Background: There are inconsistent data on the risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in the literature. Aims: To use two C. difficile infection (CDI) case-control study groups to compare risk factors in hospitalized patients with diarrhea across different countries. Methods: A multi-center group of CDI cases/controls were identified by standardized testing from seven countries from the prior EUropean, multi-center, prospective biannual point prevalence study of CLostridium difficile Infection in hospitalized patients with Diarrhea (EUCLID). A second group of CDI cases/controls was identified from a single center in Germany [parallel study site (PSS)]. Data were extracted from the medical notes to assess CDI risk factors. Univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify and compare risk factors between the two groups. Results: There were 253 and 158 cases and 921 and 584 controls in the PSS and EUCLID groups, respectively. Significant variables from univariate analyses in both groups were age ≥65, number of antibiotics (OR 1.2 for each additional antibiotic) and prior hospital admission (all p < 0.001). Congestive heart failure, diabetes, admission from assisted living or Emergency Department, proton pump inhibitors, and chronic renal disease were significant in PSS (all p < 0.05) but not EUCLID. Dementia and admitted Davies et al. Risk Factors for CDI with other bacterial diseases were significant in EUCLID (p < 0.05) but not PSS. Following multivariate analyses, age ≥ 65, number of antibiotics and prior hospital admission were consistently identified as CDI risk factors in each individual group and combined datasets. Conclusion: Our results show that the same CDI risk factors were identified across datasets. These were age ≥ 65 years, antibiotic use and prior hospital admission. Importantly, the odds of developing CDI increases with each extra antibiotic prescribed.
Some strains of Clostridium difficile produce a binary toxin, in addition to the main C. difficile virulence factors (toxins A and B). There have been conflicting reports regarding the role of binary toxin and its relationship to the severity of C. difficile infection (CDI). Samples, isolates and clinical data were collected as part of a prospective multicentre diagnostic study. Clostridium difficile isolates (n = 1259) were tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay to detect binary toxin genes cdtA and cdtB. The PCR binary toxin gene results were compared with clinical severity and outcome data, including 30-day all-cause mortality. The 1259 isolates corresponded to 1083 different patients (October 2010 to September 2011). The prevalence of binary toxin positive strains was significantly higher in faecal samples with detectable toxin A/B than in those without toxin but that were positive by cytotoxigenic culture (26.3% vs. 10.3%, p < 0.001). The presence of binary toxin correlated moderately with markers of CDI severity (white cell count, serum albumin concentration and serum creatinine concentration). However, the risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 1.68 for binary toxin positive patients and patients were significantly less likely to survive if they had CDI caused by a binary toxin gene positive strain, even after adjusting for age (p < 0.001). The presence of binary toxin genes does not predict the clinical severity of CDI, but it is significantly associated with the risk of all-cause mortality.
Multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are of major clinical concern. The increasing prevalence of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), resistant to all beta-lactams including carbapenems and able to colonize the large intestine, represents a key threat. Rapid, accurate detection of intestinal CPE colonization is critical to minimize transmission, and hence reduce costly, difficult-to-treat CPE infections. There is currently no 'gold standard' CPE detection method. A survey of diagnostic laboratories in England found considerable heterogeneity in diagnostic CPE testing methods and procedures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.