Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-2qt69 Total loading time: 0.271 Render date: 2022-08-15T04:12:58.998Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Identification of a Pseudo-Outbreak of Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) and the Effect of Repeated Testing, Sensitivity, and Specificity on Perceived Prevalence of CDI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2016

Marina Litvin
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri
Kimberly A. Reske
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri
Jennie Mayfield
Affiliation:
Departments of Infection Prevention and Control, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri
Kathleen M. McMullen
Affiliation:
Departments of Infection Prevention and Control, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri
Peter Georgantopoulos
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri
Susan Copper
Affiliation:
Laboratories, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri
Joan E. Hoppe-Bauer
Affiliation:
Laboratories, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri
Victoria J. Fraser
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri
David K. Warren
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri
Erik R. Dubberke*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri
*
Division of Infectious Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Box 8051, St Louis, MO 63110 (edubberk@im.wustl.edu)

Abstract

Objective.

To describe a pseudo-outbreak of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) caused by a faulty toxin assay lot and to determine the effect of sensitivity, specificity, and repeated testing for C. difficile on perceived CDI burden, positive predictive value, and false-positive results.

Design.

Outbreak investigation and criterion standard.

Patients.

Patients hospitalized at a tertiary care hospital who had at least 1 toxin assay for detection of C. difficile performed during the period from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2006.

Methods.

The run control chart method and the x2 test were used to compare CDI rates and the proportion of positive test results before, during, and after the pseudo-outbreak. The effect of repeated testing was evaluated by using 3 hypothetical models with a sample of 10,000 patients and various assay sensitivity and specificity estimates.

Results.

In November of 2005, the CDI rate at the hospital increased from 1.5 to 2.6 cases per 1,000 patient-days (P< .01), and the proportion of positive test results increased from 13.6% to 22.1% (P< .01). An investigation revealed a pseudo-outbreak caused by a faulty toxin assay lot. A decrease of only 1.2% in the specificity of the toxin assay would result in a 32% increase in perceived incidence of CDI at this institution. When calculated by use of the manufacturer's stated specificity and sensitivity and this institution's testing practices, the positive predictive value of the test decreased from 80.6% to 4.1% for patients who received 3 tests.

Conclusion.

Specificity is as important as sensitivity when testing for CDI. False-positive CDI cases can drain hospital resources and adversely affect patients. Repeated testing for C. difficile should be performed with caution.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Goorhuis, A, Van der Kooi, T, Vaessen, N, et al.Spread and epidemiology of Clostridium difficile polymerase chain reaction ribotype 027/toxinotype III in The Netherlands. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:695703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Loo, VG, Poirier, L, Miller, MA, et al.A predominantly clonal multi-institutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality. N Engl J Med 2005;353:24422449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.McDonald, LC, Owings, M, Jernigan, DB. Clostridium difficile infection in patients discharged from US short-stay hospitals, 1996-2003. Emerg Infect Dis 2006;12:409415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Gerding, DN. New definitions will help, but cultures are critical for resolving unanswered questions about Clostridium difficile. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:113115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Peterson, LR, Manson, RU, Paule, SM, et al.Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in stool samples by real-time polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:11521160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Gerding, DN, Johnson, S, Peterson, LR, Mulligan, ME, Silva, J Jr. Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:459477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Johnson, S, Homann, SR, Bettin, KM, et al.Treatment of asymptomatic Clostridium difficile carriers (fecal excretors) with vancomycin or metronidazole: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:297302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Kirkland, KB, Weinstein, JM. Adverse effects of contact isolation. Lancet 1999;354:11771178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Saint, S, Higgins, LA, Nallamofhu, BK, Chenoweth, C. Do physicians examine patients in contact isolation less frequently? A brief report. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:354356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Stelfox, HT, Bates, DW, Redelmeier, DA. Safety of patients isolated for infection control. JAMA 2003;290:18991905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Campbell, RJ, Giljahn, L, Machesky, K, et al.Clostridium difficile infection in Ohio hospitals and nursing homes during 2006. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30:526533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Eggertson, L. Hospitals to report C. difficile and MRSA. CMAJ 2007;176:14021403.Google Scholar
13.McDonald, LC, Coignard, B, Dubberke, E, Song, X, Horan, T, Kutty, PK. Recommendations for surveillance of Clostridium difficile-associated disease. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:140145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.El Gammai, A, Scotto, V, Malik, S, et al.Evaluation of the clinical usefulness of C. difficile toxin testing in hospitalized patients with diarrhea. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2000;36:169173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Cardona, DM, Rand, KH. Evaluation of repeat Clostridium difficile enzyme immunoassay testing. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:36863689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Aichinger, E, Schleck, CD, Harmsen, WS, Nyre, LM, Patel, R. Nonutility of repeat laboratory testing for detection of Clostridium difficile by use of PCR or enzyme immunoassay. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:37953797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Bennett, RG, Laughon, BE, Mundy, LM, et al.Evaluation of a latex agglutination test for Clostridium difficile in two nursing home outbreaks. J Clin Microbiol 1989;27:889893.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Mayer, J, South, B, Mooney, B, et al.Surveillance of Clostridium difficile-associated disease based ib toxin enzyme immunoassay results: did a problem with testing lead to a pseudo-epidemic? In: 18th Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Arlington, VA: Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; 2008. Abstract 56.Google Scholar
19.Dubberke, ER, Gerding, DN, Classen, D, et al.Strategies to prevent Clostridium difficile infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(Suppl 1):S81S92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Mohan, SS, McDermott, BP, Parchuri, S, Cunha, BA. Lack of value of repeat stool testing for Clostridium difficile toxin. Am J Med 2006;119:356358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Identification of a Pseudo-Outbreak of Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) and the Effect of Repeated Testing, Sensitivity, and Specificity on Perceived Prevalence of CDI
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Identification of a Pseudo-Outbreak of Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) and the Effect of Repeated Testing, Sensitivity, and Specificity on Perceived Prevalence of CDI
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Identification of a Pseudo-Outbreak of Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) and the Effect of Repeated Testing, Sensitivity, and Specificity on Perceived Prevalence of CDI
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *