Impact of Oral Metronidazole, Vancomycin, and Fidaxomicin on Host Shedding and Environmental Contamination With Clostridioides difficile.

BACKGROUND: Shedding of Clostridioides difficile spores from infected individuals contaminates the hospital environment and contributes to infection transmission. We assessed whether antibiotic selection affects C. difficile shedding and contamination of the hospital environment. METHODS: In this prospective, unblinded, randomized controlled trial of hospitalized adults with C. difficile infection, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive fidaxomicin, oral vancomycin, or metronidazole. The primary outcome was change in environmental contamination rate during treatment. Secondary outcomes included stool shedding, total burden of contamination, and molecular relatedness of stool versus environmental C. difficile isolates. RESULTS: Of 33 patients enrolled, 31 (94%) completed the study. Fidaxomicin (-0.36 log10 colony-forming units [CFUs]/d [95% confidence interval (CI), -.52 to -.19]; P < .01) and vancomycin (-0.17 log10 CFUs/d [-.34 to -.01]; P = .05) were associated with more rapid decline in C. difficile shedding than metronidazole (-0.01 log10 CFUs/d [95% CI, -.10 to .08). Both vancomycin (6.3% [95% CI, 4.7-8.3) and fidaxomicin (13.1% [10.7-15.9]) were associated with lower rates of environmental contamination than metronidazole (21.4% [18.0-25.2]). With specific modeling of within-subject change over time, fidaxomicin (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, .70-.99]; P = .04) was associated with more rapid decline in environmental contamination than vancomycin or metronidazole. Overall, 207 of 233 environmental C. difficile isolates (88.8%) matched patient stool isolates by ribotyping, without significant difference by treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Fidaxomicin, and to a lesser extent vancomycin, reduces C. difficile shedding and contamination of the hospital environment relative to metronidazole. Treatment choice may play a role in reducing healthcare-associated C. difficile transmission. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02057198.

Comparative efficacy of hand hygiene agents in the reduction of bacteria and viruses.

BACKGROUND: Health care-associated infections most commonly result from person-to-person transmission via the hands of health care workers. METHODS: We studied the efficacy of hand hygiene agents (n = 14) following 10-second applications to reduce the level of challenge organisms (Serratia marcescens and MS2 bacteriophage) from the hands of healthy volunteers using the ASTM-E-1174-94 test method. RESULTS: The highest log 10 reductions of S marcescens were achieved with agents containing chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), triclosan, benzethonium chloride, and the controls, tap water alone and nonantimicrobial soap and water (episode 1 of hand hygiene, 1.60-2.01; episode 10, 1.60-3.63). Handwipes but not alcohol-based handrubs were significantly inferior from these agents after a single episode of hand hygiene, but both groups were significantly inferior after 10 episodes. After a single episode of hand hygiene, alcohol/silver iodide, CHG, triclosan, and benzethonium chloride were similar to the controls in reduction of MS2, but, in general, handwipes and alcohol-based handrubs showed significantly lower efficacy. After 10 episodes, only benzethonium chloride (1.33) performed as well as the controls (1.59-1.89) in the reduction of MS2. CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial handwashing agents were the most efficacious in bacterial removal, whereas waterless agents showed variable efficacy. Alcohol-based handrubs compared with other products demonstrated better efficacy after a single episode of hand hygiene than after 10 episodes. Effective hand hygiene for high levels of viral contamination with a nonenveloped virus was best achieved by physical removal with a nonantimicrobial soap or tap water alone.

The effects of test variables on the efficacy of hand hygiene agents.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is essential to interrupting disease transmission in health care facilities. Multiple hand hygiene agents are currently available for use in the health care setting. To evaluate the utility of these agents, both the user acceptability and the efficacy need to be evaluated. Different hand hygiene test methodologies have been used to measure the efficacy of these agents, but efficacy results vary depending on variations to key parameters in these methodologies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of test variables on the efficacy of hand hygiene agents. METHODS: Both a comprehensive literature review and original hand hygiene efficacy studies were undertaken. The literature review was conducted using a Medline search, and hand hygiene efficacy studies were conducted under the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). E 1174 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Health Care Personnel Handwash Formulation. RESULTS: The literature review and our original data showed that the following variables affected the hand hygiene efficacy measurements: hand jewelry, experimental contamination versus normal flora, method of application of test organism, hand hygiene agent, concentration of active ingredient, volume of hand hygiene agent, duration of application of hand hygiene agent, method of application of hand hygiene agent, and study method (human challenge trial versus in vitro suspension test). CONCLUSIONS: Although many methodological variables affect efficacy results, infection control professionals in their analysis of product information should always assess the results in light of the following key variables: concentration and type of active ingredient, duration of exposure to hand hygiene agent, volume of hand hygiene agent applied, test organism, and study method (ie, human challenge vs. in vitro suspension test).