Introduction Information on healthcare-associated C.difficile infection (HA-CDI) in COVID-19 patients is limited. We aimed to assess the characteristics of HA-CDI acquired during and before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods We conducted a retrospective study in a tertiary care hospital, in which since March 2020 exclusively COVID-19 patients are hospitalized. We compared HA-CDI adult patients hospitalized in March 2020-February 2021 with those hospitalized during the same period in 2017-2018.
Results We found 51 cases during 2020-2021 (COVID-19 group), incidence 5.6/1000 adult discharge and 99 cases during 2017-2018 (pre-COVID-19 group), incidence 6.1/1000 adult discharge (p=0.6). The patients in COVID-19 group compared to pre-COVID-19 group were older (median age 66 vs 62 years), with similar rate of comorbidities, but with higher rate of cardiovascular diseases (62.7% vs 42.4%) and less immunosuppression (21.6% vs 55.6%), they had a higher proton pump inhibitors use (94.1% vs 32.3%), and a longer hospitalization (median 19 vs 14 days).
Eighty-five (85.9%) patients in pre-COVID-19 group versus 44 (86.3%) patients in COVID-19 group received antimicrobial treatment – mainly cephalosporins (34,1%), quinolones (22,3%) and glycopeptides (21,1%) in pre-COVID-19 group and mainly cephalosporins and macrolides (63,6% each) in COVID-19 group. We found four HA-CDI-related deaths in pre-COVID-19 group and none in the COVID-19 group.
Conclusions The HA-CDI incidence in COVID-19 group did not change versus the same period of time during 2017-2018. The antibiotic use was the most important factor associated with HA-CDI. We identified a high use of broad-spectrum antibiotics despite the lack of empirical antimicrobial recommendations in COVID-19.
What is important: Information on healthcare-acquired C.difficile in COVID-19 patients is limited, but not only C.difficile infection remains a worrying issue, but is also an emerging topic. We found that antibiotic use seems to be the most important factor associated with CDI and our data emphasize the need for rational use of antibiotics and for ongoing attention regarding CDI in COVID-19 patients.
Objective:The aim of our study was to retrospectively validate a previously described rapid clinical score (RCS) in distinguishing tuberculous meningitis (TBM) from viral meningitis (VM) in people who are at increased risk of tuberculosis, as well as from cryptococcal meningitis (CM) in HIV-infected patients.Methods:We performed a retrospective study of patients admitted with a diagnosis of aseptic meningitis between January 2012 and December 2015, to a referral hospital for infectious diseases. The variables included in RCS were duration of symptoms before admission, neurological stage, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to blood glucose ratio, and CSF protein. We included in this retrospective study 31 patients with definite or probable TBM including 14 HIV-infected patients, 62 HIV-noninfected patients with VM, and 18 HIV-infected patients with CM.Results:The sensitivity of RCS to distinguish TBM from VM was 96.7%, with a specificity of 81.1% and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.949 (0.90–0.99). When all four criteria from the RCS were present, the specificity increased at 100%. In HIV-infected patients, the sensitivity and specificity of RCS in differentiating TBM from CM were 86.6% and 27.7%, respectively, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.669 (0.48–0.85).Conclusion:This easy-to-use RCS was found to be helpful in differentiating TBM from VM, with a better sensitivity than molecular amplification techniques and a relatively good specificity. However, the RCS was not useful to differentiate between TBM and CM in HIV-infected patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.