Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD) presents mainly as a nosocomial infection, usually after antimicrobial therapy. Many outbreaks have been attributed to C. difficile, some due to a new hyper-virulent strain that may cause more severe disease and a worse patient outcome. As a result of CDAD, large numbers of C. difficile spores may be excreted by affected patients. Spores then survive for months in the environment; they cannot be destroyed by standard alcohol-based hand disinfection, and persist despite usual environmental cleaning agents. All these factors increase the risk of C. difficile transmission. Once CDAD is diagnosed in a patient, immediate implementation of appropriate infection control measures is mandatory in order to prevent further spread within the hospital. The quality and quantity of antibiotic prescribing should be reviewed to minimise the selective pressure for CDAD. This article provides a review of the literature that can be used for evidence-based guidelines to limit the spread of C. difficile. These include early diagnosis of CDAD, surveillance of CDAD cases, education of staff, appropriate use of isolation precautions, hand hygiene, protective clothing, environmental cleaning and cleaning of medical equipment, good antibiotic stewardship, and specific measures during outbreaks. Existing local protocols and practices for the control of C. difficile should be carefully reviewed and modified if necessary.

Introduction: Pneumonia is a very common nosocomial infection in intensive care units (ICUs). Many studies have investigated risk factors for the development of infection and its consequences. However, the evaluation in most of theses studies disregards the fact that there are additional competing events, such as discharge or death. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted over 18 months in five intensive care units at one university hospital. All patients that were admitted for at least 2 days were included, and surveillance of nosocomial pneumonia was conducted. Various potential risk factors (baseline- and time-dependent) were evaluated in two competing risks models: the acquisition of nosocomial pneumonia and discharge (dead or alive; model 1) and for the risk of death in the ICU and discharge alive (model 2). Results: Patients from 1,876 admissions were included. A total of 158 patients developed nosocomial pneumonia. The main risk factors for nosocomial pneumonia in the multivariate analysis in model 1 were: elective surgery (cause-specific hazard ratio = 1.95; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.85) or emergency surgery (1.59; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.28) prior to ICU admission, usage of a nasogastric tube (3.04; 95% CI 1.25 to 7.37) and mechanical ventilation (5.90; 95% CI 2.47 to 14.09). Nosocomial pneumonia prolonged the length of ICU stay but was not directly associated with a fatal outcome (p = 0.55). Conclusion: More studies using competing risk models, which provide more accurate data compared to naive survival curves or logistic models, should be carried out to verify the impact of risk factors and patient characteristics for the acquisition of nosocomial infections and infection-associated mortality.

Purpose: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread around the world. Differentiation between pure viral COVID-19 pneumonia and secondary infection can be challenging. In patients with elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) on admission physicians often decide to prescribe antibiotic therapy. However, overuse of anti-infective therapy in the pandemic should be avoided to prevent increasing antimicrobial resistance. Procalcitonin (PCT) and CRP have proven useful in other lower respiratory tract infections and might help to differentiate between pure viral or secondary infection. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients admitted with COVID-19 between 6th March and 30th October 2020. Patient background, clinical course, laboratory findings with focus on PCT and CRP levels and microbiology results were evaluated. Patients with and without secondary bacterial infection in relation to PCT and CRP were compared. Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the best discriminating cut-off value of PCT and CRP with the corresponding sensitivity and specificity was calculated. Results: Out of 99 inpatients (52 ICU, 47 Non-ICU) with COVID-19, 32 (32%) presented with secondary bacterial infection during hospitalization. Patients with secondary bacterial infection had higher PCT (0.4 versus 0.1 ng/mL; p = 0.016) and CRP (131 versus 73 mg/L; p = 0.001) levels at admission and during the hospital stay (2.9 versus 0.1 ng/mL; p < 0.001 resp. 293 versus 94 mg/L; p < 0.001). The majority of patients on general ward had no secondary bacterial infection (93%). More than half of patients admitted to the ICU developed secondary bacterial infection (56%). ROC analysis of highest PCT resp. CRP and secondary infection yielded AUCs of 0.88 (p < 0.001) resp. 0.86 (p < 0.001) for the entire cohort. With a PCT cut-off value at 0.55 ng/mL, the sensitivity was 91% with a specificity of 81%; a CRP cut-off value at 172 mg/L yielded a sensitivity of 81% with a specificity of 76%. Conclusion: PCT and CRP measurement on admission and during the course of the disease in patients with COVID-19 may be helpful in identifying secondary bacterial infections and guiding the use of antibiotic therapy.