Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Clostridioides difficile Infection

Poylin, Vitaliy M.D.1; Hawkins, Alexander T. M.D., M.P.H.2; Bhama, Anuradha R. M.D.3; Boutros, Marylise M.D.4; Lightner, Amy L. M.D.5; Khanna, Sahil M.B.B.S., M.S.6; Paquette, Ian M. M.D.7; Feingold, Daniel L. M.D.8; Prepared by the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons

Author Information
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum: June 2021 - Volume 64 - Issue 6 - p 650-668
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002047
  • Free
  • Denotes CME
  • Denotes Twitter Account Access
  • Free article
  • Denotes Visual Abstract
  • Denotes Visual Abstract
  • Denotes Medical News and Health Headlines

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. Although not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines.

These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician considering all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.


Clostridioides difficile, formerly known as Clostridium difficile, is an anaerobic, gram-positive, bacillus bacterium that can be a normal inhabitant of the human colon and is most commonly transmitted via a fecal-oral route.1 Alterations in the bacterial component of the microbiota, most often due to the use of antibiotics, can lead to ecological changes that select for both population growth of C difficile as well as the induction of pathogenic behavior.2,3 Although the number of patients with C difficile infection (CDI) in the United States appears relatively stable over the past decade (estimated 476,400 cases in 2011 associated with 29,000 deaths and 462,100 cases in 2017 associated with an estimated 20,500 deaths), the prevalence of the disease remains high.3–5 Although the bacterium is present in the stool of approximately 3% of healthy adults, up to 50% of those exposed to an inpatient facility may be asymptomatic carriers.5–8 Higher rates of CDI have been reported in patients after exposure to a prolonged duration of antibiotics including perioperative antibiotics and in patients with underlying comorbid conditions such as IBD or immunosuppression.9–15

Clinical manifestations of C difficile can range from an asymptomatic carrier state to mild CDI to severe, fulminant, life-threatening infection. Although descriptions of presentation and severity of disease vary in the literature, commonly used definitions are included in Table 1.16–19C difficile infection most commonly involves the colon, where it can manifest with pseudomembranes covering the colonic mucosa (“pseudomembranous colitis”). In rare circumstances, CDI may also involve the small bowel.20,21 In the early 2000s, predominantly in North America, but also in Europe, there was an increased incidence of more severe CDI due to the emergence of certain bacterial strains (ie, ribotypes) like the BI/NAP1/027/toxinotype III strain, which is associated with a life-threatening infection.22–25 Although rates of infection with this “hypervirulent” strain recently decreased in North America, rates remain significant globally.26,27

TABLE 1. - Terminology associated with Clostridioides difficile
Term Definition
Antibiotic-associated diarrhea Diarrhea in an individual who is currently taking or has recently taken antibiotics (not necessarily from C difficile, although C difficile is a cause of this type of diarrhea)
Symptoms include watery diarrhea and abdominal cramping
Asymptomatic colonization/carrier Patients colonized with C difficile without signs or symptoms of CDI
C difficile infection (CDI) Presence of diarrhea characterized by >3 watery stools per day in the setting of positive C difficile testing
Other symptoms can include fever, abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, and loss of appetite
Higher-risk patients include elderly or immunocompromised patients, nursing home residents, and patients with severe underlying comorbidities who have been exposed to antibiotics
Pseudomembranous colitis Presence of plaque formations on colon mucosa
Considered pathognomonic for CDI in the appropriate clinical setting
Mild/nonsevere infection CDI with leukocyte count <15 × 103/µL and creatinine <1.5 mg/dL
Severe infection CDI with leukocyte count >15 × 103/µL or renal failure with creatinine >1.5 mg/dL
Severe-complicated/fulminant disease CDI with hypotension, sepsis, shock, ileus, or megacolon or requiring intensive care unit care
Toxic colitis CDI with extreme inflammation and dilation of the colon resulting from severe colitis
Can present with abdominal distension and pain, fever, dehydration, sepsis
Recurrent CDI Recurrence of symptoms with a positive stool test within 8 weeks after the completion of a course of CDI therapy with resolution of symptoms
Refractory CDI More than 3 loose/watery stools per day with positive stool toxin assay despite appropriate therapy
CDI = Clostridioides difficile infection.

A variety of practice measures and collaborative efforts have been implemented to reduce the rate of CDI and have had moderate success.18,19,28–32 The combination of antibiotic stewardship programs and improved diagnosis and treatment have decreased the incidence and mortality rates of CDI; however, CDI continues to be a source of morbidity and mortality due in part to a rise in recurrent and resistant infections.33–37 The relatively high incidence of CDI and the significant economic burden of certain infection control measures, such as “deep cleaning” of hospital rooms, requires a careful balance between prevention and cost.21,38–41 Although several guidelines have been published on this subject, CDI presents a unique challenge in colon and rectal surgery.17,18,20,42,43 This clinical practice guideline focuses on the evaluation, management, and prevention of CDI.


These guidelines were developed on the platform of the previously published Practice Parameters for the Management of Clostridium difficile Infection published in 2015.42 An organized, systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Collected Reviews was performed between September 1, 2014 and September 20, 2020. Key word combinations included “Clostridium difficile,” “Clostridioides difficile,” “Clostridia,” “colitis,” “pseudomembranous colitis,” “antibiotic-associated,” “diarrhea,” “cdiff,” “vancomycin,” “flagyl,” “metronidazole,” “rifaximin,” “antibiotics,” “colectomy,” “ileostomy,” “lavage,” “toxin,” “toxin binding,” “fecal transplant,” “probiotics,” “transmission,” “recurrence,” “recalcitrant,” “treatment,” “length of therapy,” “perforation,” “fulminant,” “prophylaxis,” “prevention,” and “megacolon.” Although the search was not limited by language, only abstracts and reports with human subjects were included. Emphasis was placed on prospective trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines. Peer-reviewed observational studies and retrospective studies were included when higher-quality evidence was insufficient. Directed searches using embedded references from primary articles were performed in selected circumstances. In brief, 8651 titles were identified after excluding duplicates, and these abstracts were screened. Overall, 8014 articles were excluded and a total of 637 full-text articles were evaluated of which 389 were excluded due to the availability of higher-level evidence, and a total of 248 were articles included in the final document (Fig. 1). The source material was evaluated for methodologic quality, the evidence base was examined, and a treatment guideline was formulated by the subcommittee for this guideline. The final grade of recommendation and level of evidence for each statement were determined using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system (Table 2).44 When there was disagreement regarding the evidence or grade or treatment guidelines, consensus was obtained from the committee chair, vice chair, and 2 assigned reviewers. Members of the ASCRS Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee worked in joint production of these guidelines from inception to publication. Recommendations formulated by the subcommittee were reviewed by the entire Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee as well as by an invited gastroenterologist and an infectious disease specialist. The submission was peer-reviewed by Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, and the final recommendations were approved by the ASCRS Executive Council. In general, each ASCRS Clinical Practice Guideline is updated every 5 years. No funding was received for preparing this guideline, and the authors have declared no competing interests related to this material. This guideline conforms to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) checklist.

TABLE 2. - The GRADE system: grading recommendations.
Description Benefit versus risk and burdens Methodologic quality of supporting evidence Implications
1A Strong recommendation,
High-quality evidence
Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens or vice versa RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation
1B Strong recommendation,
Moderate-quality evidence
Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens or vice versa RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodologic flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation
1C Strong recommendation,
Low- or very-low quality evidence
Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens or vice versa Observational studies or case series Strong recommendation but may change when higher-quality evidence becomes available
2A Weak recommendation,
High-quality evidence
Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients’ or societal values
2B Weak recommendations,
Moderate-quality evidence
Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodologic flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients’ or societal values
2C Weak recommendation,
Low- or very-low quality evidence
Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burden; benefits, risk and burden may be closely balanced Observational studies or case series Very weak recommendations; other alternatives may be equally reasonable
GRADE = Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RCT = randomized controlled trial.
Adapted from Guyatt G, Gutermen D, Baumann MH, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an American College of Chest Physicians Task Force. Chest. 2006;129:174–181. Used with permission.

PRISMA literature search flow sheet.


  • 1. When CDI is suspected, a disease-specific history should be performed emphasizing risk factors, symptoms, underlying comorbidities, and signs of severe or fulminant disease. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.

Symptoms related to CDI result from the release of bacterial toxins that cause inflammation of the colonic mucosa and fluid secretion resulting in diarrhea and typically manifest soon after starting antibiotic therapy for another disease process, but can be delayed for up to 3 months after discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy.1,45 The strongest risk factor for developing CDI is recent antibiotic use (within 3 months), and increased duration of exposure and number of antibiotics used are associated with higher risk for developing CDI.9,43,46–48 Although most antibiotics can change the colonic bacterial milieu leading to dysbiosis, drugs such as clindamycin, ampicillin, penicillin with beta-lactamase inhibitors, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins are more commonly associated with developing CDI.46,49 Other risk factors for CDI include having contact with a health care facility whether as an inpatient or an outpatient.

Historically, CDI was considered a nosocomial infection solely due to hospitalization or living in an extended care facility; however, an increasing proportion of CDI has been recognized as community acquired, which may be divided into community associated and community-onset health care facility associated.50–52 Risk factors for community-acquired CDI are not well defined, but appear to be similar to nosocomial CDI and include environmental and antibiotic exposures as reviewed above.50 Other notable risk factors include advanced age, female sex, immunosuppression, IBD (especially ulcerative colitis), and medical comorbidities (eg, congestive heart failure, diabetes, renal failure, and liver disease).11,43,46,50–64 Emergency hospitalization and surgery, especially GI surgery, malnutrition, tube feeding, acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors, and bowel preparation are also considered potential risk factors for developing CDI.46,65,66

The clinical presentation of CDI ranges from mild diarrhea to fulminant colitis associated with a systemic inflammatory response that develops in less than 10% of patients and may be associated with abdominal pain or distension, severe diarrhea, ileus, dehydration, organ failure, or sepsis.63,67C difficile diarrhea is characterized by otherwise unexplained watery stools 3 or more times a day without intervening constipation or formed bowel movements. In general, patients who do not exhibit these kinds of bowel symptoms should not be tested for CDI. This recommendation notwithstanding, patients with a concern for fulminant disease who present with an ileus or megacolon and patients with an unexplained significant leukocytosis may benefit from a C difficile evaluation.18,19 Although C difficile most commonly causes colitis, a few reports describe its pathogenicity in the small bowel, as well.20,21,68 In almost all of these cases, clinically significant disease was identified in patients with an ileostomy and was associated with patients with a history of IBD, a prolonged antibiotic course, or recent surgery or a prior episode of CDI.69

Whether or not bowel preparation increases the risk for CDI remains controversial. Recent analyses of randomized, controlled trials and national data sets suggest a protective effect from oral antibiotic bowel preparation.70–72 A recent retrospective review of 24,000 patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program showed that combined bowel preparation (ie, including mechanical and antibiotic components) significantly decreased rates of CDI, in comparison with patients who received mechanical bowel preparation alone (OR, 0.58; p < 0.001).73 Similar results were reported by Kim et al74 in a propensity-matched analysis of 957 paired patients who differed only according to the bowel preparation received (combined preparation versus no preparation). In this Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative–Colectomy Best Practices Project study, patients receiving combined bowel preparation had significantly lower rates of CDI than patients who did not receive a bowel preparation (0.5% versus 1.8%, p = 0.01).74 However, a trial of 310 patients with colon cancer who were randomly assigned to mechanical bowel preparation with or without oral antibiotics found no difference in the rates of CDI between the groups.75 In addition, a recent meta-analysis of 4 randomized, controlled trials demonstrated an increased risk of CDI related to the use of oral antibiotics during bowel preparation (OR, 4.46; 95% CI, 0.96–20.66), but the absolute incidence of CDI was extremely low (only 11 events among 2753 patients), limiting the clinical relevance of these findings.71 This study concluded that the incidence of CDI after colorectal surgery is low regardless of the bowel preparation used and, given the demonstrated benefits of bowel preparation related to a reduction in infectious risk profiles, the concern regarding CDI is not sufficient enough to warrant omitting bowel preparation in these patients.72

  • 2. Patients should be evaluated to determine the severity of CDI and for the presence of peritonitis or multisystem organ failure. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.

In general, it is difficult to classify CDI severity on the basis of history and physical examination alone. Clinical assessment and laboratory testing (complete blood count and renal and liver function) are typically performed to evaluate the patient and to help identify potential organ failure and associated sepsis.12,76,77 A significant leukocytosis typically raises the suspicion for CDI but is not considered pathognomonic.76,77

The stratification of the severity of CDI as mild/nonsevere, severe, or severe-complicated/fulminant is loosely defined and is based on data and expert opinion (Table 1).19 Diarrhea, leukocytosis (but less than 15 × 103/µL), and abdominal pain with positive testing for C difficile in the absence of hypotension or organ failure such as kidney injury is typically defined as mild disease, whereas severe CDI typically includes an elevated creatinine or leukocytosis over 15 × 103/µL. In severe-complicated or fulminant CDI, patients may develop peritonitis, worsening abdominal pain and distension, sepsis, otherwise unexplained clinical deterioration, ileus or megacolon, and/or organ failure.18,78 The typically nonspecific physical examination findings of CDI, similar to non-CDI causes of colitis, underscore the importance of prompt evaluation with stool studies to expedite the diagnosis of CDI because mortality rates from severe CDI can reach 14% or higher.34,79 Multisystem organ failure is one of the strongest independent predictors of postoperative mortality following emergency colectomy for C difficile colitis.80,81 Early synthesis of key historical information, recognition of a suggestive clinical presentation, frequent clinical reevaluation, and confirmatory stool studies can diagnose CDI, facilitate appropriate therapy, and, potentially, avoid severe sepsis and its associated worse outcomes.

  • 3. The diagnosis of CDI should include laboratory stool testing, and 2-step testing should be utilized to increase accuracy. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on high-quality evidence, 1A.

Laboratory stool testing is the most accurate way to diagnose CDI. More than 30% of antibiotic-associated diarrhea is secondary to CDI, highlighting the importance of obtaining stool assays to evaluate for CDI.82 The goal of laboratory assessment is to diagnose CDI in a timely and accurate manner to facilitate treatment and containment and to institute isolation and contact precautions.83

Several different laboratory assays are currently available to diagnose CDI. Regardless of the specific study used, laboratory protocols recommend that only watery or loose stool samples (not swabs or formed stool) be sent, because patients with formed stool are unlikely to have CDI and laboratories can improve their false-positive rate, positive predictive value, and assay specificity by rejecting specimens that do not take the shape of the specimen container (ie, are not loose or soft).18 Because no single test has a high enough sensitivity and specificity to reliably distinguish between an asymptomatic carrier and symptomatic CDI, 2-step testing is typically preferred using 2 enzyme immunoassays highly sensitive for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and highly specific for C difficile toxins (ie, antigen recognition).18,77,84–89 These assays are inexpensive and rapid, in general, and achieve a specificity and sensitivity of greater than 90%.35,85,90 An alternative to GDH-based testing, nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT), targets chromosomal toxin genes and, in the past, these tests were expensive and time consuming; however, many facilities have adopted these as their primary testing modality.91–94 In practice, a positive initial screening using highly sensitive GDH or NAAT testing is usually followed by a highly specific test for C difficile toxin. An alternative diagnostic algorithm simultaneously performs both tests to expedite diagnosis but is associated with higher costs.85,91 In places where 2-step testing or toxin-based testing is not available, NAAT alone may be used, but the results should be interpreted in the context of risk factors and symptoms suggestive of CDI.19

Stool culture, although highly sensitive, does not differentiate between active infection and the presence of several nontoxigenic, nonpathologic strains of Clostridioides that may grow in culture. Because stool cultures are also time consuming, they are impractical for clinical use in general.77,95

Although stool testing is most appropriate when evaluating patients with a suspicion of having CDI, high rates of asymptomatic chronic colonization (up to 50% of patients in hospitals and long-term care facilities) have prompted calls for screening policies; however, these initiatives have not been well-supported by the evidence.5,6 Meanwhile, selective testing may be considered for higher-risk patients with a diarrheal illness but without a high suspicion for CDI who have had recent exposure to antibiotics or have IBD, renal failure, vascular disease, or a transplant, or who reside in a long-term care facility.96–98

  • 4. Routine endoscopic evaluation to diagnose or determine the extent of CDI is not recommended. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.

Adjunctive endoscopic evaluation may be performed when managing patients with CDI, but the absence of comparative and predictive studies limits the utility of endoscopy under these circumstances. Endoscopy also lacks a validated predictive value in guiding medical or surgical therapy or providing prognostic information.99,100 Given the rapid, sensitive, and specific stool assays used to diagnose CDI, the role of endoscopy in this setting is usually limited to potentially providing information when concomitant conditions confound the diagnosis or when unique circumstances require a more urgent diagnosis.101

Diagnostic lower endoscopy with biopsies may distinguish CDI from other types of colitides, such as cytomegalovirus, graft-versus-host disease, IBD, and ischemic colitis.99 Although pancolitis in the setting of CDI (ie, extending proximal to the splenic flexure) may suggest a more severe infection, the anatomic extent of luminal disease alone is unlikely to guide patient management or influence the decision for and timing of colectomy. In addition, pseudomembranes, often considered pathognomonic for CDI, are actually found in only approximately 45% to 55% of laboratory-proven cases of CDI and offer little additional diagnostic or prognostic value.99,100,102 In terms of the prevalence of pseudomembranes in the setting of CDI, the studies describing pseudomembranes are mainly retrospective and include only a fraction of patients with CDI who have undergone endoscopy, suggesting that the actual incidence of pseudomembranes would be lower than reported in these studies. The likelihood of finding pseudomembranes in patients with CDI who are immunosuppressed or have IBD is even lower.100,102 Therefore, routine endoscopic evaluation in the setting of CDI is not recommended because of the risk of complications like perforation and the limited clinical utility.

  • 5. Radiologic evaluation has limited utility in the setting of CDI. Grade of recommendation: Weak recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 2C.

In general, radiographic investigation has limited utility when managing patients with CDI. Although CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis, often obtained as part of the evaluation of an acute abdominal process, are highly specific for perforation, the predictive value of other CT findings in the setting of CDI is less clear. Cross-sectional imaging in patients with CDI can demonstrate colonic wall thickening and an abnormal haustral pattern or an “accordion sign” (hyperemic enhancing mucosa stretched over markedly thickened submucosal folds with contrast trapped between edematous haustral folds); however, these findings are nonspecific.103–106 Computed tomography scans from patients with CDI may also demonstrate ascites, pericolic fat stranding, or prominent intravenous contrast enhancement of the layers of the colonic wall and even portal venous gas or pneumatosis.107

The ability for CT scanning to predict the need for surgical intervention is poor (sensitivity 52%–85% and specificity 48%–92%).108 Older studies suggest that CT findings correlate poorly with the clinical severity of disease.104 In fact, about 40% of patients with CDI have a normal CT scan without radiographic evidence of colitis.104,109 A retrospective review of 176 hospitalized patients with CDI found that abnormal wall thickening, pancolitis, and bowel dilation demonstrated on CT imaging were associated with the need for colectomy, whereas wall thickening was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality; however, these findings had a low predictive value of 50%.110

Medical Management

  • 6. Infection control measures should be implemented for hospitalized patients with CDI. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

Within the colon in the setting of dysbiosis and altered bile acid metabolism, C difficile exists in its vegetative (ie, functioning) form that is susceptible to antimicrobial agents. Outside the colon, however, C difficile survives in a spore form that is highly resistant to heat, acid, chemicals, and antibiotics.96,111 In a hospital setting, C difficile can readily spread from fomites like clothing or equipment28,112–114 and contamination can also occur by simple contact with intact skin of infected patients.28,96,112–115 Disease containment and prevention of transmission rely on patient isolation, the use of personal protective equipment, and hand washing with soap and water to physically remove spores from the surface of contaminated hands after patient encounters.114,115 Alcohol hand rubs, commonly used in health care settings, do not kill spores and therefore should not be used as a single agent for decontamination purposes under these circumstances.116,117 Rather, combining contact precautions and hand washing with soap and water is recommended to prevent transmission of CDI in hospital and long-term care facilities. Daily and terminal (ie, after patients are discharged) decontamination of patients’ rooms can also prevent transmission of CDI.28,118–120 Other methods of potential C difficile containment or decontamination including ultraviolet light-emitting devices, chlorhexidine washings, and changes in hospital architectural designs are not well-supported by evidence.121–126

The duration for maintaining contact precautions and whether to isolate patients suspected of possibly having CDI before obtaining diagnostic confirmation remain controversial topics, and policies vary between institutions. In general, lifting isolation precautions for patients undergoing CDI treatment 48 hours after cessation of diarrhea may be considered.127

  • 7. Implementing an evidence-based antibiotic stewardship program can decrease rates of CDI. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

Antibiotic use is the main risk factor for developing CDI, and the overuse and inappropriate use of antibiotics, in particular, have been well documented to increase the risk of CDI.31,111,128–131 Multiple intervention bundles have been implemented in the United States and internationally with the primary goal of promoting appropriate antibiotic use and limiting duration of treatment in an effort to improve antibiotic-related outcomes.132–135 Although antibiotic stewardship programs vary between hospitals, most include defined prescribing parameters determined by infectious disease specialists and have resulted in significant decreases in overall antibiotic use.29,30,111,136,137

A Cochrane review by Davey et al31 of 221 studies found that compliance with antibiotic-prescribing practices in hospitalized patients reduced the duration of CDI treatment by 1.95 days (95% CI, 1.67–2.22) and reduced CDI rates up to 48.6% (interquartile range, –80.7% to –19.2%). Stewardship bundles typically include recommendations to stop associated antibiotics once CDI has been diagnosed, as clinically indicated, and extend the use of anti-C difficile treatment beyond the duration of other antibiotics for 5 to 14 days.30,97,113

In terms of other potential ways to reduce CDI rates, vaccines have been considered, although they remain investigational. Recently, a phase 3 multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy of a Clostridiodes toxoid vaccine, but the study was terminated prematurely because a data analysis demonstrated that the vaccine lacked clinical efficacy.138

  • 8. Oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin is considered first-line treatment for an initial CDI, whereas metronidazole alone is no longer considered appropriate first-line treatment. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on high-quality evidence, 1A.

Although various antibiotics have demonstrated efficacy for treating mild-moderate or severe CDI, oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin is considered first-line therapy (Table 3).18,19,139 Fidaxomicin, a narrow-spectrum, oral macrocyclic antibiotic, has been shown to have fewer CDI recurrences and higher success rates treating CDI than vancomycin; however, higher costs have prevented the widespread use of this drug as a first-line therapy.140,141 When instituting antibiotic therapy to treat C difficile, it is important to also discontinue the inciting antibiotics associated with the C difficile episode as soon as possible (clinical circumstances permitting), because continuing these antibiotics can increase the risk of CDI recurrence.20 For nonfulminant CDI, the recommended oral vancomycin dose is 125 mg 4 times a day and the recommended fidaxomicin dose is 200 mg twice a day; a 10-day course of either medication resolves CDI diarrhea in >90% of patients.142,143

TABLE 3. - Treatment recommendations for initial and recurrent C difficile infection
Episode Severity Treatment recommendation
Mild-moderate • Vancomycin 125 mg 4 times a day or fidaxomicin 200 mg twice a day for 10 days
• Bezlotoxumab 10 mg/kg infusion as an adjunct treatment for high-risk patients
Severe-complicated or fulminant • Vancomycin 500 mg 4 times a day orally and metronidazole 500 mg intravenously 3 times a day
• For patients with ileus, consider adding vancomycin per rectum
• Early surgery consult
Mild-moderate • If metronidazole was used initially, then vancomycin 125 mg 4 times a day for 10 days
• If vancomycin for 10 days was used initially, then fidaxomicin 200 mg twice daily for 10 days or prolonged vancomycin with taper and pulse
• If fidaxomicin was used initially, use prolonged vancomycin with taper and pulse
• Bezlotoxumab 10 mg/kg infusion as an adjunct treatment for high-risk patients
Severe-complicated or fulminant • Vancomycin 500 mg 4 times a day orally and metronidazole 500 mg intravenously 3 times a day
• For patients with ileus, consider adding vancomycin per rectum
• Early surgery consult
Third or subsequent
Mild-moderate • If FMT is available, then 10-day course of vancomycin followed by FMT
• Bezlotoxumab 10 mg/kg infusion as an adjunct treatment for high-risk patients
• If FMT is not available, then prolonged vancomycin with taper and pulse or fidaxomicin or rifaximin
Severe-complicated or fulminant • Vancomycin 500 mg 4 times a day orally and metronidazole 500 mg intravenously 3 times a day for patients with ileus, consider adding vancomycin per rectum
• Early surgery consult
FMT = fecal microbiota transplantation.

Previous guidelines, including the 2015 ASCRS Clinical Practice Parameters, recommended using metronidazole or oral vancomycin as first-line treatment stratified by the severity of disease, with metronidazole used for more mild disease and vancomycin for more severe disease.42,144 Although a number of studies still show reasonable success with metronidazole treatment for younger patients (≤65 years old) with initial, mild disease, there has been a rise in C difficile metronidazole resistance over the past 20 years. In addition to its overall lower efficacy, metronidazole currently has a higher risk of CDI treatment failure, including death and recurrence, compared with vancomycin.145–149 Combination therapy with both vancomycin and metronidazole is associated with a higher rate of adverse events compared with monotherapy and is not typically recommended unless patients have severe-complicated or fulminant CDI.142 Further supporting the change in the recommended antibiotic therapy, a Cochrane review by Nelson et al150 of 22 studies including 3215 patients showed that vancomycin was more effective in achieving a cure (79%) than metronidazole (72%; relative risk (RR), 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84–0.97). A meta-analysis by Di et al139 also showed that metronidazole was inferior to vancomycin in both initial cure rate (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84–0.98; p = 0.02) and sustained cure rate (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82–0.96; p = 0.003) and that the inferiority of metronidazole was even more pronounced in patients with moderate to severe disease.151

Vancomycin slurry delivery via retention enema can be considered as an adjunct treatment for patients with adynamic ileus or otherwise severe-complicated or fulminant CDI. Akamine et al152 retrospectively compared 26 patients with moderate to severe CDI treated with oral vancomycin and vancomycin enemas with 101 patients who received oral vancomycin alone. In this study, the group that received vancomycin enemas experienced more complications but had similar overall mortality compared with the standard therapy group, although the enema group had more severe disease and had higher rates of toxic megacolon, intensive care unit admission, and colectomy. Meanwhile, Malamood et al153 reported a case-controlled study comparing 24 patients who received vancomycin enemas in addition to standard therapy with 48 patients who received standard treatment alone and showed no differences in outcomes. A systematic review by Fawley and Napolitano154 suggested that the efficacy of vancomycin enema therapy is dose and volume dependent and recommended using a slurry of 500 mg in 500 mL every 6 hours.

Although a few case reports describe administering vancomycin through a mucus fistula to reach defunctionalized colon, these reports include relatively few patients, lack adequate controls, and do not adequately evaluate this approach.155 Instilling vancomycin antegrade through a loop ileostomy is described in recommendation #12. Finally, prophylactic use of antibiotics to prevent CDI lacks sufficient supporting data, although some studies evaluating high-risk patients suggest possible benefit.156–159

  • 9. Probiotics may be useful in preventing CDI, but not in treating CDI. Grade of recommendation: Weak recommendation based on high-quality evidence, 2A.

Probiotics consist of live organisms that, theoretically, can adjust the colonic bacterial milieu and restore an otherwise altered GI flora that predisposes to the development of CDI. Probiotics are typically safe and well tolerated, but the data regarding the utility of probiotics in the primary treatment and prevention of CDI are mixed. Early, large, randomized, controlled trials and systematic reviews studying probiotics demonstrated no significant benefit in terms of CDI treatment or prevention.155,160–164 More recent meta-analyses, however, show some preventative but not therapeutic benefit from probiotics. A meta-analysis of 20 trials with almost 4000 patients demonstrated a reduced incidence of CDI associated with the use of probiotics (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24–0.49).165,166 Another meta-analysis of 26 randomized, controlled trials including 7957 patients demonstrated that probiotics significantly decreased the development of C difficile diarrhea by 60.5%.167 However, the trials included in this study were heterogeneous and reported different enrollment criteria, probiotic administration regimens, and follow-up periods. An analysis including 16 Cochrane reviews that evaluated the potential preventative effects of different probiotics reported a decreased incidence of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and CDI related to probiotic use, but, given the low quality of the evidence, the authors suggested that further trials should be conducted.168

Several reports evaluating specific strains or combinations of probiotics including Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, Lactobacillus casei LBC80R, and Saccharomyces boulardii reached conflicting conclusions and do not support a particular probiotic regimen.164,169,170 Despite extensive analyses regarding probiotics, questions regarding efficacy, the optimal agent(s), length of therapy, and dosing remain unanswered. The potential role of probiotics in recurrent or recalcitrant CDI is discussed in recommendation #15.

Surgical Therapy

  • 10. Surgery for C difficile colitis should typically be reserved for patients with colonic perforation or severe colitis who do not improve with medical therapy. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.

Although the incidence of and mortality from CDI have been improving over time, surgery remains an important part of the treatment algorithm, because approximately 1% of all patients with CDI and about 30% of patients with severe-complicated or fulminant disease require surgery.17,63,171 In general, the most obvious indication for operation in the setting of CDI is in rare cases of colonic perforation; otherwise, the decision to proceed with surgery is difficult to standardize because there is no clear algorithm to determine which patients will ultimately respond to medical management and avoid surgery.

Retrospective studies have identified clinical factors that can potentially predict patients who are more likely to need surgery, including patients with electrolyte derangements, age greater then 60 years, peripheral vascular disease, or congestive heart failure.63,80 Although there is no high-level evidence regarding the optimal timing of surgical intervention, it appears that colectomy earlier in the course of fulminant disease is beneficial.17,32,80,172–175 Under the circumstances, these complex patients may have multisystem organ failure, coagulopathy, vasopressor requirements, and sepsis.80,172,173,175

In practice, it is helpful to recognize that IBD is a significant risk factor for developing CDI and for requiring surgery.11,63 Steroids and immunomodulators, frequently used to treat these patients, have been shown to be independent risk factors for worse outcomes in patients with IBD and CDI.176 Moreover, in a meta-analysis by Chen et al,177 patients with ulcerative colitis had almost double the odds of needing a colectomy in the setting of CDI (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.23–2.93).

  • 11. Subtotal colectomy with end ileostomy is typically the operative procedure recommended for severe-complicated or fulminant C difficile colitis. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C.

The recommended procedure for severe-complicated or fulminant C difficile colitis is subtotal colectomy with colorectal stump closure and end ileostomy, because this option typically affords optimal source control in the critically ill patient.81,176 Retrospective studies comparing the extent of resection demonstrate lower mortality after an extended (ie, total or subtotal) colectomy than after a segmental colectomy; however, these studies are limited by small sample sizes and retrospective designs.178–182 In a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing surgical approaches in 1433 patients with CDI between 1986 and 2011, subtotal colectomy (described as removal of most of or the entire colon) with end ileostomy was the most commonly performed procedure (89%).81 In this study, the decision to perform a segmental colectomy was typically due to a “deceptively” spared, normal-appearing colon on gross, intraoperative examination. However, because C difficile colitis is a mucosal-based disease, a reliable assessment of the extent and severity of disease cannot typically be made by assessing the serosal surface of the bowel. When subtotal colectomy with end ileostomy was not performed, reoperation to resect further colon was needed in 16% of patients (20 of 126) and carried significantly high mortality (47%). Despite these data supporting extended colectomy, segmental colectomy continues to be performed in the Unites States under these circumstances.183 In terms of adjunctive therapy after surgery, the literature does not support a specific recommendation for continuing antibiotics after colectomy for CDI.18

Mortality rates following surgery for CDI are high and can range from 34% to 57%.81,184–187 However, despite the high mortality associated with colectomy, several large, retrospective studies have reported improved survival for patients with C difficile colitis who underwent timely subtotal colectomy compared with medical management alone.175,185,188,189 A recent systematic review of 510 patients with C difficile colitis also demonstrated a survival advantage (pooled adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49–0.99) with subtotal abdominal colectomy compared with medical therapy.190 The most frequently reported predictors of mortality after colectomy for CDI include patient characteristics like age or immunosuppression and preoperative clinical signs of end organ damage such as shock or kidney failure.185,191–193 According to several mortality prediction tools that stratify candidates for subtotal colectomy in the setting of CDI, patients who are critically ill and in whom medical therapy has failed, but who have not sustained advanced organ failure, are more likely to survive after surgery.174,194 Although evidence suggests that, when surgery is necessary, earlier intervention can reduce mortality, the recommendation for surgery and timing of colectomy are typically individualized and depend on the specific circumstances.172,184,188 Meanwhile, long-term outcomes after subtotal colectomy for CDI remain poor with a mean survival of 18.1 months, a median survival of 3.2 months, and a low rate of restoring GI continuity (20%).187,192

  • 12. A diverting loop ileostomy with antegrade colonic lavage may be an alternative to subtotal colectomy for the treatment of severe-complicated or fulminant CDI. Grade of recommendation: Weak recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 2C.

Whereas subtotal colectomy with end ileostomy remains the recommended surgical treatment for patients with medically refractory CDI, an alternative surgical approach utilizing a loop ileostomy and antegrade colonic antibiotic lavage has been described. Proponents of this method cite the historically high mortality in patients treated with colectomy for severe-complicated or fulminant C difficile colitis, as well as the potential morbidity from an end ileostomy that may likely be permanent. The prospect of colonic preservation under these circumstances makes the lavage approach particularly appealing. In general, this technique involves laparoscopic creation of a loop ileostomy followed by antegrade colonic lavage with warmed polyethylene glycol solution via the ileostomy and then antegrade instillation of vancomycin as well as intravenous antibiotics.78

An early, prospective trial evaluating diversion and colonic lavage for CDI examined 42 patients with severe-complicated CDI who underwent colonic lavage and showed encouraging results with 19% mortality compared with 50% mortality in a matched, historical control group treated with subtotal colectomy.78 At 6-month follow-up, 93% of the patients undergoing lavage never required a colectomy and 79% had their ileostomy closed compared with only 19% in the historical control group. A retrospective, multicenter study compared patients treated with ileostomy and colonic lavage or subtotal colectomy and found decreased adjusted mortality in the ileostomy group (n = 21) compared with the colectomy group (n = 77, 17% versus 40%; p = 0.002).195 A smaller, retrospective study by Fashandi et al196 compared 10 patients who underwent diversion with colonic lavage with 13 patients who underwent subtotal colectomy and found that lavage therapy allowed for colon preservation and restoration of intestinal continuity in most patients, but did not decrease mortality or the rate of recurrent CDI.

Larger-scale studies evaluating diversion and lavage therapy for CDI include an analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database that compared 47 patients who underwent loop ileostomy with 410 patients who had total abdominal colectomy and found a lower complication rate in the ileostomy group (72% versus 87%; p = 0.02) but no survival benefit (mortality 36% and 31%).197 Another retrospective cohort study from the National Inpatient Sample compared 613 patients who had a loop ileostomy with 2408 patients who underwent total abdominal colectomy and found no significant differences in outcomes including in-hospital mortality between the 2 groups.198 A recent meta-analysis that included 733 patients with diverting loop ileostomy and 2950 patients with total abdominal colectomy found no differences in mortality and postoperative complications, although rates of stoma reversal were higher in the ileostomy group (OR, 12.55; 95% CI, 3.3–47.5; p < 0.001).199

Recurrent and Refractory CDI

  • 13. A prolonged course of vancomycin, adding bezlotoxumab or using fidaxomicin, is an acceptable therapy for recurrent or refractory CDI in stable patients. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

Recurrent and refractory disease can complicate the management of patients with CDI. Recurrent infection typically occurs within 8 weeks of completing treatment for an index episode, and recurrence rates range from 12% to 64%; the risk of mortality from recurrent disease ranges from 8% to 53%.34,200 Risk factors for CDI recurrence include age, antibiotic use after completing treatment for CDI, use of proton pump inhibitors, neutropenia, and infection with certain C difficile strains.34,37,200–203 Although not universally accepted, several strategies are emerging for preventing recurrent CDI (Table 3).

For the first recurrence of CDI, the recommended antibiotic regimen depends on the therapy used for the initial episode and, in general, patients are not treated by simply repeating the same regimen. If a conventional 10- to 14-day course of vancomycin is used for the first episode, the first recurrence should typically be managed with a tapered and pulsed vancomycin regimen or a 10-day course of fidaxomicin.18 Vancomycin tapered and pulsed regimens typically include a 10- to 14-day course of oral vancomycin at a dose of 125 mg 4 times per day followed by a tapering dose over 2 weeks followed by pulsed dosing with 125 mg once every 2 or 3 days for 2 to 8 weeks.204,205 Alternatively, fidaxomicin may be used and, despite the cost of fidaxomicin, cost analyses support its use over other strategies.18,206,207 If metronidazole is used for an initial episode, then the first recurrence can be managed with a 10- to 14-day course of vancomycin.

Bezlotoxumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds exotoxin B, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to be administered concurrently with treatment of CDI, can decrease the risk of recurrence in patients at higher risk due to advanced age, immunosuppression, IBD, or other comorbidities.89,208,209 Two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials evaluated the efficacy of bezlotoxumab added to standard oral antibiotic regimens (including vancomycin and metronidazole) and demonstrated that treatment with bezlotoxumab significantly decreased rates of recurrent CDI compared with placebo (17% versus 28%, p < 0.001). Overall, a single intravenous dose of 10 mg/kg bezlotoxumab infused during an antibiotic course for CDI demonstrated a 40% relative risk reduction for recurrent CDI and a decrease in hospital length of stay.210–212 However, the cost of bezlotoxumab may be prohibitive, limiting its use in these patients.208

  • 14. Patients with recurrent or refractory CDI should typically be considered for fecal bacteriotherapy (eg, intestinal microbiota transplantation) if conventional measures, including appropriate antibiotic treatment, have failed. Grade of recommendation: Strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B.

Patient with 3 or more CDI episodes can be managed with a vancomycin tapered and pulsed course or fidaxomicin followed by a microbiome-based therapy such as fecal microbiota transplantation (Table 3). Randomized, controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses suggest that patients with recurrent or refractory CDI in whom medical treatment has failed should be considered for fecal transplantation.209,213–219 In general, conventional antibiotic treatment should be used for at least 2 recurrences (ie, 3 CDI episodes) before offering fecal microbiota transplantation.18 In terms of the technical aspects involved, randomized, controlled trials have shown similar CDI cure rates after fecal transplants performed with fresh and frozen fecal samples.220 Given the significant heterogeneity with which fecal transplants have been conducted clinically, standardized products for microbiome-based therapies have been commercialized.221–223 Although a number of methods of administration have been described, including using a nasogastric tube or enema, the most common transplant delivery route is via colonoscopy; however, oral capsules were found to be noninferior to colonoscopic delivery for preventing recurrent infection.224 Overall success rates for fecal transplantation, regardless of the delivery mode, are reported to be between 60% and 90% after a single treatment.219,225–230

Fecal transplantation has been studied in certain subpopulations and has been shown to be effective in elderly, immunocompromised, and critically ill patients and in patients with IBD or HIV.231–245 For patients who develop recurrent CDI after undergoing an IPAA, fecal transplantation (administered into the pouch and afferent limb) has been an effective treatment.231,246 Independent predictors of failure after single fecal infusion by colonoscopy in the setting of recurrent CDI include severe CDI and inadequate bowel preparation.232 Further evaluation of this treatment modality is needed to optimize patient selection, donor selection, and technical details of the fecal transplant protocol. A relevant area of ongoing investigation regarding fecal transplantation is assessing this modality as a first-line therapy for initial CDI.233 A small, randomized, controlled trial compared primary fecal transplant (n = 9) with metronidazole therapy (n = 11) and suggested that transplant may be an alternative to antibiotics in this setting.234

The efficacy of fecal transplantation in patients with severe CDI has not been extensively studied. Many case reports and small case series suggest that fecal bacteriotherapy may be safe and effective in decreasing the need for surgery in hospitalized patients unresponsive to other treatments (rescue fecal microbiota transplantation), but the evidence is limited.235,236 There have been recent reports of fecal transplantation transmitting infectious agents, and prospective donors should be screened for colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms in addition to more typical infections. In June 2019, in response to 2 fecal transplant-related deaths in immunosuppressed patients, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning detailing the importance of obtaining proper patient consent, including a discussion regarding risks related to the therapy.237,238

  • 15. Adjunctive agents including other antimicrobials, binding agents, and probiotics may be considered in addition to standard treatment in cases of recurrent or refractory CDI. Grade of recommendation: Weak recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 2C.

In situations where conventional antibiotic therapy for recurrent CDI fails, other antimicrobials can be considered. Rifaximin may be used to treat recurrent CDI and has a moderate success rate (53%–67%) in this setting.239–241 However, because of the propensity of C difficile to develop resistance to rifaximin, this drug should typically be used in combination with other recommended agents.241 Another antimicrobial option for refractory CDI, tigecycline, can successfully treat otherwise multidrug-resistant strains of C difficile (100 mg IV loading dose followed by 50 mg every 12 hours for 5–24 days). In a pooled analysis of 47 cases of refractory CDI treated with standard antibiotics together with adjunctive tigecycline, 7 patients (15%) died and 35 (77%) were cured.242,243 Nitazoxanide, an antiparasitic drug, is another potential adjunctive therapy alternative for treating recurrent or refractory CDI.244

Toxin-binding agents such as cholestyramine and colestipol are also used as adjuncts for recurrent CDI with variable success.244 Small, retrospective reports ascribe some efficacy for these polymers to bind and inactivate C difficile toxins; however, prospective studies have not demonstrated efficacy in improving symptoms or preventing recurrence.244,245 Because binding agents can also bind oral vancomycin (based on in vitro studies), the administration of these medications should be staggered by a few hours.244 Data regarding tolevamer, a large, nonbactericidal, soluble polymer developed to specifically bind C difficile toxins A and B, show it is inferior to vancomycin and metronidazole for treating CDI, but its potential efficacy as an adjunctive therapy is unknown.247

Finally, administering antimotility agents to patients with CDI has historically been discouraged because this therapy has been associated with poor outcomes; however, prospective data regarding this practice is not available.18,27 Similarly, probiotics may be useful in treating recurrent or refractory disease, but the efficacy of probiotics under these circumstances remains unclear. When used in combination with appropriate medical therapy (especially oral vancomycin), probiotics were shown to decrease the risk of recurrent disease in a small, randomized, controlled trial (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35–0.98) but 3 other randomized, controlled trials did not demonstrate a benefit to adding probiotics under these circumstances.165,248


1. McFarland LV, Mulligan ME, Kwok RY, Stamm WE. Nosocomial acquisition of Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:204–210.
2. Bartlett JG. Clinical practice. Antibiotic-associated diarrhea. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:334–339.
3. 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.
4. Guh AY, Mu Y, Winston LG, et al.; Emerging Infections Program Clostridioides difficile Infection Working Group. Trends in U.S. burden of Clostridioides difficile infection and outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1320–1330.
5. Johnson S, Clabots CR, Linn FV, Olson MM, Peterson LR, Gerding DN. Nosocomial Clostridium difficile colonisation and disease. Lancet. 1990;336:97–100.
6. Magill SS, O’Leary E, Janelle SJ, et al.; Emerging Infections Program Hospital Prevalence Survey Team. Changes in prevalence of health care-associated infections in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1732–1744.
7. Abrahamian FM, Talan DA, Krishnadasan A, et al.; EMERGEncy ID NET Study Group. Clostridium difficile infection among US emergency department patients with diarrhea and no vomiting. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;70:19–27.e4.
8. Evans ME, Simbartl LA, Kralovic SM, Jain R, Roselle GA. Clostridium difficile infections in Veterans Health Administration acute care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:1037–1042.
9. Brown K, Valenta K, Fisman D, Simor A, Daneman N. Hospital ward antibiotic prescribing and the risks of Clostridium difficile infection. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:626–633.
10. Donnelly JP, Wang HE, Locke JE, Mannon RB, Safford MM, Baddley JW. Hospital-onset Clostridium difficile infection among solid organ transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2015;15:2970–2977.
11. Fu N, Wong T. Clostridium difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2016;18:19.
12. Grigorescu BL, Fodor RŞ, Cioc AD, et al. Factors favouring the development of Clostridium difficile infection in critically ill patients. J Crit Care Med (Targu Mures). 2016;2:38–43.
13. Haines CF, Moore RD, Bartlett JG, et al. Clostridium difficile in a HIV-infected cohort: incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes. AIDS. 2013;27:2799–2807.
14. Singh H, Nugent Z, Yu BN, Lix LM, Targownik LE, Bernstein CN. Higher incidence of Clostridium difficile infection among individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:430–438.e2.
15. Revolinski SL, Munoz-Price LS. Clostridium difficile in immunocompromised hosts: a review of epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and prevention. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68:2144–2153.
16. Peterson LR, Mehta MS, Patel PA, et al. Laboratory testing for Clostridium difficile infection: light at the end of the tunnel. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136:372–380.
17. Sartelli M, Di Bella S, McFarland LV, 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.
18. McDonald LC, Gerding DN, Johnson S, 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). Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66:987–994.
19. Khanna S, Shin A, Kelly CP. Management of Clostridium difficile infection in inflammatory bowel disease: expert review from the Clinical Practice Updates Committee of the AGA Institute. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15:166–174.
20. Causey MW, Spencer MP, Steele SR. Clostridium difficile enteritis after colectomy. Am Surg. 2009;75:1203–1206.
21. Lesperance K, Causey MW, Spencer M, Steele SR. The morbidity of Clostridium difficile infection after elective colonic resection-results from a national population database. Am J Surg. 2011;201:141–148.
22. O’Connor JR, Johnson S, Gerding DN. Clostridium difficile infection caused by the epidemic BI/NAP1/027 strain. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:1913–1924.
23. Denève C, Janoir C, Poilane I, Fantinato C, Collignon A. New trends in Clostridium difficile virulence and pathogenesis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2009;33(suppl 1):S24–S28.
24. Novakova E, Stefkovicova M, Kopilec MG, et al. The emergence of Clostridium difficile ribotypes 027 and 176 with a predominance of the Clostridium difficile ribotype 001 recognized in Slovakia following the European standardized Clostridium difficile infection surveillance of 2016. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;90:111–115.
25. He M, Miyajima F, Roberts P, et al. Emergence and global spread of epidemic healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile. Nat Genet. 2013;45:109–113.
26. Katz KC, Golding GR, Choi KB, et al.; Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program. The evolving epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection in Canadian hospitals during a postepidemic period (2009-2015). CMAJ. 2018;190:E758–E765.
27. Giancola SE, Williams RJ 2nd, Gentry CA. Prevalence of the Clostridium difficile BI/NAP1/027 strain across the United States Veterans Health Administration. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018;24:877–881.
28. Anderson DJ, Chen LF, Weber DJ, et al.; CDC Prevention Epicenters Program. Enhanced terminal room disinfection and acquisition and infection caused by multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile (the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room Disinfection study): a cluster-randomised, multicentre, crossover study. Lancet. 2017;389:805–814.
29. Barker AK, Ngam C, Musuuza JS, Vaughn VM, Safdar N. Reducing Clostridium difficile in the inpatient setting: a systematic review of the adherence to and effectiveness of C. difficile prevention bundles. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38:639–650.
30. Chou AF, Graber CJ, Jones M, et al. Characteristics of antimicrobial stewardship programs at Veterans Affairs hospitals: results of a nationwide survey. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37:647–654.
31. Davey P, Marwick CA, Scott CL, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 20172CD003543. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003543.pub4.
32. Kundrapu S, Sunkesula V, Jury I, Deshpande A, Donskey CJ. A randomized trial of soap and water hand wash versus alcohol hand rub for removal of Clostridium difficile spores from hands of patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:204–206.
33. Saint S, Fowler KE, Krein SL, et al. Clostridium difficile infection in the United States: a national study assessing preventive practices used and perceptions of practice evidence. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36:969–971.
34. Abou Chakra CN, Pepin J, Sirard S, Valiquette L. Risk factors for recurrence, complications and mortality in Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9:e98400.
35. Adler A, Schwartzberg Y, Samra Z, Schwartz O, Carmeli Y, Schwaber MJ; Israeli Clostridium difficile Diagnostics Study Group. Trends and changes in Clostridium difficile diagnostic policies and their impact on the proportion of positive samples: a national survey. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:O904–O910.
36. Stewart DB, Berg A, Hegarty J. Predicting recurrence of C. difficile colitis using bacterial virulence factors: binary toxin is the key. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:118–124.
37. Dharbhamulla N, Abdelhady A, Domadia M, Patel S, Gaughan J, Roy S. Risk factors associated with recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. J Clin Med Res. 2019;11:1–6.
38. Damle RN, Cherng NB, Flahive JM, et al. Clostridium difficile infection after colorectal surgery: a rare but costly complication. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1804–1811.
39. Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O, et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:2039–2046.
40. Mollard S, Lurienne L, Heimann SM, Bandinelli PA. Burden of Clostridium (Clostridioides) difficile infection during inpatient stays in the USA between 2012 and 2016. J Hosp Infect. 2019;102:135–140.
41. Marra AR, Perencevich EN, Nelson RE, et al. Incidence and outcomes associated with Clostridium difficile infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e1917597.
42. Steele SR, McCormick J, Melton GB, et al. Practice parameters for the management of Clostridium difficile infection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:10–24.
43. Furuya-Kanamori L, Stone JC, Clark J, et al. Comorbidities, exposure to medications, and the risk of community-acquired Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36:132–141.
44. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an American College of Chest Physicians Task Force. Chest. 2006;129:174–181.
45. Bartlett JG, Chang TW, Gurwith M, Gorbach SL, Onderdonk AB. Antibiotic-associated pseudomembranous colitis due to toxin-producing clostridia. N Engl J Med. 1978;298:531–534.
46. Khanafer N, Vanhems P, Barbut F, et al.; CDI01 Study group. Factors associated with Clostridium difficile infection: a nested case-control study in a three year prospective cohort. Anaerobe. 2017;44:117–123.
47. Olson MM, Shanholtzer CJ, Lee JT Jr, Gerding DN. Ten years of prospective Clostridium difficile-associated disease surveillance and treatment at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, 1982–1991. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15:371–381.
48. Marley C, El Hahi Y, Ferreira G, Woods L, Ramirez Villaescusa A. Evaluation of a risk score to predict future Clostridium difficile disease using UK primary care and hospital data in Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15:2475–2481.
49. Schwaber MJ, Simhon A, Block C, Roval V, Ferderber N, Shapiro M. Factors associated with nosocomial diarrhea and Clostridium difficile-associated disease on the adult wards of an urban tertiary care hospital. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000;19:9–15.
50. Guh AY, Adkins SH, Li Q, et al. Risk factors for community-associated Clostridium difficile infection in adults: a case-control study. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017;4:ofx171.
51. Barletta JF, El-Ibiary SY, Davis LE, Nguyen B, Raney CR. Proton pump inhibitors and the risk for hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88:1085–1090.
52. Daniel A, Rapose A. The evaluation of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in a community hospital. J Infect Public Health. 2015;8:155–160.
53. Depoorter L, Verhaegen J, Joosten E. Use of proton pump inhibitors and risk of nosocomial Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalized elderly adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:667–669.
54. Arriola V, Tischendorf J, Musuuza J, Barker A, Rozelle JW, Safdar N. Assessing the risk of hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection with proton pump inhibitor use: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37:1408–1417.
55. Eun CS. Does proton pump inhibitor increase the Clostridium difficile infection risk in the treatment and prophylaxis of stress ulcers than histanime-2 receptor antagonist? Gut Liver. 2017;11:739–740.
56. Chen Y, Glass K, Liu B, Riley TV, Korda R, Kirk MD. A population-based longitudinal study of Clostridium difficile infection-related hospitalization in mid-age and older Australians. Epidemiol Infect. 2017;145:575–582.
57. Atamna A, Yahav D, Eliakim-Raz N, et al. The effect of statins on the outcome of Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalized patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;35:779–784.
58. Eze P, Balsells E, Kyaw MH, Nair H. Risk factors for Clostridium difficile infections - an overview of the evidence base and challenges in data synthesis. J Glob Health. 2017;7:010417.
59. Kim SC, Seo MY, Lee JY, et al. Advanced chronic kidney disease: a strong risk factor for Clostridium difficile infection. Korean J Intern Med. 2016;31:125–133.
60. Morales Chamorro R, Serrano Blanch R, Méndez Vidal MJ, et al. Pseudomembranous colitis associated with chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil. Clin Transl Oncol. 2005;7:258–261.
61. Sanchez TH, Brooks JT, Sullivan PS, et al.; Adult/Adolescent Spectrum of HIV Disease Study Group. Bacterial diarrhea in persons with HIV infection, United States, 1992–2002. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:1621–1627.
62. Cunningham R, Dale B, Undy B, Gaunt N. Proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor for Clostridium difficile diarrhoea. J Hosp Infect. 2003;54:243–245.
63. Halabi WJ, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Stamos MJ, Mills S. Clostridium difficile colitis in the United States: a decade of trends, outcomes, risk factors for colectomy, and mortality after colectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:802–812.
64. Krapohl GL, Morris AM, Cai S, et al. Preoperative risk factors for postoperative Clostridium difficile infection in colectomy patients. Am J Surg. 2013;205:343–347.
65. Dubberke ER, Olsen MA, Stwalley D, et al. Identification of Medicare recipients at highest risk for Clostridium difficile infection in the US by population attributable risk analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0146822.
66. Abdelsattar ZM, Krapohl G, Alrahmani L, et al. Postoperative burden of hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36:40–46.
67. Gerding DN, Olson MM, Peterson LR, et al. Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis in adults. A prospective case-controlled epidemiologic study. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:95–100.
68. Nasser H, Munie S, Shakaroun D, Ivanics T, Nalamati S, Killu K. Clostridium difficile enteritis after total abdominal colectomy for ulcerative colitis. Case Rep Crit Care. 2019;2019:2987682.
69. Lundeen SJ, Otterson MF, Binion DG, Carman ET, Peppard WJ. Clostridium difficile enteritis: an early postoperative complication in inflammatory bowel disease patients after colectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:138–142.
70. Al-Mazrou AM, Hyde LZ, Suradkar K, Kiran RP. Effect of inclusion of oral antibiotics with mechanical bowel preparation on the risk of Clostridium difficile infection after colectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22:1968–1975.
71. Khorasani S, Dossa F, McKechnie T, Englesakis M, Brar MS, de Buck van Overstraeten A. Association between preoperative oral antibiotics and the incidence of postoperative Clostridium difficile infection in adults undergoing elective colorectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63:545–561.
72. Migaly J, Bafford AC, Francone TD, et al.; Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of bowel preparation in elective colon and rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62:3–8.
73. Mangieri CW, Ling JA, Modlin DM, Rose ED, Burgess PL. Utilization of combination bowel preparation (CBP) is protective against the development of post-operative Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), decreases septic complications, and provides a survival benefit. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:928–933.
74. Kim EK, Sheetz KH, Bonn J, et al. A statewide colectomy experience: the role of full bowel preparation in preventing surgical site infection. Ann Surg. 2014;259:310–314.
75. Sadahiro S, Suzuki T, Tanaka A, et al. Comparison between oral antibiotics and probiotics as bowel preparation for elective colon cancer surgery to prevent infection: prospective randomized trial. Surgery. 2014;155:493–503.
76. Lübbert C, John E, von Müller L. Clostridium difficile infection: guideline-based diagnosis and treatment. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014;111:723–731.
77. Bagdasarian N, Rao K, Malani PN. Diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile in adults: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;313:398–408.
78. Neal MD, Alverdy JC, Hall DE, Simmons RL, Zuckerbraun BS. Diverting loop ileostomy and colonic lavage: an alternative to total abdominal colectomy for the treatment of severe, complicated Clostridium difficile associated disease. Ann Surg. 2011;254:423–427.
79. Manabe YC, Vinetz JM, Moore RD, Merz C, Charache P, Bartlett JG. Clostridium difficile colitis: an efficient clinical approach to diagnosis. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:835–840.
80. Klobuka AJ, Markelov A. Current status of surgical treatment for fulminant clostridium difficile colitis. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;5:167–172.
81. Bhangu A, Nepogodiev D, Gupta A, Torrance A, Singh P; West Midlands Research Collaborative. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes following emergency surgery for Clostridium difficile colitis. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1501–1513.
82. Vasa CV, Glatt AE. Effectiveness and appropriateness of empiric metronidazole for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:354–358.
83. Barbut F, Surgers L, Eckert C, et al. Does a rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection impact on quality of patient management? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:136–144.
84. Yoldaş Ö, Altindiş M, Cufali D, Aşik G, Keşli R. A diagnostic algorithm for the detection of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Balkan Med J. 2016;33:80–86.
85. Crobach MJ, Planche T, Eckert C, et al. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22 Suppl 4:S63–S81.
86. Abreu Y, Abreu AT, Velarde-Ruiz Velasco JA, Zavala-Solares MR, et al. Consensus on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. Rev Gastroenterol Mex. 2019;84:204–219.
87. Moon HW, Kim HN, Hur M, Shim HS, Kim H, Yun YM. Comparison of diagnostic algorithms for detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile in routine practice at a tertiary referral hospital in Korea. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0161139.
88. Krutova M, Wilcox MH, Kuijper EJ. The pitfalls of laboratory diagnostics of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018;24:682–683.
89. Cook PP, Nichols S, Coogan M, Opera J, DeHart M. Reduction in testing and change in testing algorithm associated with decrease in number of nosocomial Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infections. Am J Infect Control. 2020;48:1019–1022.
90. Shetty N, Wren MW, Coen PG. The role of glutamate dehydrogenase for the detection of Clostridium difficile in faecal samples: a meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect. 2011;77:1–6.
91. Gateau C, Couturier J, Coia J, Barbut F. How to: diagnose infection caused by Clostridium difficile. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018;24:463–468.
92. Grein JD, Ochner M, Hoang H, Jin A, Morgan MA, Murthy AR. Comparison of testing approaches for Clostridium difficile infection at a large community hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:65–69.
93. Khanna R, Chande N, Nelson RL. Treatment of an initial infection with Clostridium difficile in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19:2223–2226.
94. Wilcox MH, Planche T, Fang FC, Gilligan P. What is the current role of algorithmic approaches for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection? J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:4347–4353.
95. Brecher SM, Novak-Weekley SM, Nagy E. Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections: there is light at the end of the colon. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57:1175–1181.
96. Eyre DW, Griffiths D, Vaughan A, et al. Asymptomatic Clostridium difficile colonisation and onward transmission. PLoS One. 2013;8:e78445.
97. Balsells E, Filipescu T, Kyaw MH, Wiuff C, Campbell H, Nair H. Infection prevention and control of Clostridium difficile: a global review of guidelines, strategies, and recommendations. J Glob Health. 2016;6:020410.
98. Nelson RE, Jones M, Leecaster M, et al. An economic analysis of strategies to control Clostridium difficile transmission and infection using an agent-based simulation model. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0152248.
99. Burkart NE, Kwaan MR, Shepela C, et al. Indications and relative utility of lower endoscopy in the management of Clostridium difficile infection. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2011;2011:626582.
100. Nomura K, Fujimoto Y, Yamashita M, et al.; Japan Hematology/Oncology Study (J-HOST) Group Kyoto. Absence of pseudomembranes in Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in patients using immunosuppression agents. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:74–78.
101. Bartlett JG, Gerding DN. Clinical recognition and diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46 Suppl 1:S12–S18.
102. Ben-Horin S, Margalit M, Bossuyt P, et al.; European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization (ECCO). Prevalence and clinical impact of endoscopic pseudomembranes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and Clostridium difficile infection. J Crohns Colitis. 2010;4:194–198.
103. Boland GW, Lee MJ, Cats AM, Ferraro MJ, Matthia AR, Mueller PR. Clostridium difficile colitis: correlation of CT findings with severity of clinical disease. Clin Radiol. 1995;50:153–156.
104. Boland GW, Lee MJ, Cats AM, Gaa JA, Saini S, Mueller PR. Antibiotic-induced diarrhea: specificity of abdominal CT for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile disease. Radiology. 1994;191:103–106.
105. Macari M, Balthazar EJ, Megibow AJ. The accordion sign at CT: a nonspecific finding in patients with colonic edema. Radiology. 1999;211:743–746.
106. Wessling J. [Radiological imaging of acute infectious and non-infectious enterocolitis]. Radiologe. 2018;58:302–311.
107. Kawamoto S, Horton KM, Fishman EK. Pseudomembranous colitis: can CT predict which patients will need surgical intervention? J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1999;23:79–85.
108. Kirkpatrick ID, Greenberg HM. Evaluating the CT diagnosis of Clostridium difficile colitis: should CT guide therapy? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:635–639.
109. Ash L, Baker ME, O’Malley CM Jr, Gordon SM, Delaney CP, Obuchowski NA. Colonic abnormalities on CT in adult hospitalized patients with Clostridium difficile colitis: prevalence and significance of findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:1393–1400.
110. Paláu-Dávila L, Lara-Medrano R, Negreros-Osuna AA, et al. Efficacy of computed tomography for the prediction of colectomy and mortality in patients with Clostridium difficile infection. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2016;12:101–105.
111. Borde JP, Litterst S, Ruhnke M, et al. Implementing an intensified antibiotic stewardship programme targeting cephalosporin and fluoroquinolone use in a 200-bed community hospital in Germany. Infection. 2015;43:45–50.
112. Barker AK, Zellmer C, Tischendorf J, et al. On the hands of patients with Clostridium difficile: a study of spore prevalence and the effect of hand hygiene on C difficile removal. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45:1154–1156.
113. Evans ME, Kralovic SM, Simbartl LA, Jain R, Roselle GA. Effect of a Clostridium difficile infection prevention initiative in Veterans Affairs acute care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37:720–722.
114. Haun N, Hooper-Lane C, Safdar N. Healthcare personnel attire and devices as fomites: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37:1367–1373.
115. Ramphal L, Suzuki S, McCracken IM, Addai A. Improving hospital staff compliance with environmental cleaning behavior. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2014;27:88–91.
116. DiDiodato G. Has improved hand hygiene compliance reduced the risk of hospital-acquired infections among hospitalized patients in Ontario? Analysis of publicly reported patient safety data from 2008 to 2011. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34:605–610.
117. Deyneko A, Cordeiro F, Berlin L, Ben-David D, Perna S, Longtin Y. Impact of sink location on hand hygiene compliance after care of patients with Clostridium difficile infection: a cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:203.
118. Anderson DJ, Moehring RW, Weber DJ, et al.; CDC Prevention Epicenters Program. Effectiveness of targeted enhanced terminal room disinfection on hospital-wide acquisition and infection with multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile: a secondary analysis of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial with crossover design (BETR Disinfection). Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18:845–853.
119. Cohen B, Cohen CC, Løyland B, Larson EL. Transmission of health care-associated infections from roommates and prior room occupants: a systematic review. Clin Epidemiol. 2017;9:297–310.
120. Barker AK, Alagoz O, Safdar N. Interventions to reduce the incidence of hospital-onset Clostridium difficile infection: an agent-based modeling approach to evaluate clinical effectiveness in adult acute care hospitals. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66:1192–1203.
121. Anderson DJ, Gergen MF, Smathers E, et al. Decontamination of targeted pathogens from patient rooms using an automated ultraviolet-C-emitting device. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34:466–471.
122. Brite J, McMillen T, Robilotti E, et al. Effectiveness of ultraviolet disinfection in reducing hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus on a bone marrow transplant unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39:1301–1306.
123. Frost SA, Alogso MC, Metcalfe L, et al. Chlorhexidine bathing and health care-associated infections among adult intensive care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2016;20:379.
124. Noto MJ, Domenico HJ, Byrne DW, et al. Chlorhexidine bathing and health care-associated infections: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313:369–378.
125. Dettenkofer M, Seegers S, Antes G, Motschall E, Schumacher M, Daschner FD. Does the architecture of hospital facilities influence nosocomial infection rates? A systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:21–25.
126. McDonald EG, Dendukuri N, Frenette C, Lee TC. Time-series analysis of health care-associated infections in a new hospital with all private rooms. JAMA Intern Med. 2019179:1501–1506.
127. Banach DB, Bearman G, Barnden M, et al. Duration of contact precautions for acute-care settings. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39:127–144.
128. Hanberger H, Skoog G, Ternhag A, Giske CG. Antibiotic consumption and antibiotic stewardship in Swedish hospitals. Ups J Med Sci. 2014;119:154–161.
129. Balch A, Wendelboe AM, Vesely SK, Bratzler DW. Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical site infections as a risk factor for infection with Clostridium difficile. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0179117.
130. Wenisch JM, Equiluz-Bruck S, Fudel M, et al. Decreasing Clostridium difficile infections by an antimicrobial stewardship program that reduces moxifloxacin use. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:5079–5083.
131. Owens RC Jr, Donskey CJ, Gaynes RP, Loo VG, Muto CA. Antimicrobial-associated risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46 Suppl 1:S19–S31.
132. Brown KA, Chambers A, MacFarlane S, et al. Reducing unnecessary urine culturing and antibiotic overprescribing in long-term care: a before-and-after analysis. CMAJ Open. 2019;7:E174–E181.
133. Kirkwood KA, Gulack BC, Iribarne A, et al. A multi-institutional cohort study confirming the risks of Clostridium difficile infection associated with prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;155:670–678.e1.
134. Bishop PA, Isache C, McCarter YS, Smotherman C, Gautam S, Jankowski CA. Clinical impact of a pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship initiative evaluating patients with Clostridioides difficile colitis. J Investig Med. 2020;68:888–892.
135. Nace DA, Hanlon JT, Crnich CJ, et al. A multifaceted antimicrobial stewardship program for the treatment of uncomplicated cystitis in nursing home residents. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:944–951.
136. Kelly AA, Jones MM, Echevarria KL, et al. A report of the efforts of the Veterans Health Administration National Antimicrobial Stewardship Initiative. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38:513–520.
137. Morgan F, Belal M, Lisa B, Ford F, LeMaitre B, Psevdos G. Antimicrobial stewardship program achieved marked decrease in Clostridium difficile infections in a Veterans Hospital. Am J Infect Control. 2020;48:1119–1121.
138. de Bruyn G, Gordon DL, Steiner T, et al. Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of a Clostridioides difficile toxoid vaccine candidate: a phase 3 multicentre, observer-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21:252–262.
139. Di X, Bai N, Zhang X, et al. A meta-analysis of metronidazole and vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection, stratified by disease severity. Braz J Infect Dis. 2015;19:339–349.
140. Al Momani LA, Abughanimeh O, Boonpheng B, Gabriel JG, Young M. Fidaxomicin vs vancomycin for the treatment of a first episode of Clostridium difficile infection: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Cureus. 2018;10:e2778.
141. Zhanel GG, Walkty AJ, Karlowsky JA. Fidaxomicin: a novel agent for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2015;26:305–312.
142. Crowther GS, Chilton CH, Longshaw C, et al. Efficacy of vancomycin extended-dosing regimens for treatment of simulated Clostridium difficile infection within an in vitro human gut model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71:986–991.
143. Al-Nassir WN, Sethi AK, Nerandzic MM, Bobulsky GS, Jump RL, Donskey CJ. Comparison of clinical and microbiological response to treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated disease with metronidazole and vancomycin. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47:56–62.
144. Nelson RL, Kelsey P, Leeman H, et al. Antibiotic treatment for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 20119CD004610.
145. Pepin J, Alary ME, Valiquette L, et al. Increasing risk of relapse after treatment of Clostridium difficile colitis in Quebec, Canada. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:1591–1597.
146. Musher DM, Aslam S, Logan N, et al. Relatively poor outcome after treatment of Clostridium difficile colitis with metronidazole. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:1586–1590.
147. Barkin JA, Sussman DA, Fifadara N, Barkin JS. Clostridium difficile infection and patient-specific antimicrobial resistance testing reveals a high metronidazole resistance rate. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62:1035–1042.
148. Stevens VW, Nelson RE, Schwab-Daugherty EM, 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;177:546–553.
149. Wu MA, Leidi F; Gruppo di Autoformazione Metodologica (GrAM). Vancomycin vs metronidazole for Clostridium difficile infection: focus on recurrence and mortality. Intern Emerg Med. 2017;12:871–872.
150. Nelson RL, Suda KJ, Evans CT. Antibiotic treatment for Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3:CD004610.
151. Saha S, Kapoor S, Tariq R, et al. Increasing antibiotic resistance in Clostridioides difficile: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaerobe. 2019;58:35–46.
152. Akamine CM, Ing MB, Jackson CS, Loo LK. The efficacy of intracolonic vancomycin for severe Clostridium difficile colitis: a case series. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:316.
153. Malamood M, Nellis E, Ehrlich AC, Friedenberg FK. Vancomycin enemas as adjunctive therapy for Clostridium difficile infection. J Clin Med Res. 2015;7:422–427.
154. Fawley J, Napolitano LM. Vancomycin enema in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2019;20:311–316.
155. Box MJ, Ortwine KN, Goicoechea M; Scripps Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (SASP). No impact of probiotics to reduce Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalized patients: a real-world experience. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018;5:ofy192.
156. Morrisette T, Van Matre AG, Miller MA, et al. Oral vancomycin prophylaxis as secondary prevention against Clostridioides difficile infection in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and hematologic malignancy population. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019;25:2091–2097.
157. Bajrovic V, Budev M, McCurry KR, Brizendine KD. Vancomycin prophylaxis for Clostridium difficile infection among lung transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38:874–876.
158. Johnson SW, Brown SV, Priest DH. Effectiveness of oral vancomycin for prevention of healthcare facility-onset Clostridioides difficile infection in targeted patients during systemic antibiotic exposure. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71:1133–1139.
159. Babar S, El Kurdi B, El Iskandarani M, et al. Oral vancomycin prophylaxis for the prevention of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020;41:1302–1309.
160. Cai J, Zhao C, Du Y, Zhang Y, Zhao M, Zhao Q. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of probiotics for antibiotic-associated diarrhea: systematic review with network meta-analysis. United European Gastroenterol J. 2018;6:169–180.
161. Evans CT, Johnson S. Prevention of Clostridium difficile infection with probiotics. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60 Suppl 2:S122–S128.
162. Ehrhardt S, Guo N, Hinz R, et al. Saccharomyces boulardii to prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016;3:ofw011.
163. Kmietowicz Z. Probiotics do not prevent diarrhoea caused by antibiotics in older people, study finds. BMJ. 2013;347:f4994.
164. Allen SJ, Wareham K, Wang D, et al. A high-dose preparation of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria in the prevention of antibiotic-associated and Clostridium difficile diarrhoea in older people admitted to hospital: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel arm trial (PLACIDE). Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:1–140.
165. Pillai A, Nelson R. Probiotics for treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated colitis in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 20081CD004611.
166. Johnston BC, Ma SS, Goldenberg JZ, et al. Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:878–888.
167. Lau CS, Chamberlain RS. Probiotics are effective at preventing Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gen Med. 2016;9:27–37.
168. Braga VL, Rocha LPDS, Bernardo DD, Cruz CO, Riera R. What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about probiotics as preventive interventions? Sao Paulo Med J. 2017;135:578–586.
169. Auclair J, Frappier M, Millette M. Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, Lactobacillus casei LBC80R, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus CLR2 (Bio-K+): characterization, manufacture, mechanisms of action, and quality control of a specific probiotic combination for primary prevention of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60 Suppl 2:S135–S143.
170. Johnson S, Maziade PJ, McFarland LV, et al. Is primary prevention of Clostridium difficile infection possible with specific probiotics? Int J Infect Dis. 2012;16:e786–e792.
171. Jaber MR, Olafsson S, Fung WL, Reeves ME. Clinical review of the management of fulminant Clostridium difficile infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:3195–3204.
172. Synnott K, Mealy K, Merry C, Kyne L, Keane C, Quill R. Timing of surgery for fulminating pseudomembranous colitis. Br J Surg. 1998;85:229–231.
173. Osman KA, Ahmed MH, Hamad MA, Mathur D. Emergency colectomy for fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis: striking the right balance. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:1222–1227.
174. Abou Khalil M, Bhatnagar SR, Feldman L, et al. Development and validation of a clinical risk calculator for mortality after colectomy for fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;87:856–864.
175. Hall BR, Armijo PR, Leinicke JA, Langenfeld SJ, Oleynikov D. Prolonged non-operative management of Clostridium difficile colitis is associated with increased mortality, complications, and cost. Am J Surg. 2019;217:1042–1046.
176. Solanky D, Pardi DS, Loftus EV, Khanna S. Colon surgery risk with corticosteroids versus immunomodulators or biologics in inflammatory bowel disease patients with Clostridium difficile infection. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2019;25:610–619.
177. Chen Y, Furuya-Kanamori L, Doi SA, Ananthakrishnan AN, Kirk M. Clostridium difficile infection and risk of colectomy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a bias-adjusted meta-analysis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23:200–207.
178. Perera AD, Akbari RP, Cowher MS, et al. Colectomy for fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis: predictors of mortality. Am Surg. 2010;76:418–421.
179. Trudel JL, Deschênes M, Mayrand S, Barkun AN. Toxic megacolon complicating pseudomembranous enterocolitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:1033–1038.
180. Longo WE, Mazuski JE, Virgo KS, Lee P, Bahadursingh AN, Johnson FE. Outcome after colectomy for Clostridium difficile colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:1620–1626.
181. Morris LL, Villalba MR, Glover JL. Management of pseudomembranous colitis. Am Surg. 1994;60:548–551.
182. Koss K, Clark MA, Sanders DS, Morton D, Keighley MR, Goh J. The outcome of surgery in fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:149–154.
183. Peprah D, Chiu AS, Jean RA, Pei KY. Comparison of outcomes between total abdominal and partial colectomy for the management of severe, complicated Clostridium difficile infection. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;228:925–930.
184. Seder CW, Villalba MR Jr, Robbins J, et al. Early colectomy may be associated with improved survival in fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis: an 8-year experience. Am J Surg. 2009;197:302–307.
185. Lamontagne F, Labbé AC, Haeck O, et al. Impact of emergency colectomy on survival of patients with fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis during an epidemic caused by a hypervirulent strain. Ann Surg. 2007;245:267–272.
186. Dallal RM, Harbrecht BG, Boujoukas AJ, et al. Fulminant Clostridium difficile: an underappreciated and increasing cause of death and complications. Ann Surg. 2002;235:363–372.
187. Miller AT, Tabrizian P, Greenstein AJ, Dikman A, Byrn J, Divino C. Long-term follow-up of patients with fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:956–959.
188. Ali SO, Welch JP, Dring RJ. Early surgical intervention for fulminant pseudomembranous colitis. Am Surg. 2008;74:20–26.
189. Markelov A, Livert D, Kohli H. Predictors of fatal outcome after colectomy for fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis: a 10-year experience. Am Surg. 2011;77:977–980.
190. Stewart DB, Hollenbeak CS, Wilson MZ. Is colectomy for fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis life saving? A systematic review. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:798–804.
191. Lee DY, Chung EL, Guend H, Whelan RL, Wedderburn RV, Rose KM. Predictors of mortality after emergency colectomy for Clostridium difficile colitis: an analysis of ACS-NSQIP. Ann Surg. 2014;259:148–156.
192. Sailhamer EA, Carson K, Chang Y, et al. Fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis: patterns of care and predictors of mortality. Arch Surg. 2009;144:433–439.
193. Byrn JC, Maun DC, Gingold DS, Baril DT, Ozao JJ, Divino CM. Predictors of mortality after colectomy for fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis. Arch Surg. 2008;143:150–4155.
194. Kulaylat AS, Kassam Z, Hollenbeak CS, Stewart DB Sr. A surgical Clostridium-associated risk of death score predicts mortality after colectomy for Clostridium difficile. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60:1285–1290.
195. Ferrada P, Callcut R, Zielinski MD, et al.; EAST Multi-Institutional Trials Committee. Loop ileostomy versus total colectomy as surgical treatment for Clostridium difficile-associated disease: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;83:36–40.
196. Fashandi AZ, Martin AN, Wang PT, et al. An institutional comparison of total abdominal colectomy and diverting loop ileostomy and colonic lavage in the treatment of severe, complicated Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Surg. 2017;213:507–511.
197. Hall BR, Leinicke JA, Armijo PR, Smith LM, Langenfeld SJ, Oleynikov D. No survival advantage exists for patients undergoing loop ileostomy for clostridium difficile colitis. Am J Surg. 2019;217:34–39.
198. Juo YY, Sanaiha Y, Jabaji Z, Benharash P. Trends in diverting loop ileostomy vs total abdominal colectomy as surgical management for Clostridium difficile colitis. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:899–906.
199. Trejo-Avila M, Vergara-Fernandez O, Solórzano-Vicuña D, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of diverting loop ileostomy versus total abdominal colectomy for the treatment of Clostridium difficile colitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2020;405:715–723.
200. Larrainzar-Coghen T, Rodriguez-Pardo D, Puig-Asensio M, et al. First recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection: clinical relevance, risk factors, and prognosis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;35:371–378.
201. Collins CE, Ayturk MD, Anderson FA Jr, Santry HP. Predictors and outcomes of readmission for Clostridium difficile in a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:88–99.
202. Huang AM, Marini BL, Frame D, Aronoff DM, Nagel JL. Risk factors for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Transpl Infect Dis. 2014;16:744–750.
203. Deshpande A, Pasupuleti V, Thota P, et al. Risk factors for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36:452–460.
204. Murphy MM, Patatanian E, Gales MA. Extended duration vancomycin in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2018;5:111–119.
205. Sirbu BD, Soriano MM, Manzo C, Lum J, Gerding DN, Johnson S. Vancomycin taper and pulse regimen with careful follow-up for patients with recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65:1396–1399.
206. Rubio-Terrés C, Aguado JM, Almirante B, et al. Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in patients 60 years and older with Clostridium difficile infection: cost-effectiveness analysis in Spain. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;38:1105–1111.
207. Rubio-Terrés C, Cobo Reinoso J, Grau Cerrato S, et al. Economic assessment of fidaxomicin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in special populations (patients with cancer, concomitant antibiotic treatment or renal impairment) in Spain. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015;34:2213–2223.
208. Wilcox MH, Gerding DN, Poxton IR, et al.; MODIFY I and MODIFY II Investigators. Bezlotoxumab for prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:305–317.
209. Alhifany AA, Almutairi AR, Almangour TA, et al. Comparing the efficacy and safety of faecal microbiota transplantation with bezlotoxumab in reducing the risk of recurrent Clostridium difficile infections: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e031145.
210. Alonso CD, Mahoney MV. Bezlotoxumab for the prevention of Clostridium difficile infection: a review of current evidence and safety profile. Infect Drug Resist. 2019;12:1–9.
211. Navalkele BD, Chopra T. Bezlotoxumab: an emerging monoclonal antibody therapy for prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Biologics. 2018;12:11–21.
212. Basu A, Prabhu VS, Dorr MB, et al. bezlotoxumab is associated with a reduction in cumulative inpatient-days: analysis of the hospitalization data from the MODIFY I and II clinical trials. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018;5:ofy218.
213. Cammarota G, Ianiro G, Tilg H, et al.; European FMT Working Group. European consensus conference on faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice. Gut. 2017;66:569–580.
214. Chin SM, Sauk J, Mahabamunuge J, Kaplan JL, Hohmann EL, Khalili H. Fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a single-center experience. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15:597–599.
215. Fischer M, Sipe B, Cheng YW, et al. Fecal microbiota transplant in severe and severe-complicated Clostridium difficile: a promising treatment approach. Gut Microbes. 2017;8:289–302.
216. Hagel S, Fischer A, Ehlermann P, et al.; German Clinical Microbiome Study Group (GCMSG). Fecal microbiota transplant in patients with recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016;113:583–589.
217. Rokkas T, Gisbert JP, Gasbarrini A, et al. A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials exploring the role of fecal microbiota transplantation in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. United European Gastroenterol J. 2019;7:1051–1063.
218. Stalder T, Kapel N, Diaz S, et al. A systematic review of economic evaluation in fecal microbiota transplantation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020;41:458–466.
219. Kelly CR, Khoruts A, Staley C, et al. Effect of fecal microbiota transplantation on recurrence in multiply recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:609–616.
220. Satokari R, Mattila E, Kainulainen V, Arkkila PE. Simple faecal preparation and efficacy of frozen inoculum in faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection–an observational cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;41:46–53.
221. Dubberke ER, Lee CH, Orenstein R, Khanna S, Hecht G, Gerding DN. Results from a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of a RBX2660-a microbiota-based drug for the prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:1198–1204.
222. McGovern BH, Ford CB, Henn MR, et al. SER-109, an investigational microbiome drug to reduce recurrence after Clostridioides difficile infection: lessons learned from a phase 2 trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;ciaa387. Published online April 7, 2020. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa387.
223. Bafeta A, Yavchitz A, Riveros C, Batista R, Ravaud P. Methods and reporting studies assessing fecal microbiota transplantation: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:34–39.
224. Kao D, Roach B, Silva M, et al. Effect of oral capsule- vs colonoscopy-delivered fecal microbiota transplantation on recurrent clostridium difficile infection: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:1985–1993.
225. Baro E, Galperine T, Denies F, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of five competing strategies for the management of multiple recurrent community-onset clostridium difficile infection in France. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0170258.
226. Hota SS, Sales V, Tomlinson G, et al. Oral vancomycin followed by fecal transplantation versus tapering oral vancomycin treatment for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: an open-label, randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64:265–271.
227. Jeon YD, Hong N, Kim JH, et al. Fecal transplantation using a nasoenteric tube during an initial episode of severe Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Chemother. 2016;48:31–35.
228. Zainah H, Hassan M, Shiekh-Sroujieh L, Hassan S, Alangaden G, Ramesh M. Intestinal microbiota transplantation, a simple and effective treatment for severe and refractory Clostridium difficile infection. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60:181–185.
229. Cammarota G, Ianiro G, Gasbarrini A. Fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48:693–702.
230. van Nood E, Vrieze A, Nieuwdorp M, et al. Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:407–415.
231. Patel LN, Schairer J, Shen B. Fecal transplantation therapy for Clostridium difficile-associated pouchitis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29:263–264.
232. Bibbò S, Ianiro G, Gasbarrini A, Cammarota G. Fecal microbiota transplantation: past, present and future perspectives. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol. 2017;63:420–430.
233. Camacho-Ortiz A, Gutiérrez-Delgado EM, Garcia-Mazcorro JF, et al. Randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of fecal microbiota transplant for initial Clostridium difficile infection in intestinal microbiome. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0189768.
234. Juul FE, Garborg K, Bretthauer M, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation for primary Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2535–2536.
235. van Beurden YH, Nieuwdorp M, van de Berg PJEJ, Mulder CJJ, Goorhuis A. Current challenges in the treatment of severe Clostridium difficile infection: early treatment potential of fecal microbiota transplantation. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2017;10:373–381.
236. Dai M, Liu Y, Chen W, et al. Rescue fecal microbiota transplantation for antibiotic-associated diarrhea in critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2019;23:324.
237. US Food and Drug Administration. Enforcement policy regarding investigational new drug requirements for use of fecal microbiota for transplantation to treat Clostridium difficile infection not responsive to standard therapies. March 2016. Accessed January 10, 2021.
238. DeFilipp Z, Bloom PP, Torres Soto M, et al. Drug-resistant E. coli bacteremia transmitted by fecal microbiota transplant. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2043–2050.
239. Mattila E, Arkkila P, Mattila PS, Tarkka E, Tissari P, Anttila VJ. Rifaximin in the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;37:122–128.
240. Venuto C, Butler M, Ashley ED, Brown J. Alternative therapies for Clostridium difficile infections. Pharmacotherapy. 2010;30:1266–1278.
241. Johnson S, Gerding DN. Introduction to the special issue on Clostridium difficile. Anaerobe. 2009;15:225–226.
242. McFarland LV. Therapies on the horizon for Clostridium difficile infections. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2016;25:541–555.
243. Di Bella S, Nisii C, Petrosillo N. Is tigecycline a suitable option for Clostridium difficile infection? Evidence from the literature. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;46:8–12.
244. Musgrave CR, Bookstaver PB, Sutton SS, Miller AD. Use of alternative or adjuvant pharmacologic treatment strategies in the prevention and treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. Int J Infect Dis. 2011;15:e438–e448.
245. Mogg GA, George RH, Youngs D, et al. Randomized controlled trial of colestipol in antibiotic-associated colitis. Br J Surg. 1982;69:137–139.
246. Lan N, Ashburn J, Shen B. Fecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridium difficile infection in patients with ileal pouches. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2017;5:200–207.
247. Johnson S, Louie TJ, Gerding DN, et al.; Polymer Alternative for CDI Treatment (PACT) investigators. Vancomycin, metronidazole, or tolevamer for Clostridium difficile infection: results from two multinational, randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59:345–354.
248. McFarland LV, Surawicz CM, Greenberg RN, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of Saccharomyces boulardii in combination with standard antibiotics for Clostridium difficile disease. JAMA. 1994;271:1913–1918.
© The ASCRS 2021