Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T04:53:08.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distinguishing Clostridium difficile Recurrence From Reinfection: Independent Validation of Current Recommendations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2017

Ana Durovic ,
Andreas F. Widmer ,
Reno Frei  and
Sarah Tschudin-Sutter
Ana Durovic
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Andreas F. Widmer
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Reno Frei
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Microbiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Sarah Tschudin-Sutter*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
*
Address correspondence to Sarah Tschudin-Sutter, MD, MSc, Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland (sarah.tschudin@usb.ch).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Distinguishing recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), defined as CDI caused by the same genotype, from reinfection with a different genotype, has important implications for surveillance and clinical trials investigating treatment effectiveness. We validated the proposed 8-week period for distinguishing “same genotype CDI” from “different genotype CDI,” and we aimed to identify clinical variables with distinctiveness to propose an improved definition.

METHODS

From January 2004 to December 2013, a cohort of all inpatients with CDI at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, was established, and respective strains were collected. In patients with a second episode of CDI, both strains were compared using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ribotyping. The standard definition of recurrence (within 8 weeks after initial diagnosis) was evaluated for its performance to predict CDI caused by the same genotype.

RESULTS

Among 750 patients with CDI, 130 (17.3%) were diagnosed with recurrence or reinfection. Strains from both episodes were available from 106 patients. Identical strains were identified in 36 patients with recurrence (36 of 47) and 27 patients with reinfection (27 of 59). Sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of the standard definition were 56%, 74%, 53%, and 76%, respectively. An extended period of 20 weeks resulted in the best match for both sensitivity and specificity (83% and 58%, respectively), while none of the clinical characteristics revealed independent distinctive power.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results challenge the utility of the 8-week cutoff for distinguishing recurrent CDI from reinfection. An extended period of 20 weeks may result in improved overall performance characteristics, but this finding requires external validation.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:891–896

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 38 , Issue 8 , August 2017 , pp. 891 - 896
Copyright
© 2017 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

PREVIOUS PRESENTATION. A summary of this article was presented orally at the 26th ECCMID European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases in Amsterdam, Netherlands, on April 11, 2016.

References

REFERENCES

1. Pepin, J, Alary, ME, Valiquette, L, et al. Increasing risk of relapse after treatment of Clostridium difficile colitis in Quebec, Canada. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:1591–1597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Sheitoyan-Pesant, C, Abou Chakra, CN, Pepin, J, Marcil-Heguy, A, Nault, V, Valiquette, L. Clinical and healthcare burden of multiple recurrences of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 2016;62:574–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Control ECfDPa. European surveillance of Clostridium difficile infections. Surveillance protocol version 2.1 Stockholm: ECDC; 2015.Google Scholar
4. McDonald, LC, Coignard, B, Dubberke, E, Song, X, Horan, T, Kutty, PK. Recommendations for surveillance of Clostridium difficile–associated disease. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:140–145.Google Scholar
5. Debast, SB, Bauer, MP, Kuijper, EJ. Committee. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the treatment guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20(Suppl 2):1–26.Google Scholar
6. von Elm, E, Altman, DG, Egger, M, Pocock, SJ, Gotzsche, PC, Vandenbroucke, JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007;370:1453–1457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Fenner, L, Widmer, AF, Goy, G, Rudin, S, Frei, R. Rapid and reliable diagnostic algorithm for detection of Clostridium difficile . J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:328–330.Google Scholar
8. Indra, A, Huhulescu, S, Schneeweis, M, et al. Characterization of Clostridium difficile isolates using capillary gel electrophoresis-based PCR ribotyping. J Med Microbiol 2008;57:1377–1382.Google Scholar
9. Stubbs, SL, Brazier, JS, O’Neill, GL, Duerden, BI. PCR targeted to the 16S-23S rRNA gene intergenic spacer region of Clostridium difficile and construction of a library consisting of 116 different PCR ribotypes. J Clin Microbiol 1999;37:461–463.Google Scholar
10. Kamboj, M, Khosa, P, Kaltsas, A, Babady, NE, Son, C, Sepkowitz, KA. Relapse versus reinfection: surveillance of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 2011;53:1003–1006.Google Scholar
11. Kumar, N, Miyajima, F, He, M, et al. Genome-based infection tracking reveals dynamics of Clostridium difficile transmission and disease recurrence. Clin Infect Dis 2016;62:746–752.Google Scholar
12. Alonso, R, Gros, S, Pelaez, T, Garcia-de-Viedma, D, Rodriguez-Creixems, M, Bouza, E. Molecular analysis of relapse vs re-infection in HIV-positive patients suffering from recurrent Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhoea. J Hosp Infect 2001;48:86–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Figueroa, I, Johnson, S, Sambol, SP, Goldstein, EJ, Citron, DM, Gerding, DN. Relapse versus reinfection: recurrent Clostridium difficile infection following treatment with fidaxomicin or vancomycin. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55(Suppl 2):S104–S109.Google Scholar
14. Louie, TJ, Miller, MA, Mullane, KM, et al. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med 2011;364:422–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Cornely, OA, Crook, DW, Esposito, R, et al. 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 2012;12:281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Lowy, I, Molrine, DC, Leav, BA, et al. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies against Clostridium difficile toxins. N Engl J Med 2010;362:197–205.Google Scholar
17. van Nood, E, Vrieze, A, Nieuwdorp, M, et al. Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile . N Engl J Med 2013;368:407–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Eyre, DW, Cule, ML, Wilson, DJ, et al. Diverse sources of C. difficile infection identified on whole-genome sequencing. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1195–1205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed