9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      839. Effect of Clostridioides difficile ( C. difficile) Toxin Test Reporting on Clinical Treatment and Outcomes of Toxin-Negative PCR-Positive Patients at Five California Hospitals

      abstract
      , MD, MAS 1 , , MD 2 , , PhD, D-ABMM 2 , , MD, MAS 3 , , MD, PhD 3 , , MD 4 , , BS, CLS, MT ASCP 5 , , BS, BSN, RN, CIC 6 , , MD 7 , , MSC 2 , , BS 8 , , CLS/MT(ASCP), CIC 9 , , MPH, CIC 10 , , MSN, RN, PHN, CIC, CPHQ, FAPIC 11 , , MA 11 , , MAFIS-BBA 6 , , MD 12 , , Bachelors of Science: Neuroscience Physiology and Behavior 13 , , BS 14 , , MD 15 , , MD 16 , , MD, MPH 3 , , MD MPH 17
      Open Forum Infectious Diseases
      Oxford University Press

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Guidelines support the use of toxin tests after C. difficile antigen detection or nucleic acid amplification tests (e.g., PCR) to help clinicians distinguish colonization from infection and reduce overdiagnosis but the safety of toxin-based diagnostic approaches remains controversial.

          Methods

          Five California hospitals monitored hospitalized adults with C. difficile testing before and after operational changes to reduce test-related overdiagnosis (2016–2018). Four added a toxin test to an existing GDH antigen/PCR-based approach and/or changed reporting to encourage the use of toxin results for clinical decision-making (i.e.,“toxin-dominant reporting”). One used the same test (toxin only) and reporting strategy throughout. All used a standardized tool to document clinical outcomes and treatment four days after testing (i.e., Day 5).

          Results

          In total, 1,034 patients had a Day 5 assessment with PCR-dominant reporting (pre-operational changes); 2,511 patients had a Day 5 assessment with toxin-dominant reporting (post-operational changes and single facility with no test change). Fewer Toxin-negative/PCR-positive (Toxin−/PCR+) patients received treatment with toxin-dominant reporting (median change: −52.1% [interquartile range (IQR): −35.1%, −69.1%]; aggregate P < 0.001). Day 5 outcomes were similar or better with toxin-dominant reporting despite less treatment. Patient discharge rates and in hospital diarrheal recovery was greater in the subset of Toxin−/PCR+ patients during the toxin-dominant reporting period: median discharge rate change = 8.8% [IQR: 1.5%, 11.9%] (aggregate P = 0.04); median diarrheal recovery rate change = 11.8% [IQR: 8.8%, 18.2%] (aggregate P = 0.018).

          Conclusion

          In a 5-center study, toxin-dominant test result reporting decreased anti- C. difficile treatment and improved discharge rates and diarrheal recovery in Toxin−/PCR+ patients. More work is needed to determine the rate of C. difficile-related adverse events in Toxin−/PCR+ patients.

          Disclosures

          All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Open Forum Infect Dis
          Open Forum Infect Dis
          ofid
          Open Forum Infectious Diseases
          Oxford University Press (US )
          2328-8957
          October 2019
          23 October 2019
          23 October 2019
          : 6
          : Suppl 2 , IDWeek 2019 Abstracts
          : S10-S11
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Duke University Health System , Durham, North Carolina
          [2 ] Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles, California
          [3 ] University of California, San Francisco , San Francisco, California
          [4 ] Sharp Metropolitan Medical Campus , San Diego, California
          [5 ] Sharp HealthCare , San Diego, California
          [6 ] UC Irvine Health , Orange, California
          [7 ] University of California , Irvine, Orange, California
          [8 ] University of California, Davis Medical Center , Sacramento, California
          [9 ] UCSF Health , San Francisco, California
          [10 ] Sharp Memorial Hospital , San Diego; California
          [11 ] University of California , Irvine Health, Orange, California
          [12 ] University of California Davis Health , Elk Grove, California
          [13 ] Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine , Davie, Florida
          [14 ] University of California, Davis , New York, New York
          [15 ] UC Davis Health System , Sacramento, California
          [16 ] Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center , Seattle, Washington
          [17 ] University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine , Irvine, California
          Article
          ofz359.024
          10.1093/ofid/ofz359.024
          6809020
          41f908eb-3ac7-406a-bc83-85640c8aba89
          © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.

          This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

          History
          Page count
          Pages: 2
          Categories
          Abstracts
          Oral Abstracts

          Comments

          Comment on this article