| Literature DB >> 28813461 |
Nicole Stoesser1,2, David W Eyre1,2, T Phuong Quan1,2, Heather Godwin1, Gemma Pill1, Emily Mbuvi1, Alison Vaughan1,2, David Griffiths1,2, Jessica Martin3, Warren Fawley4, Kate E Dingle1,2, Sarah Oakley5, Kazimierz Wanelik1, John M Finney1,2, Melina Kachrimanidou6, Catrin E Moore1, Sherwood Gorbach7, Thomas V Riley8, Derrick W Crook1,2, Tim E A Peto1,2, Mark H Wilcox3, A Sarah Walker1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 30-40% of children <1 year of age are Clostridium difficile colonized, and may represent a reservoir for adult C. difficile infections (CDI). Risk factors for colonization with toxigenic versus non-toxigenic C. difficile strains and longitudinal acquisition dynamics in infants remain incompletely characterized.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28813461 PMCID: PMC5559064 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182307
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Participant disposition.
a The total numbers of individuals screened for recruitment was not recorded.
Independent risk factors for Clostridium difficile colonization at enrolment.
| Overall n (col %) or median (IQR) | Hetero-geneity of effect in non-toxigenic versus toxigenic | Presence of non-toxigenic strains, n = 25 | Presence of toxigenic strains, n = 33 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk factor | n (row %) or median (IQR) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | p | p | n (row %) or median (IQR) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | p | n (row %) or median (IQR) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | p | |
| 4.4 (1.6, 8.7) | 8.0 (5.2, 11.8) | Non-linear | <0.001 | 0.48 | 8.7 (6.1, 10.7) | Non-linear | 0.001 | 7.6 (5.2, 12.6) | Non-linear | 0.03 | |
| 2 | 122 (36%) | 8 (7%) | 0.36 (0.21, 0.61) | 3 (2%) | 0.27 (0.12, 0.60) | 5 (4%) | 0.49 (0.25, 0.97) | ||||
| 4 | 53 (16%) | 3 (6%) | 0.59 (0.45, 0.78) | 1 (2%) | 0.52 (0.34, 0.78) | 2 (4%) | 0.70 (0.50, 0.99) | ||||
| 6 | 57 (17%) | 6 (11%) | 1.00 (ref) | 2 (4%) | 1.00 (ref) | 4 (7%) | 1.00 (ref) | ||||
| 9 | 40 (12%) | 16 (40%) | 1.77 (1.28, 2.46) | 7 (18%) | 2.01 (1.23, 3.27) | 9 (23%) | 1.43 (0.94, 2.19) | ||||
| 12 | 31 (9%) | 12 (39%) | 1.98 (1.18, 3.32) | 8 (26%) | 2.17 (0.97, 4.84) | 4 (13%) | 1.44 (0.74, 2.81) | ||||
| 15 | 18 (5%) | 8 (44%) | 1.17 (0.58, 2.37) | 3 (17%) | 1.00 (0.28, 3.52) | 5 (28%) | 0.89 (0.37, 2.13) | ||||
| 18 | 17 (5%) | 5 (29%) | 0.32 (0.09, 1.13) | 1 (6%) | 0.17 (0.02, 1.74) | 4 (24%) | 0.31 (0.07, 1.35) | ||||
| No breastfeeding | 124 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 1.00 (ref) | 15 (12%) | 1.00 (ref) | 26 (21%) | 1.00 (ref) | ||||
| Mixed feeding | 103 (30%) | 14 (14%) | 0.40 (0.19, 0.83) | 0.01 | 0.22 | 8 (8%) | 0.70 (0.25, 1.94) | 0.49 | 6 (6%) | 0.30 (0.11, 0.82) | 0.02 |
| Breastfeeding only | 111 (33%) | 3 (3%) | 0.13 (0.03, 0.47) | 0.002 | 0.23 | 2 (2%) | 0.31 (0.05, 1.73) | 0.18 | 1 (1%) | 0.06 (0.01, 0.50) | 0.01 |
| 58 (17%) | 21 (36)% | 3.06 (1.47, 6.38) | 0.003 | 0.80 | 9 (16%) | 2.77 (1.02, 7.56) | 0.05 | 12 (21%) | 3.23 (1.30, 8.04) | 0.01 | |
| 83 (25%) | 23 (28%) | Not selected in model for colonization with any | 0.02 | 5 (6%) | 0.58 (0.19, 1.82) | 0.35 | 18 (22%) | 2.76 (1.15, 6.60) | 0.02 | ||
| 14 (4%) | 5 (36%) | Not selected in model for colonization with any | - | 5 (36%) | 6.35 (1.59, 25.39) | 0.01 | 0 (0%) | No cases | - | ||
* see S1 Fig.
** n (%) are the numbers of infants aged zero-two months, two-four months etc. Odds ratios for age effect are calculated from the best-fitting fractional polynomial function using 6 months as the reference category (and are not based on categorized age-groups which are merely shown for reference).
*** Although pet dogs were identified using backwards elimination, similar model fit and effect was found when substituting dogs with cats (main model: OR = 1.48 p = 0.26 for cats, difference in Akaike Information Criteria: 259(cats)-252(dogs) = 7). See S1 Table for univariable results.
Fig 2Clostridium difficile ST prevalence in Oxfordshire infants and symptomatic patients.
ST15, ST26 and a subset of ST3 are non-toxigenic and hence were only identified in symptomatic Oxfordshire patients between December 2010 to September 2011, and from April 2012 to September 2013. Only three infant samples were obtained prior to January 2011, therefore STs from symptomatic patients are shown separately for January 2011 to September 2013 to provide a comparison of the strains circulating during the study. Circle size represents the proportion of strains per ST within an isolate collection.
Fig 3Clusters of infant isolates related within two SNVs.
Each isolate is shown as a circle colored according to the infant’s home location on the map. SNVs between isolates are labeled on the connecting lines. Where indistinguishable sequences were obtained from more than one infant, the size of the circle is increased and the circle labeled with each isolate’s collection date. *ST 26 and ST15 are non-toxigenic, all other STs shown are toxigenic.
Fig 4Comparison of the number of SNVs and elapsed time between C. difficile isolates (toxigenic and non-toxigenic) related within ten SNVs in Oxfordshire.
Panel A compares samples from infants to all prior isolates from infants i.e. whether infants might plausibly be transmitting to other infants; the most closely related prior sequence is plotted. Panel B compares infants with prior symptomatic patients, i.e. shows whether symptomatic patients might plausibly be a source of infant carriage or colonization. Panel C compares infants with subsequent symptomatic patient sequences, i.e. shows where infant carriage is a potential source of subsequent symptomatic infection. Compatibility with transmission from source to recipient (either direct or via one or more intermediates) is determined by evolutionary rates (x-axis scales differ); the 95% prediction interval for compatibility with transmission is represented by the shaded blue areas.