4.3 Article

PCR ribotyping and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of isolates of Clostridium difficile cultured from toxin-positive diarrheal stools of patients receiving medical care in Canadian hospitals: the Canadian Clostridium difficile Surveillance Study (CAN-DIFF) 2013-2015

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE
Volume 91, Issue 2, Pages 105-111

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2018.01.017

Keywords

Clostridium difficile; Antimicrobial susceptibility testing; Ribotype 027; Canada

Funding

  1. Health Sciences Centre, University of Manitoba
  2. National Microbiology Laboratory-Public Health Agency of Canada
  3. Merck & Co., Inc. (Kenilworth, NJ)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clostridium difficile toxin-positive diarrhea] stool specimens submitted to eight Canadian hospital laboratories from 2013 to 2015 were cultured. Polymerase chain reaction ribotyping of isolates was performed using an internationally standardized, high-resolution capillary gel-based electrophoresis protocol and antimicrobial susceptibility testing conducted by CLSI-defined agar dilution (M11-A8, 2012). Among the 1310 isolates of C. difficile cultured, 141 different ribotypes were identified; the most common ribotypes were 027 (24.5% of isolates), 014 (7.7%), 020 (6.6%), 106 (6.1%), and 002 (4.6%). Ribotype 027 was the commonest ribotype in all geographic regions of Canada and was more frequently isolated from patients aged years (40.6%) than younger patients (P<0.00001). Ribotype 027 isolates were frequently moxifloxacin-resistant (92.2% of isolates) and multidrug-resistant (49.5%). Fidaxomicin demonstrated the greatest in vitro potency (lowest MIC90. 0.5 mu g/mL; lowest maximum MIC, 2 mu g/mL) of eight antimicrobial agents tested and was the most active agent against each of the five commonest ribotypes (MIC90, 0.25-1 mu g/mL). (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available