Initial vancomycin versus metronidazole for the treatment of first-episode non-severe Clostridioides difficile infection ======================================================================================================================== * Kevin Zhang * Patricia Beckett * Salaheddin Abouanaser * Marek Smieja ## Abstract **Background** *Clostridioides difficile* infection (CDI) is an important cause of nosocomial diarrhea. Given the discrepancy in current treatment guidelines for mild CDI, we sought to evaluate the use of initial vancomycin versus metronidazole for the treatment of first-episode non-severe infection. **Methods** We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult inpatients with first-episode CDI at our institution from January 2013 to May 2018. CDI was defined as a positive *Clostridioides difficile* loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay, in conjunction with ≥3 type 5–7 stools on the Bristol stool scale. To evaluate the impact of initial vancomycin treatment on adverse clinical outcomes in patients with first-episode non-severe CDI, the initial vancomycin versus initial metronidazole cohorts were first examined in an unadjusted logistic regression analysis for any combination of recurrence, incident infection, and all-cause 30-day mortality, followed by an adjusted multivariable analysis. **Results** A total of 737 cases were included. Patients had a median age of 72.3 years (Q1: 61.2, Q3: 83.3) and 628 (85.2%) were classified as non-severe CDI. Among patients with non-severe CDI (n = 628), recurrence, incident infection, and 30-day mortality rates were 15.1%, 7.7%, and 13.1%, respectively, when treated with initial metronidazole, compared to 16.9%, 4.2%, and 11.4%, respectively, when treated with initial vancomycin. In an adjusted multivariable analysis, the use of initial vancomycin for the treatment of non-severe CDI was associated with a reduction in incident infection (ORadj: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.04–0.75; P=0.019) and the composite outcome of incident infection or 30-day mortality (ORadj: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22–0.79; P=0.007), compared to initial metronidazole. **Conclusions** Initial vancomycin was associated with a reduced rate of incident infection and the composite outcome of incident infection or all-cause 30-day mortality in the treatment of adult inpatients with first-episode non-severe CDI, compared to initial metronidazole. Our findings support the use of initial vancomycin for all inpatients with CDI, irrespective of disease severity, as recommended by Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines. Keywords * *Clostridioides difficile* * *Clostridium difficile* * vancomycin * metronidazole * recurrence * incidence * mortality ## Background *Clostridioides difficile* infection (CDI) manifests itself in patients with an altered gut microbiota, and is commonly caused by exposure to antibiotics [1]. As the leading cause of nosocomial diarrhea, CDI continues to be a major burden within healthcare institutions and in the community [1]. Patients with CDI suffer from copious amounts of uncontrolled diarrhea, leading to a higher risk of life-threatening colitis and a lower quality of life. Despite undergoing lengthy courses of antimicrobial therapy, however, recurrence is common, with approximately 20% of patients experiencing debilitating episodes of repeated disease [2]. Recurrent CDI is associated with a greater risk for future recurrence and severe complications such as hypotension, perforation, and toxic megacolon [2]. Therefore, early interventions aimed at preventing recurrent CDI and reinfection are needed to improve outcomes, decrease the number of patient days spent in isolation, and improve quality of life. St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton is a multi-site teaching hospital located in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada with a dedicated *Clostridioides difficile* consultation service for inpatients and referred outpatients. While the consultation team may offer fecal microbiota transplantation to patients with multiple CDI episodes or refractory disease [3, 4], clinical interventions for first-episode CDI primarily involve the use of antibiotics. In the past, metronidazole was indicated for non-severe CDI at our institution, while vancomycin was reserved for febrile patients with elevated white counts or for recurrent episodes. In recent years, however, there has been a shift to initial vancomycin to treat first-episode non-severe CDI at our institution, which is consistent with recent guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) [5]. Importantly, guidelines published by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the World Society of Emergency Surgery, and the Australasian Society of Infectious Diseases still recommend the use of metronidazole for the first episode of non-severe disease [6–8]. Although initial vancomycin treatment is recommended by most guidelines to treat severe CDI, there exists a discrepancy in treatment recommendations for first-episode non-severe CDI [5–8]. There have been limited studies with long-term follow-up evaluating the use of initial vancomycin compared to initial metronidazole to treat non-severe inpatient CDI. In two large randomized controlled trials with follow-up of 3 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively, subgroup analyses stratified by severity did not demonstrate significant differences in relapse rates between the vancomycin and metronidazole treatment groups for non-severe CDI [9, 10]. Similarly, two cohort studies reported that relapse rates and 30-day mortality did not differ among patients with mild-to-moderate CDI treated with metronidazole or vancomycin [11, 12]. Therefore, we sought to identify predictors of adverse clinical outcomes and evaluate the use of initial vancomycin versus metronidazole for the treatment of first-episode non-severe CDI among adult inpatients. ## Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult inpatients with first-episode CDI at our institution from January 1, 2013 to May 31, 2018. Patients were identified from hospital infection control registries maintained by Infection Prevention and Control, and all entries were validated against data reported to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. A CDI episode was characterized clinically as 3 or more type 5–7 diarrheal stools on the Bristol stool scale, together with a positive *Clostridioides difficile* toxin gene loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay, in accordance with IDSA guidelines [5]. Patients with a prior history of CDI were excluded from the study. Similarly, colonized patients who had a positive toxin assay but did not meet the clinical criteria of 3 or more type 5–7 loose stools were excluded. Data abstracted included: demographics, specimen collection date, date of symptom onset, source of acquisition, unit in which CDI was first diagnosed (medical, surgical, or nephrology), clinical indicators at the time of diagnosis, CDI treatment, number of isolation days, and outcomes including: recurrence, incident infection, and death. Time to treatment and time to recurrence were measured from the start of the initial CDI diagnosis. Hospital-acquired infection (HAI) was defined as CDI present >72 hours after admission or infection present on admission, whereas non-HAI was defined as CDI present ≤72 hours after admission [13]. The primary exposures in this study were the treatment of first-episode non-severe CDI with initial vancomycin or metronidazole. The outcomes of interest were recurrence, incident infection, and all-cause 30-day mortality. All patients were followed for 26 weeks from the date of their initial CDI diagnosis. Recurrence was defined as a CDI case occurring after an episode with positive assay result in the previous 2–8 weeks, while incident infection was defined as a CDI case occurring after more than 8 weeks [5]. All-cause 30-day mortality was defined as death for any reason within 30 days of CDI diagnosis. CDI severity was defined according to guidelines published by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases [6]. A patient with any one of: white blood cell count >15×109/L, albumin level <30g/L, or serum creatinine level ≥133μM was considered to have severe CDI [6]. ### Statistical Analysis Logistic regression was used to determine prognostic factors for the composite outcome of recurrence or all-cause 30-day mortality for the overall cohort. Recurrence was selected as a patient-important outcome, as it is associated with a greater risk for complications and adverse outcomes [2]. All-cause 30-day mortality was included in the composite outcome as it is a potential competing event for recurrence. All factors were determined a priori based on published guidelines [5–8]. Univariable analysis with P<0.2 was used, followed by stepwise selection in a multivariable logistic regression model. The number of variables entered into the model enabled 80% study power with 15 events per factor. To evaluate the impact of initial vancomycin treatment on adverse clinical outcomes in patients with first-episode non-severe CDI, the initial vancomycin versus initial metronidazole cohorts were first examined in an unadjusted logistic regression analysis for any combination of recurrence, incident infection, and all-cause 30-day mortality. Prognostic factors for the overall cohort were then added to the adjusted multivariable analysis. ## Results A total of 737 inpatients with first-episode CDI were included in our study. Their demographics, clinical data at the time of CDI diagnosis, initial CDI treatment, and outcomes are summarized in Table 1. Patients had a median age of 72.3 years (Q1: 61.2, Q3: 83.3) and 628 (85.2%) were classified to have non-severe CDI. 357 (48.4%) patients were classified to have hospital-acquired infection, while 309 (41.9%) and 71 (9.6%) were classified to have acquired CDI in the community and other institutions, respectively. Most patients, 496 (67.3%), were initially diagnosed with CDI in a medical setting. At the time of CDI diagnosis, patients had an average temperature of 37.1°C (SD: 0.8) and a median white blood cell count of 12.3×109/L (Q1: 8.7, Q3: 18.1). The median time to treatment following CDI diagnosis was 2 days (Q1: 1, Q3: 5). Most patients, 539 (73.1%), received initial metronidazole treatment, while 130 (17.6%) received initial vancomycin. Patients experienced a recurrence rate of 15.5%, an incident infection rate of 6.9%, and a 30-day mortality rate of 12.8%. The median time to recurrence was 29 days (Q1: 24, Q3: 39) and the median length of time spent in isolation was 17 days (Q1: 7, Q3: 34). View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/17/2020.12.04.20243766/T1) Table 1. Description of patients with *Clostridioides difficile* infection (n = 737) ### Overall cohort The results of the multivariable logistic regression model to determine prognostic factors for the composite outcome of recurrence or all-cause 30-day mortality for the overall cohort are summarized in Table 2. Predictors of the composite outcome were: age ≥65 years (ORadj: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.38–2.94; P<0.001), hospital-acquired infection (ORadj: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.44–2.80; P<0.001), and white blood cell count >15×109/L (ORadj: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.24–2.44; P=0.001). View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/17/2020.12.04.20243766/T2) Table 2. Multivariable predictors of the composite outcome of recurrence or 30-day mortality for patients in the overall cohort with *Clostridioides difficile* infection Figure 1 illustrates the proportion of patients in the overall cohort who experienced recurrence or the composite outcome of recurrence or 30-day mortality, given the number of prognostic factors in the multivariable logistic regression model. At a score of 0 prognostic factors, the recurrence rate was 3.5% and the rate of recurrence or 30-day mortality was 10.5%. At a score of 1, 2, or 3 prognostic factors, the recurrence rate increased to 15.6%, 17.6%, and 19.7%, respectively. Similarly, at 1, 2, or 3 prognostic factors, the rate of the composite outcome of recurrence or 30-day mortality increased to 22.6%, 32.1%, and 51.3%, respectively. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/17/2020.12.04.20243766/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/17/2020.12.04.20243766/F1) Figure 1. Proportion of patients in the overall cohort who experienced recurrence or the composite outcome of recurrence or 30-day mortality given the number of prognostic factors **Legend** ![Graphic][1] Recurrence or 30-day mortality ![Graphic][2] Recurrence ### Non-severe CDI cohort There were 628 (85.2%) patients who were classified as having non-severe CDI, of whom 499 (79.5%) and 129 (20.5%) were treated with initial metronidazole and initial vancomycin, respectively. Among patients with first-episode non-severe CDI, recurrence, incident infection, and 30-day mortality rates were 15.1%, 7.7%, and 13.1%, respectively, when treated with initial metronidazole, compared to 16.9%, 4.2%, and 11.4%, respectively, when treated with initial vancomycin. To evaluate the impact of initial vancomycin treatment for first-episode non-severe CDI, the initial vancomycin and initial metronidazole cohorts were first examined in a univariable logistic regression analysis, followed by an adjusted multivariable analysis. The use of initial vancomycin for treatment of first-episode non-severe CDI was associated with a reduction in incident infection (ORadj: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.04–0.75; P=0.019) and the composite outcome of incident infection or 30-day mortality (ORadj: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22–0.79; P=0.007), compared to initial metronidazole (Tables 3-4). View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/17/2020.12.04.20243766/T3) Table 3. Predictors of incident infection for patients with non-severe *Clostridioides difficile* infection View this table: [Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/17/2020.12.04.20243766/T4) Table 4. Predictors of incident infection or 30-day mortality for patients with non-severe *Clostridioides difficile* infection ## Discussion Although clinical trials have shown vancomycin to be superior to metronidazole for the treatment of severe CDI [10], previous studies have suggested that metronidazole and vancomycin are equally effective for the treatment of non-severe CDI [9–12]. Coupled with the higher cost of vancomycin and concerns associated with vancomycin-resistant enterococci, metronidazole has been the drug of choice for the treatment of non-severe CDI [14]. Given that some guidelines recommend the use of metronidazole for non-severe CDI [6–8], Figure 1 illustrates a scoring rule based on prognostic factors in Table 2 which could help identify low-risk patient populations who are likely to do well on initial metronidazole. In recent years, however, guidelines, such as those published by the IDSA, have started to recommend initial vancomycin for the treatment of non-severe CDI [5]. Our findings support this recommendation but are also consistent with the conclusions of previous studies. The use of initial vancomycin for the treatment of non-severe CDI, for instance, was not associated with recurrence or 30-day mortality alone, which is consistent with previous findings [9–12]. A strength of our investigation was the long duration of follow-up, 26 weeks in a pragmatic real-world setting, which allowed for conclusions about the impact of initial vancomycin treatment on incident infection, defined as a CDI episode occurring more than 8 weeks after the initial infection. In an adjusted analysis, the use of initial vancomycin for the treatment of first-episode non-severe CDI was associated with a reduction in incident infection and the composite outcome of incident infection or 30-day mortality. The incidence of the virulent North American pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type 1 (NAP1) strain has decreased over a 7-year period in Canadian hospital settings [15]. Given that the NAP1 strain has been associated with higher mortality and a more complicated course of disease, compared to non-NAP1 strains [15], it is possible that a recent decline in NAP1 CDI cases could explain the reduction in the composite outcome of incident infection or 30-day mortality associated with the use of initial vancomycin for the treatment of first-episode non-severe CDI. At our institution, moreover, there has been an overall decline in incident infection rates in recent years, though it is unclear whether this should be attributed to the increased use of initial vancomycin treatment or other factors. A possible explanation for the lower incident infection rate experienced by patients who received initial vancomycin could be the broader spectrum antimicrobial activity of metronidazole which may be more disruptive to gut flora and potentially predispose patients for incident infection [2, 16, 17]. There were some limitations to our observational study. Patients were not randomized to treatment groups, for instance, and could have differed on key prognostic factors that may have influenced patient outcomes. To mitigate differences between groups, an adjusted analysis was done using prognostic factors found for the overall cohort. However, a limitation of our analysis was the exclusion of patient comorbidities in the database. Another limitation was the possible misclassification of exposures, since the treatment of CDI can evolve over a patient’s stay. Patients were analyzed in a manner analogous to the intention-to-treat approach, based on the initial treatment assignment, and any treatment switches after 24 hours of the start of treatment were disregarded. Furthermore, although there was no observed increase in instances of vancomycin-resistant enterococci throughout our investigation, testing for this organism was non-systematic in nature. Finally, our investigation could have included some patients colonized with *Clostridioides difficile*, instead of true infection. This is unlikely, however, as diagnosis of CDI was confirmed by one of three experienced infectious disease physicians, all cases were followed by a dedicated CDI consultation team, and CDI diagnosis required the presence of a positive toxin assay together with a clinical presentation of 3 or more type 5–7 loose stools on the Bristol stool scale. ## Conclusions Initial vancomycin was associated with a reduction in incident infection and the composite outcome of incident infection or 30-day mortality in the treatment of adult inpatients with first-episode non-severe CDI, compared to initial metronidazole. These findings support the use of initial vancomycin for all inpatients with CDI, as recommended by IDSA guidelines [5]. ## Data Availability The datasets generated for the study are not publicly available due to the presence of personally identifiable information. Aggregate data, however, are presented in the manuscript within the Tables and the Figure and are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. ## Declarations ### Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. The study protocol was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (Project: 2018-3543). The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has categorized this retrospective cohort study as minimal risk, defined as no potential for negative impact on the health and safety of the participant, and waiver of consent for participation was obtained. ### Consent for publication Not applicable. ### Availability of data and materials The datasets generated for the study are not publicly available due to the presence of personally identifiable information. Aggregate data, however, are presented in the manuscript within the Tables and the Figure and are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. ### Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. ### Funding The authors received no specific funding for this project. ### Authors’ contributions Kevin Zhang and Marek Smieja contributed to the conception and design of the work. Kevin Zhang, Patricia Beckett, Salaheddin Abouanaser, and Marek Smieja contributed to the acquisition of data, analysis, and interpretation of results. All of the authors drafted the manuscript, critically revised the paper, and approved the final manuscript. ## Acknowledgements Not applicable. ## List of abbreviations CDI : *Clostridioides difficile* infection IDSA : Infectious Diseases Society of America HAI : Hospital-acquired infection NAP1 : North American pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type 1 * Received December 4, 2020. * Revision received May 17, 2021. * Accepted May 17, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Magill SS, Edwards JR, Bamberg W, Beldavs ZG, Dumyati G, Kainer MA, et al. Multistate Point-Prevalence Survey of Health Care–Associated Infections. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1198–208. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1306801. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1306801&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24670166&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F17%2F2020.12.04.20243766.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000333426000007&link_type=ISI) 2. 2.Hopkins RJ, Wilson RB. Treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile colitis: a narrative review. Gastroenterology Report. 2018;6:21–8. doi:10.1093/gastro/gox041. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/gastro/gox041&link_type=DOI) 3. 3.Zhang K, Beckett P, Abouanaser S, Stankus V, Lee C, Smieja M. Prolonged oral vancomycin for secondary prophylaxis of relapsing Clostridium difficile infection. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19:51. doi:10.1186/s12879-019-3676-1. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12879-019-3676-1&link_type=DOI) 4. 4.Lee CH, Steiner T, Petrof EO, Smieja M, Roscoe D, Nematallah A, et al. Frozen vs Fresh Fecal Microbiota Transplantation and Clinical Resolution of Diarrhea in Patients With Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;315:142. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.18098. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2015.18098&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26757463&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F17%2F2020.12.04.20243766.atom) 5. 5.McDonald LC, Gerding DN, Johnson S, Bakken JS, Carroll KC, Coffin SE, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: 2017 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2018;66:e1– 48. doi:10.1093/cid/cix1085. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/cix1085&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29462280&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F17%2F2020.12.04.20243766.atom) 6. 6.Debast SB, Bauer MP, Kuijper EJ. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: Update of the Treatment Guidance Document for Clostridium difficile Infection. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2014;20:1–26. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12418. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1469-0691.12427&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24329732&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F17%2F2020.12.04.20243766.atom) 7. 7.Sartelli M, Di Bella S, McFarland LV, Khanna S, Furuya-Kanamori L, Abuzeid N, et al. 2019 update of the WSES guidelines for management of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection in surgical patients. World J Emerg Surg. 2019;14:8. doi:10.1186/s13017-019-0228-3. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13017-019-0228-3&link_type=DOI) 8. 8.Trubiano JA, Cheng AC, Korman TM, Roder C, Campbell A, May MLA, et al. Australasian Society of Infectious Diseases updated guidelines for the management of Clostridium difficile infection in adults and children in Australia and New Zealand: CDI management guidelines. Intern Med J. 2016;46:479–93. doi:10.1111/imj.13027. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/imj.13027&link_type=DOI) 9. 9.Zar FA, Bakkanagari SR, Moorthi KMLST, Davis MB. A Comparison of Vancomycin and Metronidazole for the Treatment of Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea, Stratified by Disease Severity. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2007;45:302–7. doi:10.1086/519265. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/519265&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17599306&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F17%2F2020.12.04.20243766.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000247621100005&link_type=ISI) 10. 10.Johnson S, Louie TJ, Gerding DN, Cornely OA, Chasan-Taber S, Fitts D, et al. Vancomycin, Metronidazole, or Tolevamer for Clostridium difficile Infection: Results From Two Multinational, Randomized, Controlled Trials. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2014;59:345–54. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu313. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/ciu313&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24799326&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F17%2F2020.12.04.20243766.atom) 11. 11.Stevens VW, Nelson RE, Schwab-Daugherty EM, Khader K, Jones MM, Brown KA, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Vancomycin and Metronidazole for the Prevention of Recurrence and Death in Patients With Clostridium difficile Infection. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:546. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9045. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9045&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28166328&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F17%2F2020.12.04.20243766.atom) 12. 12.Le F, Arora V, Shah DN, Salazar M, Palmer HR, Garey KW. A Real-World Evaluation of Oral Vancomycin for Severe Clostridium difficile Infection: Implications for Antibiotic Stewardship Programs. Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32:129–34. doi:10.1002/PHAR.1002. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/PHAR.1002&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22392421&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F17%2F2020.12.04.20243766.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000303342200009&link_type=ISI) 13. 13.Xia Y, Tunis M, Frenette C, Katz K, Amaratunga K, Rhodenizer Rose S, et al. Epidemiology of Clostridioides difficile infection in Canada: A six-year review to support vaccine decision-making. CCDR. 2019;45:191–211. doi:10.14745/ccdr.v45i78a04. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.14745/ccdr.v45i78a04&link_type=DOI) 14. 14.Arias CA, Murray BE. The rise of the Enterococcus: beyond vancomycin resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:266–78. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2761. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrmicro2761&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22421879&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F17%2F2020.12.04.20243766.atom) 15. 15.Katz KC, Golding GR, Choi KB, Pelude L, Amaratunga KR, Taljaard M, et al. The evolving epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection in Canadian hospitals during a postepidemic period (2009–2015). CMAJ. 2018;190:E758–65. doi:10.1503/cmaj.180013. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTkwLzI1L0U3NTgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wNS8xNy8yMDIwLjEyLjA0LjIwMjQzNzY2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 16. 16.Rea MC, Dobson A, O’Sullivan O, Crispie F, Fouhy F, Cotter PD, et al. Effect of broad-and narrow-spectrum antimicrobials on Clostridium difficile and microbial diversity in a model of the distal colon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011;108 Supplement_1:4639–44. doi:10.1073/pnas.1001224107. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMTA4L1N1cHBsZW1lbnRfMS80NjM5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDUvMTcvMjAyMC4xMi4wNC4yMDI0Mzc2Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 17. 17.Jakobsson HE, Jernberg C, Andersson AF, Sjölund-Karlsson M, Jansson JK, Engstrand L. Short-Term Antibiotic Treatment Has Differing Long-Term Impacts on the Human Throat and Gut Microbiome. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e9836. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009836. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0009836&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20352091&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F17%2F2020.12.04.20243766.atom) [1]: F1/embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: F1/embed/inline-graphic-2.gif