Abstract
Purpose of review
We reviewed seminal papers and recently published articles discussing multiple aspects of infection prevention applied to Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI).
Recent findings
We identified hot topics including the importance of understanding the gut microbiome in CDI and its implications from an infection prevention perspective, the increasing role of antibiotic stewardship including testing stewardship in preventing and mitigating CDI, and the increasing role of clinical decision support systems to improve early diagnosis and decrease inappropriate testing.
Summary
In addition to established infection prevention interventions, CDI control will be achieved by a combination of gut microbiome manipulation, personalized medicine based on host and agent genome analysis, and a combination of antimicrobials and testing stewardship by leveraging progressively sophisticated electronic decision systems. Automated environmental decontamination systems are not routinely recommended at this time.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile [1] is a Gram-positive, spore-forming anaerobe that is involved in the development of pseudomembranous colitis, generally called C. difficile infection (CDI) [2]. It is the most common pathogen to cause hospital-acquired infections (HAI) in the USA [3, 4]. The increase in the number and severity of CDI has been attributed to multiple factors, including the emergence of the BI/NAP027 hypervirulent strain, which has in increased production of toxins A and B, presence of a binary toxin, and resistance to antibiotics including fluoroquinolones [5,6,7]. BI/NAP027 is the predominant strain involved in the rising number of health care-related cases in the USA [8, 9]. The emergence of this strain has been associated to increased mortality, hospital length of stay, and healthcare costs [4, 10,11,12,13], but the relationship of this particular strain and the severity of CDI are still under debate [14, 15]. Its main clinical presentation is the development of diarrhea, which could be severe enough to cause toxic megacolon, fulminant colitis, and death [16]. Common risk factors associated to this infection include prior antibiotic use [17], proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) [18,19,20], and certain types of chemotherapy [21]. Its mode of transmission is by the oral–fecal route, with an estimated level of colonization in healthy individuals of up to 3%, and higher rates in older individuals and patients admitted to healthcare facilities [22]. Even though CDI is a major problem in the hospital setting, cases in individuals without evident contact with the healthcare system (community-acquired CDI, or CA-CDI) have been on the rise [23].
Guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CDI have been published [24••, 25••, 26, 27]. Multiple interventions recommended in these guidelines are mainly focused in environmental control and antibiotic stewardship, with simultaneous interventions (“bundle”) being advocated to control nosocomial outbreaks, especially involving hypervirulent strains [28], but it is challenging to determine which interventions have the highest impact on controlling CDI [29, 30]. Even though these interventions are usually perceived as the cornerstones of the CDI prevention bundle, we think that we need to have a better understanding of the interactions between C. difficile and the gut microbiota [31, 32], along a better grasp on the impact of C. difficile colonized patients on both horizontal transmission of C. difficile and the incidence of CDI [33, 34]. These latter concepts will have an increasingly important role in the development of novel infection prevention strategies. The impact of CDI in infection prevention efforts is such that three out of five recommendations given by the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America for the Choosing Wisely campaign sponsored by the American Board of Internal Medicine foundation are directly related to CDI, including avoidance of prolonged antibiotic use without evidence of infection, avoidance of C. difficile testing without signs or symptoms suggestive for CDI, and to avoid antibiotic therapy in patients with recent CDI without convincing evidence of infection [35].
Interventions
Antimicrobial stewardship
Antimicrobial stewardship is a set of coordinated strategies to improve the use of antibiotics, with the goals to improve patient’s outcomes, reduce development of adverse effects related to antimicrobials including development of antimicrobial resistance, and decrease unnecessary costs [36]. It is highly recommended that all healthcare facilities develop a core antimicrobial stewardship program. In regard to CDI, antimicrobial stewardship has become a critical aspect of CDI prevention given the evidence that a significant proportion of hospital-acquired CDI (HA-CDI) cases are related to the transition from asymptomatic carrier state to active CDI [33, 34]. In theory, antimicrobial stewardship could decrease the transition from C. difficile colonization to CDI by avoiding the inappropriate exposure to antibiotics and other medications [37]. In addition to targeted antibiotic restriction (usually involving fluoroquinolones, clindamycin, and cephalosporins), evaluation of the appropriateness of PPIs is becoming a key intervention. PPIs have been implicated as a risk factor for CDI, including increase in the degree of severity [38,39,40], especially when used for 48 h or more [41]. With a deeper understanding of the gut microbiota, PPIs have been shown to directly affect the gut microbiome, as noted in a mouse model that showed increased local inflammatory reactions [42] and with decreased microbiome diversity that can predispose to CDI [43]. A recent review describing the evidence supporting the positive relationship between HA-CDI and PPIs has been published [44].
Testing stewardship and clinical decision support
Even though early detection of CDI is important in starting adequate therapy and implementing infection prevention measures to help decrease transmission in the hospital setting, inappropriate testing is associated with unnecessary exposure to antibiotics, with an increased risk of side effects and antibiotic resistance, and the implementation of contact precautions which have deleterious effects in patient care (sentiments of isolation, deterioration in quality of care). Testing stewardship, in manner similar to antibiotic stewardship, could be defined as a set of strategies to improve the use of diagnostic tests, with the expectation to improve detection of true-positive CDI cases, decrease the rate of false-positive cases (distinguish between colonization and true infection), allow prompt discontinuation of contact isolation measures, and decrease antibiotic exposure. These strategies have to be balanced against the advantages of performing an early diagnosis, especially in facilities with diagnostic algorithms that can be initiated without the order of a physician (nurse-driven protocols). Over-testing is associated with higher HA-CDI LabID events, as defined by NHSN, which can trigger unnecessary interventions (exposure to oral vancomycin, implementation of contact isolation precautions). We recommend establishing an algorithm for C. difficile testing (an example is given in Fig. 1), which has shown to decrease LabID events by a combination of standardization of laboratory processes, electronic health record clinical decision support, and real-time monitoring [45]. Every facility has to establish rules to evaluate the pre-test probability of CDI prior to ordering stool testing, based on clinical presentation, laboratory data, medical interventions, and recent C. difficile testing. In general, the likelihood of CDI is low when patients have not been exposed to antibiotics, have a normal white blood cell count, do not have fever or abdominal pain, have a recent negative C. difficile stool testing (within the last seven days), and are taking medications or undergoing other interventions that might explain the presence of diarrhea. Evaluation for exposure to laxatives or other interventions that might impact stool consistency before testing is highly recommended [46, 47].
The laboratory method for the diagnosis of CDI has important implications in the diagnosis of patients and the reporting of CDI rates. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for diagnosis is commonly used in the USA, but toxin production might be a better predictor of true infection and severity [48]. NAAT-only testing has been associated to substantial increase in CDI rates [49], and the switch from a NAAT-only testing strategy to a two-step testing (NAAT, followed by toxin assay if NAAT testing is positive) has immediate effects in CDI rates [50]. If a two-step diagnostic strategy is established, interventions regarding the handling of patients considered to be asymptomatic carriers (NAAT-positive, EIA-negative) have to be studied before implementation, which could include the need for contact isolation of asymptomatic carriers and tailored antimicrobial stewardship interventions.
Clinical decision support and prediction scoring systems have been studied to predict the development of the first episode of HA-CDI [51,52,53], recurrent CDI within certain limitations [54,55,56], and the development of a comorbid index after controlling for antibiotic use, age, PPIs use, and histamine blocker use [57]. Targeted testing based on clinical criteria (admission to a medical institution in the preceding 90 days, administration of antibiotics in the preceding 90 days, or a history of CDI) has been shown to improve timing and appropriateness of testing [58], while decreasing unnecessary inpatient testing [59], improving timely discontinuation of laxatives with a non-significant increase in the proportion of patients with C. difficile-related complications [60], and reducing time to implementation of contact isolation measures [61]. The perception of healthcare workers when confronted with these electronic tools showed acceptance due to standardization and error reduction, although they referred perceived loss of autonomy and clinical judgment [62].
Infection control
Environmental contamination with pathogens is an important source of health care-associated infections [63,64,65], and CDI is not the exception. C. difficile forms spores, which are resistant to the bactericidal effects of alcohol and other commonly used hospital disinfectants. General recommendations to help decrease CDI in the hospital setting include use of private rooms or cohorting; the rapid institution of contact precautions (especially when results of stool testing are not readily available), and to continue contact precautions for at least 48 h after diarrhea has resolved, or until discharge in outbreak or hyperendemic situations; and use of disposable equipment when feasible or thorough cleaning and disinfection with a sporicidal agent [24••, 25••].
Hand hygiene has been advocated as an important method to control CDI [66] even in settings with an already high rate of hand hygiene compliance [67]. Handwashing with soap and water has greater impact on C. difficile colony-forming units (CFUs) when compared to alcohol-based rub [68, 69], and it is recommended during CDI outbreaks, other hyperendemic settings, and visible fecal contamination. The impact of a structured versus non-structured handwashing technique has been evaluated by Deschenes et al. [70], showing decline in non-toxigenic C. difficile CFU with structured handwashing methods, but extrapolation of these findings has to be taken carefully. A study by Edmonds et al. showed that surrogate organisms were not predictive of C. difficile spore removal [71]. A study in a teaching hospital in Italy showed an inverse correlation between CDI incidence and hand hygiene compliance [72], but it is unclear what the real impact of hand hygiene is when compared to other “bundled” interventions [29]. An economic evaluation based in an agent-based model showed that hand hygiene compliance, environmental decontamination, and empiric isolation and treatment were the interventions with the greatest impact [73]. Patient hand hygiene could be another option to control CDI incidence [66].
Terminal room cleaning with a sporicidal agent should be considered in conjunction with other measures to prevent CDI during endemic high rates or outbreaks or if there is evidence of repeated cases of CDI in the same room. Cleaning effectiveness needs to be measured to ensure its quality. The use of hydrogen peroxide for environmental disinfection for infection control has been proven to be effective in eradicating C. difficile spores from the hospital environment [74,75,76] and decreasing CDI rates when used as a terminal disinfection method [77]. In regard to the use of ultraviolet light (UV-C), disinfection of C. difficile and other hospital acquired infection pathogens with mobile automated devices has been advocated to decrease surface contamination [78,79,80,81]. Time of exposure and organic load are the main factors that influence its effectiveness [79]. Time of emission of UV-C has been decreased by the use of reflective wall coating [82]. UV light has been compared against hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV), with evidence showing increased decontamination with the latter method [83]. Xenon UV-light devices have been associated with substantial decline in HA-CDI rates, along with decrease in the number of deaths and colectomies attributed to severe CDI [84]. Pulse xenon-UV effectiveness seems to be similar to UV-C [85] and at least not inferior to sodium hypochlorite [86]. This effect was not reproduced in a recent study in a burn intensive care unit [87]. The use of these methods should be used in conjunction with other methods to control CDI [88], but the impact of using no-touch technology to terminal cleaning with bleach is still under debate [89], and it is generally recommended to perform terminal cleaning with bleach before the use of UV-C decontamination [90]. Targeted decontamination of rooms from which a patient infected or colonized with C. difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), or multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter spp. had a hospital-wide decline in CDI incidence [90]. UV-C terminal cleaning did affect not only CDI rates but also other hospital-acquired infection [91]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis suggest the impact of no-touch technologies is more robust against CDI and VRE [92]. However, routine use of automated methods for terminal disinfection is not recommended [25••]. Copper alloys (65–100% copper content) have been associated to sporicidal activity against C. difficile [93, 94], but the impact on HAI rates and its cost effectiveness has not been extensively studied [95]. The use of copper-impregnated surfaces and linens and its impact in CDI and hospital-acquired infection rates have revealed conflicting results [96, 97].
Colonization and microbiome manipulation
The identification and isolation of patients colonized by C. difficile is still controversial [98, 99]. A study by Longtin et al. [100] showed that the implementation of universal screening for C. difficile upon hospital admission and the subsequent placement of these patients on contact precautions successfully decreased CDI rates when compared to other hospitals in the same region of Canada. However, this study was quasi-experimental in its design and the CDI rates had already started to drop by the time the interventions were put in place.
Given the biological progression of C. difficile entails the transition from a non-colonized to colonized to infection state, future interventions should aim at directly manipulating the microbiome to prevent this biological progression [31, 32]. Prebiotics (e.g., non-absorbable oligosaccharides), probiotics (e.g., communities of beneficial enteric organisms), or symbiotics (prebiotics combined with probiotics) will become more relevant in future infection control interventions [32]. In the next decade, sequencing machines for 16S rRNA will probably be readily available in clinical laboratories. This will open the opportunities for prevention to a more individualized approach tailored to each patient’s needs.
Conclusions
Prevention of CDI should include interventions aimed at decreasing exposure to non-colonized patients (i.e., handwashing, environmental disinfection), decreasing microbiome disruption (i.e., antimicrobial stewardship interventions), decreasing misdiagnosis (i.e., laboratory stewardship), and improving diagnostic testing specificity (e.g., NAAT followed by toxin EIA). In the future, additional infection control interventions aimed at direct manipulation of the intestinal microbiome will be individualized to our patients needs.
References and Recommended Reading
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance
Lawson PA, Citron DM, Tyrrell KL, Finegold SM. Reclassification of Clostridium difficile as Clostridioides difficile (Hall and O’Toole 1935) Prevot 1938. Anaerobe. 2016;40:95–9.
Bartlett JG. Narrative review: the new epidemic of Clostridium difficile-associated enteric disease. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(10):758–64.
Magill SS, Edwards JR, Bamberg W, Beldavs ZG, Dumyati G, Kainer MA, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(13):1198–208. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1306801.
Dubberke ER, Olsen MA. Burden of Clostridium difficile on the healthcare system. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(Suppl 2):S88–92.
Loo VG, Poirier L, Miller MA, Oughton M, Libman MD, Michaud S, et al. A predominantly clonal multi-institutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(23):2442–9.
McDonald LC, Killgore GE, Thompson A, Owens RCJ, Kazakova SV, Sambol SP, et al. An epidemic, toxin gene-variant strain of Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(23):2433–41.
Warny M, Pepin J, Fang A, Killgore G, Thompson A, Brazier J, et al. Toxin production by an emerging strain of Clostridium difficile associated with outbreaks of severe disease in North America and Europe. Lancet. 2005;366(9491):1079–84.
CDC. 2015 Annual report for the emerging infections program for Clostridium difficile infection [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hai/eip/Annual-CDI-Report-2015.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
Reveles KR, Lee GC, Boyd NK, Frei CR. The rise in Clostridium difficile infection incidence among hospitalized adults in the United States: 2001–2010. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(10):1028–32.
Kwon JH, Olsen MA, Dubberke ER. The morbidity, mortality, and costs associated with Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 2015;29(1):123–34.
McGlone SM, Bailey RR, Zimmer SM, Popovich MJ, Tian Y, Ufberg P, et al. The economic burden of Clostridium difficile. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18(3):282–9.
Gabriel L, Beriot-Mathiot A. Hospitalization stay and costs attributable to Clostridium difficile infection: a critical review. J Hosp Infect. 2014;88(1):12–21.
Zilberberg MD, Shorr AF, Kollef MH. Increase in adult Clostridium difficile-related hospitalizations and case-fatality rate, United States, 2000–2005. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14(6):929–31.
Scardina T, Labuszewski L, Pacheco SM, Adams W, Schreckenberger P, Johnson S. Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) severity and outcome among patients infected with the NAP1/BI/027 strain in a non-epidemic setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36(3):280–6.
Bauer KA, Johnston JEW, Wenzler E, Goff DA, Cook CH, Balada-Llasat J-M, et al. Impact of the NAP-1 strain on disease severity, mortality, and recurrence of healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile infection. Anaerobe. 2017;48:1–6.
Guh AY, Kutty PK. Clostridioides difficile infection. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):ITC49–64. https://doi.org/10.7326/AITC201810020.
Wistrom J, Norrby SR, Myhre EB, Eriksson S, Granstrom G, Lagergren L, et al. Frequency of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in 2462 antibiotic-treated hospitalized patients: a prospective study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;47(1):43–50.
Trifan A, Stanciu C, Girleanu I, Stoica OC, Singeap AM, Maxim R, et al. Proton pump inhibitors therapy and risk of Clostridium difficile infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23(35):6500–15.
Tariq R, Singh S, Gupta A, Pardi DS, Khanna S. Association of gastric acid suppression with recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(6):784–91.
Azab M, Doo L, Doo DH, Elmofti Y, Ahmed M, Cadavona JJ, et al. Comparison of the hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection risk of using proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor antagonists for prophylaxis and treatment of stress ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut Liver. 2017;11(6):781–8.
Peretz A, Shlomo IB, Nitzan O, Bonavina L, Schaffer PM, Schaffer M. Clostridium difficile infection: associations with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and targeting therapy treatments. Curr Med Chem. 2016;23(39):4442–9.
Ghose C. Clostridium difficile infection in the twenty-first century. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2013;2:e62. https://doi.org/10.1038/emi.2013.62.
Ofori E, Ramai D, Dhawan M, Mustafa F, Gasperino J, Reddy M. Community-acquired Clostridium difficile: epidemiology, ribotype, risk factors, hospital and intensive care unit outcomes, and current and emerging therapies. J Hosp Infect. 2018;99(4):436–42.
•• Dubberke ER, Carling P, Carrico R, Donskey CJ, Loo VG, McDonald LC, et al. Strategies to prevent Clostridium difficile infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(6):628–45. This is a compendium of strategies published along other important health care-associated infections in the USA.
•• McDonald LC, Gerding DN, Johnson S, Bakken JS, Carroll KC, Coffin SE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in adults and children: 2017 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(7):987–94. The most recent consensus from the professional societies in infectious diseases and infection prevention about the management of CDI. There is a section dedicated to infection prevention that could be a starting point for implementing a local program for CDI control.
Surawicz CM, Brandt LJ, Binion DG, Ananthakrishnan AN, Curry SR, Gilligan PH, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(4):478–98 quiz 499.
Tschudin-Sutter S, Kuijper EJ, Durovic A, Vehreschild MJGT, Barbut F, Eckert C, et al. Guidance document for prevention of Clostridium difficile infection in acute healthcare settings. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018;24(10):1051–4.
Muto CA, Blank MK, Marsh JW, Vergis EN, O’Leary MM, Shutt KA, et al. Control of an outbreak of infection with the hypervirulent Clostridium difficile BI strain in a university hospital using a comprehensive “bundle” approach. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(10):1266–73.
Louh IK, Greendyke WG, Hermann EA, Davidson KW, Falzon L, Vawdrey DK, et al. Clostridium difficile infection in acute care hospitals: systematic review and best practices for prevention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(4):476–82.
Barker AK, Ngam C, Musuuza JS, Vaughn VM, Safdar N. Reducing Clostridium difficile in the inpatient setting: a systematic review of the adherence to and effectiveness of C. difficile prevention bundles. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(6):639–50.
Rosa R, Donskey CJ, Munoz-Price LS. The intersection between colonization resistance, antimicrobial stewardship, and Clostridium difficile. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2018;20(8):27.
Revolinski SL, Munoz-Price LS. Clostridium difficile exposures, colonization, and the microbiome: implications for prevention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(5):596–602.
Kumar N, Miyajima F, He M, Roberts P, Swale A, Ellison L, et al. Genome-based infection tracking reveals dynamics of Clostridium difficile transmission and disease recurrence. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(6):746–52.
Eyre DW, Cule ML, Wilson DJ, Griffiths D, Vaughan A, O’Connor L, et al. Diverse sources of C. difficile infection identified on whole-genome sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(13):1195–205.
Morgan DJ, Croft LD, Deloney V, Popovich KJ, Crnich C, Srinivasan A, et al. Choosing wisely in healthcare epidemiology and antimicrobial stewardship. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37(7):755–60.
Fishman N, Patterson J, Saiman L, Srinivasan A, Trivedi KK, van Schooneveld T, et al. Policy statement on antimicrobial stewardship by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(4):322–7.
Revolinski S, Tran C, Huang A, Wainaina N, Munoz-Price LS. 239. Implementation of a vertical antimicrobial stewardship intervention for patients colonized with Clostridium difficile. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018;5:S102.
Deshpande A, Pant C, Pasupuleti V, Rolston DDK, Jain A, Deshpande N, et al. Association between proton pump inhibitor therapy and Clostridium difficile infection in a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10(3):225–33.
Janarthanan S, Ditah I, Adler DG, Ehrinpreis MN. Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and proton pump inhibitor therapy: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(7):1001–10.
Lewis PO, Litchfield JM, Tharp JL, Garcia RM, Pourmorteza M, Reddy CM. Risk and severity of hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection in patients taking proton pump inhibitors. Pharmacotherapy. 2016;36(9):986–93.
Barletta JF, Sclar DA. Proton pump inhibitors increase the risk for hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection in critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):714.
Hung Y-P, Ko W-C, Chou P-H, Chen Y-H, Lin H-J, Liu Y-H, et al. Proton-pump inhibitor exposure aggravates Clostridium difficile-associated colitis: evidence from a mouse model. J Infect Dis. 2015;212(4):654–63.
Imhann F, Bonder MJ, Vich Vila A, Fu J, Mujagic Z, Vork L, et al. Proton pump inhibitors affect the gut microbiome. Gut. 2016;65(5):740–8.
Wombwell E, Chittum ME, Leeser KR. Inpatient proton pump inhibitor administration and hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection: evidence and possible mechanism. Am J Med. 2018;131(3):244–9.
Sperling K, Priddy A, Suntharam N, Feuerhake T. Optimizing testing for Clostridium difficile infection: a quality improvement project. Am J Infect Control. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.08.027.
Carter KA, Malani AN. Laxative use and testing for Clostridium difficile in hospitalized adults: an opportunity to improve diagnostic stewardship. Am J Infect Control. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.08.008.
Bilinskaya A, Goodlet KJ, Nailor MD. Evaluation of a best practice alert to reduce unnecessary Clostridium difficile testing following receipt of a laxative. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018;92(1):50–5.
Gilligan PH. Optimizing the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Lab Med. 2015;35(2):299–312.
Marra AR, Edmond MB, Ford BA, Herwaldt LA, Algwizani AR, Diekema DJ. Failure of risk-adjustment by test method for C. difficile laboratory-identified event reporting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(1):109–11.
Figueroa Castro CE, Palen L, Johnson C, Graham MB, Letzer D, Ledeboer N, et al. Immediate impact of healthcare-facility-onset Clostridium difficile laboratory-identified events reporting methodology change on standardized infection ratios. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(12):1484–6.
Press A, Ku B, McCullagh L, Rosen L, Richardson S, McGinn T. Developing a clinical prediction rule for first hospital-onset Clostridium difficile infections: a retrospective observational study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37(8):896–900.
Tabak YP, Johannes RS, Sun X, Nunez CM, McDonald LC. Predicting the risk for hospital-onset Clostridium difficile infection (HO-CDI) at the time of inpatient admission: HO-CDI risk score. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36(6):695–701.
Wiens J, Campbell WN, Franklin ES, Guttag JV, Horvitz E. Learning data-driven patient risk stratification models for Clostridium difficile. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2014;1(2):ofu045.
Cobo J, Merino E, Martinez C, Cozar-Llisto A, Shaw E, Marrodan T, et al. Prediction of recurrent clostridium difficile infection at the bedside: the GEIH-CDI score. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;51(3):393–8.
Hebert C, Du H, Peterson LR, Robicsek A. Electronic health record-based detection of risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection relapse. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34(4):407–14.
Escobar GJ, Baker JM, Kipnis P, Greene JD, Mast TC, Gupta SB, et al. Prediction of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection using comprehensive electronic medical records in an integrated healthcare delivery system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(10):1196–203.
Harris AD, Sbarra AN, Leekha S, Jackson SS, Johnson JK, Pineles L, et al. Electronically available comorbid conditions for risk prediction of healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(3):297–301.
Khoury JA, Sistrunk WW, Hixson F, Duncan M, Perry A, Varble A, et al. Sustained reduction in rates of hospital-onset Clostridium difficile infection using an automated electronic health record protocol. Am J Infect Control. 2018;46(5):542–8.
Madden GR, German Mesner I, Cox HL, Mathers AJ, Lyman JA, Sifri CD, et al. Reduced Clostridium difficile tests and laboratory-identified events with a computerized clinical decision support tool and financial incentive. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(6):737–40.
White DR, Hamilton KW, Pegues DA, Hanish A, Umscheid CA. The impact of a computerized clinical decision support tool on inappropriate Clostridium difficile testing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(10):1204–8.
Dewart CM, Blanco N, Foxman B, Malani AN. Electronic Clostridium difficile infection bundle reduces time to initiation of contact precautions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(2):242–4.
Blanco N, O’Hara LM, Robinson GL, Brown J, Heil E, Brown CH, et al. Health care worker perceptions toward computerized clinical decision support tools for Clostridium difficile infection reduction: a qualitative study at 2 hospitals. Am J Infect Control. 2018;46(10):1160–6.
Weber DJ, Anderson DJ, Sexton DJ, Rutala WA. Role of the environment in the transmission of Clostridium difficile in health care facilities. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(5 Suppl):S105–10.
Weber DJ, Kanamori H, Rutala WA. “No touch” technologies for environmental decontamination: focus on ultraviolet devices and hydrogen peroxide systems. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2016;29(4):424–31.
Boyce JM. Environmental contamination makes an important contribution to hospital infection. J Hosp Infect. 2007;65(Suppl 2):50–4.
Pokrywka M, Buraczewski M, Frank D, Dixon H, Ferrelli J, Shutt K, et al. Can improving patient hand hygiene impact Clostridium difficile infection events at an academic medical center? Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(9):959–63.
Sickbert-Bennett EE, DiBiase LM, Willis TMS, Wolak ES, Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Reduction of healthcare-associated infections by exceeding high compliance with hand hygiene practices. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(9):1628–30.
Oughton MT, Loo VG, Dendukuri N, Fenn S, Libman MD. Hand hygiene with soap and water is superior to alcohol rub and antiseptic wipes for removal of Clostridium difficile. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30(10):939–44.
Barker AK, Zellmer C, Tischendorf J, Duster M, Valentine S, Wright MO, et al. On the hands of patients with Clostridium difficile: a study of spore prevalence and the effect of hand hygiene on C difficile removal. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(10):1154–6.
Deschenes P, Chano F, Dionne L-L, Pittet D, Longtin Y. Efficacy of the World Health Organization-recommended handwashing technique and a modified washing technique to remove Clostridium difficile from hands. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(8):844–8.
Edmonds SL, Zapka C, Kasper D, Gerber R, McCormack R, Macinga D, et al. Effectiveness of hand hygiene for removal of Clostridium difficile spores from hands. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34(3):302–5.
Ragusa R, Giorgianni G, Lupo L, Sciacca A, Rametta S, La Verde M, et al. Healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile infection: role of correct hand hygiene in cross-infection control. J Prev Med Hyg. 2018;59(2):E145–52.
Nelson RE, Jones M, Leecaster M, Samore MH, Ray W, Huttner A, et al. An Economic Analysis of Strategies to Control Clostridium Difficile Transmission and Infection Using an Agent-Based Simulation Model. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152248.
Falagas ME, Thomaidis PC, Kotsantis IK, Sgouros K, Samonis G, Karageorgopoulos DE. Airborne hydrogen peroxide for disinfection of the hospital environment and infection control: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect. 2011;78(3):171–7.
Barbut F, Yezli S, Otter JA. Activity in vitro of hydrogen peroxide vapour against Clostridium difficile spores. J Hosp Infect. 2012;80(1):85–7.
Barbut F. How to eradicate Clostridium difficile from the environment. J Hosp Infect. 2015;89(4):287–95.
McCord J, Prewitt M, Dyakova E, Mookerjee S, Otter JA. Reduction in Clostridium difficile infection associated with the introduction of hydrogen peroxide vapour automated room disinfection. J Hosp Infect. 2016;94(2):185–7.
Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Weber DJ. Room decontamination with UV radiation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(10):1025–9.
Nerandzic MM, Cadnum JL, Pultz MJ, Donskey CJ. Evaluation of an automated ultraviolet radiation device for decontamination of Clostridium difficile and other healthcare-associated pathogens in hospital rooms. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:197.
Boyce JM, Havill NL, Moore BA. Terminal decontamination of patient rooms using an automated mobile UV light unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(8):737–42.
Anderson DJ, Gergen MF, Smathers E, Sexton DJ, Chen LF, Weber DJ, et al. Decontamination of targeted pathogens from patient rooms using an automated ultraviolet-C-emitting device. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34(5):466–71.
Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Tande BM, Weber DJ. Room decontamination using an ultraviolet-C device with short ultraviolet exposure time. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:1070–2.
Havill NL, Moore BA, Boyce JM. Comparison of the microbiological efficacy of hydrogen peroxide vapor and ultraviolet light processes for room decontamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(5):507–12.
Levin J, Riley LS, Parrish C, English D, Ahn S. The effect of portable pulsed xenon ultraviolet light after terminal cleaning on hospital-associated Clostridium difficile infection in a community hospital. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(8):746–8.
Nerandzic MM, Fisher CW, Donskey CJ. Sorting through the wealth of options: comparative evaluation of two ultraviolet disinfection systems. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107444.
Ghantoji SS, Stibich M, Stachowiak J, Cantu S, Adachi JA, Raad II, et al. Non-inferiority of pulsed xenon UV light versus bleach for reducing environmental Clostridium difficile contamination on high-touch surfaces in Clostridium difficile infection isolation rooms. J Med Microbiol. 2015;64(Pt 2):191–4.
Green C, Pamplin JC, Chafin KN, Murray CK, Yun HC. Pulsed-xenon ultraviolet light disinfection in a burn unit: Impact on environmental bioburden, multidrug-resistant organism acquisition and healthcare associated infections. Burns. 2017;43(2):388–96.
Miller R, Simmons S, Dale C, Stachowiak J, Stibich M. Utilization and impact of a pulsed-xenon ultraviolet room disinfection system and multidisciplinary care team on Clostridium difficile in a long-term acute care facility. Am J Infect Control. 2015;43(12):1350–3.
Anderson DJ, Chen LF, Weber DJ, Moehring RW, Lewis SS, Triplett PF, et al. Enhanced terminal room disinfection and acquisition and infection caused by multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile (the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room Disinfection study): a cluster-randomised, multicentre, crossover study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):805–14.
Anderson DJ, Moehring RW, Weber DJ, Lewis SS, Chen LF, Schwab JC, et al. Effectiveness of targeted enhanced terminal room disinfection on hospital-wide acquisition and infection with multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile: a secondary analysis of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial with crossover. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(8):845–53.
Haas JP, Menz J, Dusza S, Montecalvo MA. Implementation and impact of ultraviolet environmental disinfection in an acute care setting. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(6):586–90.
Marra AR, Schweizer ML, Edmond MB. No-touch disinfection methods to decrease multidrug-resistant organism infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(1):20–31.
Weaver L, Michels HT, Keevil CW. Survival of Clostridium difficile on copper and steel: futuristic options for hospital hygiene. J Hosp Infect. 2008;68(2):145–51.
Wheeldon LJ, Worthington T, Lambert PA, Hilton AC, Lowden CJ, Elliott TSJ. Antimicrobial efficacy of copper surfaces against spores and vegetative cells of Clostridium difficile: the germination theory. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62(3):522–5.
O’Gorman J, Humphreys H. Application of copper to prevent and control infection. Where are we now? J Hosp Infect. 2012;81(4):217–23.
Butler JP. Effect of copper-impregnated composite bed linens and patient gowns on healthcare-associated infection ratesin six hospitals. J Hosp Infect. 2018;100(3):e130–e134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2018.05.013.
Madden GR, Heon BE, Sifri CD. Effect of copper-impregnated linens on multidrug-resistant organism acquisition and Clostridium difficile infection at a long-term acute-care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(11):1384–6.
McDonald LC, Diekema DJ. Point-counterpoint: active surveillance for carriers of toxigenic Clostridium difficile should be performed to guide prevention efforts. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(8).
Kong LY, Eyre DW, Corbeil J, Raymond F, Walker AS, Wilcox MH, et al. Clostridium difficile: investigating transmission patterns between infected and colonized patients using whole genome sequencing. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(2):204–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy457.
Longtin Y, Paquet-Bolduc B, Gilca R, Garenc C, Fortin E, Longtin J, et al. Effect of detecting and isolating Clostridium difficile carriers at hospital admission on the incidence of C. difficile infections: a quasi-experimental controlled study. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(6):796–804.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Munoz-Price had received grant funds from Cepheid.
Dr. Figueroa Castro declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on New Technologies and Advances in Infections Prevention
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Figueroa Castro, C.E., Munoz-Price, L.S. Advances in Infection Control for Clostridioides (Formerly Clostridium) difficile Infection. Curr Treat Options Infect Dis 11, 12–22 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40506-019-0179-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40506-019-0179-y