Clostridium difficile infections in Finland, 2008–2015: trends, diagnostics and ribotypes
- 213 Downloads
We evaluated Clostridium difficile (CD) diagnostics in Finnish clinical microbiology laboratories during 2006–2011, with an update in 2015, in relation to CD surveillance data of the National Infectious Disease Register (NIDR) and ribotyping data from the national reference laboratory during the years 2008–2015. In 2011, diagnostic activity varied regionally more than three-fold and the positivity rate ranged between 7 and 21%. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) was implemented in the regions with high activity and NAAT users tested 30% more patients and found 15% more cases per population than those not using it. Culture was performed in 79% of laboratories, primary toxin testing by enzyme immunoassay (EIA) in 83% and by NAAT in 17%. In 2014, 12/19 laboratories used NAAT as the primary detection method and four as the secondary method, and ten cultured. Increasing usage of NAAT was not systematically related to various trends detected regionally in annual CD rates. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ribotyping of 1771 CD isolates (4.1% of CD cases) identified 146 distinct profiles, of which 37% were binary toxin positive. The most common ribotype was 027, but its proportion decreased, while 078 slightly increased. Transition from culture to NAAT in CD infection (CDI) diagnostics did not cause a significant increase in the observed CDI incidence. Major differences between diagnostic activity, methods and strategies in different regions have persisted over the years, which should be considered when comparing the regional epidemiology of CDI.
Arja Kanervo-Nordström and Anne Bryk are acknowledged for their technical assistance.
Compliance with ethical standards
The study was performed on institutional budget funding.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 1.Davies KA, Longshaw CM, Davis GL et al (2014) Underdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile across Europe: the European, multicentre, prospective, biannual, point-prevalence study of Clostridium Difficile infection in hospitalised patients with diarrhoea (EUCLID). Lancet Infect Dis 14:1208–1219. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70991-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Tissari P (2008) Clostridium difficile-diagnostiikka tänään. Suomen Sairaalahygienialehti 26:304–306Google Scholar
- 12.Lindholm L, Kalluinen M, Eerola E, Meurman O, Virolainen A, Jalava J (2011) Correlation between Clostridium difficile toxin genes and the direct toxin detection assay results. In: Proceedings of the 21st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Milan, Italy, May 2011, P1986Google Scholar
- 22.Adler A, Schwartzberg Y, Samra Z, Schwartz O, Carmeli Y, Schwaber MJ; Israeli Clostridium difficile Diagnostics Study Group (2014) Trends and changes in Clostridium difficile diagnostic policies and their impact on the proportion of positive samples: a national survey. Clin Microbiol Infect 20(11):O904–O910. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12634 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Fitzpatrick F, Oza A, Gilleece A, O’Byrne AM, Drudy D; C. difficile subcommittee of the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (2008) Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated disease in the Republic of Ireland: a survey of Irish microbiology laboratories. J Hosp Infect 68:315–321. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2008.01.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar