Back to Search Start Over

Trends in the use of laboratory tests for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection and association with incidence rates in Quebec, Canada, 2010-2014

Authors :
M. Dionne
Jean Longtin
Christophe Garenc
Charles Frenette
C. Tremblay
C. Bogaty
Simon Lévesque
Vivian G. Loo
D. Bolduc
M. Trudeau
J. Vachon
Cindy Lalancette
Jasmin Villeneuve
L. A. Galarneau
Yves Longtin
Source :
American Journal of Infection Control. 45:964-968
Publication Year :
2017
Publisher :
Elsevier BV, 2017.

Abstract

Background Several Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) surveillance programs do not specify laboratory strategies to use. We investigated the evolution in testing strategies used across Quebec, Canada, and its association with incidence rates. Methods Cross-sectional study of 95 hospitals by surveys conducted in 2010 and in 2013-2014. The association between testing strategies and institutional CDI incidence rates was analyzed via multivariate Poisson regressions. Results The most common assays in 2014 were toxin A/B enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (61 institutions, 64%), glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) EIAs (51 institutions, 53.7%), and nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) (34 institutions, 35.8%). The most frequent algorithm was a single-step NAAT (20 institutions, 21%). Between 2010 and 2014, 35 institutions (37%) modified their algorithm. Institutions detecting toxigenic C difficile instead of C difficile toxin increased from 14 to 37 ( P C difficile had higher CDI rates (7.9 vs 6.6 per 10,000 patient days; P = .01). Institutions using single-step NAATs, GDH plus toxigenic cultures, and GDH plus cytotoxicity assays had higher CDI rates than those using an EIA-based algorithm ( P Conclusions Laboratory detection of CDI has changed since 2010. There is an association between diagnostic algorithms and CDI incidence. Mitigation strategies are warranted.

Details

ISSN :
01966553
Volume :
45
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
American Journal of Infection Control
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....37a2a551c6f3f237adcdefa316dd3571
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2017.04.002