Clostridium difficile infection in the community: Are proton pump inhibitors to blame?

New insights into transmission of Clostridium difficile infection-narrative review

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, Clostridium difficile has been considered a typical healthcare-associated pathogen-that is, one transmitted within healthcare facilities and thus prevented by implementation of standard infection control measures. Recently this concept has been challenged by studies suggesting a relevant role for community acquisition of C. difficile.

AIMS

To discusses the current literature, compiled during the last decade, reporting on sources of acquisition of C. difficile and subsequent transmission.

SOURCES

The databases PubMed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles published from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2017 reporting on possible transmission pathways of C. difficile and/or suggesting a source of acquisition of C. difficile. All study types reporting on adult populations were considered; case reports and series were excluded. The PRISMA guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews were followed.

CONTENT

Among 24 original articles included, 63% report on transmission of C. difficile in healthcare settings and 37% investigate sources and transmission of C. difficile in the community. Contact with symptomatic carriers (53.3%), the hospital environment (40.0%) and asymptomatic carriers (20%) were the most commonly reported transmission pathways within healthcare settings. The leading sources for acquisition of C. difficile in the community include direct contact with symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers in the community, including infants (30%) and residents of long-term non-acute care facilities (30%), followed by contact with contaminated environments in outpatient care settings (20%) and exposure to livestock or livestock farms (20%).

IMPLICATIONS

In healthcare settings, future control efforts may need to focus on extending cleaning and disinfection procedures beyond the immediate surroundings of symptomatic carriers. Potential targets to prevent acquisition of C. difficile in the community include household settings, long-term care facilities and outpatient settings, while the role of livestock in entertaining transmission requires further investigation.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Hoarseness (Dysphonia) (Update)

Objective

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on treating patients who present with dysphonia, which is characterized by altered vocal quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication and/or quality of life. Dysphonia affects nearly one-third of the population at some point in its life. This guideline applies to all age groups evaluated in a setting where dysphonia would be identified or managed. It is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and treat patients with dysphonia.

Purpose

The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve the quality of care for patients with dysphonia, based on current best evidence. Expert consensus to fill evidence gaps, when used, is explicitly stated and supported with a detailed evidence profile for transparency. Specific objectives of the guideline are to reduce inappropriate variations in care, produce optimal health outcomes, and minimize harm. For this guideline update, the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of advanced practice nursing, bronchoesophagology, consumer advocacy, family medicine, geriatric medicine, internal medicine, laryngology, neurology, otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, pediatrics, professional voice, pulmonology, and speech-language pathology.

Action Statements

The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (1) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination to identify factors where expedited laryngeal evaluation is indicated. These include, but are not limited to, recent surgical procedures involving the head, neck, or chest; recent endotracheal intubation; presence of concomitant neck mass; respiratory distress or stridor; history of tobacco abuse; and whether the patient is a professional voice user. (2) Clinicians should advocate voice therapy for patients with dysphonia from a cause amenable to voice therapy. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following KASs: (1) Clinicians should identify dysphonia in a patient with altered voice quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces quality of life (QOL). (2) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination for underlying causes of dysphonia and factors that modify management. (3) Clinicians should perform laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform laryngoscopy, when dysphonia fails to resolve or improve within 4 weeks or irrespective of duration if a serious underlying cause is suspected. (4) Clinicians should perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, before prescribing voice therapy and document/communicate the results to the speech-language pathologist (SLP). (5) Clinicians should advocate for surgery as a therapeutic option for patients with dysphonia with conditions amenable to surgical intervention, such as suspected malignancy, symptomatic benign vocal fold lesions that do not respond to conservative management, or glottic insufficiency. (6) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of dysphonia caused by spasmodic dysphonia and other types of laryngeal dystonia. (7) Clinicians should inform patients with dysphonia about control/preventive measures. (8) Clinicians should document resolution, improvement or worsened symptoms of dysphonia, or change in QOL of patients with dysphonia after treatment or observation. The guideline update group made a strong recommendation against 1 action: (1) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe antibiotics to treat dysphonia. The guideline update group made recommendations against other actions: (1) Clinicians should not obtain computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with a primary voice complaint prior to visualization of the larynx. (2) Clinicians should not prescribe antireflux medications to treat isolated dysphonia, based on symptoms alone attributed to suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), without visualization of the larynx. (3) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe corticosteroids for patients with dysphonia prior to visualization of the larynx. The policy level for the following recommendation about laryngoscopy at any time was an option: (1) Clinicians may perform diagnostic laryngoscopy at any time in a patient with dysphonia.

Disclaimer

This clinical practice guideline is not intended as an exhaustive source of guidance for managing dysphonia (hoarseness). Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. The guideline is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and it may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem. Differences from Prior Guideline (1) Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include the role of patient preferences, confidence in the evidence, differences of opinion, quality improvement opportunities, and any exclusion to which the action statement does not apply (2) Inclusion of 3 new guidelines, 16 new systematic reviews, and 4 new randomized controlled trials (3) Inclusion of a consumer advocate on the guideline update group (4) Changes to 9 KASs from the original guideline (5) New KAS 3 (escalation of care) and KAS 13 (outcomes) (6) Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs for patients with dysphonia

Incidence and Risk Factors for Community and Hospital Acquisition of Clostridium difficile Infection in the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the incidence and identified risk factors for community-acquired (CA) and hospital-acquired (HA) Clostridium difficile infection (CDI)

METHODS

We conducted 2 parallel case-control studies at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014. We identified persons with CDI, determined whether infection was community or hospital acquired, and calculated incidence rates from 2007 to 2014. We collected demographic, clinical, and epidemiological information for CDI cases and hospitalized control cases and estimated the odds ratio with 95% confidence interval using conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 1,563 CDI cases were identified in the study. The incidence rate of CA-CDI and HA-CDI increased by 1.6-fold and 1.2-fold, respectively, during 2012–2014. However, the incidence rate of CA-CDI was 0.84 per 100,000 (95% CI, 0.52–1.30), the rate for HA-CDI was 4.7 per 10,000 patient days (95% CI, 4.08–5.38), respectively, in 2014. We identified several factors as independent variables significantly associated with HA-CDI: functional disability, presence of nasogastric tube, antibiotic use, chemotherapy, infection by extended-spectrum β-lactamases, and mean of albumin values. Risk factors independently associated with CA-CDI were close contact with a family member who had been hospitalized in the previous 6 months, inflammatory bowel disease, and home density index (adjusted odds ratio, 25.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.99–165.54; P=.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of the main modifiable risk factors for HA-CDI (antibiotic exposure and hypoalbuminemia) and for CA-CDI (close contact with a family member who had been hospitalized in the previous 6 months) is likely to optimize prevention efforts; these factors are critical in preventing the spread of CDI.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:912–920

Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Community-Associated Clostridium difficile Infection: A Narrative Review

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) was once considered a primarily nosocomial concern. Emerging evidence from the last 20 years has highlighted a drastic shift in the known epidemiology of CDI, with disease outside of hospitals apparently occurring more frequently and causing severe disease in populations that were thought to be at low risk. This narrative review summarises potential pathways for infection outside of the hospital environment and highlights likely routes of transmission. Further, evidence is presented on potential risk factors for development of disease. Understanding the epidemiology of CDI outside of hospitals is essential to the ability to prevent and control disease in vulnerable populations.

Flooding and Clostridium difficile Infection: A Case-Crossover Analysis

Clostridium difficile is a bacterium that can spread by water. It often causes acute gastrointestinal illness in older adults who are hospitalized and/or receiving antibiotics; however, community-associated infections affecting otherwise healthy individuals have become more commonly reported. A case-crossover study was used to assess emergency room (ER) and outpatient visits for C. difficile infection following flood events in Massachusetts from 2003 through 2007. Exposure status was based on whether or not a flood occurred prior to the case/control date during the following risk periods: 0-6 days, 7-13 days, 14-20 days, and 21-27 days. Fixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate the risk of diagnosis with C. difficile infection following a flood. There were 129 flood events and 1575 diagnoses of C. difficile infection. Among working age adults (19-64 years), ER and outpatient visits for C. difficile infection were elevated during the 7-13 days following a flood (Odds Ratio, OR = 1.69; 95% Confidence Interval, CI: 0.84, 3.37). This association was more substantial among males (OR = 3.21; 95% CI: 1.01-10.19). Associations during other risk periods were not observed (p < 0.05). Although we were unable to differentiate community-associated versus nosocomial infections, a potential increase in C. difficile infections should be considered as more flooding is projected due to climate change.

Community-acquired Clostridium difficile infection: an increasing public health threat

There has been a startling shift in the epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection over the last decade worldwide, and it is now increasingly recognized as a cause of diarrhea in the community. Classically considered a hospital-acquired infection, it has now emerged in populations previously considered to be low-risk and lacking the traditional risk factors for C. difficile infection, such as increased age, hospitalization, and antibiotic exposure. Recent studies have demonstrated great genetic diversity for C. difficile, pointing toward diverse sources and a fluid genome. Environmental sources like food, water, and animals may play an important role in these infections, apart from the role symptomatic patients and asymptomatic carriers play in spore dispersal. Prospective strain typing using highly discriminatory techniques is a possible way to explore the suspected diverse sources of C. difficile infection in the community. Patients with community-acquired C. difficile infection do not necessarily have a good outcome and clinicians should be aware of factors that predict worse outcomes in order to prevent them. This article summarizes the emerging epidemiology, risk factors, and outcomes for community-acquired C. difficile infection.