Type-specific risk factors and outcome in an outbreak with 2 different Clostridium difficile types simultaneously in 1 hospital.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) due to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ribotype 027 (type 027) has been described worldwide. In some countries, an increase was reported of toxin A-negative PCR ribotype 017 (type 017). We encountered an outbreak due to these 2 types occurring simultaneously in a 980-bed teaching hospital in the Netherlands. METHODS: In a case-control study from May 2005 through January 2007, we investigated general and type-specific risk factors as well as outcome parameters for CDI due to type 027 or 017. Clonal dissemination was investigated by multilocus variable number of tandem repeat analysis (MLVA). RESULTS: We identified 168 CDI patients: 57 (34%) with type 017, 46 (27%) with type 027, and 65 (39%) with 1 of 36 different other types. As controls, we included 77 non-CDI diarrheal patients and 162 patients without diarrhea. Risk factors for CDI were nasogastric intubation, recent hospitalization, and use of cephalosporins and clindamycin. Type-specific risk factors were older age for both types 017 and 027, use of clindamycin and immunosuppressive agents for type 017, and use of fluoroquinolones for type 027. At day 30 of follow-up, the overall mortality among patients with types 017, 027, other types, non-CDI diarrheal patients, and nondiarrheal patients was 23%, 26%, 3%, 2%, and 6%, respectively. MLVA showed persistent clonal dissemination of types 017 and 027, despite appropriate infection control measures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CDI have type-specific risk factors and mortality rates, with prolonged clonal spread of type 027 or 017.

Is extensive screening for cancer in idiopathic venous thromboembolism warranted?

BACKGROUND: Patients with a first episode of idiopathic venous thromboembolism (IVTE) have an estimated 10% incidence of cancer within 12 months after diagnosis. However, the utility of screening for cancer in this population is controversial. METHODS: In this prospective concurrently controlled cohort study, limited and extensive cancer screening strategies were compared. All 630 patients underwent baseline screening consisting of history, physical examination, basic laboratory tests and chest X-ray. In the extensive screening group abdominal and chest CT scan and mammography were added. Outcomes were incidence and curability of cancer, and cancer-related and overall mortality. RESULTS: In 12 of the 342 (3.5%) patients in the extensive screening group malignancy was diagnosed at baseline compared with 2.4% (seven of 288 patients) in the limited screening group. Extensive screening detected six additional cancers (2.0%; 95% CI, 0.74-4.3), of which three were potentially curable. During a median 2.5 years of follow-up, cancer was diagnosed in 3.7% and 5.0% in the extensive and limited screening groups, respectively. In the extensive screening group 26 patients (7.6%) died compared with 24 (8.3%) in the limited screening group; adjusted hazard ratio 1.22 (95% CI, 0.69-2.22). Of these deaths 17 (5.0%) in the extensive screening group and 8 (2.8%) in the limited screening group were cancer related; adjusted hazard ratio 1.79 (95% CI, 0.74-4.35). CONCLUSIONS: The low yield of extensive screening and lack of survival benefit do not support routine screening for cancer with abdominal and chest CT scan and mammography in patients with a first episode of IVTE.