Journal
THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1756284820977385
Keywords
Clostridioides difficile; Clostridium difficile; prediction models; risk factors; prognostic factors; recurrence
Categories
Funding
- Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) [848016009]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The study aimed to externally validate clinical prediction tools for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, but found poor performance of the selected tools in the validation cohort. The AUC values for Cobo 2018 and Larrainzar-Coghen 2016 prediction tools were 0.43 and 0.42, respectively, indicating that currently identified clinical risk factors may not be sufficient for accurate prediction of rCDI.
Background: One in four patients with primary Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) develops recurrent CDI (rCDI). With every recurrence, the chance of a subsequent CDI episode increases. Early identification of patients at risk for rCDI might help doctors to guide treatment. The aim of this study was to externally validate published clinical prediction tools for rCDI. Methods: The validation cohort consisted of 129 patients, diagnosed with CDI between 2018 and 2020. rCDI risk scores were calculated for each individual patient in the validation cohort using the scoring tools described in the derivation studies. Per score value, we compared the average predicted risk of rCDI with the observed number of rCDI cases. Discrimination was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Two prediction tools were selected for validation (Cobo 2018 and Larrainzar-Coghen 2016). The two derivation studies used different definitions for rCDI. Using Cobo's definition, rCDI occurred in 34 patients (26%) of the validation cohort: using the definition of Larrainzar-Coghen, we observed 19 recurrences (15%). The performance of both prediction tools was poor when applied to our validation cohort. The estimated AUC was 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI); 0.32-0.54] for Cobo's tool and 0.42 (95% CI; 0.28-0.56) for Larrainzar-Coghen's tool. Conclusion: Performance of both prediction tools was disappointing in the external validation cohort. Currently identified clinical risk factors may not be sufficient for accurate prediction of rCDI.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available