Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 May 25;56(6):e00170-18.
doi: 10.1128/JCM.00170-18. Print 2018 Jun.

High Prevalence of Toxigenic and Nontoxigenic Clostridium difficile Strains in Malaysia

Affiliations

High Prevalence of Toxigenic and Nontoxigenic Clostridium difficile Strains in Malaysia

Thomas V Riley et al. J Clin Microbiol. .

Abstract

Accumulating evidence shows a high prevalence of Clostridium difficile in Southeast Asia associated with a range of clinical presentations. However, severe infections are rarely reported. We investigated C. difficile infection (CDI) across four hospitals in Kuala Lumpur and Kota Bharu, Malaysia. Enzyme immunoassays for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A or B were performed on diarrheal stool specimens collected from patients in 2015 and 2016. Specimens were also cultured and isolates of C. difficile characterized by PCR ribotyping and detection of toxin genes. In total, 437 specimens were collected and fecal toxin was detected in 3.0%. A further 16.2% of specimens were GDH positive and toxin negative. After culture, toxigenic strains were isolated from 10.3% and nontoxigenic strains from 12.4% of specimens. The most prevalent PCR ribotypes (RTs) were RT 017 (20.0%) and RT 043 (10.0%). The high prevalence of RT 017 and nontoxigenic strains in Malaysia and in neighboring Thailand and Indonesia suggests that they localize to the region of Southeast Asia, with an implication that they may mediate the burden of CDI in the region.

Keywords: Clostridium difficile; Malaysia; epidemiology; prevalence.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Miller BA, Chen LF, Sexton DJ, Anderson DJ. 2011. 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 32:387–390. doi: 10.1086/659156. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Freeman J, Bauer MP, Baines SD, Corver J, Fawley WN, Goorhuis B, Kuijper EJ, Wilcox MH. 2010. The changing epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infections. Clin Microbiol Rev 23:529–549. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00082-09. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Slimings C, Armstrong P, Beckingham WD, Bull AL, Hall L, Kennedy KJ, Marquess J, McCann R, Menzies A, Mitchell BG, Richards MJ, Smollen PC, Tracey L, Wilkinson IJ, Wilson FL, Worth LJ, Riley TV. 2014. Increasing incidence of Clostridium difficile infection, Australia, 2011-2012. Med J Aust 200:272–276. doi: 10.5694/mja13.11153. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bloomfield LE, Riley TV. 2016. Epidemiology and risk factors for community-associated Clostridium difficile infection: a narrative review. Infect Dis Ther 5:231–251. doi: 10.1007/s40121-016-0117-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kato H, Kato N, Watanabe K, Iwai N, Nakamura H, Yamamoto T, Suzuki K, Kim SM, Chong Y, Wasito EB. 1998. Identification of toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive Clostridium difficile by PCR. J Clin Microbiol 36:2178–2182. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources