BACKGROUND: Little is known about the extent of Clostridium difficile infection in Europe. Our aim was to obtain a more complete overview of C difficile infection in Europe and build capacity for diagnosis and surveillance. METHODS: We set up a network of 106 laboratories in 34 European countries. In November, 2008, one to six hospitals per country, relative to population size, tested stool samples of patients with suspected C difficile infection or diarrhoea that developed 3 or more days after hospital admission. A case was defined when, subsequently, toxins were identified in stool samples. Detailed clinical data and stool isolates were collected for the first ten cases per hospital. After 3 months, clinical data were followed up. FINDINGS: The incidence of C difficile infection varied across hospitals (weighted mean 4·1 per 10,000 patient-days per hospital, range 0·0-36·3). Detailed information was obtained for 509 patients. For 389 of these patients, isolates were available for characterisation. 65 different PCR ribotypes were identified, of which 014/020 (61 patients [16%]), 001 (37 [9%]), and 078 (31 [8%]) were the most prevalent. The prevalence of PCR-ribotype 027 was 5%. Most patients had a previously identified risk profile of old age, comorbidity, and recent antibiotic use. At follow up, 101 (22%) of 455 patients had died, and C difficile infection played a part in 40 (40%) of deaths. After adjustment for potential confounders, an age of 65 years or older (adjusted odds ratio 3·26, 95% CI 1·08-9·78; p=0·026), and infection by PCR-ribotypes 018 (6·19, 1·28-29·81; p=0·023) and 056 (13·01; 1·14-148·26; p=0·039) were significantly associated with complicated disease outcome. INTERPRETATION: PCR ribotypes other than 027 are prevalent in European hospitals. The data emphasise the importance of multicountry surveillance to detect and control C difficile infection in Europe. FUNDING: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the extent of Clostridium difficile infection in Europe. Our aim was to obtain a more complete overview of C difficile infection in Europe and build capacity for diagnosis and surveillance. METHODS: We set up a network of 106 laboratories in 34 European countries. In November, 2008, one to six hospitals per country, relative to population size, tested stool samples of patients with suspected C difficile infection or diarrhoea that developed 3 or more days after hospital admission. A case was defined when, subsequently, toxins were identified in stool samples. Detailed clinical data and stool isolates were collected for the first ten cases per hospital. After 3 months, clinical data were followed up. FINDINGS: The incidence of C difficile infection varied across hospitals (weighted mean 4·1 per 10,000 patient-days per hospital, range 0·0-36·3). Detailed information was obtained for 509 patients. For 389 of these patients, isolates were available for characterisation. 65 different PCR ribotypes were identified, of which 014/020 (61 patients [16%]), 001 (37 [9%]), and 078 (31 [8%]) were the most prevalent. The prevalence of PCR-ribotype 027 was 5%. Most patients had a previously identified risk profile of old age, comorbidity, and recent antibiotic use. At follow up, 101 (22%) of 455 patients had died, and C difficile infection played a part in 40 (40%) of deaths. After adjustment for potential confounders, an age of 65 years or older (adjusted odds ratio 3·26, 95% CI 1·08-9·78; p=0·026), and infection by PCR-ribotypes 018 (6·19, 1·28-29·81; p=0·023) and 056 (13·01; 1·14-148·26; p=0·039) were significantly associated with complicated disease outcome. INTERPRETATION: PCR ribotypes other than 027 are prevalent in European hospitals. The data emphasise the importance of multicountry surveillance to detect and control C difficile infection in Europe. FUNDING: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Copyright Â
Authors: Judith M Wenisch; Daniela Schmid; Hung-Wei Kuo; Franz Allerberger; Verena Michl; Philip Tesik; Gerhard Tucek; Hermann Laferl; Christoph Wenisch Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Alexander Schneeberg; Heinrich Neubauer; Gernot Schmoock; Sylvia Baier; Jürgen Harlizius; Hendrik Nienhoff; Katja Brase; Stefan Zimmermann; Christian Seyboldt Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Nicola L Davies; Joanne E Compson; Brendon Mackenzie; Victoria L O'Dowd; Amanda K F Oxbrow; James T Heads; Alison Turner; Kaushik Sarkar; Sarah L Dugdale; Mark Jairaj; Louis Christodoulou; David E O Knight; Amanda S Cross; Karine J M Hervé; Kerry L Tyson; Hanna Hailu; Carl B Doyle; Mark Ellis; Marco Kriek; Matthew Cox; Matthew J T Page; Adrian R Moore; Daniel J Lightwood; David P Humphreys Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2013-01-16
Authors: M Guastalegname; S Grieco; S Giuliano; M Falcone; R Caccese; P Carfagna; M D'ambrosio; G Taliani; M Venditti Journal: Infection Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Erika van Eijk; Ilse M Boekhoud; Ed J Kuijper; Ingrid M J G Bos-Sanders; George Wright; Wiep Klaas Smits Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 5.191