4.7 Article

High morbidity and mortality of Clostridium difficile infection and its associations with ribotype 002 in Hong Kong

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 73, 期 2, 页码 115-122

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2016.05.010

关键词

Clostridium difficile infection; Colitis; Ribotype; Proton-pump inhibitors; Antibiotics

资金

  1. Research Fund for the Control of Infectious Diseases [CU-09-03-04]
  2. Food and Health Bureau of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government
  3. Departmental Research Fund, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
  4. Croucher Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We aim to study the disease burden, risk factors and severity of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in Hong Kong. Methods: We conducted a prospective, caseecontrol study in three acute-care hospitals in Hong Kong. Adult inpatients who developed CDI diarrhoea confirmed by PCR (n = 139) were compared with the non-CDI controls (n = 114). Ribotyping of isolates and antimicrobial susceptibility testing were performed. Results: The estimated crude annual incidence of CDI was 23-33/100,000 population, and 133-207/100,000 population among those aged >= 65 years. The mean age of CDI patients was 71.5. Nursing home care, recent hospitalization, antibiotics exposure (adjusted OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.3-7.1) and proton-pump inhibitors use (adjusted OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-3.9) were risk factors. Severe CDI occurred in 41.7%. Overall mortality was 16.5% (among severe CDI, 26.5%). The commonest ribotypes were 002 (22.8%), 014 (14.1%), 012 and 046; ribotype 027 was absent. Ribotype 002 was associated with fluoroquinolone resistance and higher mortality (47.6% vs. 12.7%; adjusted HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.0). Conclusions: Our findings show high morbidity and mortality of CDI in the older adults, and identify ribotype 002 as a possible virulent strain causing serious infections in this cohort. (C) 2016 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据