Jodie A Barkin1, Daniel A Sussman2, Nimita Fifadara3, Jamie S Barkin2. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, 1120 NW 14th Street, Clinical Research Building, Suite 1116, Miami, FL, 33136, USA. jabarkin@med.miami.edu. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, 1120 NW 14th Street, Clinical Research Building, Suite 1116, Miami, FL, 33136, USA. 3. DRG Laboratory, 2001 Westside Parkway, Suite 240, Alpharetta, GA, 30004, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile (CD) infection (CDI) causes marked morbidity and mortality, accounting for large healthcare expenditures annually. Current CDI treatment guidelines focus on clinical markers of patient severity to determine the preferred antibiotic regimen of metronidazole versus vancomycin. The antimicrobial resistance patterns for patients with CD are currently unknown. AIM: The aim of this study was to define the antimicrobial resistance patterns for CD. METHODS: This study included all patients with stools sent for CD testing to a private laboratory (DRG Laboratory, Alpharetta, Georgia) in a 6-month period from across the USA. Patient data was de-identified, with only age, gender, and zip-code available per laboratory protocol. All samples underwent PCR testing followed by hybridization for CD toxin regions A and B. Only patients with CD-positive PCR were analyzed. Antimicrobial resistance testing using stool genomic DNA evaluated presence of imidazole- and vancomycin-resistant genes using multiplex PCR gene detection. RESULTS: Of 2743, 288 (10.5%) stool samples were positive for CD. Six were excluded per protocol. Of 282, 193 (69.4%) were women, and average age was 49.4 ± 18.7 years. Of 282, 62 were PCR positive for toxins A and B, 160 for toxin A positive alone, and 60 for toxin B positive alone. Antimicrobial resistance testing revealed 134/282 (47.5%) patients resistant to imidazole, 17 (6.1%) resistant to vancomycin, and 9 (3.2%) resistant to imidazole and vancomycin. CONCLUSIONS: CD-positive patients with presence of imidazole-resistant genes from stool DNA extract was a common phenomenon, while vancomycin resistance was uncommon. Similar to treatment of other infections, antimicrobial resistance testing should play a role in CDI clinical decision-making algorithms to enable more expedited and cost-effective delivery of patient care.
BACKGROUND:Clostridium difficile (CD) infection (CDI) causes marked morbidity and mortality, accounting for large healthcare expenditures annually. Current CDI treatment guidelines focus on clinical markers of patient severity to determine the preferred antibiotic regimen of metronidazole versus vancomycin. The antimicrobial resistance patterns for patients with CD are currently unknown. AIM: The aim of this study was to define the antimicrobial resistance patterns for CD. METHODS: This study included all patients with stools sent for CD testing to a private laboratory (DRG Laboratory, Alpharetta, Georgia) in a 6-month period from across the USA. Patient data was de-identified, with only age, gender, and zip-code available per laboratory protocol. All samples underwent PCR testing followed by hybridization for CD toxin regions A and B. Only patients with CD-positive PCR were analyzed. Antimicrobial resistance testing using stool genomic DNA evaluated presence of imidazole- and vancomycin-resistant genes using multiplex PCR gene detection. RESULTS: Of 2743, 288 (10.5%) stool samples were positive for CD. Six were excluded per protocol. Of 282, 193 (69.4%) were women, and average age was 49.4 ± 18.7 years. Of 282, 62 were PCR positive for toxins A and B, 160 for toxin A positive alone, and 60 for toxin B positive alone. Antimicrobial resistance testing revealed 134/282 (47.5%) patients resistant to imidazole, 17 (6.1%) resistant to vancomycin, and 9 (3.2%) resistant to imidazole and vancomycin. CONCLUSIONS:CD-positive patients with presence of imidazole-resistant genes from stool DNA extract was a common phenomenon, while vancomycin resistance was uncommon. Similar to treatment of other infections, antimicrobial resistance testing should play a role in CDI clinical decision-making algorithms to enable more expedited and cost-effective delivery of patient care.
Authors: Leonard A Mermel; Michael Allon; Emilio Bouza; Donald E Craven; Patricia Flynn; Naomi P O'Grady; Issam I Raad; Bart J A Rijnders; Robert J Sherertz; David K Warren Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Christina M Surawicz; Lawrence J Brandt; David G Binion; Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan; Scott R Curry; Peter H Gilligan; Lynne V McFarland; Mark Mellow; Brian S Zuckerbraun Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Isaac See; Yi Mu; Jessica Cohen; Zintars G Beldavs; Lisa G Winston; Ghinwa Dumyati; Stacy Holzbauer; John Dunn; Monica M Farley; Carol Lyons; Helen Johnston; Erin Phipps; Rebecca Perlmutter; Lydia Anderson; Dale N Gerding; Fernanda C Lessa Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Stuart Johnson; Thomas J Louie; Dale N Gerding; Oliver A Cornely; Scott Chasan-Taber; David Fitts; Steven P Gelone; Colin Broom; David M Davidson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Simon D Baines; Rachael O'Connor; Jane Freeman; Warren N Fawley; Celine Harmanus; Paola Mastrantonio; Ed J Kuijper; Mark H Wilcox Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2008-08-07 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Kiril Mihajlov; Aneta Andreska; Nadica Ristovska; Tatjana Grdanoska; Elena Trajkovska-Dokic Journal: Open Access Maced J Med Sci Date: 2019-06-30
Authors: William J Bradshaw; Jean-François Bruxelle; Andrea Kovacs-Simon; Nicholas J Harmer; Claire Janoir; Severine Péchiné; K Ravi Acharya; Stephen L Michell Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 5.157