4.5 Article

Diversity of Clostridium difficile PCR ribotypes in Europe: results from the European, multicentre, prospective, biannual, point-prevalence study of Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalised patients with diarrhoea (EUCLID), 2012 and 2013

期刊

EUROSURVEILLANCE
卷 21, 期 29, 页码 37-47

出版社

EUR CENTRE DIS PREVENTION & CONTROL
DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.29.30294

关键词

-

资金

  1. Astellas Pharma EMEA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the major cause of infective diarrhoea in healthcare environments. As part of the European, multicentre, prospective, biannual, point-prevalence study of Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalised patients with diarrhoea (EUCLID), the largest C. difficile epidemiological study of its type, PCR ribotype distribution of C. difficile isolates in Europe was investigated. PCR ribotyping was performed on 1,196 C. difficile isolates from diarrhoeal samples sent to the European coordinating laboratory in 2012-13 and 2013 (from two sampling days) by 482 participating hospitals from 19 European countries. A total of 125 ribotypes were identified, of which ribotypes 027 (19%, n = 222), 001/072 (11%, n = 134) and 014/020 (10%, n = 119) were the most prevalent. Distinct regional patterns of ribotype distribution were noted. Of 596 isolates from patients with toxinpositive stools (CDI cases), ribotype 027 accounted for 22% (32/144) of infections in cases aged from 18 to less than 65 years, but the prevalence decreased in those aged >= 65 years (14% (59/412)) and further decreased in those aged >= 81 years (9% (18/195)). The prevalence of ribotype 027 and 176, but not other epidemic strains, was inversely proportional to overall ribotype diversity (R-2 = 0.717). This study highlights an increased diversity of C. difficile ribotypes across Europe compared with previous studies, with considerable intercountry variation in ribotype distribution. Continuous surveillance programmes are necessary to monitor the changing epidemiology of C. difficile.

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

4.5
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