Erratum: In the endemic setting, clostridium difficile ribotype 027 is virulent but not hypervirulent (Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (2015) 36 (1318-1323) DOI: 10.1017/ice.2015.187);In the endemic setting, clostridium difficile ribotype 027 is virulent but not hypervirulent

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

Volumn 36, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1318-1323

  Aitken, Samuel L ^a,b,g   Jahangir Alam, M ^a   Khaleduzzaman, Mohammed ^a   Walk, Seth T ^c   Musick, William L ^b   Pham, Vy P ^d   Christensen, Jennifer L ^e   Atmar, Robert L ^e   Xie, Yang ^f   Garey, Kevin W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

^b HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Memorial Hermann Northwest Hospital   (United States)

^e BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BACTERIAL TOXIN; METRONIDAZOLE; VANCOMYCIN;

ADULT; ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY; ARTICLE; BACTERIAL STRAIN; BACTERIAL VIRULENCE; CHARLSON COMORBIDITY INDEX; CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE INFECTION; CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE RIBOTYPE 027; FECES ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEPTOCLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE; RECURRENT DISEASE; RIBOTYPING; AGED; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CLOSTRIDIUM INFECTIONS; CROSS INFECTION; GENETICS; HOSPITAL; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; STATISTICAL MODEL; TEXAS; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE; CLOSTRIDIUM INFECTIONS; CROSS INFECTION; FEMALE; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RIBOTYPING; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TEXAS;

EID: 84958523815     PISSN: 0899823X     EISSN: 15596834     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2015.305     Document Type: Erratum

References (19)

1. Miller BA, Chen LF, Sexton DJ, Anderson DJ. Comparison of the burdens of hospital-onset, healthcare facility-associated Clostridium difficile infection and of healthcare-associated infection due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in community hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:387–390.
2. 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;42:1028–1032.
3. McDonald LC, Killgore GE, Thompson A, et al. An epidemic, toxin gene-variant strain of Clostridium difficile. New Engl J Med 2005;353:2433–2441.
4. He M, Miyajima F, Roberts P, et al. Emergence and global spread of epidemic healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile. Nature Genet 2013;45:109–113.
5. See I, Mu Y, Cohen J, et al. NAP1 strain type predicts outcomes from Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 2014;58: 1394–1400.
6. Goorhuis A, Bakker D, Corver J, et al. Emergence of Clostridium difficile infection due to a new hypervirulent strain, polymerase chain reaction ribotype 078. Clin Infect Dis 2008;47:1162–1170.
7. Lim SK, Stuart RL, Mackin KE, et al. Emergence of a ribotype 244 strain of Clostridium difficile associated with severe disease and related to the epidemic ribotype 027 strain. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58:1723–1730.
8. Walk ST, Micic D, Jain R, et al. Clostridium difficile ribotype does not predict severe infection. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:1661–1668.
9. Walker AS, Eyre DW, Wyllie DH, et al. Relationship between bacterial strain type, host biomarkers, and mortality in Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 2013;56:1589–1600.
10. Miller M, Gravel D, Mulvey M, et al. Health care-associated Clostridium difficile infection in Canada: patient age and infecting strain type are highly predictive of severe outcome and mortality. Clin Infect Dis 2010;50:194–201.
11. Alam MJ, Anu A, Walk ST, Garey KW. Investigation of potentially pathogenic Clostridium difficile contamination in household environs. Anaerobe 2014;27:31–33.
12. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–383.
13. McDonald LC, Coignard B, Dubberke E, et al. Recommendations for surveillance of Clostridium difficile-associated disease. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:140–145.
14. Shah DN, Bhatt NS, Welch JK, Koo HL, Garey KW. Defining acute renal dysfunction as a criterion for the severity of Clostridium difficile infection in patients with community-onset vs hospital-onset infection. J Hosp Infect 2013;83:294–299.
15. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011;46:399–424.
16. Tenover FC, Akerlund T, Gerding DN, et al. Comparison of strain typing results for Clostridium difficile isolates from North America. J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:1831–1837.
17. Martinson JN, Broadaway S, Lohman E, et al. Evaluation of portability and cost of a fluorescent PCR ribotyping protocol for Clostridium difficile epidemiology. J Clin Microbiol 2015. In press.
18. Mullane KM, Miller MA, Weiss K, et al. Efficacy of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin as therapy for Clostridium difficile infection in individuals taking concomitant antibiotics for other concurrent infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011;53:440–447.
19. Johnson S, Louie TJ, Gerding DN, et al. Vancomycin, metronidazole, or tolevamer for Clostridium difficile infection: results from two multinational, randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59:345–354.