICU or IM wards were 11.08 (95%CI = 7.19-17.08) and 10.80 (95%CI = 3.15-37.06) per 1000 admission/y, respectively. Rates for CA-CDI were lower: 0.55 (95%CI = 0.13-2.37) per 1000 admissions/y. CDI rates were generally higher in North America and among the elderly but similar rates were identified in other regions and age groups.

Conclusions

Our review highlights the widespread burden of disease of C. difficile, evidence gaps, and the need for sustainable surveillance of CDI in the health care setting and the community.

Rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxins and laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections

BACKGROUND

Clostridium difficile is an anaerobic, spore-forming and Gram-positive bacillus. It is the major cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea prevailing in hospital settings. The morbidity and mortality of C. difficile infection (CDI) has increased significantly due to the emergence of hypervirulent strains. Because of the poor clinical different between CDI and other causes of hospital-acquired diarrhea, laboratory test for C. difficile is an important intervention for diagnosis of CDI.

OBJECTIVE

Laboratory tests for CDI can broadly detect either the organisms or its toxins. Currently, several laboratory tests are used for diagnosis of CDI, including toxigenic culture, glutamate dehydrogenase detection, nucleic acid amplification testing, cell cytotoxicity assay, and enzyme immunoassay towards toxin A and/or B. This review focuses on the rapid testing of C. difficile toxins and currently available methods for diagnosis of CDI, giving an overview of the role that the toxins rapid detecting plays in clinical diagnosis of CDI.

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories

Clostridium difficile is a formidable nosocomial and community-acquired pathogen, causing clinical presentations ranging from asymptomatic colonization to self-limiting diarrhea to toxic megacolon and fulminant colitis. Since the early 2000s, the incidence of C. difficile disease has increased dramatically, and this is thought to be due to the emergence of new strain types. For many years, the mainstay of C. difficile disease diagnosis was enzyme immunoassays for detection of the C. difficile toxin(s), although it is now generally accepted that these assays lack sensitivity. A number of molecular assays are commercially available for the detection of C. difficile. This review covers the history and biology of C. difficile and provides an in-depth discussion of the laboratory methods used for the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI). In addition, strain typing methods for C. difficile and the evolving epidemiology of colonization and infection with this organism are discussed. Finally, considerations for diagnosing C. difficile disease in special patient populations, such as children, oncology patients, transplant patients, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease, are described. As detection of C. difficile in clinical specimens does not always equate with disease, the diagnosis of C. difficile infection continues to be a challenge for both laboratories and clinicians.

Impact of clinical symptoms on interpretation of diagnostic assays for Clostridium difficile infections

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.