Effect of nucleic acid amplification testing on population-based incidence rates of Clostridium difficile infection.

Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is increasingly being adopted for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Data from 3 states conducting population-based CDI surveillance showed increases ranging from 43% to 67% in CDI incidence attributable to changing from toxin enzyme immunoassays to NAAT. CDI surveillance requires adjustment for testing methods.

[1]  Steven W. Johnson,et al.  Clinical impact of switching conventional enzyme immunoassay with nucleic acid amplification test for suspected Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. , 2013, American journal of infection control.

[2]  D. Williamson,et al.  Improved detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile using the Cepheid Xpert C difficile assay and impact on C difficile infection rates in a tertiary hospital: a double-edged sword. , 2013, American journal of infection control.

[3]  S. Trottier,et al.  Impact of the type of diagnostic assay on Clostridium difficile infection and complication rates in a mandatory reporting program. , 2013, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[4]  R. Humphries,et al.  Performance of Clostridium difficile Toxin Enzyme Immunoassay and Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests Stratified by Patient Disease Severity , 2012, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[5]  J. O’Horo,et al.  Molecular techniques for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2012, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[6]  D. Musher,et al.  Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. , 2012, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[7]  W. Melchers,et al.  Clinical and laboratory evaluation of a real-time PCR for Clostridium difficile toxin A and B genes , 2012, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

[8]  Vital signs: preventing Clostridium difficile infections. , 2012, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[9]  B. Robinson-Dunn,et al.  Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Compared to Real-Time PCR and Enzyme Immunoassay for Toxigenic Clostridium difficile Detection , 2011, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[10]  S. Goldenberg.  Public Reporting of Clostridium difficile and Improvements in Diagnostic Tests , 2011, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[11]  E. Baron,et al.  Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection can molecular amplification methods move us out of uncertainty? , 2011, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[12]  G. Procop,et al.  Impact of PCR Testing for Clostridium difficile on Incident Rates and Potential on Public Reporting: Is the Playing Field Level? , 2011, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[13]  Hhs Centers for Medicare Medicare Services.  Medicare program; hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and FY 2012 rates; hospitals' FTE resident caps for graduate medical education payment. Final rules. , 2011, Federal register.

[14]  N. Banaei,et al.  Is Repeat PCR Needed for Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection? , 2010, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.