Background: Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) strains have been listed as one of the major clinical concerns. Objectives: We investigated CPKP isolates from non-tertiary hospitals to find disseminated clones and analyze extensive phenotypic and genetic diversity in this study. Methods: In this cohort study, a total of 49 CRKP isolates from 3 hospitals in the same region were collected in 2021. The prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns were analyzed. Clinical data were retrieved from electronic medical record systems. The molecular types, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiles, plasmid replicons, and virulence factors were analyzed. The maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree and transmission networks were constructed using single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Results: The median age of patients (N = 49) was 66.0 years, and 85.7% were male. The most common CRKP infection was nosocomial pneumonia (75.5%), followed by bacteremia (10.2%). More than 53% of isolates were resistant to ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ/AVI). Forty-five isolates were successfully sequenced; the predominant carbapenem-resistant gene was blaKPC-2 (93.3%). The 30-day mortality in our cohort was 24.5%. The most dominant sequence type (ST) was ST11 (60.0%), followed by ST15 (13.3%). Whole genome sequencing (WGS) analysis exhibited dissemination of ST11 strain clones, ST420, and ST15 clones, both within and outside the given hospital. Conclusions: In this surveillance study, several dissemination chains of CRKP were discovered in the hospital and the region, as ST11 was the main epidemic clone. Our findings suggest that effective infection control practices and antimicrobial stewardship are needed in non-tertiary hospitals in China.

Background: Accurate diagnosis is essential for optimal prevention and treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), and various diagnostic methods must be evaluated. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of VIDAS C. difficile, C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC), and toxigenic culture (TC) tests for diagnosing CDI and further determine the relationships between clinical factors and the toxin status of patients. Methods: Stool samples were randomly selected for VIDAS or QCC testing according to the manufacturer’s instructions between May 2017 and May 2021, and their performance was compared with that of TC. Clinical information was obtained from the hospital’s electronic medical records. Results: Among 10,897 samples tested, 6,435 and 4,462 samples were assigned for VIDAS and QCC tests, respectively. A total of 9.1% (996/10,897) of the samples were positive for TC. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 36.6%, 98.6%, 72.1%, and 87.6% for VIDAS toxins A and B testing and 31.6%, 98.2%, 64.0%, and 87.8% for QCC toxin testing, respectively. Our results showed that the clinical data of the patients with positive and detectable toxins were not significantly different. Conclusions: The VIDAS and QCC tests provide rapid screening assays for the laboratory diagnosis of CDI. However, a more specific test to detect free toxins is required to confirm the diagnosis for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH)-positive and toxin-negative samples. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of this cohort were similar, regardless of the results of toxins A and B testing.