Dataset Information

Laboratory Diagnostic Methods for Clostridioides difficile Infection: the First Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Korea.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Various methods are used for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). We systematically analyzed and investigated the performance of current laboratory diagnostic methods for CDI.

Methods

We performed systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed. The following methods were evaluated: glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassays (GDH EIAs), toxin A and B detection by enzyme immunoassays (toxin AB EIAs), and nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for C. difficile toxin genes. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each method were calculated.

Results

Based on 39 studies, the pooled sensitivities/specificities were 92.7%/94.6%, 57.9%/97.0%, and 90.0%/95.8% for GDH EIAs, toxin AB EIAs, and NAATs, respectively, compared with those of toxigenic culture. The pooled sensitivities of automated EIAs were significantly higher than those of non-automated EIAs for both GDH and toxins A and B. The pooled sensitivity of Xpert C. difficile was significantly higher than those of other NAATs. PPVs increased as CDI prevalence increased, and NPVs were excellent when CDI prevalence was low; at CDI prevalence of 5%, PPV=37%-65% and NPV=97%-100%; at CDI prevalence of 50%, PPV=92%-97% and NPV=65%-98%.

Conclusions

Toxin AB EIAs still show unsatisfactory sensitivity, whereas GDH EIAs and NAATs show relatively high sensitivity. However, toxin AB EIAs are the most specific tests. This study may provide useful information for CDI diagnosis.

SUBMITTER: Chung HS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7591293 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNo studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of single and two-step different diagnostic test strategies for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), including direct and indirect costs.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of commonly available diagnostic tests for CDI including nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) alone, glutamate dehydrogenase followed by enzyme immunoassay for toxin (GDH/EIA), GDH then NAAT (GDH/NAAT), and NAAT then EIA (NAAT/EIA).DesignDecision tree model from the US societal perspective with inputs derived from the literature. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. To assess the impact of uncertainty in model inputs on the findings, we performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ParticipantsWe conducted the analysis to represent a population aged 65 years old with diarrhea who received a CDI diagnostic test.Main measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB).Key resultsNAAT alone was the most cost-effective approach overall; GDH/NAAT was the most cost-effective two-step option. NAAT alone led to the highest QALYs gained, at an incremental cost of $54,547 (vs. GDH/NAAT), $55,410 (vs. GDH/EIA), and $50,231 (vs. NAAT/EIA) per QALY gained. NAAT/EIA was not cost-effective compared to any other strategy. GDH/NAAT resulted in a higher QALY compared to GDH/EIA, at an incremental cost of $96,841 per QALY gained. Variability in the likelihood of comorbidities, CDI probability, and age at disease onset did not substantially change the results. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that results were most sensitive to likelihood of recurrence, followed by CDI mortality rate and probability of severe CDI. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored known uncertainties in the base case and confirmed the robustness of the results.ConclusionsNAAT alone and GDH/NAAT (among the two-step options) were the most cost-effective diagnostic test approaches for CDI.

Project description:BackgroundFaecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is effective for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), but inconsistent effect rates and uncertain evidence levels have warranted caution. To clarify, we aimed to establish the evidence of FMT for recurrent CDI, updated across different delivery methods, treatment regimens, and in comparison with standard antibiotics.MethodsIn this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Key, and Svemed+ for FMT literature published in English until November 11, 2019. We included observational and clinical trials with or without antibiotic comparators and excluded studies with below 8 weeks follow-up and fewer than 15 patients. The primary outcome was clinical outcome by week 8. We comprehensively extracted patient and procedural data. In a random-effects meta-analysis, we estimated the clinical effect for repeat or single FMT, different delivery methods, and versus antibiotics. We rated the evidence according to the Cochrane and GRADE methods. The PROSPERO preregistration number is CRD42020158112.FindingsOf 1816 studies assessed, 45 studies were included. The overall clinical effect week 8 following repeat FMT (24 studies, 1855 patients) was 91% (95% CI: 89-94%, I 2=53%) and 84% (80-88%, I 2=86%) following single FMT (43 studies, 2937 patients). Delivery by lower gastrointestinal endoscopy was superior to all other delivery methods, and repeat FMT significantly increased the treatment effect week 8 (P<0·001). Compared with vancomycin, the number needed to treat (NNT) for repeat FMT was 1·5 (1·3-1·9, P<0·001) and 2.9 (1·5-37·1, P=0·03) for single FMT. Repeat FMT had high quality of evidence.InterpretationHigh-quality evidence supports FMT is effective for recurrent CDI, but its effect varies with the delivery method and the number of administrations. The superior NNT for FMT compared with antibiotics suggests that patients may benefit from advancing FMT to all instances of recurrent CDI.FundingInnovation Fund Denmark (j.no. 8056-00006B).