4.5 Article

Is there a relationship between the presence of the binary toxin genes in Clostridium difficile strains and the severity of C-difficile infection (CDI)?

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-017-3075-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Health Education Yorkshire and the Humber
  2. Microbiology Department Research Funds, Leeds General Infirmary

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Some strains of Clostridium difficile produce a binary toxin, in addition to the main C. difficile virulence factors (toxins A and B). There have been conflicting reports regarding the role of binary toxin and its relationship to the severity of C. difficile infection (CDI). Samples, isolates and clinical data were collected as part of a prospective multicentre diagnostic study. Clostridium difficile isolates (n = 1259) were tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay to detect binary toxin genes cdtA and cdtB. The PCR binary toxin gene results were compared with clinical severity and outcome data, including 30-day all-cause mortality. The 1259 isolates corresponded to 1083 different patients (October 2010 to September 2011). The prevalence of binary toxin positive strains was significantly higher in faecal samples with detectable toxin A/B than in those without toxin but that were positive by cytotoxigenic culture (26.3% vs. 10.3%, p < 0.001). The presence of binary toxin correlated moderately with markers of CDI severity (white cell count, serum albumin concentration and serum creatinine concentration). However, the risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 1.68 for binary toxin positive patients and patients were significantly less likely to survive if they had CDI caused by a binary toxin gene positive strain, even after adjusting for age (p < 0.001). The presence of binary toxin genes does not predict the clinical severity of CDI, but it is significantly associated with the risk of all-cause mortality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available