title: Does a rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection impact on quality of patient management?
abstract: A rapid and accurate diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is essential for patient management and implementation of infection control measures. During a prospective time-series study, we compared the impact of three different diagnostic strategies on patient care. Each strategy was tested during a 3-month period: P1 (diagnosis based on the stool cytotoxicity assay and the toxigenic culture), P2 (diagnosis based on PCR) and P3 (two-step algorithm based on glutamate dehydrogenase detection followed by nucleic acid amplification test). The following criteria were used to assess the quality of patient management: (i) time for result reporting, (ii) frequency of repeat testing within 7 days, (iii) time elapsed between stool collection and beginning of treatment for patients with CDI, and (iv) frequency of empirical treatment for patients without CDI. Of 1122 stool samples (P1 n = 359, P2 n = 374, P3 n = 389), 36 (10.0%), 47 (12.3%) and 48 (12.3%) were positive for C. difficile during P1, P2 and P3, respectively. The time for reporting of a positive or a negative result was significantly shorter and the frequency of redundant stool samples within 7 days was lower during P2 and P3 than during P1. Patients with CDI were specifically treated with vancomycin or metronidazole earlier during P2 and P3 than patients from P1 (0.5 ± 0.5 days and 1.0 ± 1.8 days vs. 2.0 ± 1.7 days). The empirical therapy among patients without CDI decreased from 13.6% during P1 to 6.4% during P2 and 5.6% during P3. A rapid CDI diagnosis impacts positively on patient care.
authors.affiliation: UPMC Université Paris 06, Paris, France; Department of Microbiology, AP-HP, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris, France; National Reference Laboratory for Clostridium difficile, Paris, France.
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Barbut
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Surgers
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Eckert
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Visseaux
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Cuingnet
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Mesquita
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Pradier
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Thiriez
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Ait-Ammar
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Aifaoui
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Grandsire
authors.forename: V
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Lalande
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D019090:Case Management; D019411:Clinical Laboratory Techniques / Q000379:methods*; D016360:Clostridioides difficile / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D003015:Clostridium Infections / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000382:microbiology*; D042241:Early Diagnosis; D005260:Female; D006302:Health Services Research; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome
keywords: Clostridium difficile; PCR; diagnosis; glutamate dehydrogenase; toxins