High Prevalence of Multistep Algorithms in Diagnostic Clostridioides difficile Laboratory Testing.

Kaede V Sullivan, Rhona J Souers, Erica Hillesland, Dylan Pillai, Daniel D Rhoads, Robin Rolf, Patricia J Simner, Christina M Wojewoda, Carol A Rauch
{"title":"High Prevalence of Multistep Algorithms in Diagnostic Clostridioides difficile Laboratory Testing.","authors":"Kaede V Sullivan, Rhona J Souers, Erica Hillesland, Dylan Pillai, Daniel D Rhoads, Robin Rolf, Patricia J Simner, Christina M Wojewoda, Carol A Rauch","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2023-0434-CP","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>Laboratory testing practices for diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) have evolved in response to published guidelines, availability of highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), perceived problems with the specificity of NAATs, and CDI reporting requirements.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To assess the current state of laboratory practice for diagnostic CDI testing.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>An optional 8-item supplemental questionnaire was distributed in December 2019 to the 1374 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists C difficile Detection (CDF) proficiency testing program challenge CDF-C.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Of 1374 CDF-C participants, 1160 (84.4%) responded, predominantly representing laboratories based in the United States (1077 of 1160; 92.8%). The majority reported using a multistep testing algorithm (684 of 1159; 59.0%). Initial testing with a glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin A/B combination test followed by NAAT for discrepant results was the most common testing method (360 of 1146; 31.4%). NAAT alone (299 of 1146; 26.1%) was next, then NAAT followed by an assay that included toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay if NAAT is positive (258 of 1146; 22.5%). Only 5.4% (62 of 1146) reported using toxin A/B immunoassay alone. Most respondents (1093 of 1131; 96.6%) reported rejecting CDI tests on formed stool, but rejection of CDI testing in pediatric patients was uncommon (211 of 1131; 18.7%). Rejection of CDI testing in patients using laxatives was reported more often by US-based respondents (379 of 1054 [36.0%] versus 9 of 77 [11.7%], P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>Multistep algorithms for CDI diagnosis are widely used in line with published recommendations. Most respondents reported rejection of formed stool for CDI testing, but few reported rejection of testing in infants and patients taking laxatives, suggesting these may be areas of opportunity for laboratories to pursue in improving CDI testing practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2023-0434-CP","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context.—: Laboratory testing practices for diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) have evolved in response to published guidelines, availability of highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), perceived problems with the specificity of NAATs, and CDI reporting requirements.

Objective.—: To assess the current state of laboratory practice for diagnostic CDI testing.

Design.—: An optional 8-item supplemental questionnaire was distributed in December 2019 to the 1374 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists C difficile Detection (CDF) proficiency testing program challenge CDF-C.

Results.—: Of 1374 CDF-C participants, 1160 (84.4%) responded, predominantly representing laboratories based in the United States (1077 of 1160; 92.8%). The majority reported using a multistep testing algorithm (684 of 1159; 59.0%). Initial testing with a glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin A/B combination test followed by NAAT for discrepant results was the most common testing method (360 of 1146; 31.4%). NAAT alone (299 of 1146; 26.1%) was next, then NAAT followed by an assay that included toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay if NAAT is positive (258 of 1146; 22.5%). Only 5.4% (62 of 1146) reported using toxin A/B immunoassay alone. Most respondents (1093 of 1131; 96.6%) reported rejecting CDI tests on formed stool, but rejection of CDI testing in pediatric patients was uncommon (211 of 1131; 18.7%). Rejection of CDI testing in patients using laxatives was reported more often by US-based respondents (379 of 1054 [36.0%] versus 9 of 77 [11.7%], P < .001).

Conclusions.—: Multistep algorithms for CDI diagnosis are widely used in line with published recommendations. Most respondents reported rejection of formed stool for CDI testing, but few reported rejection of testing in infants and patients taking laxatives, suggesting these may be areas of opportunity for laboratories to pursue in improving CDI testing practices.

难辨梭状芽孢杆菌实验室检测中多步骤算法的高流行率。
背景诊断艰难梭菌感染(CDI)的实验室检测实践随着已发布的指南、高灵敏度核酸扩增检验(NAATs)的可用性、NAATs特异性的认知问题以及CDI报告要求而不断发展:评估实验室诊断性 CDI 检测的现状:2019年12月,向参与美国病理学家学会艰难梭菌检测(CDF)能力验证计划挑战CDF-C的1374家实验室发放了一份可选的8项补充问卷:在 1374 个 CDF-C 参与者中,有 1160 个(84.4%)做出了回应,主要是美国的实验室(1160 个中有 1077 个;92.8%)。大多数实验室报告使用了多步骤检测算法(1159 家实验室中的 684 家;59.0%)。最常见的检测方法是先用谷氨酸脱氢酶和毒素 A/B 联合检测,然后用 NAAT 检测不一致的结果(1146 项中有 360 项;31.4%)。其次是单用 NAAT(1146 例中有 299 例;26.1%),然后是 NAAT,如果 NAAT 呈阳性,则进行包括毒素 A/B 酶免疫测定在内的检测(1146 例中有 258 例;22.5%)。只有 5.4% 的受访者(1146 位受访者中的 62 位)表示只使用毒素 A/B 免疫测定。大多数受访者(1131 位受访者中的 1093 位;96.6%)表示拒绝对成形粪便进行 CDI 检测,但拒绝对儿科患者进行 CDI 检测的情况并不常见(1131 位受访者中的 211 位;18.7%)。美国受访者更常拒绝对使用泻药的患者进行 CDI 检测(1054 例中有 379 例 [36.0%] 对 77 例中有 9 例 [11.7%],P < .001):结论:根据已公布的建议,CDI 诊断的多步骤算法得到了广泛应用。大多数受访者报告称,他们拒绝接受成型粪便进行 CDI 检测,但很少有受访者报告拒绝接受婴儿和服用泻药患者的检测,这表明这些领域可能是实验室改进 CDI 检测实践的机会所在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信