11 research outputs found
An evaluation of food as a potential source for clostridium difficile acquisition in hospitalized patients
OBJECTIVETo determine whetherClostridium difficileis present in the food of hospitalized patients and to estimate the risk of subsequent colonization associated withC. difficilein food.METHODSThis was a prospective cohort study of inpatients at a university-affiliated tertiary care center, May 9, 2011–July 12, 2012. Enrolled patients submitted a portion of food from each meal. Patient stool specimens and/or rectal swabs were collected at enrollment, every 3 days thereafter, and at discharge, and were cultured forC. difficile. Clinical data were reviewed for evidence of infection due toC. difficile.A stochastic, discrete event model was developed to predict exposure toC. difficilefrom food, and the estimated number of new colonization events from food exposures per 1,000 admissions was determined.RESULTSA total of 149 patients were enrolled and 910 food specimens were obtained. Two food specimens from 2 patients were positive forC. difficile(0.2% of food samples; 1.3% of patients). Neither of the 2 patients was colonized at baseline withC. difficile. Discharge colonization status was available for 1 of the 2 patients and was negative. Neither was diagnosed withC. difficileinfection while hospitalized or during the year before or after study enrollment. Stochastic modeling indicated contaminated hospital food would be responsible for less than 1 newly colonized patient per 1,000 hospital admissions.CONCLUSIONSThe recovery ofC. difficilefrom the food of hospitalized patients was rare. Modeling suggests hospital food is unlikely to be a source ofC. difficileacquisition.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2016;1401–1407</jats:sec
An evaluation of the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospital food
Risk for Clostridium difficile infection after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant remains elevated in the postengraftment period
BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a frequent cause of diarrhea among allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. It is unknown whether risk factors for CDI vary by time posttransplant. METHODS: We performed a 3-year prospective cohort study of CDI in allogeneic HCT recipients. Participants were enrolled during their transplant hospitalizations. Clinical assessments were performed weekly during hospitalizations and for 12 weeks posttransplant, and monthly for 30 months thereafter. Data were collected through patient interviews and chart review, and included CDI diagnosis, demographics, transplant characteristics, medications, infections, and outcomes. CDI cases were included if they occurred within 1 year of HCT and were stratified by time from transplant. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine risk factors for CDI. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-seven allogeneic HCT recipients were enrolled, including 63 (34%) patients who developed CDI. 38 (60%) CDI cases occurred during the preengraftment period (days 0-30 post-HCT) and 25 (40%) postengraftment (day >30). Lack of any preexisting comorbid disease was significantly associated with lower risk of CDI preengraftment (odds ratio [OR], 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-0.9). Relapsed underlying disease (OR, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.3-33.1), receipt of any high-risk antimicrobials (OR, 11.8; 95% CI, 2.9-47.8), and graft-versus-host disease (OR, 7.8; 95% CI, 2.0-30.2) were significant independent risk factors for CDI postengraftment. CONCLUSIONS: A large portion of CDI cases occurred during the postengraftment period in allogeneic HCT recipients, suggesting that surveillance for CDI should continue beyond the transplant hospitalization and preengraftment period. Patients with continued high underlying severity of illness were at increased risk of CDI postengraftment
The epidemiology of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus colonization in a medical intensive care unit
Randomized controlled trial to determine the impact of probiotic administration on colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms in critically ill patients
This was a randomized controlled pilot study of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG versus standard of care to prevent gastrointestinal multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) colonization in ICU patients. Seventy subjects were included in analyses. There were no significant differences in acquisition or loss of any MDROs (p>0.05). There were no probiotic-associated adverse events
A randomized controlled trial of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on antimicrobial-resistant organism colonization
OBJECTIVE: Alteration of the colonic microbiota following antimicrobial exposure allows colonization by antimicrobial-resistant organisms (AROs). Ingestion of a probiotic, such as Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG), could prevent colonization or infection with AROs by promoting healthy colonic microbiota. The purpose of this trial was to determine the effect of LGG administration on ARO colonization in hospitalized patients receiving antibiotics.
DESIGN: Prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of LGG versus placebo among patients receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics.
SETTING: Tertiary care center.
PATIENTS: In total, 88 inpatients receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics were enrolled.
INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive 1 capsule containing 1×1010 cells of LGG twice daily (n = 44) or placebo (n = 44), stratified by ward type. Stool or rectal-swab specimens were collected for culture at enrollment, during admission, and at discharge. Using selective media, specimens were cultured for Clostridioides difficile, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp (VRE), and antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria. The primary outcome was any ARO acquisition. Secondary outcomes included loss of any ARO if colonized at enrollment, and acquisition or loss of individual ARO.
RESULTS: ARO colonization prevalence at study enrollment was similar (LGG 39% vs placebo 39%). We detected no difference in any ARO acquisition (LGG 30% vs placebo 33%; OR,1.19; 95% CI, 0.38-3.75) nor for any individual ARO acquisition. There was no difference in the loss of any ARO (LGG 18% vs placebo 24%; OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.27-7.68) nor for any individual ARO.
CONCLUSION: LGG administration neither prevented acquisition of ARO nor accelerated loss of ARO colonization