New Study Explores Oral Vancomycin to Prevent C difficile Recurrence, But Questions Remain

News
Article

A new clinical trial explores the use of low-dose oral vancomycin to prevent Clostridioides difficile recurrence in high-risk patients taking antibiotics. While the data suggest a possible benefit, the findings stop short of statistical significance and raise red flags about vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), underscoring the delicate balance between prevention and antimicrobial stewardship.

Realistic electron microscopy of Clostridioides difficile, highly detailed rod-shaped structure, spores with textured surfaces, flagella, acid-green and purple hues, contrasting black background.  (Adobe Stock 1318793046 by Waseem by AI)

Realistic electron microscopy of Clostridioides difficile, highly detailed rod-shaped structure, spores with textured surfaces, flagella, acid-green and purple hues, contrasting black background.

(Adobe Stock 1318793046 by Waseem by AI)

A new randomized clinical trial published this month in JAMA Network Open sheds light on the use of oral vancomycin to prevent recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in patients taking antibiotics for reasons unrelated to CDI. While the findings suggest a trend toward reduced recurrence, the study was ultimately underpowered, leaving important questions about the effectiveness and risks of this approach.

CDI remains the most common cause of health care-associated diarrhea, and recurrence is a significant concern. More than one-third of patients experience at least 1 repeat episode after an initial infection, with risk increasing further with each recurrence. Antibiotic exposure, even for conditions unrelated to CDI, is a primary trigger, disrupting the gut microbiome and allowing C difficile to flourish again. This creates an urgent need for effective strategies to prevent recurrence, especially when patients must take antibiotics for other infections.

This new trial sought to test whether a daily low dose of oral vancomycin could prevent recurrent CDI in such high-risk patients. Conducted across 4 major health systems in the Midwest from 2018 to 2023, the study enrolled adults who had recovered from CDI within the previous 6 months and were beginning a short course of antibiotics for another condition. Participants were randomized to receive either 125 mg of oral vancomycin or a placebo once daily throughout their antibiotic course and for five days afterward.

“In this randomized clinical trial, the incidence of recurrent CDI was lower (though did not reach significance) in participants taking oral vancomycin compared with those taking placebo,” the authors wrote. “Because the study was underpowered, it was unable to reveal firm conclusions about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of vancomycin prophylaxis with respect to recurrent CDI.”

Ultimately, 81 participants were randomized: 39 to vancomycin and 42 to placebo. They were closely monitored for eight weeks after completing treatment. The study found that 43.6% of patients in the vancomycin group experienced a recurrence, compared to 57.1% in the placebo group. Although this suggested a possible protective effect, the difference was not statistically significant, highlighting the challenges of drawing firm conclusions from a study with fewer participants than initially planned.

Beyond recurrence rates, the researchers also examined the impact on vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), a concerning consequence of antibiotic use. By the end of the follow-up period, 50% of patients taking vancomycin showed VRE colonization, compared to only 24% in the placebo group 8 weeks after treatment. This points to a potential downside of using oral vancomycin prophylactically, as it may contribute to the spread of antibiotic-resistant organisms.

Additionally, the authors wrote, “Adverse events occurred in 27 of 39 participants in the oral vancomycin group (69.2%) and 27 of 42 in the placebo group (64.3%).”

These findings add to a complex and sometimes conflicting body of evidence. Previous retrospective studies and smaller trials have suggested that oral vancomycin may help reduce the likelihood of CDI recurrence when patients take additional antibiotics. However, data have been limited, with varying dosages, study designs, and patient populations. Some studies also noted that while vancomycin might temporarily suppress C difficile, many patients began shedding the organism again within weeks of stopping treatment, raising concerns about the durability of any protective effect.

Guidelines reflect this uncertainty. While the American College of Gastroenterology has offered a conditional recommendation for oral vancomycin prophylaxis in patients at high risk for recurrence, it acknowledges the low quality of available evidence. Other leading groups, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America and European infectious disease societies, have either not endorsed routine prophylaxis or have suggested it only for carefully selected patients.

This latest trial followed a rigorous double-blind, placebo-controlled design, making it one of the more robust efforts to explore this question. Yet enrollment challenges, including patients already taking vancomycin outside the study and disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic, limited its statistical power. As a result, while trends favored fewer recurrences in the vancomycin group, the study could not definitively establish that the intervention worked better than placebo.

Importantly, the increased detection of VRE in patients taking oral vancomycin underscores the trade-offs involved. While preventing CDI is critical, fostering resistant organisms carries its own serious risks for both individual patients and broader public health.

In the end, this study highlights the urgent need for more research into effective ways to prevent recurrent CDI, especially during subsequent antibiotic exposures. It also serves as a caution that interventions like oral vancomycin prophylaxis should be carefully weighed against their potential to drive antibiotic resistance.

For now, clinicians and patients must continue to navigate these complex decisions using the best available evidence, individualized risk assessments, and an understanding of both the benefits and downsides of prophylactic strategies. As the search continues for reliable methods to prevent recurrent CDI, studies like this provide essential insights to guide clinical practice and future investigations.

Newsletter

Stay prepared and protected with Infection Control Today's newsletter, delivering essential updates, best practices, and expert insights for infection preventionists.

Recent Videos
DJ Shannon, MPH, CIC, VA-BC, FAPIC
Jordan Bastian, MPH, CIC, at APIC25
Jordan Bastian, MPH, CIC, at APIC25
Rebecca Battjes, MPH, CIC, FAPIC; Vidya Nankoosingh, MLT, CIC; and Peter Teska, MBA
Mark Wiencek, PhD
Rebecca Crapanzano-Sigafoos, DrPH, CIC, AL-CIP, FAPIC
The CDC’s updated hospital respiratory reporting requirement has added new layers of responsibility for infection preventionists. Karen Jones, MPH, RN, CIC, FAPIC, clinical program manager at Wolters Kluwer, breaks down what it means and how IPs can adapt.
Studying for the CIC using a digital tablet and computer (Adobe Stock 335828989 by NIKCOA)
Infection Control Today's Conversations with the HSPA President, Arlene Bush, CRCST, CER, CIS, SME, DSMD, CRMST
Infection Control Today's Conversations with the HSPA President, Arlene Bush, CRCST, CER, CIS, SME, DSMD, CRMST
Related Content