| Literature DB >> 21468685 |
V C C Cheng1, W C Yam, O T C Lam, J L Y Tsang, E Y F Tse, G K H Siu, J F W Chan, H Tse, K K W To, J W M Tai, P L Ho, K Y Yuen.
Abstract
We identified a predominant clone of Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 002, which was associated with an increased sporulation frequency. In 2009, 3,528 stool samples from 2,440 patients were tested for toxigenic C. difficile in a healthcare region in Hong Kong. A total of 345 toxigenic strains from 307 (13.3%) patients were found. Ribotype 002 was the predominant ribotype, which constituted 35 samples from 29 (9.4%) patients. The mean sporulation frequency of ribotype 002 was 20.2%, which was significantly higher than that of the 56 randomly selected ribotypes other than 002 as concurrent controls (3.7%, p < 0.001). Patients carrying toxigenic ribotype 002 were more frequently admitted from an elderly home (p = 0.01) and received more β-lactam antibiotics in the preceding 3 months compared with the controls (p = 0.04) . The identification of toxigenic ribotype 002 in 2009 was temporally related to a significant increase in both the incidence of toxigenic C. difficile from 0.53 to 0.95 per 1,000 admissions (p < 0.001) and the rate of positive detection from 4.17% to 6.28% (p < 0.001) between period 1 (2004-2008) and period 2 (2009). This finding should alert both the physician and the infection control team to the establishment of and possible outbreaks by ribotype 002 in our hospitals, as in the case of ribotype 027.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21468685 PMCID: PMC3191290 DOI: 10.1007/s10096-011-1231-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis ISSN: 0934-9723 Impact factor: 3.267
Fig. 1Workup for Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 002 in a healthcare region in Hong Kong (1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009). a169 strains from 145 patients were found to have cytotoxin production by cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCNA) from both stool filtrates and C. difficile isolates. Another 176 strains from 162 patients had negative cytotoxin production in stool filtrates but positive toxin production in the culture supernatant of C. difficile isolates
Ribotype distribution of a toxin-producing strain of Clostridium difficile among 307 patients in Hong Kong
| Total number of strains (%) | Total number of patients (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| PCR ribotype 002a | 35 (10.1%) | 29 (9.4%) |
| PCR ribotype og39b | 13 (3.8%) | 11 (3.6%) |
| PCR ribotype 012 | 8 (2.3%) | 7 (2.3%) |
| PCR ribotype 014 | 4 (1.2%) | 4 (1.3%) |
| PCR ribotype 017 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.7%) |
| PCR ribotype 001 | 1 (0.3%) | 1 (0.3%) |
| PCR ribotype 027 | 0 | 0 |
| Other pattern | 242 (70%) | 221 (72%)c |
| Non-typable | 40 (11.6%) | 32 (10.4%) |
| Total | 345 | 307 |
aPCR ribotype 002 constituted 55.6% (35/63) of strains and 53.7% (29/54) of patients with known ribotyping results
bThis cluster of strains was identified by slpA typing
cUsing 80% similarity in the dendrogram as the cutoff value, there were 106 distinct patterns with no more than eight isolates in each pattern
Fig. 2Dendrogram of Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 002 among 29 patients. Note: the strain number among 29 patients’ isolates and the standard strains of different PCR ribotypes from the Netherlands are listed
Fig. 3Trend of isolation of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in a healthcare region in Hong Kong. Note: toxigenic Clostridium difficile isolation per 1,000 admissions in: period 1 (2004–2008): 0.53 vs. period 2 (2009): 0.95 (p-value < 0.001); Percentage of patients positive for toxigenic Clostridium difficile: period 1 (2004–2008): 4.17% vs. period 2 (2009): 6.28% (p-value < 0.001)
Demographic characteristics of 29 patients with culture isolation of Clostridium difficile ribotype 002 in Hong Kong
| Case and (strain) no. | Sex/age | Disease status (disease score)a | Underlying disease(s) | Antibiotic therapy 1 week before culture of | Days between the identification of | Days between the identification of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (171) | M/89 | Symptomatic (1) | IHD, MDS | Nil | 1b | 330 |
| 2 (196) | F/81 | Symptomatic (2) | CRF, HT | Cefuroxime, levofloxacin | 61 | 302 |
| 3 (213) | M/38 | Symptomatic (3) | Refractory ALL | Meropenem | 7 | 27 |
| 4 (229) | M/14 | Colonization | ALL | Cefoperazone/sulbactam, amikacin | 1 | NA |
| 5 (330) | M/54 | Symptomatic (2) | NPC | Nil | 1b | NA |
| 6 (339) | M/55 | Symptomatic (4) | Liver Tx recipient | Nil | 25 | 131 |
| 7 (341) | M/46 | Symptomatic (1) | AML | Imipenem/cilastatin | 13 | NA |
| 8 (386) | F/48 | Symptomatic (0) | CA of the urethra | Levofloxacin | 4 | 148 |
| 9 (398) | F/91 | Symptomatic (1) | CA of the lung | Amoxicillin/clavulanate | 45 | 14 |
| 10 (408) | M/25 | Colonization | Lymphoma | Meropenem, vancomycin | 27 | NA |
| 11 (412) | M/33 | Colonization | HT, renal Tx recipient | Amoxicillin/clavulanate | 30 | NA |
| 12 (445) | M/93 | Symptomatic (3) | Sick sinus syndrome | Cefuroxime | 7 | 87 |
| 13 (457) | M/59 | Colonization | CRF, DM, HT | Piperacillin/tazobactam, vancomycin | 31 | 142 |
| 14 (570) | M/95 | Symptomatic (1) | CRF, DM, HT | Ciprofloxacin, co-trimoxazole | 61 | 246 |
| 15 (428) | M/86 | Colonization | IHD, parkinsonism | Amoxicillin/clavulanate | 88 | 297 |
| 16 (486) | M/73 | Symptomatic (1) | CA of the lung, IHD | Nil | 13 | NA |
| 17 (476) | F/42 | Colonization | Lymphoma | Nil | 79 | 24 |
| 18 (536) | M/86 | Symptomatic (1) | IHD | Nil | 1b | NA |
| 19 (526) | F/96 | Colonization | CA of the colon, CHF | Amoxicillin/clavulanate | 21 | 114 |
| 20 (531) | M/76 | Colonization | CRF, HT | Levofloxacin | 7 | 291 |
| 21 (538) | F/21 | Colonization | AML | Piperacillin/tazobactam,vancomycin | 4 | 191 |
| 22 (535) | F/96 | Symptomatic (2) | CHF | Nil | 1b | 110 |
| 23 (580) | M/97 | Symptomatic (2) | CHF, dementia | Amoxicillin/clavulanate | 14 | 113 |
| 24 (586) | M/75 | Colonization | Alzheimer’s disease, DM,HT | Ceftibuten | 10 | 130 |
| 25 (610) | M/89 | Symptomatic (1) | Dementia | Amoxicillin/clavulanate | 49 | 8 |
| 26 (627) | M/62 | Colonization | IHD | Cefuroxime | 8 | NA |
| 27 (92) | F/90 | Symptomatic (1) | HT | Amoxicillin/clavulanate | 18 | 309 |
| 28 (113) | M/85 | Colonization | Dementia | Nil | 17 | 47 |
| 29 (129) | F/80 | Symptomatic (1) | CRF, DM, HT | Amoxicillin/clavulanate | 376 | NA |
ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CA, carcinoma; CHF, congestive heart failure; CRF, chronic renal failure; DM, diabetes mellitus; HT, hypertension; IHD, ischemic heart disease; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; NA, not applicable; NPC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Tx, transplant
aThe disease score is defined as previously described [26]. Briefly, two points were given to patients with endoscopic confirmation of pseudomembranous colitis or those requiring intensive care support. One point each was given for age >60 years, temperature >38.3°C, albumin level <2.5 mg/dL, or peripheral WBC count>15,000 cells/mm3 within 48 h of symptom onset. Patients with two points were considered to have severe C. difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD). Otherwise, the patient was stratified as infection
bCase was defined as healthcare-associated infection, as the symptoms onset was within 4 weeks after discharge from the hospital
Demographic characteristics of patients with culture isolation ofClostridium difficile ribotype 002 and non-ribotype 002 in Hong Kong
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean ± SD) | 68.1 ± 25.5 | 58.3 ± 26.2 | 0.97 | |||
| Sex (M/F) | 20/9 | 33/23 | 0.37 | |||
| Residence in elderly home | 11 (37.9%) | 7 (12.5%) | 0.01a | |||
| Patients with | ||||||
| Malignancy | 12 (41.4%) | 20 (35.7%) | 0.61 | |||
| Organ transplant | 2 (6.9%) | 5 (8.9%) | 1.0 | |||
| Cardiopulmonary condition | 9 (31.0%) | 10 (17.9%) | 0.18 | |||
| Renal failure | 5 (17.2%) | 7 (12.5%) | 0.55 | |||
| Cerebrovascular accident | 5 (17.2%) | 6 (10.7%) | 0.40 | |||
| Diabetes mellitus | 4 (13.8%) | 9 (16.1%) | 0.78 | |||
| Patients with | ||||||
| Asymptomatic colonization | 12 (41.4%) | 26 (46.4%) | 0.66 | |||
| Severe CDADc | 7/17 (41.2%) | 13/30 (43.3%) | 0.90 | |||
| Number of hospitalizations in the past year, median (interquartile range) | 6 (4–12) | 5.5 (2–12.75) | 0.52 | |||
| Number of patients with isolation oftoxigenic | 3 (10.3%) | 8 (14.3%) | 0.74 | |||
| Antibiotic therapy in the week preceding the cultureof | 21 (72.4%) | 34 (60.7%) | 0. 29 | |||
| Days of antibioticsd received by patientsin the past 3 months (mean ± SD) | ||||||
| β-lactams | 23.7 ± 17.9 | 16.2 ± 14.6 | 0.04 | |||
| Fluoroquinolones | 2.6 ± 5.1 | 5.6 ± 10.0 | 0.14 | |||
| Clindamycin | 0 | 0.2 ± 1.2 | 0.35 | |||
| Number of patients using proton pumpinhibitors | ||||||
| Within 90 days | 14 (48.3%) | 19 (33.9%) | 0.24 | |||
| 91–180 days | 8 (27.6%) | 12 (21.4%) | 0.59 | |||
| 181–365 days | 5 (17.2%) | 10 (17.9%) | 1 | |||
| Mean (range) days betweenthe identification of | 35.2 (1–376) | 31.4 (0–416) | 0.99 | |||
| 30-day survival after the identification of | 3 (10.3%) | 6 (10.7%) | 0.96 | |||
aOdds ratio 1.89; 95% confidence interval 1.04–3.42
bPatients with Clostridium difficileribotype 001 (n = 1), 012 (n = 6), 014 (n = 3), 017 (n = 2), og39 (n = 8), and unrecognized ribotype(n = 36) were randomly selected as the control
cSevere CDAD (C. difficile-associated diarrhea) isdefined according to the disease score, as previously described [53]
dPenicillin group includedampicillin, amoxicillin–clavulanate, ampicillin–sulbactam, ticarcillin–clavulanate, piperacillin, andpiperacillin–tazobactam; cephalosporin group included cefazolin, cefuroxime, cefotaxime,ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefoperazone, cefoperazone–sulbactam, cefepime; carbapenemgroup included imipenem–cilastatin, meropenem, and ertapenem; fluoroquinolones includedciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin