Catherine Eckert

Learn More
The major virulence factors of Clostridium difficile are toxins A and B. These toxins are encoded by tcdA and tcdB genes, which form a pathogenicity locus (PaLoc) together with three additional genes that have been implicated in regulation (tcdR and tcdC) and secretion (tcdE). To date, the PaLoc has always been found in the same location and is replaced in(More)
Clostridium difficile causes antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and pseudomembranous colitis. The main virulence factors of C. difficile are the toxins A (TcdA) and B (TcdB). A third toxin, called binary toxin (CDT), can be detected in 17% to 23% of strains, but its role in human disease has not been clearly defined. We report six independent cases of patients(More)
In the last two decades there have been dramatic changes in the epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), with increases in incidence and severity of disease in many countries worldwide. The incidence of CDI has also increased in surgical patients. Optimization of management of C difficile, has therefore become increasingly urgent. An(More)
BACKGROUND Rapid commercial assays, including nucleic acid amplification tests and immunoassays for Clostridium. difficile toxins, have replaced the use of older assays. They are included in a two-step algorithm diagnosis, including first the detection of the glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) as a screening method and second the detection of toxins as a(More)
Lack of standardised Clostridium difficile testing is a potential confounder when comparing infection rates. We used an observational, systematic, prospective large-scale sampling approach to investigate variability in C. difficile sampling to understand C. difficile infection (CDI) incidence rates. In-patient and institutional data were gathered from 60(More)
The sensitivity and specificity of surveillance for Clostridium difficile infections according to International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, codes were compared with laboratory results as standard. Sensitivity was 35.6%; specificity was 99.9%. Concordance between the 2 methods was moderate. Surveillance based on ICD-10 codes underestimated the(More)
  • 1