Advertisement

Stronger correlation between antibiotic use and the incidence of Clostridium difficile determined by culture results instead of faecal toxin detection only

  • D. Mertz
  • R. Frei
  • H. Plagge
  • M. Battegay
  • A. F. Widmer
Brief Report
  • 122 Downloads

Abstract

The detection of Clostridium difficile in previous studies evaluating antibiotic use as a risk factor was limited to toxin assay tests. The reported associations may have been misleading due to the low sensitivity of toxin assay tests compared to culture results. Antibiotic use and the incidence of C. difficile of 19 units (wards) over 5 years were analysed. Stool samples were tested for toxin A/B and cultured. The correlation of antibiotic use with the incidence of C. difficile determined by culture results was compared to the correlation determined by toxin assay results. Additionally, single antibiotics were analysed as risk factors. Of 5,772 faecal samples tested for C. difficile, 154 single-first cases were detected by the toxin assay and 251 additional single-first cases by culture. Antibiotic use was a significantly stronger risk factor in the correlation based on the culture results (R 2 = 0.63) versus toxin assay results (R 2 = 0.40). Multivariate analysis did not improve the correlation significantly and only the group of broad-spectrum beta-lactams was identified as an independent risk factor. The correlation between antibiotic use and C. difficile incidence rates significantly improves if detection is not limited to faecal toxin assays. Therefore, antibiotic pressure was previously underestimated as a risk factor.

Keywords

Quinolones Meropenem Clostridium Difficile Cefepime Infection Control Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Financial support

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from the “Stiftung Forschung Infektionskrankheiten” (SFI).

Transparency declaration

The authors have no conflicts of interests to declare.

Previous presentation

An abstract was presented at the 20th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Vienna, Austria, April 2010 (Abstract O-161).

References

  1. 1.
    McFarland LV (2008) Update on the changing epidemiology of Clostridium difficile-associated disease. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 5(1):40–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aldeyab MA, Harbarth S, Vernaz N, Kearney MP, Scott MG, Funston C, Savage K, Kelly D, Aldiab MA, McElnay JC (2009) Quasiexperimental study of the effects of antibiotic use, gastric acid-suppressive agents, and infection control practices on the incidence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53(5):2082–2088CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomas C, Stevenson M, Riley TV (2003) Antibiotics and hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea: a systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother 51(6):1339–1350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vernaz N, Hill K, Leggeat S, Nathwani D, Philips G, Bonnabry P, Davey P (2009) Temporal effects of antibiotic use and Clostridium difficile infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 63(6):1272–1275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Owens RC Jr, Donskey CJ, Gaynes RP, Loo VG, Muto CA (2008) Antimicrobial-associated risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 46(Suppl 1):S19–S31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pépin J, Saheb N, Coulombe MA, Alary ME, Corriveau MP, Authier S, Leblanc M, Rivard G, Bettez M, Primeau V, Nguyen M, Jacob CE, Lanthier L (2005) Emergence of fluoroquinolones as the predominant risk factor for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: a cohort study during an epidemic in Quebec. Clin Infect Dis 41(9):1254–1260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen SH, Gerding DN, Johnson S, Kelly CP, Loo VG, McDonald LC, Pépin J, Wilcox MH, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; Infectious Diseases Society of America (2010) Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the society for healthcare epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the infectious diseases society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 31(5):431–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fenner L, Widmer AF, Goy G, Rudin S, Frei R (2008) Rapid and reliable diagnostic algorithm for detection of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 46(1):328–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crobach MJ, Dekkers OM, Wilcox MH, Kuijper EJ (2009) European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID): data review and recommendations for diagnosing Clostridium difficile-infection (CDI). Clin Microbiol Infect 15(12):1053–1066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vernaz N, Sax H, Pittet D, Bonnabry P, Schrenzel J, Harbarth S (2008) Temporal effects of antibiotic use and hand rub consumption on the incidence of MRSA and Clostridium difficile. J Antimicrob Chemother 62(3):601–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Mertz
    • 1
  • R. Frei
    • 2
  • H. Plagge
    • 3
  • M. Battegay
    • 1
  • A. F. Widmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital EpidemiologyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Division of Clinical MicrobiologyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Hospital PharmacyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations