4.7 Review

Microbiologic factors affecting Clostridium difficile recurrence

Journal

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 24, Issue 5, Pages 476-482

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.11.017

Keywords

Antimicrobial persistence; Clostridium difficile; Intestinal microbiota; Recurrence; Spores

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) places a huge economic and practical burden on healthcare facilities. Furthermore, rCDI may affect quality of life, leaving patients in an rCDI cycle and dependant on antibiotic therapy. Aims: To discuss the importance of microbiologic factors in the development of rCDI. Sources: Literature was drawn from a search of PubMed from 2000 onwards with the search term 'recurrent Clostridium difficile infection' and further references cited within these articles. Content: Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown that CDI and rCDI risk factors are similar. Development of rCDI is attendant on many factors, including immune status or function, comorbidities and concomitant treatments. Studies suggest that poor bacterial diversity is correlated with clinical rCDI. Narrow-spectrum gut microflora-sparing antimicrobials (e.g. surotomycin, cadazolid, ridinilazole) are in development for CDI treatment, while microbiota therapeutics (faecal microbiota transplantation, non-toxigenic C. difficile, stool substitutes) are increasingly being explored. rCDI can only occur when viable C. difficile spores are present, either within the gut lumen after infection or when reacquired from the environment. C. difficile spore germination can be influenced by gut environmental factors resulting from dysbiosis, and spore outgrowth may be affected stage by some antimicrobials (e.g. fidaxomicin, ramoplanin, oritavancin). (C) 2017 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available