scholarly journals Community-onset Clostridioides difficile infection in a pregnant woman without traditional risk factors

Author(s):  
Wen-Chai Tsai ◽  
Pei-Jane Tsai ◽  
Bo-Yang Tsai ◽  
Chin-Shiang Tsai ◽  
Po-Lin Chen ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 18-22
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Wagner ◽  
Kayla R. Stover ◽  
Allison M. Bell ◽  
Katie E. Barber

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S809-S809
Author(s):  
Ioannis Zacharioudakis ◽  
Fainareti Zervou ◽  
Michael Phillips ◽  
Maria E Aguero-Rosenfeld

Abstract Background It is common practice among microbiology laboratories in the United States to blind the BioFire FilmArray GI Panel results for Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile (C. difficile) in fear of over-diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI). Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 2 tertiary academic centers in New York to examine the rate of missed CDI diagnosis and the associated adverse outcomes from blinding the BioFire FilmArray GI Panel results for C. difficile. Of note, in one of the two included hospitals the list of daily positives is reviewed by an Infectious Diseases attending to determine whether cases have been tested for CDI and if not if they meet criteria for CDI. Adult patients with FilmArray GI Panel positive for C. difficile on admission to the hospital who lacked dedicated testing for C. difficile were included in the analysis and were stratified as possible, probable and definite cases of missed CDI diagnosis. Results Among the 144 adult patients with a FilmArray GI Panel test positive for C. difficile within 48 hours of hospital admission, 18 did not have a concurrent dedicated C. difficile testing. Eight patients were categorized as possible cases of missed CDI diagnosis, 5 as probable and 4 as definite, for a total of 17 cases of at least possibly missed CDI diagnosis. One case was considered to represent C. difficile colonization rather than infection for a rate of 6.9% of CDI over-diagnosis based on the FilmArray GI Panel results. Missed CDI diagnoses were associated with a delay in initiation of appropriate therapy, admission to the intensive care unit, hospital re-admission, colorectal surgery and death/discharge to hospice. Five out of 17 cases of missed CDI diagnosis (29.4%) lacked traditional risk factors for CDI. Conclusion In conclusion, the practice of concealing FilmArray GI Panel results for C. difficile may lead to a higher rate of missed CDI diagnosis than over-diagnosis and might need to be re-considered at least in patients with community-onset colitis of unknown etiology on presentation to the hospital. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S545-S545
Author(s):  
Holly Yu ◽  
Nestor Flaster ◽  
Adrian Casanello ◽  
Daniel Curcio

Abstract Background In contrast to Europe and North America, little is known about Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in Latin America, especially about risk factors, mortality, and healthcare utilization. Methods We conducted a retrospective, case–control study at eight hospital centers in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Chile. Hospital databases and medical records were used to identify nosocomial CDI cases from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017. CDI cases were patients with diarrhea and a positive CDI testing ≥72 hours after hospital admission. Two controls with no CDI diagnosis and diarrhea were matched to each CDI case and were required to (1) have a length of hospital stay (LOS) ≥ 3 days, (2) be admitted ±14 days from the case, and (3) share the same ward. Risk factors associated with CDI were assessed by conditional logistic regression. Mortality and healthcare utilization were compared between cases and controls. Results A total of 1,443 patients (≥18 years old) who met eligibility criteria were selected (481 cases and 962 controls). Comparing cases to controls, the mean age and gender representation were similar (age: 58.7 vs. 56.7 years, P = 0.269; male: 56.3% vs. 53.4%, P = 0.293), but comorbidity was higher (mean Charlson Comorbidity index: 4.3 vs. 3.6, p Conclusion Antibiotic exposure, existing medical conditions, and recent hospital admission are CDI major risk factors in Latin America. CDI also increased in-hospital death risk and LOS. These findings are consistent with published literature in developed countries. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 115283
Author(s):  
Ellen Axenfeld ◽  
William G. Greendyke ◽  
Jianhua Li ◽  
Daniel A. Green ◽  
Susan Whittier ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 1426-1430
Author(s):  
Hüseyin Bilgin ◽  
Elvan Sayın ◽  
Hande Perk Gürün ◽  
Elif Tükenmez-Tigen ◽  
Nurver Ülger Toprak ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nandita S Mani ◽  
John B Lynch ◽  
Ferric C Fang ◽  
Jeannie D Chan

Abstract We aim to describe the characteristics, risk factors, and clinical outcomes associated with NAP1 strain Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in this single-center, retrospective, case–control (1:1) study. We found that the NAP1 strain accounted for 19.7% of CDI, and risk factors for acquisition included residence in skilled nursing facilities, previous CDI, and proton pump inhibitor use.


2020 ◽  
pp. 11-21

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a leading cause of a healthcare-associated diarrhea worldwide. Recently, an increased number of new cases and growing mortality due to CDI have been observed. Patients suffering from end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are most exposed to CDI. It has been proven that CDI in patients receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) significantly increases mortality, prolongs hospitalization and increases the cost of treatment. Important risk factors of CDI in ERSD patients include hospitalization or stay in an intensive care unit in the last 90 days, HIV infection, bacteremia, prolonged antibiotic therapy and hypoalbuminemia. Cirrhosis, age over 65 years, hypoalbuminemia, longer hospitalization time and use of antibiotics are significant risk factors of death. Effective methods of preventing CDI include hand hygiene with soap and water, isolation of infected patients in a private room with a dedicated toilet, the use of masks, gloves, disinfection of the environment and systematic education and control of medical personnel, as well as rational antibiotic policy. In addition, it is important to avoid antibiotics with a proven risk of CDI, caution use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and H2 receptor antagonists. It is also important in the prevention of CDI in people with ERSD, to apply a fast diagnostic since the onset of the first symptoms. The use of probiotics and bile acids in the primary prevention of CDI requires further research. It seems that knowledge of these factors and methods of prevention will significantly reduce morbidity and mortality due to CDI.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S473-S474
Author(s):  
John Sahrmann ◽  
Dustin Stwalley ◽  
Margaret A Olsen ◽  
Holly Yu ◽  
Erik R Dubberke

Abstract Background CDI imposes a major burden on the U.S. healthcare system. Obtaining accurate estimates of economic costs is critical to determining the cost-effectiveness of preventive measures. This task is complicated by differences in epidemiology, mortality, and baseline health status of infected and uninfected individuals, and by the statistical properties of costs data (e.g., right-skewed, excess of zeros costs). Methods Incident CDI cases were identified from Medicare 5% fee-for-service data between 2011 and 2017 and classified into standard surveillance definitions: hospital-onset (HO); other healthcare facility-onset (OHFO); community-onset, healthcare-associated (CO-HCFA); or community-associated (CA). Cases were frequency matched 1:4 to uninfected controls based on age, sex, and year of CDI. Controls were assigned to surveillance definitions based on location at index dates. Medicare allowed costs were summed in 30-day intervals up to 3 years following index. One- and 3-year cumulative costs attributable to CDI were computed using a 3-part estimator consisting of a parametric survival model and a pair of 2-part models predicting costs separately in intervals where death did and did not occur, adjusting for underlying acute and chronic conditions. Results 60,492 CDI cases (Figure 1) were matched to 241,968 controls. Three-year mortality was higher among CDI cases compared to matched controls for HO (45% vs 26%) and OHFO (42% vs 36%), whereas mortality was slightly lower for CDI cases compared to controls for those with community onset (CO-HCFA: 28% vs 32%; CA: 10% vs 11%). One- and 3-year attributable costs due to CDI are shown in Figure 2. Adjusted 1-year attributable costs amounted to &26,954 (95% CI: &26,154–&27,939) for HO; &10,539 (&9,564–&11,518) for OHFO; &6,525 (&5,012–&8,171) for CO-HCFA; and &3,171 (&1,841–&4,200) for CA. Adjusted 3-year attributable costs were &44,736 (&43,063–&46,483) for HO; &13,994 (&12,529–&15,975) for OHFO; &7,349 (&4,738–&10,246) for CO-HCFA; and &2,377 (&166–&4,722) for CA. Figure 1. Proportion of Cases by CDI Surveillance Definitions Abbreviations: HO: hospital-onset; OHFO: other healthcare facility-onset; CO-HCFA: community-onset, healthcare-associated; CA: community-associated. Figure 2. Estimates of Costs Attributable to CDI by CDI Surveillance Definitions at One and Three Years after Onset Top panels: One-year cost estimates. Bottom panels: Three-year cost estimates. Abbreviations: HO: hospital-onset; OHFO: other healthcare facility-onset; CO-HCFA:community-onset, healthcare-associated; CA:community-associated. Conclusion CDI was associated with increased healthcare costs across surveillance definitions in Medicare fee-for-service patients after adjusting for survival and underlying conditions. Disclosures Dustin Stwalley, MA, AbbVie Inc (Shareholder)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Shareholder) Margaret A. Olsen, PhD, MPH, Pfizer (Consultant, Research Grant or Support) Holly Yu, MSPH, Pfizer (Employee) Erik R. Dubberke, MD, MSPH, Ferring (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Consultant)Pfizer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Seres (Consultant)Summit (Consultant)


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tessel Meike van Rossen ◽  
Rogier E. Ooijevaar ◽  
Christina M.J.E. Vandenbroucke-Grauls ◽  
Olaf M. Dekkers ◽  
Ed J. Kuijper ◽  
...  

Background Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), its subsequent recurrences (rCDI), and severe CDI (sCDI) provide a significant burden for both patients and the healthcare system. Treatment consists of oral antibiotics. Fidaxomicin, bezlotoxumab and fecal microbiota transplantion (FMT) reduce the number of recurrences compared to vancomycin, but are more costly. Identifying patients diagnosed with initial CDI who are at increased risk of developing sCDI/rCDI could lead to more cost-effective therapeutic choices. Objectives In this systematic review we aimed to identify clinical prognostic factors associated with an increased risk of developing sCDI or rCDI. Methods PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science and COCHRANE Library databases were searched from database inception through March, 2021. Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers on the basis of predefined selection criteria; conflicts were resolved by consensus. Cohort and case-control studies providing an analysis of clinical or laboratory data to predict sCDI/rCDI in patients ≥18 years diagnosed with CDI, were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Quality in Prognostic Research (QUIPS) tool and the quality of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool, modified for prognostic studies. Overview tables of prognostic factors were constructed to assess the number of studies and the respective direction of an association (positive, negative, or no association). Results and conclusions 136 studies were included for final analysis. Higher age and the presence of multiple comorbidities were prognostic factors for sCDI. Identified risk factors for rCDI were higher age, healthcare-associated CDI, prior hospitalization, PPIs started during/after CDI diagnosis and previous rCDI. Some variables that were found as risk factors for sCDI/rCDI in previous reviews were not confirmed in the current review, which can be attributed to differences in methodology. Risk stratification for sCDI/rCDI may contribute to a more personalized and optimal treatment for patients with CDI.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document