Cargando…

An Analysis of Clostridium difficile Environmental Contamination During and After Treatment for C difficile Infection

BACKGROUND: Lower Clostridium difficile spore counts in feces from C difficile infection (CDI) patients treated with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin have been observed. We aimed to determine whether environmental contamination is lower in patients treated with fidaxomicin compared with those treated w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Davies, Kerrie, Mawer, Damian, Walker, A Sarah, Berry, Claire, Planche, Timothy, Stanley, Phil, Goldenberg, Simon, Sandoe, Jonathan, Wilcox, Mark H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7651500/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33204744
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa362
_version_ 1783607581018685440
author Davies, Kerrie
Mawer, Damian
Walker, A Sarah
Berry, Claire
Planche, Timothy
Stanley, Phil
Goldenberg, Simon
Sandoe, Jonathan
Wilcox, Mark H
author_facet Davies, Kerrie
Mawer, Damian
Walker, A Sarah
Berry, Claire
Planche, Timothy
Stanley, Phil
Goldenberg, Simon
Sandoe, Jonathan
Wilcox, Mark H
author_sort Davies, Kerrie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Lower Clostridium difficile spore counts in feces from C difficile infection (CDI) patients treated with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin have been observed. We aimed to determine whether environmental contamination is lower in patients treated with fidaxomicin compared with those treated with vancomycin/metronidazole. METHODS: The CDI cases were recruited at 4 UK hospitals (Leeds, Bradford, and London [2 centers]). Environmental samples (5 room sites) were taken pretreatment and at 2–3, 4–5, 6–8, and 9–12 days of treatment, end of treatment (EOT), and post-EOT. Fecal samples were collected at diagnosis and as often as produced thereafter. Swabs/feces were cultured for C difficile; percentage of C difficile-positive samples and C difficile bioburden were compared between different treatment arms at each time point. RESULTS: Pre-EOT (n = 244), there was a significant reduction in environmental contamination (≥1 site positive) around fidaxomicin versus vancomycin/metronidazole recipients at days 4–5 (30% vs 50% recipients, P = .04) and at days 9–12 (22% vs 49%, P = .005). This trend was consistently seen at all other timepoints, but it was not statistically significant. No differences were seen between treatment groups post-EOT (n = 76). Fidaxomicin-associated fecal positivity rates and colony counts were consistently lower than those for vancomycin/metronidazole from days 4 to 5 of treatment (including post-EOT); however, the only significant difference was in positivity rate at days 9–12 (15% vs 55%, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant reductions in C difficile recovery from both feces and the environment around fidaxomicin versus vancomycin/metronidazole recipients. Therefore, fidaxomicin treatment may lower the C difficile transmission risk by reducing excretion and environmental contamination.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7651500
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76515002020-11-16 An Analysis of Clostridium difficile Environmental Contamination During and After Treatment for C difficile Infection Davies, Kerrie Mawer, Damian Walker, A Sarah Berry, Claire Planche, Timothy Stanley, Phil Goldenberg, Simon Sandoe, Jonathan Wilcox, Mark H Open Forum Infect Dis Major Articles BACKGROUND: Lower Clostridium difficile spore counts in feces from C difficile infection (CDI) patients treated with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin have been observed. We aimed to determine whether environmental contamination is lower in patients treated with fidaxomicin compared with those treated with vancomycin/metronidazole. METHODS: The CDI cases were recruited at 4 UK hospitals (Leeds, Bradford, and London [2 centers]). Environmental samples (5 room sites) were taken pretreatment and at 2–3, 4–5, 6–8, and 9–12 days of treatment, end of treatment (EOT), and post-EOT. Fecal samples were collected at diagnosis and as often as produced thereafter. Swabs/feces were cultured for C difficile; percentage of C difficile-positive samples and C difficile bioburden were compared between different treatment arms at each time point. RESULTS: Pre-EOT (n = 244), there was a significant reduction in environmental contamination (≥1 site positive) around fidaxomicin versus vancomycin/metronidazole recipients at days 4–5 (30% vs 50% recipients, P = .04) and at days 9–12 (22% vs 49%, P = .005). This trend was consistently seen at all other timepoints, but it was not statistically significant. No differences were seen between treatment groups post-EOT (n = 76). Fidaxomicin-associated fecal positivity rates and colony counts were consistently lower than those for vancomycin/metronidazole from days 4 to 5 of treatment (including post-EOT); however, the only significant difference was in positivity rate at days 9–12 (15% vs 55%, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant reductions in C difficile recovery from both feces and the environment around fidaxomicin versus vancomycin/metronidazole recipients. Therefore, fidaxomicin treatment may lower the C difficile transmission risk by reducing excretion and environmental contamination. Oxford University Press 2020-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7651500/ /pubmed/33204744 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa362 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Major Articles
Davies, Kerrie
Mawer, Damian
Walker, A Sarah
Berry, Claire
Planche, Timothy
Stanley, Phil
Goldenberg, Simon
Sandoe, Jonathan
Wilcox, Mark H
An Analysis of Clostridium difficile Environmental Contamination During and After Treatment for C difficile Infection
title An Analysis of Clostridium difficile Environmental Contamination During and After Treatment for C difficile Infection
title_full An Analysis of Clostridium difficile Environmental Contamination During and After Treatment for C difficile Infection
title_fullStr An Analysis of Clostridium difficile Environmental Contamination During and After Treatment for C difficile Infection
title_full_unstemmed An Analysis of Clostridium difficile Environmental Contamination During and After Treatment for C difficile Infection
title_short An Analysis of Clostridium difficile Environmental Contamination During and After Treatment for C difficile Infection
title_sort analysis of clostridium difficile environmental contamination during and after treatment for c difficile infection
topic Major Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7651500/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33204744
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa362
work_keys_str_mv AT davieskerrie ananalysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT mawerdamian ananalysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT walkerasarah ananalysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT berryclaire ananalysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT planchetimothy ananalysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT stanleyphil ananalysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT goldenbergsimon ananalysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT sandoejonathan ananalysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT wilcoxmarkh ananalysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT davieskerrie analysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT mawerdamian analysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT walkerasarah analysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT berryclaire analysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT planchetimothy analysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT stanleyphil analysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT goldenbergsimon analysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT sandoejonathan analysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection
AT wilcoxmarkh analysisofclostridiumdifficileenvironmentalcontaminationduringandaftertreatmentforcdifficileinfection