| Literature DB >> 25425433 |
Andrea C Büchler1, Silvana K Rampini2, Simon Stelling3,4, Bruno Ledergerber5, Silke Peter6,7, Alexander Schweiger8,9, Christian Ruef10,11, Reinhard Zbinden12, Roberto F Speck13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) remains a major health problem worldwide. Antibiotic use, in general, and clindamycin and ciprofloxacin, in particular, have been implicated in the pathogenesis of CDI. Here, we hypothesized that antibiotics that are highly active in vitro against C. difficile are less frequently associated with CDI than others. The primary goals of our study were to determine if antibiotic susceptibility and CDI are associated and whether the antimicrobial susceptibility of C. difficile changed over the years. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25425433 PMCID: PMC4247760 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-014-0607-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Specimen collection available
| Total number of patients | n = 94 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| "Inpatients" n = 82 | "Outpatients" n = 12 | |||||||
| Clinical data sets | Data complete of n = 78 | Charts missing n = 4 | Data complete | |||||
| Stool analysis positive for toxin/culture; n = 94 | +/+ | −/+ | +/−* | +/+ | −/+ | +/+ | −/+ | +/−* |
| 38 | 31 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 1 | |
| Antibiotic susceptibility testing done in n = 86 | 36** | 31 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 4** | 1 |
*a stool specimen taken a couple of days apart with growth of C. difficile was used for antibiotic susceptibility testing; an alternative stool specimens was only available in 4/9 cases in the inpatient cohort.
**in two and one cases, respectively, from in- and outpatients, cultures were lost and no antimicrobial susceptibility testing could be done.
Antimicrobial use during hospitalization and prior to detection of in stool
| Antimicrobials | Number of patients (%) N = 78† | Duration of treatment | Duration of treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (+/− SD) | Median (range) | ||
|
| 59 (75.6%) | 10.8 (11.0) | 7 (1-33) |
|
| 30 (38.5%) | 4.6 (3.8) | 4 (1-12) |
|
| 23 (29.5%) | 6.8 (31.5) | 6 (1-26) |
|
| 21 (26.9%) | 4.9 (6.6) | 2 (1-12) |
|
| 12 (15.4%) | 9.8 (6.5) | 4 (1-21) |
|
| 8 (10.3%) | 5 (8.2) | 2 (1-25) |
|
| 4 (5.1%) | 5.8 (4.6) | 5 (1-12) |
|
| 3 (3.8%) | 2.7 (1.5) | 3 (1-4) |
|
| 2 (2.7%) | 4 (1.4) | 4 (3-5) |
|
| 1 (1.3%) | 3 (0) | 3 (3) |
|
| 9 (11.5%) | 4.7 (5.0) | 2 (1-14) |
†4 charts of inpatients were missing.
The following antibiotics were recorded:
*Penicillins: amoxicillin (n = 2), amoxicillin/clavulanate (n = 13) acid, piperacillin/tazobactam (n = 18).
**Cephalosporins: cefazolin (n = 2), cefepime (n = 12), ceftazidime (n = 1), ceftriaxone (n = 3), cefuroxime (n = 5).
***Fluoroquinolones: ciprofloxacin (n = 19), levofloxacin (n = 1), norfloxacin (n = 1).
#Carbapenems: ertapenem (n = 3), imipenem/cilastatin (n = 2), meropenem (n = 8).
##Glycopeptides: teicoplanin (n = 2), vancomycin (n = 6); all glycopeptides were given intravenously.
###Nitroimidazoles: metronidazole (n = 3), ornidazole (n = 1).
††Aminogylcosides: garamycin (n = 1), tobramycin (n = 2).
†††Macrolides: azithromycin (n = 1).
Antimicrobial Susceptibility of CDAD Isolates
| Antimicrobials (n = 86) | MIC interpretative criteria (μg/ml) (CLSI) | Susceptible | Intermediate | Resistant | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | I | R | ||||
|
| ≤4/2 | 8/4 | ≥16/8 | 81 (94.2%) | 1 (1.2%) | 4 (4.7%) |
|
| ≤16 | 32 | ≥64 | 3 (3.5%) | 60 (65.1%) | 33 (30.4%) |
|
| ≤2 | 4 | ≥8 | 0 | 1 (1.2%) | 85 (98.8%) |
|
| ≤2 | 4 | ≥8 | 7 (8.1%) | 34 (39.5%) | 45 (52.3%) |
|
| ≤4 | 8 | ≥16 | 86 (100%) | 0 | 0 |
|
| ≤8 | 16 | ≥32 | 86 (100%) | 0 | 0 |
|
| ≤32 | 64 | ≥128 | 86 (100%) | 0 | 0 |
|
| ≤2 | >2 | 85 (98.8%) | 0 | 1 (1.2%) | |
@CLSI and EUCAST did not define breakpoints for ciprofloxacin. Here instead are the breakpoints given for moxifloxacin defined by CLSI which should closely approximate the breakpoints of ciprofloxacin.
¶Breakpoints for metronidazole by EUCAST: S ≤ 2; R2 mg/L.
*No breakpoints defined by CLSI; breakpoints presented by EUCAST.
Figure 1Patients treated with carbapenems or cephalosporins appear to have had a higher risk for developing CDI. Odds ratios were calculated by comparing the intake of the various antibiotics examined in our study with the defined daily intake of the antibiotics prescribed in the University Hospital of Zurich during the study period. The dashed line separates the antibiotics which are associated with a significant risk for CDI.
Figure 2MIC from the collection of from ZH and from EUCAST. The white bars were the data from ZH, the black bars from EUCAST. We compared the data from ZH with the data from EUCAST with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the nonparametric equality-of-medians test.