Evidence Hub

Clostridioides difficile evolution in a tertiary German hospital through a retrospective genomic characterization

Lorenzo-Diaz F, Klassert TE, Zubiria-Barrera C, Keles-Slevogt A, Gonzalez-Carracedo M, Hernandez M, Slevogt H, Grünewald T

Infection, 2025

Abstract

PURPOSE: Clostridioides difficile is a major cause of healthcare-associated infections, contributing to significant morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to investigate the genomic characteristics, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiles, and temporal dynamics of C. difficile strains isolated from hospitalized patients in a German tertiary hospital over nearly two decades (1997-2015).

METHODS: Whole-genome sequencing was performed on 46 toxigenic C. difficile isolates to determine sequence types (STs) and phylogenetic relationships and these were compared to national surveillance data on C. dificile. AMR profiling was conducted to identify key resistance determinants at genetic level while epsilometer minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) analyses were used to correlate genetic resistance markers with phenotypic resistance. Longitudinal antibiotic usage data were analysed to assess potential associations with resistance profiles and strains evolution.

RESULTS: Five predominant STs were identified: ST1 (30%), ST54 (24%), ST3 (22%), ST11 (11%), and ST37 (4%). Phylogenetic analysis showed that ST1 (ribotype 027) emerged as the dominant and persistent lineage, replacing ST11 and ST54 over time. AMR profiling detected several resistance genetic markers such as CDD-1/CDD-2 (carbapenem resistance), ErmB (macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance/MLS resistance), and mutations in gyrA (fluoroquinolone resistance) and rpoB (rifampicin resistance). MIC analyses confirmed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free