Skip to main content
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Research and News from ASM Journals
    • mSphere of Influence: Commentaries from Early Career Microbiologists
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mSphere
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mSphere
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Research and News from ASM Journals
    • mSphere of Influence: Commentaries from Early Career Microbiologists
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mSphere
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Commentary | Therapeutics and Prevention

Uncovering the Harms of Treating Clostridioides difficile Colonization

Christopher R. Polage, Nicholas A. Turner
Christopher R. Polage
aDuke University Health System, Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Durham, North Carolina, USA
bDuke University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Christopher R. Polage
Nicholas A. Turner
cDuke University School of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.01296-20
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Patients with toxin-negative Clostridioides difficile-positive diarrhea are often treated with oral vancomycin with the assumption that treatment is more beneficial than harmful. However, this hypothesis has never been formally tested, and recent studies suggest that most such patients recover quickly without treatment and can be colonized rather than infected. Fishbein et al. conducted a prospective, placebo-controlled randomized trial to systematically evaluate the effects, risks, and benefits of oral vancomycin in these patients (S. R. S. Fishbein, T. Hink, K. A. Reske, C. Cass, et al., mSphere 6:e00936-20, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00936-20). Although small, the results are intriguing and suggest the adverse antibiotic-induced effects of vancomycin outweigh the clinical benefit when colonization is more likely than disease.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or of ASM.

COMMENTARY

Ten years ago, Clostridioides difficile was assumed to always be pathogenic in patients with diarrhea; treatment with anti-C. difficile antibiotics was recommended whenever C. difficile was detected, with the belief that antibiotics were needed and not harmful (1). This dogma was questioned by studies showing that fecal toxin status had clinical prognostic significance, and patients usually recovered with minimal or no antibiotic treatment when free fecal toxins were not detected (2, 3). Updated clinical guidelines acknowledged the possibility that some patients with C. difficile-associated diarrhea were colonized rather than infected and made treatment optional when fecal toxins were not detected (4, 5). However, many providers continue to prescribe antibiotics routinely for patients with toxin-negative C. difficile-associated diarrhea for a variety of reasons (e.g., toxin test not performed or the belief that antibiotic treatment is more beneficial than harmful overall).

On this backdrop, Fishbein et al. conducted a blinded, randomized controlled trial of vancomycin versus placebo to better define the benefits and risks of antibiotic treatment in patients with fecal toxin-negative C. difficile-positive diarrhea (6). Although small, the study is remarkable for its robust design and comprehensive assessment of treatment implications in a population where the need for treatment is often unclear and the harms of treatment are unseen (6). Beyond clinical outcomes, the authors analyzed the effects of treatment on gut microbiome diversity as well as presence, shedding, and environmental contamination with C. difficile and other antibiotic-resistant organisms (AROs).

Performing these additional analyses was wise, because antibiotic-induced dysbiosis plays a central role in the colonization, pathogenesis, and transmission of C. difficile and other gut-colonizing AROs in health care facilities (7, 8). Antibiotic-induced reductions in commensal bacteria and gut metabolome alterations facilitate C. difficile germination, growth, toxin production, and disease (9). Other antibiotic-induced gut microbiota and immune changes facilitate vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) colonization, overgrowth, and infection (10). Moreover, efforts to protect the gut microbiota (through antibiotic stewardship practices) or restore commensal diversity (through fecal microbiota transplantation) are emerging strategies to prevent C. difficile and ARO colonization, infection, and transmission.

There are several interesting and important takeaways from this study. First, although the study was not intended or powered to prove the safety of withholding antibiotics from patients with fecal toxin-negative C. difficile-positive diarrhea, it is worth noting that treating these patients with vancomycin was not associated with an obvious clinical benefit. Only a single patient from the placebo group transitioned to toxin-positive status during the study period, and there was no gross difference in the duration of diarrhea between groups.

Second, oral vancomycin can have strongly damaging effects on the microbiome. While fluoroquinolones, advanced-generation cephalosporins, and lincosamides receive the most attention, nearly any antibiotic can injure or alter the microbiome. Prior high-throughput sequencing efforts have shown dramatic reductions in gut microbial diversity following the receipt of oral vancomycin, sometimes lasting months (11–13). Vancomycin administration was also associated with significant changes in the gut microbiota community structure in this study, reminding us that vancomycin is not benign. Future studies should compare the effects of different doses of vancomycin to help us understand if prophylaxis doses have a similar or lesser effect on the gut microbiome.

Third, treatment with oral vancomycin fails to reduce C. difficile colonization or shedding relative to placebo overall. This finding aligns with our current understanding of C. difficile colonization; while antibiotics used to treat C. difficile are generally active against vegetative cells and can inhibit germination of spores, none are capable of destroying spores (14). Between the inability to eliminate C. difficile spores and collateral damage to the microbiome during treatment, vancomycin may actually leave recipients at increased risk of C. difficile colonization after treatment (15). Fishbein et al.’s observation of ongoing C. difficile shedding regardless of vancomycin treatment validates these concerns.

Fourth, vancomycin may increase the risk of colonization and/or subsequent infection with other AROs. Although underpowered to detect a difference in VRE colonization, Fishbein et al. found an increase in E. faecium abundance in patients randomized to vancomycin treatment for C. difficile. The validity of this observation is supported by prior data, including a meta-analysis linking vancomycin receipt with a dramatically increased risk for VRE colonization (16).

Collectively, vancomycin is at best a double-edged sword. Although entirely appropriate for the treatment of true C. difficile colitis, the risk-benefit balance seems much less favorable for colonized and toxin-negative patients with nonsevere diarrhea, as in this study. Although some clinicians have advocated vancomycin for the prophylactic treatment of C. difficile in colonized individuals receiving additional antibiotics, this study by Fishbein et al. highlights the need for caution. Despite intuitive appeal, the prophylactic use of vancomycin has had mixed results with respect to clinical outcomes in the few existing retrospective studies to date (17–19). Besides having limited clinical benefit, Fishbein et al. remind us of the harms of vancomycin treatment, including damage to the microbiome, potential for promoting prolonged C. difficile shedding, and the potential for increasing the risk of colonization with other AROs. In short, antibiotic treatment does not appear to be the answer for C. difficile-colonized patients and should probably be used more judiciously in toxin-negative patients with diarrhea when there is no evidence of severe or fulminant disease. The most recent guidance from the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) recommends the use of multistep testing with a toxin assay and clinical evaluation of toxin-negative patients before treatment (4). The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommends testing and treatment only for patients with clinically significant diarrhea and includes the option of multistep testing with a toxin assay to help inform treatment decisions (5).

More research is needed to expand our understanding of how various clinical antibiotics affect the microbiome and resistance or susceptibility to colonization by C. difficile and other AROs. Perhaps injury to the microbiome might even be incorporated among the adverse effects assessed during drug development. Better yet, given the emerging success of microbial reconstitution strategies in managing recurrent C. difficile, efforts to protect microbiome integrity and diversity seem to have significant potential for preventing colonized patients from progressing to disease (20). Novel strategies such as microbial reconstitution therapy to replenish damaged gut microbiota or nonabsorbable beta-lactamases to reduce injury to gut microbiota in the first instance may hold promise for the future (21). At least with respect to C. difficile, perhaps it is time to shift the focus from always treating the pathogen to promoting and restoring host resistance to infection.

FOOTNOTES

  • For the article discussed, see https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00936-20.

  • Copyright © 2021 Polage and Turner.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Cohen SH,
    2. Gerding DN,
    3. Johnson S,
    4. Kelly CP,
    5. Loo VG,
    6. McDonald LC,
    7. Pepin J,
    8. Wilcox MH, Infectious Diseases Society of America
    . 2010. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 31:431–455. doi:10.1086/651706.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Planche TD,
    2. Davies KA,
    3. Coen PG,
    4. Finney JM,
    5. Monahan IM,
    6. Morris KA,
    7. O'Connor L,
    8. Oakley SJ,
    9. Pope CF,
    10. Wren MW,
    11. Shetty NP,
    12. Crook DW,
    13. Wilcox MH
    . 2013. Differences in outcome according to Clostridium difficile testing method: a prospective multicentre diagnostic validation study of C. difficile infection. Lancet Infect Dis 13:936–945. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70200-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Polage CR,
    2. Gyorke CE,
    3. Kennedy MA,
    4. Leslie JL,
    5. Chin DL,
    6. Wang S,
    7. Nguyen HH,
    8. Huang B,
    9. Tang YW,
    10. Lee LW,
    11. Kim K,
    12. Taylor S,
    13. Romano PS,
    14. Panacek EA,
    15. Goodell PB,
    16. Solnick JV,
    17. Cohen SH
    . 2015. Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection in the molecular test era. JAMA Intern Med 175:1792–1801. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Crobach MJ,
    2. Planche T,
    3. Eckert C,
    4. Barbut F,
    5. Terveer EM,
    6. Dekkers OM,
    7. Wilcox MH,
    8. Kuijper EJ
    . 2016. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 22(Suppl 4):S63–S81. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2016.03.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. McDonald LC,
    2. Gerding DN,
    3. Johnson S,
    4. Bakken JS,
    5. Carroll KC,
    6. Coffin SE,
    7. Dubberke ER,
    8. Garey KW,
    9. Gould CV,
    10. Kelly C,
    11. Loo V,
    12. Shaklee Sammons J,
    13. Sandora TJ,
    14. Wilcox MH
    . 2018. 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 66:e1–e48. doi:10.1093/cid/cix1085.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Fishbein SRS,
    2. Hink T,
    3. Reske KA,
    4. Cass C,
    5. Struttmann E,
    6. Iqbal ZH,
    7. Seiler S,
    8. Kwon JH,
    9. Burnham CA,
    10. Dantas G,
    11. Dubberke ER
    . 2020. Randomized controlled trial of oral vancomycin treatment in Clostridium difficile-colonized patients. mSphere 6:e00936-20. doi:10.1128/mSphere.00936-20.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Freeman J,
    2. Wilcox MH
    . 1999. Antibiotics and Clostridium difficile. Microbes Infect 1:377–384. doi:10.1016/s1286-4579(99)80054-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Slimings C,
    2. Riley TV
    . 2014. Antibiotics and hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection: update of systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 69:881–891. doi:10.1093/jac/dkt477.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Abt MC,
    2. McKenney PT,
    3. Pamer EG
    . 2016. Clostridium difficile colitis: pathogenesis and host defence. Nat Rev Microbiol 14:609–620. doi:10.1038/nrmicro.2016.108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Brandl K,
    2. Plitas G,
    3. Mihu CN,
    4. Ubeda C,
    5. Jia T,
    6. Fleisher M,
    7. Schnabl B,
    8. DeMatteo RP,
    9. Pamer EG
    . 2008. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci exploit antibiotic-induced innate immune deficits. Nature 455:804–807. doi:10.1038/nature07250.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Isaac S,
    2. Scher JU,
    3. Djukovic A,
    4. Jiménez N,
    5. Littman DR,
    6. Abramson SB,
    7. Pamer EG,
    8. Ubeda C
    . 2017. Short- and long-term effects of oral vancomycin on the human intestinal microbiota. J Antimicrob Chemother 72:128–136. doi:10.1093/jac/dkw383.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Vrieze A,
    2. Out C,
    3. Fuentes S,
    4. Jonker L,
    5. Reuling I,
    6. Kootte RS,
    7. van Nood E,
    8. Holleman F,
    9. Knaapen M,
    10. Romijn JA,
    11. Soeters MR,
    12. Blaak EE,
    13. Dallinga-Thie GM,
    14. Reijnders D,
    15. Ackermans MT,
    16. Serlie MJ,
    17. Knop FK,
    18. Holst JJ,
    19. van der Ley C,
    20. Kema IP,
    21. Zoetendal EG,
    22. de Vos WM,
    23. Hoekstra JB,
    24. Stroes ES,
    25. Groen AK,
    26. Nieuwdorp M
    . 2014. Impact of oral vancomycin on gut microbiota, bile acid metabolism, and insulin sensitivity. J Hepatol 60:824–831. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2013.11.034.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Haak BW,
    2. Lankelma JM,
    3. Hugenholtz F,
    4. Belzer C,
    5. de Vos WM,
    6. Wiersinga WJ
    . 2019. Long-term impact of oral vancomycin, ciprofloxacin and metronidazole on the gut microbiota in healthy humans. J Antimicrob Chemother 74:782–786. doi:10.1093/jac/dky471.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Allen CA,
    2. Babakhani F,
    3. Sears P,
    4. Nguyen L,
    5. Sorg JA
    . 2013. Both fidaxomicin and vancomycin inhibit outgrowth of Clostridium difficile spores. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:664–667. doi:10.1128/AAC.01611-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Lewis BB,
    2. Buffie CG,
    3. Carter RA,
    4. Leiner I,
    5. Toussaint NC,
    6. Miller LC,
    7. Gobourne A,
    8. Ling L,
    9. Pamer EG
    . 2015. Loss of microbiota-mediated colonization resistance to Clostridium difficile infection with oral vancomycin compared with metronidazole. J Infect Dis 212:1656–1665. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiv256.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Flokas ME,
    2. Karageorgos SA,
    3. Detsis M,
    4. Alevizakos M,
    5. Mylonakis E
    . 2017. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci colonisation, risk factors and risk for infection among hospitalised paediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 49:565–572. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.01.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Van Hise NW,
    2. Bryant AM,
    3. Hennessey EK,
    4. Crannage AJ,
    5. Khoury JA,
    6. Manian FA
    . 2016. Efficacy of oral vancomycin in preventing recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in patients treated with systemic antimicrobial agents. Clin Infect Dis 63:651–653. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Caroff DA,
    2. Menchaca JT,
    3. Zhang Z,
    4. Rhee C,
    5. Calderwood MS,
    6. Kubiak DW,
    7. Yokoe DS,
    8. Klompas M
    . 2019. Oral vancomycin prophylaxis during systemic antibiotic exposure to prevent Clostridiodes difficile infection relapses. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 40:662–667. doi:10.1017/ice.2019.88.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    1. Carignan A,
    2. Poulin S,
    3. Martin P,
    4. Labbé A-C,
    5. Valiquette L,
    6. Al-Bachari H,
    7. Montpetit L-P,
    8. Pépin J
    . 2016. Efficacy of secondary prophylaxis with vancomycin for preventing recurrent Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Gastroenterol 111:1834–1840. doi:10.1038/ajg.2016.417.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kassam Z,
    2. Lee CH,
    3. Yuan Y,
    4. Hunt RH
    . 2013. Fecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 108:500–508. doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Kokai-Kun JF,
    2. Roberts T,
    3. Coughlin O,
    4. Le C,
    5. Whalen H,
    6. Stevenson R,
    7. Wacher VJ,
    8. Sliman J
    . 2019. Use of ribaxamase (SYN-004), a β-lactamase, to prevent Clostridium difficile infection in β-lactam-treated patients: a double-blind, phase 2b, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 19:487–496. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30731-X.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Uncovering the Harms of Treating Clostridioides difficile Colonization
Christopher R. Polage, Nicholas A. Turner
mSphere Jan 2021, 6 (1) e01296-20; DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.01296-20

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mSphere article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Uncovering the Harms of Treating Clostridioides difficile Colonization
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mSphere
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mSphere.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Uncovering the Harms of Treating Clostridioides difficile Colonization
Christopher R. Polage, Nicholas A. Turner
mSphere Jan 2021, 6 (1) e01296-20; DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.01296-20
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • COMMENTARY
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Clostridioides difficile
clinical trials
vancomycin

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mSphere
  • Board of Editors
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • Embargo Policy
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Types of Articles
  • Getting Started
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mSphereJ

@ASMicrobiology

       

 

Website feedback

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2379-5042