Clostridium difficile - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Clostridium difficile

David B. Blossom, MD MS

Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion

Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

• Review of Clostridium difficile
• Discuss the transmission and virulence of C. difficile
• Describe briefly the clinical manifestations, evaluation and treatment of C. difficile-associated disease (CDAD)
• Identify the changing epidemiology of CDAD
• Define surveillance strategies
• Clarify preventive measures

• Anaerobic spore-forming bacillus
• Ubiquitous in nature
• Prevalent in soil
• Isolated also from river, lake, sea, and swimming pool water as well as from farm animals, dogs, and cats1
• 1935 - First described by Hall and O'Toole2
• Known colonizer of neonates (50% to 60%)
• 1978 - recognized as cause of antimicrobial-

associated pseudomembranous colitis3

• Now regarded as most common cause of

antimicrobial-associated diarrhea (20-30% of cases)

1. Brazier JS, al Saif. J Med Microbiol 1996; 45: 133-7

2. Hall I; O'Toole E. Am J Dis Child 1935; 49: 390

3. Larson HE et al. Lancet 1978; 8073: 1063–1066.

• Fecal oral transmission
• Survive gastric acidity
• Small intestine – spores germinate into vegetative forms
• Large intestine – normal flora disrupted by antibiotics

Diagram: Sunenshine et al Clev Clin J Med 2006 73(2) 187-197

• C. difficile can produce 3 toxins
• Toxin A – enterotoxin
• Toxin B – cytotoxin
• (Binary toxin)
• Toxins cause the disease
• Some strains only produce one toxin
• (A-, B+) 1% in a recent study from Chicago1

Diagram: Sunenshine, et al. Clev Clin J Med 2006 73: 187-197

1.Geric B, et al. J Med Micro 2004;53:887-94

• Incubation period – not known
• Diarrhea
• Pseudomembranous colitis

- Has become the hallmark of

CDAD1

- Bloody diarrhea

- Raised whitish-yellow plaques

- Unexplained leukocytosis

(>10,000/cubic mm )

Healthy colon

Pseudo-membranous colitis

1.Bartlett JG, et al. Gastroenterology 1978; 75:778-82

• Life-threatening acute dilation
• Characterized by

- a dilated colon (megacolon)

- Diameter : ≥ 5.5 cm

- Fever, abdominal pain, abdominal

distension

- Radiograph: apparent edema of

bowel wall

• Complications

- Perforation of colon

- Sepsis, Shock

- Death

Diagram: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17189.htm

Exposed to C. difficile

Antibiotic therapy

Disturbed colonic microflora

Toxin A & Toxin B

Diarrhea & colitis

Biggest Risks

• Increasing age1
• Exposure to antimicrobials
• Length of stay in hospital2
• Infected patients/CDAD pressure
• Immune response – IgG or local IgA against toxin A3
• Severe underlying gastrointestinal diseases
• GI procedures or GI surgery
• PPI/H2 blockers?

1.Brown E et al. Infect Control Hosp Epi 1990;11: 283-90

2. Johnson S, et al Lancet 1990;336:97-100

3. M. Delmee Clin Microbiol Infect 2001; 7: 411-416

• Population based study in Sweden
• Rate in those over 65 y.o = 20 times higher than those under 20 y.o
• Quebec 2002 to 2003
• Rates in >65 y.o increased from 120 to 800 per 100,000
• Rates in under 65 y.o stayed stable (<100 per 100,000

1.Karlstrom et al. Clin Infect Dis 1998;26:141-5

2.Pepin et al. CMAJ 2004;171:466-72

• Major risk factor for disease
• Acquisition and growth of C. difficile
• Suppression of normal flora of the colon
• The risk doubles with longer than three days of antibiotic therapy (risk ratio: 2.28) 1
• Clindamycin, penicillins, cephalosporins
• Fluroquinolones2

1.WistromJ et al. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001;47:43-50

2. Pepin J. Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 1;41(9):1254-60

• Quebec1
• 12 hospitals in 2004, OR for quinolones was 3.9 (95%CI 2.3-6.6)
• Ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin associated, levofloxacin was not
• Pittsburgh2
• Formulary change: ciprofloxacin to levofloxacin
• C. diff rate = 2.7/1000 d/c increased to 6.8/1000 d/c
• OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.2-3.3)

1 Loo VG, et al. NEJM 2005; 353:2442-9

2 Muto CA et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1005; 26:273-80

• Related to rates of colonization1,2
• Rates increase from <5% at admission to 26% after hospitalization

1.McFarland et al. N Engl J Med 1989;320:204-10

2. Clabots et al. JID 1992;166:561-67

• Number of concurrent inpatients with CDAD on the same ward increases a patient’s risk of developing CDAD

= daily exposure to CDAD patients

Length of stay at risk

Dubberke et al. Arch Int Med 2007; 167: 1092-7

• Stool culture: Most sensitive

- Requiring 2-3 days for growth

- Unable to distinguish between the presence of toxin positive strains or toxin negative strains

• Cell cytotoxin test – most specific

- Cytotoxin B

• Direct Enzyme immunoassay (EIA)– most common

- May detect Toxin A only or Toxin A and B

C difficile colonies on agar plate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_difficile

• Resolution: 15 to 23% of patients

- Within 2 to 3 days after discontinuation

- But most patients require specific treatment

• C. difficile diarrhea recurs after treatment in ~20% of cases
• Historically mortality rate was 1 to 2.5 percent

• Initial Course of Antibiotics
• At least 10 days
• Metronidazole (mild/moderate disease)
• Oral vancomycin (severe disease)1
• Treatment of Recurrence
• Longer course of metronidazole
• Vancomycin with a taper
• Rifaximin
• Nitazoxanide
• Vancomycin and rifaximin2

1. Zar FA, et al. CID 2007; 45: 302-7 2. Johnson S, et al. CID 2007; 44: 846-8

• Responsible for more than $1 billion annually in excess healthcare costs*

- Average of $3,600 excess costs per case

- Average of 3.6 extra hospital days

* Kyne L, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:346-353

McDonald et al. 14th Annual Scientific Meeting of the

Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Philadelphia, PA. 2004

National Estimates of US Short-Stay Hospital Discharges with C. difficile as First-Listed or Any Diagnosis

McDonald LC, et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(3):409-15

Rates of US Short-Stay Hospital Discharges with C. difficile Listed as Any Diagnosis by Age

McDonald LC, et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(3):409-15

Increasing Severity of CDAD

United Kingdom, 1994-51

• Comparing well-matched C difficile patients and controls – no difference in mortality at d/c, 3 mos. and 6 mos.

Pittsburgh, 20002

• “Life-threatening disease” from 1.6% to 3.2% from 1989 to 2000
• Colectomies increased from 0.48% to 2.6%
• In hospital deaths (attr. to C. difficile) increased from 0.21-1.4%

Quebec, Canada, 20043

• Attributable mortality of 16.7% in 2005 epidemic in Quebec (in one hospital)
• Attributable 30 day mortality 6.9% in 12 Quebec hospital prospective study

1. MacGowan AP, et al. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997;39:537-41

2. Dallal RM, et al. Ann Surg. 2002;235:363-372.

Loo VG, et al. NEJM 2005;353:2442-2449

3. Pepin J et al. CMAJ. 2005;173(23):1037-42.

• Changes in underlying host susceptibility
• Changes in antimicrobial prescribing
• Changes in infection control practice
• New strain with increased virulence

• Increase in the average age of the population

- Increase in exposure to healthcare facilities

- Increase exposure to antimicrobials

• Possible, but probably not the whole story

• Hand hygiene

- Important prevention strategy

- HCWs can transmit C. difficile

• Traditional: Soap and water hand washing
• Increased use of alcohol-based hand rub over the last several years

No relationship between alcohol-based hand rubs and increasing rates of CDAD

Boyce et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006; 27:479-483

• Quinolones
• Popular for the management of CAP 1
• Most common treatment for uncomplicated UTI in women4
• Increased use by >50% from 2000– 2002 (p<0.001) 2
• Multiple antimicrobials and longer course of therapy

- Increases risk for C. difficile3

1. Jones RN, Mandell LA. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2002;44:69–76

2. MacDougall C et al Emerg Infect Dis . 2005 ; 11(3):380-4

3. Bignardi GE. J Hosp Infect 1998; 40:1–15.

4. Kallen et al.Arch Int Med. 2005

• Characteristics
• North American Pulsed Field Type 1 (NAP1) by PFGE
• PCR ribotype 027
• Toxinotype III or “BI” by REA
• Distinct from “J” strain of 1989-19921
• Binary toxin as a possible virulence factor
• In addition to Toxin A&B containing
• 18 bp deletion in tcdC gene
• May allow increased toxin production2
• Increased resistance to fluoroquinolones
• No resistance to metronidazole

1 Johnson S, et al. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1645-51

2 Warny M, et al. Lancet 2005; 366: 1079-84

2

1

2

1

1

1

*Detected by increases in the number of positive routine clinical laboratory tests for C. difficile.

McDonald LC, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2433-2441.

Maine, Hospital A

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

Maine, Hospital B

Maine, Hospital B

Illinois

Illinois

Georgia

Maine, Hospital A

New Jersey

New Jersey

Oregon

Historic, 1988-1991

Historic, 1993

Historic, 1993-2000

Oregon

Historic, 1990-1991

Historic, 1984-1991

1 Includes 5 historic “BI” isolates

2 32 (89%) were toxinotype 0 or wild type

In vitro production of toxins A and B by C. difficile isolates. Median concentration and IQRs are shown. C. difficile strains included 25 toxinotype 0 and 15 NAP1/027 strains (toxinotype III) from various locations.

Warny M, et al. Lancet. 2005;366:1079-1084.

In vitro production of toxins A and B by C. difficile isolates. Median concentration and IQRs are shown. C. difficile strains included 25 toxinotype 0 and 15 NAP1/027 strains (toxinotype III) from various locations.

Warny M, et al. Lancet. 2005;366:1079-1084.

DC

HI

PR

AK

• Potentially lethal cases of C. difficile “rocketed” from 1990s to 2004
• Cases had increased from 1,000 in 1990 to over 35,000 in 2003
• 44,488 cases of C. difficile in > 65 year olds in 2004.

BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4186834.stm

1.Kuiper EJ et al. Emerg Infect Dis 2006;12(5):827-830.

2. Goorhuis A et al. CID 2007; 45: 695-703

• Canada
• France
• Poland
• Austria
• Japan

Eurosurveillance Weekly Release. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/index.asp

• 23 cases of severe community-associated CDAD (CA-CDAD)
• Generally young and healthy
• Approximately 1/3 without precedent antimicrobial use

• Recent reports to the Pennsylvania Department of Health and CDC
• Young patients without serious underlying disease
• C.difficile toxin-positive by routine diagnostic testing
• Responded to CDAD-specific therapy
• Peripartum
• Within 4 weeks of delivery
• Reports from PA, NJ, OH, and NH
• Community-associated
• No hospital exposure in prior 3 months
• Reports from Philadelphia and 4 surrounding counties

CDC. MMWR. 2005;54:1201-1205.

CDC. MMWR. 2005;54:1201-1205.

• Recent onset dates
• February 26, 2003 – June 28, 2005
• Only 1 case in 2003
• Transmission to close contacts in 4 cases
• 8 cases without antimicrobial exposure
• 5 children; 3 required hospitalization
• 3 had close contact with diarrheal illness
• Another 3 cases with < 3 doses of antimicrobials
• Clindamycin most common exposure (10 cases)

CDC. MMWR. 2005;54:1201-1205.

67 total

cases*

99 total

cases

93 total

cases

73 total

cases

• Through July 31, 2006
• Chi-square for trend: P<0.05

Gaynes, R et al. ICAAC 2006, San Francisco

Gaynes, R et al. ICAAC 2006, San Francisco

Gaynes, R et al. ICAAC 2006, San Francisco

• Is it in the food supply?
• Pathogen of food animals1
• C. difficile has been found in retail meat (beef and veal)2
• 20% of Canadian convenience sample
• Only 3 of the 12 isolates found had corresponding isolated that had caused disease in humans
• C difficile reported to live after being exposed to 71 degrees Celsius for 120 min.
• Potential for interspecies transmission3
• Turkey fed to dogs

1Songer JG, et al. Anaerobe 2006; 12: 1-4

2Rodriguez-Palacios A, et al. EID 2007; 13: 485-7

3Arroyo LG, et al. J Med Microbiol 2005; 54: 163-6

Dramatic, Severe

Disease In Healthy,

Young Persons

Antibiotic-associated

Inpatient Disease

?

Diarrhea in older

ambulatory

patients +/-

chronic conditions

Antibiotics? NSAIDS? PPIs?

H2 blockers?

Source: Human-to-Human and ?

• Potential Role
• Detect disease trends
• Detect outbreaks
• Compare CDAD rates between institutions
• Guide interventions to control CDAD
• Monitor the impact of these interventions

• CDAD
• Diarrhea in a patient with a
• Positive C. difficile laboratory assay

or

2. Pseudomembranous colitis on endoscopy or surgery

or

3. Pseudomembranous colitis seen on histopathology

• Recurrent CDAD
• An episode of CDAD that occurs 8 weeks or less after the onset of a previous episode
• As long as the earlier episode resolved

Hospitalization

Admission

Discharge

3 months after Discharge

48 h

4 weeks

8 weeks

CA

HO

CO-HCFA

Indeterminate

CA

McDonald LC, et al. ICHE 2007; 28: 140-45

• Inpatient rates
• Case patients per 10,000 patient-days
• Community-associated rates
• Case patients per 100,000 person-years

McDonald LC, et al. ICHE 2007; 28: 140-45

• Hospitals should be encouraged to conduct surveillance for CDAD
• Track positive lab results (e.g. toxin A or A/B assays)
• Consider measures to track outcomes
• Early diagnosis and treatment is important for reducing severe outcomes and should be emphasized
• Strict infection control: CDC fact sheet*
• Contact precautions for CDAD patients
• An environmental cleaning and disinfection strategy
• Hand washing with CDAD patients in outbreak

*See C. difficile fact sheets: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/

Hand Hygiene Measures

• Alcohol-based hand rubs are now widely used for routinely cleaning hands before/after patient care
• Alcohol-based hand rubs may not be effective against spore-forming organisms1
• Several studies ongoing
• If an institution is experiencing an outbreak of C. difficile disease, it is prudent to wash hands with soap and water after caring for patients with CDAD

1 Weber DJ et al. JAMA 2003;289:1274

Impact of Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor Room Bio-Decontamination on Environmental Contamination and Nosocomial Transmission by Clostridium difficile

John M. Boyce1, MD, Nancy L. Havill1, MT,

Jonathan A. Otter2, BSc, L. Clifford McDonald3, MD

Nicholas M.T. Adams2, BSc, Angela Thompson3, MSc,

Lois Wiggs3, Judith Noble-Wang3, PhD

Hospital of Saint Raphael1, New Haven, CT

Bioquell PLC2, Andover, England

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention3, Atlanta, GA

• Further investigation and surveillance in these populations are warranted
• Strains responsible for severe CDAD in previously low-risk populations are unknown but under study
• May be other toxin variants and/or hospital epidemic strain
• Clinicians should consider the diagnosis

- CDAD in patients without traditional risk factors

• Antimicrobial exposure is not benign
• Continue to emphasize judicious antimicrobial use

Campaign to Prevent Antimicrobial Resistance in Healthcare Settings

• Vaccinate
• Get the catheters out
• Target the pathogen
• Access the experts
• Practice antimicrobial control
• Use local data
• Treat infection, not contamination
• Treat infection, not colonization
• Know when to say “no” to vanco
• Stop treatment when infection is cured or unlikely
• Isolate the pathogen
• Break the chain of contagion

Campaign to Prevent Antimicrobial Resistance in Healthcare Settings

• Vaccinate
• Get the catheters out
• Target the pathogen
• Access the experts
• Practice antimicrobial control
• Use local data
• Treat infection, not contamination
• Treat infection, not colonization
• Know when to say “no” to vanco
• Stop treatment when infection is cured or unlikely
• Isolate the pathogen
• Break the chain of contagion

Use Antimicrobials Wisely

• Campaign to Prevent Antimicrobial Resistance: 12 Steps for Healthcare Settings
• Management of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in Healthcare Settings, 2006

http//:www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html

Thank You!

The information presented here represents the opinion of the presenter and does not necessarily represent the opinion of the US Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Department of Health and Human Services

dblossom@cdc.gov

http//:www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html