Directorate of Infection, Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London SE1 7EH, UK.
J Infect. 2011 May;62(5):363-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2011.03.007. Epub 2011 Apr 9.
Toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) are inadequate for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) when used alone. In September 2010 we replaced toxin EIA with a two-step algorithm, testing first with glutamate dehydrogenase and confirming with polymerase chain reaction for toxin B gene. We compared this to the gold standard of toxigenic culture, observing a positive predictive value of 96% (laboratory prevalence of 4.7%). There was no deterioration in turnaround time but there was a decrease of 11% in repeat specimens sent from the same patients. The improved performance of the algorithm increased the laboratory positivity rate from 2.2% to 5.6%. This led to an increase in our Trust CDI rate reported under the Health Protection Agency's mandatory surveillance scheme. We investigated whether the change was due to increasing nosocomial transmission, environmental contamination or consumption of antimicrobials, but found no evidence of this. We conclude that it probably resulted from the change in testing algorithm. Although we have improved testing and enhanced patient safety, we are likely to be unfairly financially penalised because of our apparent (but not real) increase in CDI rates. Assessment of CDI rates should take testing methodology into account and national policies should be revised to reflect this.
当单独使用时,毒素酶免疫分析(EIAs)不足以用于诊断艰难梭菌感染(CDI)。2010 年 9 月,我们用两步算法取代了毒素 EIA,先用谷氨酸脱氢酶进行测试,并通过聚合酶链反应确认 B 毒素基因。我们将其与产毒培养的金标准进行了比较,观察到阳性预测值为 96%(实验室流行率为 4.7%)。周转时间没有恶化,但来自同一患者的重复标本数量减少了 11%。算法性能的提高使实验室阳性率从 2.2%提高到 5.6%。这导致我们在卫生署强制性监测计划下报告的信托 CDI 率有所增加。我们调查了这种变化是否是由于医院内传播、环境污染或使用抗生素增加所致,但没有发现任何证据。我们得出的结论是,这可能是由于检测算法的改变。尽管我们提高了检测水平并增强了患者安全性,但由于 CDI 率的明显(但并非真实)增加,我们可能会受到不公平的经济处罚。对 CDI 率的评估应考虑检测方法,并应修订国家政策以反映这一点。