ReviewClinical and economic burden of Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: a systematic review of healthcare-facility-acquired infection
Introduction
Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a bacterial infection that can cause symptoms ranging from diarrhoea to life-threatening inflammation of the colon (toxic megacolon). Illness from CDI most commonly occurs after use of antibiotics, and affects elderly patients in healthcare facilities including regional and academic hospitals, long-term care facilities and ambulatory centres. In recent years, CDI has become more frequent, more severe and more difficult to treat. This is primarily due to the emergence of the epidemic C. difficile ribotype 027 clone.1 Whilst it is anticipated that the current epidemic due to this ribotype will decrease over the next decade, it is likely to be replaced by other strains, combined with the continuing evolution of healthcare delivery, thereby maintaining the CDI burden.1
Describing the burden of CDI in Europe is hampered by differential reporting requirements and variability in CDI testing. For example, a Europe-wide hospital-based survey of CDI found that consensus on preferred testing methods is lacking, diagnostic methods are not uniform, and the frequency of testing varies up to 47-fold between countries.2 CDI reporting by hospitals in the National Health Service (NHS) in England became mandatory in 2004, and currently captures CDI data from 167 hospital trusts. While the CDI reporting programme in the UK represents the most extensive of its kind, France and Germany have implemented mandatory reporting for severe cases of CDI, and systematic surveillance is slowly emerging in Spain, Poland and Nordic countries.3, 4
Despite the testing and reporting limitations identified in the study by Bauer et al., their findings provide a valuable insight into the current state of clinical practice and burden of CDI across the European continent.2 In conjunction with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, CDI data were captured from 97 hospitals in 34 European countries. In each country, one to six hospitals were recruited and 509 patients were included. While CDI rates varied considerably, the aggregate rate of CDI in Europe was 4.1 cases out of every 10,000 patient-days, and 18% of the captured CDI cases were recurrent. By Day 90, 22% of patients had died; CDI was the primary or contributive cause of death in 2% and 7% of patients, respectively.2
The clinical burden of CDI is intuitively tied to a commensurate economic burden; however, there is a paucity of data on this topic. Reviews of the available literature reported significant variability in study designs, cost methods and patient populations evaluated, with the majority of studies completed in the USA.5 Drivers of economic outcomes at the hospital level include length of hospital stay (LOS), laboratory tests and antibiotic treatment.6 Population-level economic studies are hindered by limited data on total LOS and use of diagnostics, laboratory tests and treatment for CDI.2 Cost estimates may be derived from hospital records, national formularies or expert opinion.6, 7, 8 Furthermore, most studies are from a hospital or provider perspective, and have little information in relation to third party and societal costs or perspectives. Indeed, a recently published economic computer simulation model aimed to determine the costs of hospital-acquired CDI attributable from all three perspectives, but only in relation to US practice.9 Overall, few studies have made a full evaluation of the cost burden of CDI despite the commonly held assumption that the treatment and management of CDI are extremely costly.5
Inherent obstacles are present in clinical practice and research methodology that have made it difficult to describe the clinical and economic burden of CDI in Europe. The possibility of undertaking economic simulations in relation to European practice would be fraught with difficulties due to the differing natures of the healthcare systems, compounded by the many inherent limitations of economic modelling outlined in the analysis by McGlone et al.9 Therefore, one step towards a co-ordinated and streamlined approach to capturing, evaluating and reporting data on the CDI burden in Europe is to systematically review the current state of understanding around this topic.
Section snippets
Methods
A systematic review of primary articles and conference abstracts was conducted to address the clinical and economic burden of CDI acquired and treated in European healthcare facilities. The Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA statement were used to guide the initial planning and subsequent reporting of the methods capturing literature for this systematic review.10, 11 The criteria outlined in these documents were modified (available on request) to account for the nature (outcomes vs clinical trial)
Overview
In total, 678 primary articles and 460 abstracts addressing the clinical and/or economic burden of CDI were identified. Figure 1 describes the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion process. Upon further screening and application of eligibility criteria, the literature field was reduced to 39 primary articles and 30 abstracts (Table Ia, Table Ib). The primary CDI outcomes identified in this report are mortality, recurrence, LOS and cost associated with CDI.
Discussion
A clearer understanding of the clinical and economic burden of CDI is of value to a range of key clinical decision makers. Hospital administrators, infection prevention teams and antimicrobial stewardship programmes can use the information to determine appropriate investment scales for these measures compared with use of resources in other priority areas.68 These data are also valuable to diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies in planning to develop, test and price new diagnostics and
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Wendy Wan, a senior research analyst with Pharmerit, and Isaac Foley, who was a research analyst with Pharmerit, for their assistance and significant contributions towards the data collection for the project. The study sponsor did not contribute to the data collection or provide funds for manuscript development.
References (88)
- et al.
Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: a hospital-based survey
Lancet
(2011) - et al.
Costs of nosocomial Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea
J Hosp Infect
(2008) - et al.
Financial burden of hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection
J Hosp Infect
(1996) - et al.
Clostridium difficile in hip fracture patients: prevention, treatment and associated mortality
Injury
(2009) - et al.
Has the severity of Clostridium difficile infections increased?
J Hosp Infect
(2006) - et al.
Hospital-based epidemiology: a strategy for ‘dealing with Clostridium difficile’
J Hosp Infect
(2010) - et al.
Clostridium difficile ribotypes 027 and 106: clinical outcomes and risk factors
J Hosp Infect
(2009) - et al.
Descriptive study of selected healthcare-associated infections using national Hospital Episode Statistics data 1996–2006 and comparison with mandatory reporting systems
J Hosp Infect
(2008) - et al.
Increasing incidence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in inflammatory bowel disease
J Crohns Colitis
(2009) - et al.
Clostridium difficile infection in general surgery patients; identification of high-risk populations
Int J Surg
(2010)