Open AccessPrevalence and antimicrobial resistance pattern of Clostridium difficile among hospitalized diarrheal patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Author(s) -
Tebelay Dilnessa,
Alem Getaneh,
Workagegnehu Hailu,
Feleke Moges,
Baye Gelaw
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0262597
Subject(s) - medicine , clostridium difficile , clindamycin , diarrhea , antibiotic resistance , antimicrobial , meta analysis , publication bias , cochrane library , funnel plot , antibiotics , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
Background Clostridium difficile is the leading cause of infectious diarrhea that develops in patients after hospitalization during antibiotic administration. It has also become a big issue in community-acquired diarrhea. The emergence of hypervirulent strains of C . difficile poses a major problem in hospital-associated diarrhea outbreaks and it is difficult to treat. The antimicrobial resistance in C . difficile has worsened due to the inappropriate use of broad-spectrum antibiotics including cephalosporins, clindamycin, tetracycline, and fluoroquinolones together with the emergence of hypervirulent strains. Objective To estimate the pooled prevalence and antimicrobial resistance pattern of C . difficile derived from hospitalized diarrheal patients, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed to review published studies conducted. We searched bibliographic databases from PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library for studies on the prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility testing on C . difficile . The weighted pooled prevalence and resistance for each antimicrobial agent was calculated using a random-effects model. A funnel plot and Egger’s regression test were used to see publication bias. Results A total of 15 studies were included. Ten articles for prevalence study and 5 additional studies for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of C . difficile were included. A total of 1967/7852 (25%) C . difficile were isolated from 10 included studies for prevalence study. The overall weighted pooled proportion (WPP) of C . difficile was 30% (95% CI: 10.0–49.0; p<0.001). The analysis showed substantial heterogeneity among studies (Cochran’s test = 7038.73, I 2 = 99.87%; p<0.001). The weighed pooled antimicrobial resistance (WPR) were: vancomycin 3%(95% CI: 1.0–4.0, p<0.001); metronidazole 5%(95% CI: 3.0–7.0, p<0.001); clindamycin 61%(95% CI: 52.0–69.0, p<0.001); moxifloxacin 42%(95% CI: 29–54, p<0.001); tetracycline 35%(95% CI: 22–49, p<0.001); erythromycin 61%(95% CI: 48–75, p<0.001) and ciprofloxacin 64%(95% CI: 48–80; p< 0.001) using the random effect model. Conclusions A higher weighted pooled prevalence of C . difficile was observed. It needs a great deal of attention to decrease the prevailing prevalence. The resistance of C . difficile to metronidazole and vancomycin was low compared to other drugs used to treat C . difficile infection. Periodic antimicrobial resistance monitoring is vital for appropriate therapy of C . difficile infection.