A new approach to recognition of Clostridium difficile infections with community onset

Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection: An official clinical practice guideline of the Spanish Society of Chemotherapy (SEQ), Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) and the working group of Postoperative Infection of the Spanish Society of Anesthesia and Reanimation (SEDAR)

This document gathers the opinion of a multidisciplinary forum of experts on different aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in Spain. It has been structured around a series of questions that the attendees considered relevant and in which a consensus opinion was reached. The main messages were as follows: CDI should be suspected in patients older than 2 years of age in the presence of diarrhea, paralytic ileus and unexplained leukocytosis, even in the absence of classical risk factors. With a few exceptions, a single stool sample is sufficient for diagnosis, which can be sent to the laboratory with or without transportation media for enteropathogenic bacteria. In the absence of diarrhoea, rectal swabs may be valid. The microbiology laboratory should include C. difficile among the pathogens routinely searched in patients with diarrhoea. Laboratory tests in different order and sequence schemes include GDH detection, presence of toxins, molecular tests and toxigenic culture. Immediate determination of sensitivity to drugs such as vancomycin, metronidazole or fidaxomycin is not required. The evolution of toxin persistence is not a suitable test for follow up. Laboratory diagnosis of CDI should be rapid and results reported and interpreted to clinicians immediately. In addition to the basic support of all diarrheic episodes, CDI treatment requires the suppression of antiperistaltic agents, proton pump inhibitors and antibiotics, where possible. Oral vancomycin and fidaxomycin are the antibacterials of choice in treatment, intravenous metronidazole being restricted for patients in whom the presence of the above drugs in the intestinal lumen cannot be assured. Fecal material transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with multiple recurrences but uncertainties persist regarding its standardization and safety. Bezlotoxumab is a monoclonal antibody to C. difficile toxin B that should be administered to patients at high risk of recurrence. Surgery is becoming less and less necessary and prevention with vaccines is under research. Probiotics have so far not been shown to be therapeutically or preventively effective. The therapeutic strategy should be based, rather than on the number of episodes, on the severity of the episodes and on their potential to recur. Some data point to the efficacy of oral vancomycin prophylaxis in patients who reccur CDI when systemic antibiotics are required again.

Community-Onset Clostridioides Difficile Infection in Hospitalized Patients in The Netherlands

Background

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is increasingly reported in the community. The aim of this study was to analyze characteristics of hospitalized patients with community-onset CDI (CO-CDI).

Methods

In the Netherlands, 24 hospitals (university-affiliated and general hospitals) participate in the sentinel CDI surveillance program. Clinical characteristics and 30-day outcomes of hospitalized patients >2 years old diagnosed with CDI are registered. Samples of these patients are sent to the national reference laboratory for polymerase chain reaction ribotyping. Data obtained for this surveillance from May 2012 to May 2018 were used to compare CO-CDI with hospital-onset (HO)-CDI episodes.

Results

Of 5405 registered cases, 2834 (52.4%) were reported as HO-CDI, 2174 (40.2%) were CO-CDI, and 339 (6.3%) had onset of symptoms in another healthcare facility (eg, nursing home). The proportion of CO-CDI increased over the years and was lower during winter months. Hospitalized patients with CO-CDI were younger (63.8 vs 68.0 years, P < .001) and more often females (53.0% vs 49.6%, P = .02) than patients with HO-CDI. Median time between onset of symptoms and CDI testing was longer in CO-CDI (4 vs 1 day, P < .001). Similar ribotypes were found in CO-CDI and HO-CDI, but ribotype 001 was more frequent among HO-CDI, whereas ribotype 023 was more frequent in CO-CDI. Six of 7 (85.7%) surgeries due to CDI, 27 of 50 (54%) ICU admissions due to CDI, and 48 of 107 (44.9%) of CDI-associated deaths were attributable to CO-CDI.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that patients hospitalized with CO-CDI contribute substantially to the total number of CDI episodes and CDI-associated complications in hospitals, stressing the need for awareness and early testing for CDI in community and outpatient settings and also in patients admitted from community with diarrhoea. Surveillance programs that also target nonhospitalized CDI patients are needed to understand the true burden and dynamics of CDI.

Clostridioides difficile in Outpatients: Application of a Diagnostic Algorithm Recommended by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

This study aimed at evaluating in outpatients an algorithm for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI), i.e., enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) detecting bacterial glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B, followed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses of samples with discordant EIA results.

In total, 9802 examinations of stool samples by GDH and toxin EIAs performed in 7263 outpatients and 488 inpatients were analyzed retrospectively. Samples with discordant EIA results had been tested by a commercially available PCR assay detecting genes of the C. difficile-specific triose phosphate isomerase (tpi) and toxin B (tcdB). Concordant EIA results (686 C. difficile-positive, 8121 negative) were observed for 8807 (89.8%; 95% CI, 89.2–90.4%) samples. Of 958 samples with discordant EIA results, 895 were analyzed using PCR and 580 of 854 GDH-positive/borderline, toxin-negative samples (67.9%; 95% CI, 64.7–71.0%) were positive for tpi and tcdB, while 274 samples (32.1%; 95% CI, 29.0–35.3%) were tcdB-negative. In contrast, 35 of 41 GDH-negative, toxin-positive/borderline samples (85.4%; 95% CI, 71.2–93.5%) were tcdB-negative. Still, 6 samples (14.6%; 95% CI, 6.5–28.8%) yielded positive PCR results for both genes.

In conclusion, around 90% of the samples were analyzed appropriately by only applying EIAs. Approximately one third of the PCR-analyzed samples were tcdB-negative; thus, patients most likely did not require CDI treatment.