Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T00:46:09.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clostridioides difficile infection in trials of short versus long duration of antimicrobials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2024

Dimitri M. DrekonjaOpen the ORCID record for Dimitri M. Drekonja[Opens in a new window] and
Peyton Smith
Dimitri M. Drekonja*
Affiliation:
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USADepartment of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Peyton Smith
Affiliation:
Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA, USA
*
Corresponding author: Dimitri M. Drekonja; Email: dimitri.drekonja@va.gov

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Research Brief
Information
Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , 2024, e75
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© Department of Veterans Affairs, 2024

Introduction

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a significant adverse effect of antimicrobial use, causing significant harms and costs. These harms include an estimated 453,000 cases/year, 83,000 episodes of recurrence, 27,300 deaths, Reference Lessa, Mu and Bamberg1 and annual costs in the United States of 1.3–3.4 billion dollars. Reference Dubberke and Wertheimer2 These impacts have led to C. difficile being categorized as an “urgent threat” in the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019 Antimicrobial Resistance Threat Report. 3

Antimicrobial use is the cause of most CDI episodes, and preventing CDI is one of the motivations for reducing unnecessary antimicrobial use. Whether antimicrobial duration influences CDI risk is unclear; it may be that antimicrobial exposure is binary (exposed or unexposed), or that increasing antimicrobial duration impacts risk of CDI. With incidence of CDI after antimicrobial use typically close to 1%, individual trials of shorter versus longer durations of antimicrobial therapy for different infections have too few cases of CDI to answer this question. However, as the number of trials has increased, pooled data allows evaluation of the impact of antimicrobial duration on the risk of developing CDI. We sought to evaluate the impact of antimicrobial duration on the development of CDI by conducting a systematic review and metanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing durations of antimicrobial therapy and subsequent CDI.

Methods

We searched for trials of antimicrobial treatment duration that included CDI as an outcome, using PubMed searches followed by review of citations in identified trials. Inclusion criteria were: (1) RCT comparing two treatment durations of antimicrobial agents, (2) shorter duration being ≥3 days, (3) difference between shorter and longer duration being ≥3 days, and (4) CDI was reported as an outcome stratified by treatment duration. Trials in a language other than English were excluded because we lacked resources for translation. Cochrane RevMan version 7.1.1 was used to compare the number of CDI cases among participants receiving shorter versus longer duration, calculate a fixed Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR), and an I2 statistic for heterogeneity. Literature review and data abstraction were conducted by one author (PS) and verified by another (DD), and discrepancies addressed by discussion and agreement. The literature search was conducted between 6/2022 and 9/2022.

Results

We identified 115 potential studies, with 27 removed after title or abstract review, and 88 undergoing full-text review. Of these, 76 were excluded (38 did not report diarrhea or CDI as an outcome, 37 reported diarrhea but not CDI, and one reported CDI but not stratified by duration), leaving 12 studies for analysis (Table 1). Among included studies, the median number of subjects was 291 (range, 31–666), with median shorter duration being seven (interquartile range, 6–28) and median longer duration being 14 (interquartile range, 10–48). There were 32 CDI cases among the 3,882 participants (0.82%), with 20 occurring in participants receiving shorter duration, versus 12 in those receiving longer duration (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.81–3.25; I2 = 0%). Method of CDI testing was never specified.

Table 1.

Randomized controlled trials of shorter versus longer treatment duration reporting rates of Clostridioides difficile infection by treatment arm

Abbreviations. CDI, Clostridioides difficile infection; TMP/sulfa: trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole.

Discussion

Among RCTs of treatment duration, CDI was not reported as an outcome in more than 70 studies, limiting our ability to assess the effect of treatment duration on CDI. Among the 12 studies that did report CDI outcomes stratified by treatment, CDI was a rare event (<1%), and not significantly associated with longer or shorter durations of antimicrobials. Although there is currently insufficient evidence to state that longer durations of antimicrobials confer an increased risk of CDI, there are other factors that contribute to the decision of how long to treat an infection (efficacy, convenience, cost, impact on antimicrobial resistance, drug-drug interactions, and other adverse drug effects). Limitations include no information on type or timing of CDI testing or the clinical circumstances. Type and duration of therapy varied by study (Table 1), and two studies contributed 44% of all cases. None of the included trials had sufficient power to detect a difference in CDI rates; one pilot study reported that an ongoing trial will have 85% power to detect a reduction in CDI to 3% from 5%. Reference Daneman, Rishu and Pinto8 In addition to being adequately powered, future trials should collect data on CDI with standardized methods and criteria for testing.

Acknowledgements

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

This study was supported by the resources of the Minneapolis VA Health Care System.

Funding support

The study was supported by the resources of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Dr. Drekonja reports VA grant funding, travel support to a conference from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and work as an expert witness in a medical malpractice case. Ms. Smith reports no disclosures.

References

Lessa, FC, Mu, Y, Bamberg, WM, et al. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:825–834.Google ScholarPubMed
Dubberke, ER, Wertheimer, AI. Review of current literature on the economic burden of Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30:57–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2019.Google Scholar
Moran, GJ, Fang, E, Corey, GR, Das, AF, De Anda, C, Prokocimer, P. Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14:696–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernard, L, Dinh, A, Ghout, I, et al. Antibiotic treatment for 6 weeks versus 12 weeks in patients with pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomized, controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:875–882.Google Scholar
Sawyer, RG, Claridge, JA, Nathens, AB, et al. Trial of short-course antimicrobial therapy for intraabdominal infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1996–2005.Google ScholarPubMed
Yahav, D, Franceschini, E, Koppel, F, et al. Seven versus 14 days of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69:1091–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, N, Rishu, AH, Pinto, R, et al. 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for critically ill patients with bloodstream infection: a pilot randomized clinical trial. Trials 2018;19:111.Google ScholarPubMed
Benkabouche, M, Racloz, G, Spechbach, H, Lipsky, BA, Gaspoz, JM, Uckay, I. Four versus six weeks of antibiotic therapy for osteoarticular infections after implant removal: a randomized trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74:2394–2399.Google ScholarPubMed
Gjika, E, Beaulieu, JY, Vakalopoulos, K, et al. Two weeks versus four weeks of antibiotic therapy after surgical drainage for native joint bacterial arthritis: a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:1114–1121.Google Scholar
Ahmed, S, Brown, R, Pettinger, R, Vargas-Palacios, A, Burke, D, Kirby, A. The CABI trial: an unblinded parallel group randomized controlled feasibility trial of long-course antibiotic therapy (28 days) compared with short course (</=10 days) in the prevention of relapse in adults treated for complicated intra-abdominal infection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25:1045–1052.Google ScholarPubMed
von Dach, E, Albrich, WC, Brunel, AS, et al. Effect of c-reactive protein-guided antibiotic treatment duration, 7-day treatment, or 14-day treatment on 30-day clinical failure rate in patients with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020;323:2160–2169.Google ScholarPubMed
Dinh, A, Ropers, J, Duran, C, et al. Discontinuing beta-lactam treatment after 3 days for patients with community-acquired pneumonia in non-critical care wards (PTC): a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2021;384:1195–1203.Google ScholarPubMed
Bernard, L, Arvieux, C, Brunschweiler, B, et al. Antibiotic therapy for 6 or 12 weeks for prosthetic joint infection. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1991–2001.Google ScholarPubMed
Drekonja, DM, Trautner, B, Amundson, C, Kuskowski, M, Johnson, JR. Effect of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic therapy on resolution of symptoms among afebrile men with urinary tract infection: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2021;326:324–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1.Randomized controlled trials of shorter versus longer treatment duration reporting rates of Clostridioides difficile infection by treatment arm