COMBACTE-CDI 24/04/2017 Participants Participant No Participant - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Clostridium difficile Infections

COMBACTE-CDI

24/04/2017

Participants

Participant No Participant organisation name Country 1 (Coordinator) University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU) the Netherlands 2 (Co-leader) University of Leeds (UL) United Kingdom 3 Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) the Netherlands 4 National Laboratory for Health, Environment and Food (NLZOH) Slovenia 5 Universitätsklinikum Köln (UKK) Germany 6 University of Antwerp (UA) Belgium 7 National Institute for Infectious Diseases “Lazzaro Spallanzani” Rome (INMI) Italy 8 Eberhard Karls University of Tubingen (EKUT) Germany 9 Pfizer (PFZ) Uniter Kingdom 10 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (GSKBio) Belgium 11 bioMérieux (BM) France 12 AstraZeneca/MedImmune (AZ/MI) United States 13 Astellas (AST) United Kingdom 14 Sanofi Pasteur (SP) France 15 Da Volterra (DAV) France

COMBACTE-CDI project structure

24/04/2017

All networks will collaboratively identify hospitals of interest Hospitals will be selected from North, South, East and West Europe COMBACTE LAB-Net Hospital identified that tests community and in-patient samples Sample days selected ECDIS-Net EUCLID Network COMBACTE EPI- Net COMBACTE CLIN-Net 24/04/2017

Samples collected on test days (regardless of test requested) will be tested at a European central laboratory using recommended ‘optimal’ testing methodology to find true burden of CDI

Hospital samples collected Community Samples collected Sent to ECL for ‘optimal’ testing (missing cases found) O1.1 Hospital identified that tests community and in-patient samples Sample days selected ECDIS-Net EUCLID Network COMBACTE EPI- Net COMBACTE CLIN-Net COMBACTE LAB-Net 24/04/2017

Isolates of C. difficile identified from the community and hospital samples will be sent for further analysis; including PCR- ribotyping and whole genome sequencing to identify factors that may be driving clustering of strains

Strains sent for analysis O1.2 Hospital samples collected Community Samples collected Sent to ECL for ‘optimal’ testing (missing cases found) O1.1 Hospital identified that tests community and in-patient samples Sample days selected ECDIS-Net EUCLID Network COMBACTE EPI- Net COMBACTE CLIN-Net COMBACTE LAB-Net 24/04/2017

Clinical report form deigned to capture data for risk factor analysis and

• utcome data on all

positive (ECL defined) and a proportion of negative samples; completed 6 months after sample collection date

Follow up for 6 months; outcome data O1.3 Retrospective data collection for risk factors O1.4 Strains sent for analysis O1.2 Hospital samples collected Community Samples collected Sent to ECL for ‘optimal’ testing (missing cases found) O1.1 Hospital identified that tests community and in-patient samples Sample days selected ECDIS-Net EUCLID Network COMBACTE EPI- Net COMBACTE CLIN-Net COMBACTE LAB-Net 24/04/2017

All data collected from O1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 will be used for the transmission modelling analysis in O1.5 Transmission modelling O1.5 Follow up for 6 months; outcome data O1.3 Retrospective data collection for risk factors O1.4 Strains sent for analysis O1.2 Hospital samples collected Community Samples collected Sent to ECL for ‘optimal’ testing (missing cases found) O1.1 Hospital identified that tests community and in-patient samples Sample days selected ECDIS-Net EUCLID Network COMBACTE EPI- Net COMBACTE CLIN-Net COMBACTE LAB-Net 24/04/2017

Hospitals will complete a questionnaire to enhance current ECDC data regarding ; T esting policy and methodology Surveillance practices Guidelines available and compliance ‘severe’ patient stratification. Data uploaded to central website Provides data for O2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 Questionnaire for hospital/laboratory; Provides data for O2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 Transmission modelling O1.5 Follow up for 6 months; outcome data O1.3 Retrospective data collection for risk factors O1.4 Strains sent for analysis O1.2 Hospital samples collected Community Samples collected Sent to ECL for ‘optimal’ testing (missing cases found) O1.1 Hospital identified that tests community and in-patient samples Sample days selected ECDIS-Net EUCLID Network COMBACTE EPI- Net COMBACTE CLIN-Net COMBACTE LAB-Net 24/04/2017

All data from previous

• bjectives in WP1 and WP2

will be fed into the cost effectiveness objectives in 2.5 and 2.6 Questionnaire for hospital/laboratory; Provides data for O2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 Transmission modelling O1.5 Follow up for 6 months; outcome data O1.3 Retrospective data collection for risk factors O1.4 Strains sent for analysis O1.2 Hospital samples collected Community Samples collected Sent to ECL for ‘optimal’ testing (missing cases found) O1.1 Hospital identified that tests community and in-patient samples Sample days selected ECDIS-Net EUCLID Network COMBACTE EPI- Net COMBACTE CLIN-Net COMBACTE LAB-Net Costs and cost effectiveness O2.5, 2.6 24/04/2017

This synergistic approach will enable completion of all

• bjectives from WP1 and

WP2 Questionnaire for hospital/laboratory; Provides data for O2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 Transmission modelling O1.5 Follow up for 6 months; outcome data O1.3 Retrospective data collection for risk factors O1.4 Strains sent for analysis O1.2 Hospital samples collected Community Samples collected Sent to ECL for ‘optimal’ testing (missing cases found) O1.1 Hospital identified that tests community and in-patient samples Sample days selected ECDIS-Net EUCLID Network COMBACTE EPI- Net COMBACTE CLIN-Net COMBACTE LAB-Net Costs and cost effectiveness O2.5, 2.6 24/04/2017

Acknowledgements

 Marc Bonten  Jovanka Bestebroer  Kerrie Davies  Georgina Davies  All the COMBACTE CDI team for

all the hard work done … and still to be done 

24/04/2017