Risk factors for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in a tertiary hospital in Israel
- 180 Downloads
To estimate the rate and identified risk factors for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) in Israel. We conducted a retro-prospective case-control study of all adult (age ≥ 18 years) patients with an initial episode of CDI (iCDI) at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014. We collected demographic, clinical, and epidemiological information for patients who were classified as recurrent (cases) and non-recurrent (control) groups. In total, 648 patients with iCDI were identified in the study. During the 36-month study period, 82 (12.7%) patients had at least one rCDI identified. We identified several factors as independent variables significantly associated with recurrent CDI: functional disability, severity of the initial infection, continuous non-Clostridium difficile antibiotic treatment with third-generation cephalosporins or clindamycin, and iCDI treatment with metronidazole and vancomycin; however, neutropenia had high measure of effect as a predictor for rCDI (adjusted odds ratio, 7.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.27–49.58; p = 0.026). The identification of the main modifiable risk factors for recurrent CDI, continuous non-Clostridium difficile antibiotics after diagnosis of the initial infection, and antibiotic treatment with third-generation cephalosporins or clindamycin are critical in reducing the spread of recurrent infection with Clostridium difficile in hospital.
KeywordsRisk factors Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection Israel
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Cohen SH, Gerding DN, Johnson S, Kelly CP, Loo VG, McDonald LC, Pepin J, Wilcox MH (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 31:431–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Cornely OA, Crook DW, Esposito R, Poirier A, Somero MS, Weiss K, Sears P, Gorbach S, OPT-80-004 Clinical Study Group (2012) Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 12:281–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Karas JA, Enoch DA, Aliyu SH (2010) A review of mortality due to Clostridium difficile infection. J Inf Secur 61:1–8Google Scholar
- 26.Mullane KM, Miller MA, Weiss K, Lentnek A, Golan Y, Sears PS, Shue YK, Louie TJ, Gorbach SL (2011) Efficacy of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin as therapy for Clostridium difficile infection in individuals taking concomitant antibiotics for other concurrent infections. Clin Infect Dis 53:440–447CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Lucado J, Gould C, Elixhauser A (2009) Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) in hospital stays. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Statistical brief #124. http://www.hcupus.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb124.pdf (accessed 8 January 2013)
- 37.Guery B, Menichetti F, Anttila VJ, Adomakoh N, Aguado JM, Bisnauthsing K et al (2018) Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection in patients 60 years and older (EXTEND): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3b/4 trial. Lancet Infect Dis 18:296–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar