Program Schedule

1641
Evaluation of Co-Infections among Patients with Community-Associated Clostridium difficile Infection

Session: Poster Abstract Session: Clostridium difficile Infection: Epidemiology, Presentation, Treatment
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Room: The Pennsylvania Convention Center: IDExpo Hall BC
Background:

Though not considered common features of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), patients with community-associated CDI (CA-CDI) often report nausea or vomiting. We evaluated the prevalence of co-infection with other gastrointestinal (GI) pathogens that cause nausea or vomiting and diarrhea among patients with CA-CDI to ascertain how frequently co-infection may contribute to CA-CDI illness.

Methods:

We enrolled CA-CDI cases (C. difficile-positive stool specimen collected as an outpatient or within 3 days after admission from a person aged ≥1 year who did not have a  positive assay ≤8 weeks and an overnight stay in a healthcare facility ≤ 12 weeks prior to stool collection) from December 1, 2012 – February 28, 2013 in 5 Emerging Infections Program sites participating in CDI surveillance. Demographic data, clinical data and GI bacterial pathogen testing were abstracted from medical records. C. difficile-positive stool specimens associated with case data were submitted for C. difficile culturing and RT-PCR for norovirus, rotavirus, sapovirus, astrovirus and adenovirus. Chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to evaluate differences between co-infected and non-co-infected cases.

Results:

Of 187 CA-CDI cases enrolled, 14 (7.5%) tested positive for norovirus, 4 (2.1%) for enteric adenovirus, 3 (1.6%) for rotavirus, and 2 (1.1%) for sapovirus; one had a positive Campylobacter test. There were no significant differences between co-infected (n=24) and non-co-infected cases (n=163) with regards to age (median = 58 vs. 55, p=0.6), documentation of diarrhea (41% vs. 45%, p=0.7), nausea or vomiting (45% vs. 30%, p=0.1), antimicrobial exposure in the 12 weeks prior to specimen collection (41% vs. 57%, p=0.1), or detection of C. difficile by molecular assay (66% vs. 61%, p=0.6). Co-infected cases were less likely to be C. difficile-culture positive (66% vs. 88%, p=0.01) and to be North American Pulsed-Field type 1 (NAP1) (4% vs. 20%, p=0.03).

Conclusion:

Although lower rates of C. difficile isolation and the NAP1 strain suggest co-infection could be a cause of C. difficile pseudoinfection in the community, this appears uncommon. Based on our data, clinical characteristics alone cannot differentiate these cases.

Jessica Cohen, MPH1,2, Nicole Gregoricus, MSPH3, Monica M. Farley, MD4,5, Rebecca Perlmutter, MPH6, Stacy M. Holzbauer, DVM, MPH7, Ghinwa Dumyati, MD8, Zintars G. Beldavs, MS9, Ashley Lyn Paulick, BS2, Jan Vinje, PhD3, Brandi Limbago, PhD2 and Fernanda C. Lessa, MD2, (1)Atlanta Research and Education Foundation, Atlanta, GA, (2)Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Atlanta, GA, (3)Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Division of Viral Diseases, Atlanta, GA, (4)Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur, GA, (5)Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, (6)Maryland Deptartment of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD, (7)CDC CEFO Assigned to the MN Dept. of Hlth, St. Paul, MN, (8)University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, (9)Acute & Communicable Disease Prevention, Oregon Health Authority, Portland, OR

Disclosures:

J. Cohen, None

N. Gregoricus, None

M. M. Farley, None

R. Perlmutter, None

S. M. Holzbauer, None

G. Dumyati, None

Z. G. Beldavs, None

A. L. Paulick, None

J. Vinje, None

B. Limbago, None

F. C. Lessa, None

Findings in the abstracts are embargoed until 12:01 a.m. EDT, Oct. 8th with the exception of research findings presented at the IDWeek press conferences.

Sponsoring Societies:

© 2014, idweek.org. All Rights Reserved.

Follow IDWeek