Clostridioides difficile Infection (CDI) Tracking

The Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) surveillance program is an active population- and laboratory-based surveillance system conducted through CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) Healthcare-Associated Infections Community Interface (HAIC) activity. Data from the EIP CDI program can be used to measure the burden of CDI in the population, characterize C. difficile strains associated with disease, and to monitor trends in disease over time. The CDI surveillance program also provides an infrastructure for further public health research, including special studies aimed at identifying risk factors for C. difficile disease, population targets for vaccine, and monitoring effectiveness of prevention strategies. The EIP CDI surveillance was launched in 2009 in 7 EIP sites. It currently operates in select counties in 10 EIP sites across the United States and has approximately 11.7 million people under surveillance.

Surveillance Objectives

  1.  Monitor population-based CDI incidence and disease burden of community- and healthcare-associated CDI over time to assess the impact of prevention strategies and inform public health practice.
  2.  Describe the molecular and microbiologic characteristics of C. difficile strains causing disease in the population under surveillance and describe changes in strain prevalence over time.
  3.  Monitor changes in the epidemiology of community- and healthcare-associated CDI, including disease severity, related complications and outcomes, and relevant risk factors to help guide prevention efforts.


Surveillance Population

The table below illustrates the estimated population under surveillance for each EIP site as of December 2013.

EIP CDI Sites and Estimated Population Under C. difficile Surveillance
Areas Under Surveillance 2011 2012 2013 2014
San Francisco County, CA 812,826 825,863 837,442 852,469
Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties, CO 2,488,410 2,532,982 2,583,519 2,636,542
New Haven County, CT 861,113 862,813 862,287 861,277
Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnet, Newton and Rockdale Counties, GA 3,753,452 3,821,534 3,864,091 3,925,130
Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Frederick, Kent, Somerset, Talbot, Queen Anne’s, Washington, Wicomico and Worcester Counties, MD 835,893 841,089 843,444 846,087
Benton, Morrison, Olmsted (surveillance began July 2012), Stearns and Todd Counties, MN 248,079 395,098 397,786 399,779
Bernalillo County, NM 670,968 673,460 674,221 675,551
Monroe County, NY 745,625 747,813 749,606 749,857
Klamath County, OR* 66,299 228,189 231,864 65,455
Davidson County, TN 635,475 648,295 658,602 668,347
Total 11,118,140 11,577,136 11,702,862 11,680,494

*Deschutes County, OR participated in CDI surveillance during 2012-2013.

Case Definition

C. difficile infection Incident Case

A case of CDI is defined as a positive C. difficile toxin assay or a positive C. difficile molecular assay (e.g. PCR) of a stool specimen from a resident of the surveillance catchment area who is 1 year of age or older. Cases with a C. difficile-positive stool specimen greater than 8 weeks after the last positive specimen are considered a new case with an incident stool specimen. Therefore, for surveillance purposes, an individual may be classified and captured as a new incident case if eight consecutive weeks have elapsed since their last C. difficile-positive test.

Recurrent episodes

CDI cases with a positive C. difficile stool specimen between 2 to 8 weeks of the last positive specimen are considered recurrent episodes.

Duplicate episodes

CDI cases with a positive C. difficile stool specimen less than 2 weeks since the last positive specimen are considered duplicate episodes.

Case Ascertainment

CDI cases are identified based on reports of positive C. difficile toxin assay or C. difficile nucleic acid amplification assay from all clinical, reference, and commercial laboratories that serve the population in the surveillance catchment areas. Each laboratory regularly provides line listings of positive C. difficile test results to the local EIP site. The line listings include the patient name and local laboratory identifier, date of specimen collection, as well as any additional available information (e.g. address, date of birth, age, sex, location of stool collection). Information on additional positive specimens from the same patient is recorded for the purpose of ascertaining and tracking recurrent or duplicate episodes, as well as new cases (i.e., greater than eight weeks after the last positive C. difficile specimen).

Data Collection and Epidemiologic Classification

Data collection is performed by trained surveillance epidemiologists at each EIP site. For each incident CDI case identified in 8 of the 10 EIP sites, a brief medical-record review is performed to gather basic demographic characteristics, location of stool collection, and healthcare exposures. In the 2 remaining EIP sites with the largest surveillance populations (Colorado and Georgia), a brief medical-record review is performed on a random sample of cases. Medical record reviews are not completed on recurrent or duplicate episodes or patients determined to reside outside the catchment area. CDI cases are classified into three epidemiologic categories: healthcare facility-onset (HCFO), if the positive stool specimen was collected greater than 3 calendar days after hospital admission or in a resident of a long-term care facility; community-onset healthcare facility-associated (CO-HCFA), if the positive stool specimen was collected in an outpatient setting or within 3 days after hospital admission in a person with documented overnight stay in a healthcare facility (i.e., history of hospitalization or long-term care facility residency in the 12 weeks before stool specimen collection); and community–associated (CA), if positive stool specimen was collected in an outpatient setting or within 3 calendar days in a person with no documented overnight stay in a healthcare facility during the 12 weeks before the specimen was collected. All CA and CO-HFCA cases and a random sample (10%) of HCFO cases subsequently undergo a comprehensive medical-record review for clinical information and relevant risk factors.

Laboratory Characterization

A convenience sample of stool specimens from incident CDI cases with complete clinical and epidemiologic information are sent to reference laboratories for C. difficile isolation. Isolates recovered are then sent to CDC for molecular characterization. Each isolate undergoes polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-screening for the tcdA, tcdB, cdtA and cdtB toxin genes, and deletions in tcdC are assessed by fragment analysis. Strain typing is performed using capillary-based PCR-ribotyping and results are analyzed against a library of standard profiles using BioNumerics.


Rates of CDI are calculated using population estimates for the specified year. Cases with missing data (e.g., race) are multiply imputed using sequential regression imputation methods. A domain (subpopulation) analysis is performed to estimate the number of cases according to epidemiologic class and race in the two EIP sites where sampling was performed (Colorado and Georgia).

Response to Inaccuracies in Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) Data

For more information on the EIP surveillance data reported from Oregon in 2010, see the Federal Register: Findings of Research Misconduct (06/01/2015)external icon


Guh AY, Mu Y, Winston LG, Johnston H, Olson D, Farley MM, Wilson LE, Holzbauer SM, Phipps EC, Dumyati GK, Beldavs ZG, Kainer MA, Karlsson M, Gerding DN, McDonald LC. Trends in U.S. Burden of Clostridioides difficile Infection and Outcomesexternal icon. N Engl J Med 2020 Apr;382(14):1320-1330. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910215.

Novosad SA, Mu Y, Winston LG, Johnston H, Basiliere E, Olson DM, Farley MM, Revis A, Wilson L, Perlmutter R, Holzbauer SM, Whitten T, Phipps EC, Dumyati GK, Beldavs ZG, Ocampo VLS, Davis CM, Kainer M, Gerding DN, Guh AY. Treatment of Clostridioides difficile Infection and Non-compliance with Treatment Guidelines in Adults in 10 US Geographical Locations, 2013-2015external icon. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Feb;35(2):412-419. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05386-9. Epub 2019 Nov 25.

Guh AY, Hatfield KM, Winston LG, Martin B, Johnston H, Brousseau G, Farley MM, Wilson L, Perlmutter R, Phipps EC, Dumyati GK, Nelson D, Hatwar T, Kainer MA, Paulick AL, Karlsson M, Gerding DN, McDonald LC. Toxin Enzyme Immunoassays Detect Clostridioides difficile Infection With Greater Severity and Higher Recurrence Ratesexternal icon. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Oct 30;69(10):1667-1674. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz009.

Tsay S, Williams SR, Benedict K, Beldavs Z, Farley M, Harrison L, Schaffner W, Dumyati G, Blackstock A, Guh A, Vallabhaneni S. A Tale of Two Healthcare-associated Infections: Clostridium difficile Coinfection Among Patients With Candidemiaexternal icon. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Feb 1;68(4):676-679. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy607.

Weng MK, Adkins SH, Bamberg W, Farley MM, Espinosa CC, Wilson L, Perlmutter R, Holzbauer S, Whitten T, Phipps EC, Hancock EB, Dumyati G, Nelson DS, Beldavs ZG, Ocampo V, Davis CM, Rue B, Korhonen L, McDonald LC, Guh AY. Risk factors for community-associated Clostridioides difficile infection in young childrenexternal icon. Epidemiol Infect. 2019 Jan;147:e172. doi: 10.1017/S0950268819000372.

Guh AY, Adkins SH, Li Q, Bulens SN, Farley MM, Smith Z, Holzbauer SM, Whitten T, Phipps EC, Hancock EB, Dumyati G, Concannon C, Kainer MA, Rue B, Lyons C, Olson DM, Wilson L, Perlmutter R, Winston LG, Parker E, Bamberg W, Beldavs ZG, Ocampo V, Karlsson M, Gerding DN, McDonald LC. Risk Factors for Community-Associated Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults: A Case-Control Studyexternal icon. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017 Oct 26;4(4):ofx171. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofx171.

Hunter JC, Mu Y, Dumyati GK, Farley MM, Winston LG, Johnston HL, Meek JI, Perlmutter R, Holzbauer SM, Beldavs ZG, Phipps EC, Dunn JR, Cohen JA, Avillan J, Stone ND, Gerding DN, McDonald LC, Lessa FC. Burden of Nursing Home-Onset Clostridium difficile Infection in the United States: Estimates of Incidence and Patient Outcomesexternal icon. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016 Jan 18;3(1):ofv196. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofv196.

Baggs J, Yousey-Hindes K, Ashley ED, Meek J, Dumyati G, Cohen J, Wise ME, McDonald LC, Lessa FC. Identification of population at risk for future Clostridium difficile infection following hospital discharge to be targeted for vaccine trialsexternal icon. Vaccine. 2015 Nov 17;33(46):6241-9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.09.078. Epub 2015 Oct 9.

Dantes R, Mu Y, Hicks LA, Cohen J, Bamberg W, Beldavs ZG, Dumyati G, Farley MM, Holzbauer S, Meek J, Phipps E, Wilson L, Winston LG, McDonald LG, Less FC. Association Between Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing Practices and Community-Associated Clostridium difficile Infectionexternal icon. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2015 Aug 11;2(3):ofv113. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofv113. eCollection 2015 Sep.

Lessa FC, Winston LG, McDonald LC; Emerging Infections Program C. difficile Surveillance Team. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in the United Statesexternal icon. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2369-70. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1505190.

Rhee SM, Tsay R, Nelson DS, Wijngaarden E, Dumyati G. Clostridium difficile in the Pediatric Population of Monroe County, New Yorkexternal icon. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2014 Sep;3(3):183-8. doi: 10.1093/jpids/pit091. Epub 2014 Jan 15.

Lessa FC, Mu Y, Winston LG, Dumyati GK, Farley MM, Beldavs ZG, Kast K, Holzbauer SM, Meek JI, Cohen J, McDonald LC, Fridkin SK. Determinants of Clostridium difficile Infection Incidence Across Diverse United States Geographic Locationsexternal icon. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 28;1(2):ofu048. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofu048. eCollection 2014 Sep.

See I, Mu Y, Cohen J, Beldavs ZG, Winston LG, Dumyati G, Holzbauer S, Dunn J, Farley MM, Lyons C, Johnston H, Phipps E, Perlmutter R, Anderson L, Gerding DN, Lessa FC. NAP1 strain type predicts outcomes from Clostridium difficile infectionexternal icon. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 May;58(10):1394-400. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu125. Epub 2014 Mar 5.

Wendt JM, Cohen JA, Mu Y, Dumyati GK, Dunn JR, Holzbauer SM, Winston LG, Johnston HL, Meek JI, Farley MM, Wilson LE, Phipps EC, Beldavs ZG, Gerding DN, McDonald LC, Gould CV, Lessa FC. Clostridium difficile infection among children across diverse US geographic locationsexternal icon. Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133(4):651-8. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-3049. Epub 2014 Mar 3.

Cohen J, Limbago L, Dumyati G, Holzbauer S, Johnston H, Perlmutter R, Dunn J, Nadle J, Lyons C, Phipps E, Beldavs Z, Clark LA, Lessa FC, CDC’s Clostridium difficile Infection Surveillance Investigators. Impact of changes in Clostridium difficile testing practices on stool rejection policies and C. difficile positivity rates across multiple laboratories in the United Statesexternal icon. J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Feb;52(2):632-4. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02177-13. Epub 2013 Nov 20.

Gould CV, Edwards JR, Cohen J, Bamberg WM, Clark LA, Farley MM, Johnston H, Nadle J, Winston L, Gerding DN, McDonald LC, Lessa FC, Clostridium difficile Infection Surveillance Investigators, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Effect of nucleic acid amplification testing on population-based incidence rates of Clostridium difficile infectionexternal icon. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Nov;57(9):1304-7. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit492. Epub 2013 Jul 29.

Chitnis AS, Holzbauer SM, Belflower RM, Winston LG, Bamberg WM, Lyons C, Farley MM, Dumyati GK, Wilson LE, Beldavs ZG, Dunn JR, Gould LH, MacCannell DR, Gerding DN, McDonald LC, Lessa FC. Epidemiology of community-associated Clostridium difficile infection, 2009 through 2011external icon. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jul 22;173(14):1359-67. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.7056.

CDC. Vital Signs: Preventing Clostridium difficile Infections. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012 Mar 9;61(9):157-162.

Pawar D, Tsay R, Nelson DS, Elumalai MK, Lessa FC, Clifford McDonald L, Dumyati G. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in long-term care facilities in Monroe County, New Yorkexternal icon. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012 Nov;33(11):1107-12. doi: 10.1086/668031. Epub 2012 Sep 24.