4.7 Article

External Validation and Comparison of Clostridioides difficile Severity Scoring Systems

Journal

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 74, Issue 11, Pages 2028-2035

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciab737

Keywords

CDI; severe Clostridioides difficile infection; toxic megacolon

Funding

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health [U19AI09871, R21AI120599, U01AI124255]
  2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [R01HS027431]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

None of the published CDI severity scores showed stable and good predictive ability for adverse outcomes across multiple centers. The existing scoring systems have poor predictive ability for CDI severity.
Background Many models have been developed to predict severe outcomes from Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). These models are usually developed at a single institution and largely are not externally validated. Our aim in this study was to validate previously published risk scores in a multicenter cohort of patients with CDI. Methods This was a retrospective study on 4 inpatient cohorts with CDI from 3 distinct sites: the universities of Michigan (2010-2012 and 2016), Chicago (2012), and Wisconsin (2012). The primary composite outcome was admission to an intensive care unit, colectomy, and/or death attributed to CDI within 30 days of positive testing. Both within each cohort and combined across all cohorts, published CDI severity scores were assessed and compared to each other and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guideline definitions of severe and fulminant CDI. Results A total of 3646 patients were included for analysis. Including the 2 IDSA guideline definitions, 14 scores were assessed. Performance of scores varied within each cohort and in the combined set (mean area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AuROC], 0.61; range, 0.53-0.66). Only half of the scores had performance at or better than IDSA severe and fulminant definitions (AuROCs of 0.64 and 0.63, respectively). Most of the scoring systems had more false than true positives in the combined set (mean, 81.5%; range, 0%-91.5%). Conclusions No published CDI severity score showed stable, good predictive ability for adverse outcomes across multiple cohorts/institutions or in a combined multicenter cohort. Upon validating and comparing 14 severe CDI scoring systems using 3646 patients from 4 cohorts across 3 sites, no scoring system had reproducible, high, or accurate predictive ability for adverse outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available