Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:15:51.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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 ,
Kimberly A. Reske ,
Jennie Mayfield ,
Kathleen M. McMullen ,
Peter Georgantopoulos ,
Susan Copper ,
Joan E. Hoppe-Bauer ,
Victoria J. Fraser ,
David K. Warren  and
Erik R. Dubberke
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 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 30 , Issue 12 , December 2009 , pp. 1166 - 1171
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;45:695–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;353:2442–2449.Google Scholar
3.McDonald, LC, Owings, M, Jernigan, DB. Clostridium difficile infection in patients discharged from US short-stay hospitals, 1996-2003. Emerg Infect Dis 2006;12:409–415.Google Scholar
4.Gerding, DN. New definitions will help, but cultures are critical for resolving unanswered questions about Clostridium difficile. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:113–115.Google Scholar
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;45:1152–1160.Google Scholar
6.Gerding, DN, Johnson, S, Peterson, LR, Mulligan, ME, Silva, J Jr. Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:459–477.Google Scholar
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;117:297–302.Google Scholar
8.Kirkland, KB, Weinstein, JM. Adverse effects of contact isolation. Lancet 1999;354:1177–1178.Google Scholar
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;31:354–356.Google Scholar
10.Stelfox, HT, Bates, DW, Redelmeier, DA. Safety of patients isolated for infection control. JAMA 2003;290:1899–1905.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;30:526–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Eggertson, L. Hospitals to report C. difficile and MRSA. CMAJ 2007;176:1402–1403.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;28:140–145.Google Scholar
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;36:169–173.Google Scholar
15.Cardona, DM, Rand, KH. Evaluation of repeat Clostridium difficile enzyme immunoassay testing. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:3686–3689.Google Scholar
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;46:3795–3797.Google Scholar
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;27:889–893.Google Scholar
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):S81–S92.Google Scholar
20.Mohan, SS, McDermott, BP, Parchuri, S, Cunha, BA. Lack of value of repeat stool testing for Clostridium difficile toxin. Am J Med 2006;119:356–358.Google Scholar