4.7 Article

Recurrence of Clostridium difficile Infection in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: The RECIDIVISM Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 111, 期 8, 页码 1141-1146

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2016.187

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) contributes to a significant burden of disease in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In this study, we seek to identify risk factors for rCDI in a population of IBD patients at the Mount Sinai Hospital IBD Centre. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, IBD patients with rCDI diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 were identified and compared with IBD patients with single-episode CDI. Multivariate regression was used to identify predictors of rCDI in IBD. Outcome analysis was performed for hospitalizations due to CDI, colectomy, and CDI-attributable mortality. RESULTS: A total of 503 patients were included, 110 (22%) of whom had IBD (49% CD, 51% ulcerative colitis). Recurrent CDI occurred in 32% of IBD patients compared with 24% of non-IBD patients (P<0.01). IBD patients with rCDI were more likely than those without rCDI to report recent antibiotic therapy (42.9 vs. 30.7%, P<0.01), 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) use (51.5 vs. 30.7%, P<0.001), steroid use (51.4 vs. 33.3%, P<0.001), and biologic therapy (48.6 vs. 40.0%, P<0.01). Infliximab (34.3 vs. 17.3%, P<0.01) but not adalimumab was associated with more rCDI events. Using a Cox model of predictors of rCDI in IBD, significant predictors included non-ileal Crohn's disease (hazard ratio (HR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-6.30) and the use of 5-ASA (HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.11-4.18). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the general population, IBD patients are 33% more likely to experience rCDI. Within the IBD cohort, exposure to certain drug classes (antibiotics, 5-ASA, steroids, certain biologics) and non-ileal Crohn's disease were found to be the predictors of rCDI.

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