Antibiotics and hospital-associated Clostridioides difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis 2020 update
=======================================================================================================================

* Claudia Slimings
* Thomas V. Riley

## Abstract

**Background** *Clostridioides difficile* infection (CDI) is the most common cause of healthcare facility-associated (HCFA) infectious diarrhoea in high-income countries. Antibiotic use is the most important modifiable risk factor for CDI. The most recent systematic review covered studies published until 31st December 2012.

**Objectives** To update the evidence for epidemiological associations between specific antibiotic classes and HCFA-CDI for the period 1st January 2013 to 31st December 2020.

**Data sources** PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, WorldCat, and Proquest Dissertations and Theses.

**Study eligibility criteria, participants and exposures** Eligible studies were those conducted among adult hospital inpatients, measured exposure to individual antibiotics or antibiotic classes, included a comparison group, and measured the occurrence of HCFA-CDI as an outcome.

**Study appraisal and synthesis methods** The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for the Assessment of Quality was used to appraise study quality. To assess the association between each antibiotic class and HA-CDI, a pooled random effects meta-analysis was undertaken. Metaregression and sub-group analysis was used to investigate study characteristics identified *a priori* as potential sources of heterogeneity.

**Results** Carbapenems, and 3rd and 4th generation cephalosporin antibiotics remain most strongly associated with HCFA-CDI, with cases more than twice as likely to have recent exposure to these antibiotics prior to developing CDI. Modest associations were observed for fluoroquinolones clindamycin, and beta-lactamase inhibitor combination penicillin antibiotics.

**Limitations** Individual study effect sizes were variable and heterogeneity was observed for most antibiotic classes. Availability of a single reviewer to select, extract and critically appraise the studies.

**Conclusions** This review provides the most up to date synthesis of evidence in relation to the risk of HCFA-CDI associated with exposure to specific antibiotic classes. Studies were predominantly conducted in North America or Europe and more studies outside of these settings are needed.

**Registration number** Prospero CRD42020181817

## Introduction

*Clostridioides difficile* infection (CDI) is a leading cause of healthcare-associated infections and the most common cause of health care facility-associated (HCF) infectious diarrhoea in high-income countries. 1 *C. difficile* is a toxin-producing, anaerobic spore forming bacterium that is transmitted via the faecal-oral route. 2 Symptoms range from mild diarrhoea to life-threatening conditions such as pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon, and recurrence occurs among approximately 20% of cases following an initial episode. 2 CDI is associated with a protracted length of stay incurring substantial direct and indirect healthcare utilisation costs. 3–5 Incidence rates of healthcare facility-associated (HCFA) CDI are geographically and temporally variable but have generally increased in the past 20 years. 1, 6, 7 Explanations for the increasing occurrence include increased testing and more sensitive diagnostic tests, increased use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, inadequate prevention measures, ageing population and emergence of community strains. 7

Antibiotic use is the most important modifiable risk factor for CDI. Antibiotic exposure alters the natural flora of the intestines allowing *C. difficile* to proliferate. Other important risk factors include advanced age, increased number of comorbidities or severe underlying disease, and duration of healthcare exposure. 8, 9 A longer duration of hospitalisation is correlated with advanced age and severity of underlying illness, and increases the probability of *C. difficile* acquisition from the environment and exposure to antibiotics. Although almost all antibiotics have been have been associated with CDI, clindamycin, cephalosporins, carbapenems and fluoroquinolones are most frequently associated with infection. 10, 11

Antibiotic stewardship reduces unnecessary antibiotic use in hospitals 12 and is crucial to controlling CDI in HCFs alongside surveillance, isolation precautions, hand hygiene and environmental cleaning. 8, 13 Limiting antibiotic use effectively reduces the incidence of CDI in HCFs, 14 however, CDI remains a significant problem and has been named by the US Centers for Disease Control as an urgent threat to public health. 15

It is therefore important to monitor changes in risk for HCFA-CDI associated with changes in antibiotic usage and changing *C.difficile* epidemiology. The objective of this systematic review is to update the evidence for epidemiological associations between specific antibiotic classes and HCFA-CDI. This review updates earlier reviews that covered studies conducted up to 2012, 10, 11 to include studies undertaken between 2013 and 2020.

## Methods

The study has been conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. 16 The objectives, inclusion criteria and methods for analysis were specified in advance and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181817).

### Eligibility criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review if they were conducted among hospital inpatients, measured any exposure to individual antibiotics or antibiotic classes prior to development of the outcome, included a comparison group, and measured the occurrence of HA-CDI as an outcome. Study designs eligible for inclusion consisted of case-control studies, cohort studies, analytical cross-sectional studies and randomised controlled trials (if they reported the risk associated with the exposure).

Studies were excluded if they investigated risk factors for severe disease, relapse or recurrence, asymptomatic colonisation, or were specific studies of paediatric populations. Studies that did not report exposure to specific antibiotics or antibiotic classes were also excluded, as were studies examining community associated infection or did not adequately exclude CA. Case reports, case series, and descriptive cross-sectional studies (i.e. those without comparison groups) were excluded. The review was limited to English-language publications, however, non-English articles were included in searches and their abstracts and full texts were assessed for eligibility.

### Information sources and searching

PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection were searched on 21st April 2020 for studies published since 1st January 2013. WorldCat ([www.worldcat.org](http://www.worldcat.org)) and Proquest Dissertations and Theses (PQDT [www.proquest.com](http://www.proquest.com)) were used to search for dissertations and theses. Final follow up searches to 31st December 2020 were conducted on 11th February 2021.

The search strategy used was consistent with the previous review. 10 The full search strategy for each database presented in the Supplementary file. Search results were exported to Endnote X9.1, which was used to identify and remove duplicates prior to importing to Covidence ([www.covidence.org](http://www.covidence.org)) for title and abstract screening.

### Study selection

Titles and abstracts were screened to eliminate irrelevant studies. Full text articles were then inspected for eligibility. Studies were classified as confirmed HCFA-CDI if they included a clear definition of HCFA-acquisition of CDI, or probable HCFA-CDI on the basis of information provided in the report, e.g. evidence that the minimum length of stay until onset of symptoms was >48 hours. Studies that had been excluded from the previous review because they did not use an explicit definition of HA were re-evaluated and subsequently included in this review if there was sufficient evidence that HA-CDI was probable.

### Data collection

Data were extracted from each study using a pro forma template that included the study characteristics (citation, country, setting, study period based on earliest time point, study population, study design, HCFA-CDI case and non-case definitions, antibiotic name, exposure period and timing, comparison group), number of subjects in exposure categories for cases and non-cases, effect estimates (odds ratio; relative risk) and 95% confidence intervals.

Antibiotic exposures were categorised into their main classes with additional sub-group categorisation for cephalosporins (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation), penicillins (ampicillin-like drugs [aminopenicillins]; beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations; broad-spectrum [antipseudomonal] penicillins; penicillin G-like drugs [natural penicillins]) using the MSD Manual. 17 The unexposed comparator groups were categorised as no antibiotics; unexposed to antibiotic of interest; a reference antibiotic. The exposure period was classified in two ways. First, whether antibiotic administration before CDI diagnosis was recorded by the study and, second, the period of time over which antibiotic administration was measured and categorised as: during index admission; up to 1 month prior to CDI diagnosis; up to 1-2 months prior; up to 2-3 months prior; preoperative prophylaxis; during admission - prior to ICU; during ICU admission.

The non-CDI case groups were recorded as asymptomatic or symptomatic (patients had diarrhoea but tested negative for *C. difficile*). Study setting was classified according to geographic region (North America, Latin America, Europe, East Asia & Pacific) and patient population: general adult inpatients and specific clinical sub-groups (HA-pneumonia, HA-diarrhoea, antibiotic treatment, ICU patients, COPD patients, *C. difficile* colonised, haematology-oncology patients, surgical – gastrointestinal, surgical – non-gastrointestinal, type 2 diabetes).

### Assessment of methodological quality

The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for the Assessment of Quality (NOS) was used to assess study quality. 18 The NOS comprises nine items across the domains of: selection, comparability, and exposure (case-control studies) or outcome (cohort studies). Each accomplished item receives one point and studies are classified as high quality (score 7–9), moderate quality (score 4–6), or poor quality (score 0–3). Important confounding domains considered in the study for assessment of comparability were identified from previous studies and included: age, comorbidities, severity of underlying disease (1 point), and healthcare facility exposure or other treatment (1 point) 9. Poor quality studies were not excluded from the review, instead overall study quality and level of comparability were explored as potential sources of heterogeneity.

### Analysis

Data were entered into Excel for coding and exported to Stata version 14 for analysis. A quantitative descriptive analysis summarising the characteristics of included studies was undertaken, presented as counts and percentages.

To assess the association between each antibiotic class and HA-CDI, a pooled random effects analysis using the DerSimonian-Laird inverse variance approach was used. 19, 20 The meta-analysis was restricted to studies that used a comparison group that was unexposed to the antibiotic of interest, as this was the comparison used in most studies. As most studies reported odds ratios (OR), the most fully adjusted odds ratio was used for synthesis. Where studies reported results for multiple antibiotics within each class, without providing the relevant overall association for that class, effect estimates were combined by taking the weighted average of the log ORs, with inverse variance weights. Heterogeneity of pooled effects was assessed using the I2 statistic, which describes the percentage of variability in the effect estimates that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance, and its chi-squared statistic for evidence of heterogeneity (p<0.10).

A sub-group analysis was used to assess study characteristics identified *a priori* based on previous findings as sources of heterogeneity. Specific characteristics investigated included setting (geographic region, time period when the study was conducted, patient population), exposure measurement (time period prior to CDI diagnosis, measurement after onset), and methodology (study design, HA definition, non-case comparison group, study quality, confounder adjustment). Only antibiotic classes with data from at least 10 studies were included in the sub-group analysis. The sub-group pooled associations and their corresponding I2 statistics and tau-squared statistics (for between study variance) were examined. The overall association between the study characteristic was investigated using random effects metaregression; variables associated with between study variation at p<=0.10 in a bivariate analysis were included in multivariable models.

Funnel plot analysis was used to assess bias due to missing results (publication bias). 21

## Results

The PRISMA diagram is presented in Figure 1. Of 804 titles and abstracts of non-duplicate articles screened, 197 full text articles were assessed for eligibility and 23 were included in the review along with 16 studies from the previous review covering studies until the end of 2012 (total 39). Of the 23 studies identified from the latest searches, only 11 studies reported a clear definition of hospital acquisition with a further 12 deemed probable HCFA-CDI based on information available in the article. Two papers previously excluded from the earlier review (consisting of 14 studies) were identified as probable HCFA-CDI and subsequently added to this update.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F1)

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of study selection

Four studies of patients undergoing solid organ transplants 22–25 and five stem cell transplant studies 26–30 were excluded because of the long follow times after discharge precluding establishment of HA. For example, in the study by Cusini et al. 22 kidney transplant patients were followed for 2 years of which only 56% of CDI cases were deemed nosocomial.

### Description of studies

The characteristics of the included studies identified are summarised in Table 1. Full details of each study identified are provided in the supplementary file (Table S1). Most studies were either cohort or case-control studies, where cohort studies were the predominant design in articles published since 2013, compared to case-control studies in earlier articles. Compared to the earlier review, a more diverse range of patient groups was investigated in the recent studies and from a wider range of geographic regions. Of the 18 cohort studies, 16 were clinical cohort studies, examining specific inpatient sub-groups. Most studies at both time points used patients not diagnosed with CDI as the non-case group, with 23% using symptomatic non-cases. Most studies (87%) used non-exposure to the antibiotic of interest as the unexposed comparator.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/T1)

Table 1. Characteristics of studies examining associations between antibiotics and HA-CDI included in the 2020 systematic review update

### Quality appraisal

Most studies were graded as medium or high quality (Table 1). Full details of the NOS quality appraisal score for each study is summarised in the supplementary file (Table S2). Selection and confounding were important sources of error, with only 17 (43%) studies attaining the maximum score for selection and 15 (38%) studies reaching the maximum score for comparability; 86% of case-control designs scored 3/3 for exposure measurement, and 50% of cohort designs scored 3/3 for outcome measurement.

### Study results and pooled effects

Studies that used an exposure comparison group consisting of those not exposed to the antibiotic measured were included in meta-analyses (n=34).

For non-beta-lactam antibiotic classes (Figures 2 and 3), the strongest evidence for an association was seen for quinolones (fluoroquinolones) and lincosamides (clindamycin). Overall, quinolones were associated with a 34% increased odds of HCFA-CDI (OR=1.34, 95% CI=1.13-1.60), although individual ORs ranged from 0.15 to 15.30. Excluding the study with an extremely small outlier association (0.15) made little change to the pooled result (OR=1.37, 95%CI=1.15-1.63; I2=85.4%). Lincosamides were associated with a 56% increased odds of HCFA-CDI (OR=1.56, 95% CI=1.13-2.14), with individual study ORs ranging from 0.39 to 9.10. Weak positive pooled associations were observed for aminoglycosides, macrolides, and sulphonamides-trimethoprim, and a wide range in individual study effect sizes was found. There was strong heterogeneity observed for each of these classes, with ORs distributed in both positive and negative directions. Associations were found also for antibiotics used to treat CDI, particularly vancomycin (class glycopeptides) with a pooled OR of 1.91 (95%CI 1.32-2.78).

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F2)

Figure 2. Forest plot for non beta lactam antibiotic classes: quinolones, aminoglycosides, macrolides, lincosamides

![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F3)

Figure 3. Forest plots for non beta lactam antibiotic classes: tetracyclines, sulfamethoxaxole and trimethoprim, miscellaneous

Figure 4 displays the results for beta-lactam classes. The strongest association was seen for carbapenems (OR=2.55, 95%CI=1.83-3.55), with penicillins and cephalosporins associated with 33% and 79% increased odds of HA-CDI, respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity for all three main classes. For carbapenems, all ORs except one were in the positive direction ranging from 0.79 to 14.13. For penicillins and cephalosporins there were a number of ORs in opposite directions.

![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F4)

Figure 4. Forest plots for beta-lactam antibiotic classes

Beta-lactamase inhibitor combination penicillin antibiotics were the most frequently reported penicillin sub-class (Figure 5). ORs ranged from 0.47 to 17.40 (three studies had OR<1) with a pooled OR of 1.43 (95%CI 1.16-1.77). There was little evidence of an association for aminopenicillins, and few studies reported data for broad-spectrum or penicillinase-resistant penicillins.

![Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F5.medium.gif)

[Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F5)

Figure 5. Forest plots for penicillin sub-classes

For cephalosporins, 3rd and 4th generation classes were associated with a doubling of the odds of HA-CDI, 2nd generation cephalosporins with a 58% increased odds of HA-CDI, and no evidence for an association with 1st generation cephalosporins (Figure 6). The individual study findings for 4th generation cephalosporins were the most homogenous, with all effect sizes in a positive direction and ranging from 1.1 to 3.24.

![Figure 6](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F6.medium.gif)

[Figure 6](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F6)

Figure 6 Forest plots for cephalosporin sub-classes

### Metaregression and sub-group analyses

Ten antibiotic classes with a minimum of 10 studies and where more than 50% of the variation was due to heterogeneity were included in the sub-group analysis and metaregression. The results of subgroup analyses are presented as supplementary figures (Figures S1-S3). Although several sources of heterogeneity were identified for eight antibiotic classes, there were no sources common to all classes (Table 2). The most common sources were geographic region, exposure measurement period, and measurement of exposure after onset of symptoms.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/T2)

Table 2. Metaregression analyses

Studies conducted in Latin America, East Asia and Pacific regions reported stronger associations for combination penicillins, aminoglycosides and trimethoprim-sulfonamides, approximately 3-4 times higher than those reported by North American studies. Measurement of the antibiotic exposure after onset of symptoms was also a source of heterogeneity for aminoglycosides, with associations twice that of studies that collected exposure information preceding onset of symptoms. A longer window of antibiotic exposure measurement was associated with all three cephalosporin sub-classes in unadjusted analyses, and associations were attenuated in multivariable models. Other sources of heterogeneity for cephalosporins included definition of HCF acquisition (2nd and 3rd generation), study population (3rd generation) and study design (3rd generation). Studies using patient sub-groups tended to have weaker associations for a number of antibiotic classes, and this was a strong source of heterogeneity for associations with macrolides and 3rd generation cephalosporins, with effect sizes half of that seen in studies of general inpatients.

### Other findings

Five studies were not included in the meta-analysis due to differences in antibiotic exposure measurement; two Canadian studies used no antibiotic exposure as the reference category, 31, 32 one study examined duration and dosage of antibiotic exposure 33 and two UK studies used historical controls to examine the impact of changes to antibiotic formulary changes. 34, 35 The main results are summarised below.

A case-cohort study of adult inpatients of a large tertiary hospital in Canada measured the risk of HA-CDI associated with exposure to various antibiotic classes compared to patients with no antibiotic exposure in the five days prior to developing symptoms. 31 After adjusting for age, gender, hospital exposure, and infection pressure, the incidence of CDI was 2-3 times higher for penicillins, cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, and carbapenems. The second Canadian study compared the risk of CDI for various antibiotics according to whether CDI developed during or following cessation of exposure compared to no exposure, taking into account competing events of death or discharge. 32 They found the risk of CDI was greatest in the period following exposure to penicillins, quinolones, macrolides, aminoglycosides or clindamycin.

The cohort study of ICU patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia by Li *et al*. 33 reported the mean duration of treatment and total dose per patient to be higher in patients who developed CDI for broad-spectrum cephalosporins, carbapenem, and oxacephems, although not all of the differences were statistically significant.

Two UK clinical cohort studies used historical controls to examine the impact of changes to antibiotic formulary changes. In patients with severe hospital-acquired pneumonia, none of the patients treated with amoxicillin plus temocillin (n=98) developed CDI compared to 7.4% (7/94) of patients who had previously been treated with piperacillin-tazobactam (both beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations). 34 In a study comparing gentamicin (aminoglycoside) with cefuroxime (2nd generation cephalosporin) for total hip and knee replacement surgery prophylaxis, there were no CDI cases in the gentamicin group (n=2101) compared to 11 cases (0.2%) in the cefuroxime group (n=6094). 35

### Non-English language studies

Thirteen non-English language articles were identified in the current review of which only one study was eligible for inclusion in the review. 36 The case-control study of immunosuppressed patients reported exposure to fluoroquinolones was higher in CDI cases (36%) than controls (28%) and exposures to 2nd or 3rd generation cephalosporins was lower in cases (6%) than controls (14%). Details of the non-English language studies are summarised in Table S3.

### Funnel plot symmetry

Supplementary Figure S4 displays the funnel plots for the studies included in the meta-analyses of each main antibiotic class. Although there was not strong evidence for bias due to non-reporting of small studies, several of the plots reflect asymmetry associated with the heterogeneity previously addressed.

## Discussion

This systematic review updates the findings from two previous reviews through to 2020. Twenty-one studies published since 2013 were included in this review, in addition to 16 studies identified in earlier reviews. 10, 11 The main findings indicate that carbapenems and 3rd and 4th generation cephalosporin antibiotics remain most strongly associated with HCFA-CDI, with cases more than twice as likely to have recent exposure to these antibiotics prior to developing CDI. Modest associations (OR>1.5) were observed for quinolones (predominantly fluoroquinolones), lincosamides (namely clindamycin), 2nd generation cephalosporins, and beta-lactamase inhibitor combination penicillin antibiotics. Individual study effect sizes were variable and heterogeneity was a common problem observed for most antibiotic classes. However, the risk of CDI for a given antibiotic will depend on the local prevalence of strains that are resistant to the particular antibiotic and a certain degree of heterogeneity is therefore to be expected. 8

Since 2013, there have been more studies conducted in a wider range of countries, including three from Latin America (covering Argentina, Mexico, Brazil) 37, 38 and four from East Asia and Pacific countries (China, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan). 33, 39–41 The studies from Latin America and East Asia-Pacific regions reported stronger associations for a number of antibiotic classes with HCFA-CDI. With only a small number of studies from these regions conclusions regarding such differences are limited and further studies are needed.

In addition, a more diverse range of patient populations have been studied since 2013, with an increase in focused studies on clinical patient groups, such as surgical 35, 42, 43 and ICU patients, 44 or patients with particular conditions such as HA-pneumonia, 33, 34, 45 compared to earlier studies that predominantly studied general inpatients. Studies using patient sub-groups tended to have weaker associations. A potential explanation is that studies of patient sub-groups had shorter periods of antibiotic exposure measurement. For example, in studies assessing 3rd generation cephalosporins, three out of seven studies of general inpatients measured exposure up to three months prior to CDI, whereas no study that was restricted to patient sub-groups used a three-month exposure window. Studies that used longer windows of exposure measurement had stronger effect sizes which could reflect a protracted time at risk for CDI following antibiotic treatment. Previous studies have shown that the risk of CDI declines between 1-2 months following cessation of antibiotic treatment. 31, 46 Alternatively, it could mean that these studies simply picked up more exposed individuals, resulting in differential misclassification if this was not consistent for cases and non-cases.

Another exposure measurement source of heterogeneity was the inadequate description or failure to limit recording of antibiotic exposure to a period preceding onset or diagnosis of CDI, producing biased effect estimates. This could explain the associations found for antibiotics used to treat CDI such as vancomycin and metronidazole (glycopeptide and nitromidazole classes, respectively), although this could not be established in this review, and both are able to incite CDI. 47 Future studies should clearly report the parameters of exposure measurement, including all sources of information on exposure, as it was often unclear particularly in studies with a longer exposure window whether in-hospital prescription only was recorded, or whether prescription in the community setting was included. Information on dose-response relationships is generally lacking and studies investigating the risk of HCF-CDI associated with the timing and duration of antibiotic exposure are needed.

Other methodological differences in studies, such as the use of a clear definition of hospital-acquisition, the choice of non-case comparison group, and group comparability on confounding factors, were not consistent sources of heterogeneity, but had varying influences on study results. A variety of diagnostic laboratory testing methods that have varying sensitivity and specificity were used by studies included in the review. With increasing computing power, cohort studies utilising routinely collected patient data have increased in recent years - investigators should clearly report surveillance definitions, criteria and laboratory methods for diagnosis of CDI in their institutions, and how these align with relevant current guidelines. 8, 48 Studies are subject to diagnostic suspicion bias if patients exposed to antibiotics are more likely to be tested for *C. difficile*.

This review provides the most up to date synthesis of evidence in relation to the risk of HA-CDI associated with exposure to specific antibiotic classes. However, the review is limited by the availability of a single reviewer to select, extract and critically appraise the studies. Since the previous review that covered studies published up to the end of 2012, there has been a marked increase in the overall number of studies eligible for inclusion. As found previously, studies were variable in methodological quality and quality of reporting results. Studies from the Latin America and East Asia-Pacific regions have increased, although studies were predominantly conducted in North America or Europe, and more studies outside of these settings are needed.

## Data Availability

Request from author.

**Literature search, performed 21st April 2020-total retrieved 893**

![Table3](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/T3.medium.gif)

[Table3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/T3)

**Literature search updates to 31st December 2020 (performed 11/02/2021) – total retrieved 43**

![Table4](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/T4.medium.gif)

[Table4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/T4)

View this table:
[Table S1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/T5)

Table S1. Characteristics of included studies of antibiotics and HA-CDI, 1st January 2013 to 31st December 2020

View this table:
[Table S2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/T6)

Table S2. Summary of quality appraisal of 39 studies eligible for inclusion

View this table:
[Table S3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/T7)

Table S3. Features of eligible studies published in non-English languages

List of studies included in review 

1.  Brown KA, Fisman DN, Moineddin R et al. The magnitude and duration of *Clostridium difficile* infection risk associated with antibiotic therapy: a hospital cohort study. *PLoS One* 2014; **9**: e105454.

2.  Cannon CM, Musuuza JS, Barker AK et al. Risk of *Clostridium difficile i*nfection in hematology-oncology patients colonized with toxigenic *C. difficile*. *Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology* 2017; **38**: 718-20.

3.  Debast SB. *Clostridium difficile infection: the role of antibiotics in outbreak control, epidemiology and treatment*, 2014.

4.  Forster AJ, Daneman N, van Walraven C. Influence of antibiotics and case exposure on hospital-acquired *Clostridium difficile* infection independent of illness severity. *Journal of Hospital Infection* 2017; **95**: 400-9.

5.  Gaertner WB, Madoff RD, Mellgren A et al. Postoperative diarrhea and high ostomy output impact postoperative outcomes after elective colon and rectal operations regardless of *Clostridium difficile* infection. *Am J Surg* 2015; **210**: 759-65.

6.  Gutiérrez-Pizarraya A, Martín-Villén L, Alcalá-Hernández L et al. Epidemiology and risk factors for *Clostridium difficile* infection in critically ill patients in Spain: The PROCRID study. *Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiologia Clinica* 2018; **36**: 218-21.

7.  Habayeb H, Sajin B, Patel K et al. Amoxicillin plus temocillin as an alternative empiric therapy for the treatment of severe hospital-acquired pneumonia: results from a retrospective audit. *Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis* 2015; **34**: 1693-9.

8.  Hassan SA, Rahman RA, Huda N et al. Hospital-acquired *Clostridium difficile* infection among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in acute medical wards. *J R Coll Physicians Edinb* 2013; **43**: 103-7.

9.  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. *Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery* 2018; **155**: 670-+.

10. Li C, Duan J, Liu S et al. Assessing the risk and disease burden of *Clostridium difficile* infection among patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia at a University Hospital in Central China. *Infection* 2017; **45**: 621-8.

11. Lin HJ, Hung YP, Liu HC et al. Risk factors for *Clostridium difficile*-associated diarrhea among hospitalized adults with fecal toxigenic *C. difficile* colonization. *J Microbiol Immunol Infect* 2015; **48**: 183-9.

12. Lopardo G, Morfin-Otero R, Moran V, II et al. Epidemiology of *Clostridium difficile:* a hospital-based descriptive study in Argentina and Mexico. *Braz J Infect Dis* 2015; **19**: 8-14.

13. Maestri AC, Raboni SM, Morales HMP et al. Multicenter study of the epidemiology of *Clostridioides difficile* infection and recurrence in southern Brazil. *Anaerobe* 2020; **64**.

14. Matthaiou DK, Delga D, Daganou M et al. Characteristics, risk factors and outcomes of *Clostridium difficile* infections in Greek Intensive Care Units. *Intensive Crit Care Nurs* 2019; **53**: 73-8.

15. Pakyz AL, Jawahar R, Wang Q et al. Medication risk factors associated with healthcare-associated *Clostridium difficile* infection: a multilevel model case-control study among 64 US academic medical centres. *J Antimicrob Chemother* 2014; **69**: 1127-31.

16. Predrag S. Analysis of risk factors and clinical manifestations associated with *Clostridium difficile* disease in Serbian hospitalized patients. *Braz J Microbiol* 2016; **47**: 902-10.

17. Silva ALO, Marra AR, Martino MDV et al. Identification of *Clostridium difficile* asymptomatic carriers in a tertiary care hospital. *Biomed Res Int* 2017; **2017**: 5450829.

18. Song J. Analyzing Risk Factors for Healthcare-Associated Infections Using Multiple Methodological Approaches. 2020.

19. Sprowson A, Symes T, Khan SK et al. Changing antibiotic prophylaxis for primary joint arthroplasty affects postoperative complication rates and bacterial spectrum. *Surgeon* 2013; **11**: 20-4.

20. Stefan MS, Rothberg MB, Shieh MS et al. Association between antibiotic treatment and outcomes in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of COPD treated with systemic steroids. *Chest* 2013; **143**: 82-90.

21. van Werkhoven CH, van der Tempel J, Jajou R et al. Identification of patients at high risk for *Clostridium difficile* infection: development and validation of a risk prediction model in hospitalized patients treated with antibiotics. *Clin Microbiol Infect* 2015; **21**: 786.e1-8.

22. Watson T, Hickok J, Fraker S et al. Evaluating the Risk Factors for Hospital-Onset *Clostridium difficile* Infections in a Large Healthcare System. *Clinical Infectious Diseases* 2018; **66**: 1957-9.

23. Yang BK, Do BJ, Kim EJ et al. The simple predictors of pseudomembranous colitis in patients with hospital-acquired diarrhea: a prospective observational study. *Gut and Liver* 2014; **8**: 41-8.

24. Carvajal C, Pacheco C, Jaimes F. Clinical and demographic profile and risk factors for *Clostridium difficile* infection. *Biomedica* 2017; **37**: 53-61.

25. Herzog T, Deleites C, Belyaev O et al. *Clostridium difficile* in visceral surgery. *Chirurg* 2015; **86**: 781-6.

26. Knyazev OV, Kagramanova AV, Chernova ME et al. *Clostridium difficile* in inflammatory bowel disease. *Ter Arkh* 2018; **90**: 32-6.

27. Lübbert C, Johann C, Kekulé AS et al. [Immunosuppressive treatment as a risk factor for the occurrence of clostridium difficile infection (CDI)]. *Z Gastroenterol* 2013; **51**: 1251-8.

28. Monge D, Millán I, González-Escalada A et al. The effect of *Clostridium difficile* infection on length of hospital stay. A cohort study. *Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin* 2013; **31**: 660-4.

29. Polák P, Vrba M, Bortlíček Z et al. Campylobacteriosis at the Department of Infectious Diseases of the University Hospital Brno in 2011-2013: a retrospective study. *Epidemiol Mikrobiol Imunol* 2015; **64**: 153-9.

30. Reigadas RamÕrez E, Bouza Santiago E, Universidad Complutense de M et al. Estudio de la infección “*Clostridium difficile*”: Incidencia, epidemiología, características clínicas, factores de riesgo de gravedad y recurrencia. 2015.

31. Savard Aa, Brisson M. Impact des caractéristiques des hôpitaux québécois sur le taux d’incidence d’infection à *Clostridium difficile* 2017.

32. Simon E, Cherfaoui T. La réévaluation des traitements par inhibiteur de la pompe à proton chez les patients traités au long cours en médecine générale dans l’Ille et Vilaine. Université de Rennes 1 & Université européenne de Bretagne., 2015.

33. Sommer TN, Ravn P, Gjørup I. *Clostridium difficile* ribotype 027 is a challenge. *Ugeskr Laeger* 2014; **176**.

34. Štěpánová J, Tomášková H. Epidemiology of infection caused by *Clostridium difficile Hygiena* 2014; **59**: 131-9.

35. Šuljagić V, Djordjević D, Lazić S et al. Epidemiological characteristics of nosocomial diarrhea caused by *Clostridium difficile* in a tertiary level hospital in Serbia. *Srp Arh Celok Lek* 2013; **141**: 482-9.

![Figure S1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F7.medium.gif)

[Figure S1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F7)

Figure S1. Sub-group analysis – combination penicillins and cephalosporin sub-classes

![Figure S2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F8.medium.gif)

[Figure S2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F8)

Figure S2. Sub-group analysis – carbapenems, lincosamides, fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides

![Figure S3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F9.medium.gif)

[Figure S3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F9)

Figure S3. Sub-group analysis – macrolides, trimethoprim-sulfonamides and glycopeptides

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F10/graphic-23.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F10/graphic-23)

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F10/graphic-24.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/23/2021.02.21.21252172/F10/graphic-24)

Figure S4 Funnel plots

## Footnotes

*   Funding: This study did not receive any external funding.

*   Transparency declarations: All authors have no conflicts to declare in relation to this work.

*   Received February 21, 2021.
*   Revision received February 21, 2021.
*   Accepted February 23, 2021.


*   © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  Balsells E, Shi T, Leese C et al. Global burden of *Clostridium difficile* infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Glob Health 2019; 9: 010407.
    
    

2.  Leffler DA, Lamont JT. *Clostridium difficile i*nfection. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 287–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMc1506004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26176396&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

3.  Lofgren ET, Cole SR, Weber DJ et al. Hospital-acquired *Clostridium difficile* infections: estimating all-cause mortality and length of stay. Epidemiology 2014; 25: 570–5.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/EDE.0000000000000119&link_type=DOI) 

4.  Wiegand PN, Nathwani D, Wilcox MH et al. Clinical and economic burden of *Clostridium difficile* infection in Europe: a systematic review of healthcare-facility-acquired infection. J Hosp Infect 2012; 81: 1–14.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jhin.2012.02.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22498638&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

5.  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: 2039–46.
    
    

6.  Slimings C, Armstrong P, Beckingham WD et al. Increasing incidence of *Clostridium difficile* infection, Australia, 2011-2012. Med J Aust 2014; 200: 272–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5694/mja13.11153&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24641152&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

7.  Vindigni SM, Surawicz CM. *C. difficile* infection: changing epidemiology and management paradigms. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2015; 6: e99.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ctg.2015.24&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

8.  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: e1–e48.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/cix1085&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29462280&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

9.  Eze P, Balsells E, Kyaw MH et al. Risk factors for *Clostridium difficile* infections - an overview of the evidence base and challenges in data synthesis. J Glob Health 2017; 7: 010417.
    
    

10. Slimings C, Riley TV. Antibiotics and hospital-acquired *Clostridium difficile* infection: update of systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69: 881–91.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkt477&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24324224&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000333275000003&link_type=ISI) 

11. Thomas C, Stevenson M, Riley TV. Antibiotics and hospital-acquired *Clostridium difficile*-associated diarrhoea: a systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 51: 1339–50.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkg254&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12746372&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183091800004&link_type=ISI) 

12. Davey P, Marwick CA, Scott CL et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2: Cd003543.
    
    

13. Vonberg RP, Kuijper EJ, Wilcox MH et al. Infection control measures to limit the spread of Clostridium difficile Clin Microbiol Infect 2008; 14 Suppl 5: 2–20.
    
    

14. Baur D, Gladstone BP, Burkert F et al. Effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and *Clostridium difficile* infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2017; 17: 990–1001.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30325-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2019. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2019. [http://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:82532](http://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:82532)
    
    

16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PloS Med 2009; 6: e1000097.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19621072&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

17. Merk and Co. I. Bacteria and Antibacterial Drugs. MSD Manual Professional Version. Kenilworth, NJ, USA, 2020.
    
    

18. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. [http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp](http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp)
    
    

19. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–88.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3802833&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1986F013900001&link_type=ISI) 

20. Deeks J, Higgins J, Altman D. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J et al., eds. Cochrane Hanbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020.
    
    

21. Page M, Higgins J, Sterne J. Chapter 13. Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020.
    
    

22. Cusini A, Béguelin C, Stampf S et al. *Clostridium difficile* infection is associated with graft loss in solid organ transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2018; 18: 1745–54.
    
    

23. Li GJ, Trac J, Husain S et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of *Clostridium difficile i*nfections in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2018; 102: 1576–81.
    
    

24. Neofytos D, Kobayashi K, Alonso CD et al. Epidemiology, risk factors, and outcomes of *Clostridium difficile* infection in kidney transplant recipients. Transplant Infectious Disease 2013; 15: 134–41.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/tid.12030&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23173772&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

25. Shah SA, Tsapepas DS, Kubin CJ et al. Risk factors associated with *Clostridium difficile* infection after kidney and pancreas transplantation. Transpl Infect Dis 2013; 15: 502–9.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23890202&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

26. Alonso CD, Braun DA, Patel I et al. A multicenter, retrospective, case-cohort study of the epidemiology and risk factors for *Clostridium difficile* infection among cord blood transplant recipients. Transpl Infect Dis 2017; 19.
    
    

27. Lee SSF, Fulford AE, Quinn MA et al. Levofloxacin for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis in acute myeloid leukemia patients associated with reduction in hospital admissions. Support Care Cancer 2018; 26: 1499–504.
    
    

28. Simondsen KA, Reed MP, Mably MS et al. Retrospective analysis of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2013; 19: 291–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/1078155212465215&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23184539&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

29. Vehreschild MJ, Weitershagen D, Biehl LM et al. *Clostridium difficile* infection in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia and in patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation: epidemiology and risk factor analysis. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2014; 20: 823–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.02.022&link_type=DOI) 

30. Zavrelova A, Paterova P, Gabalec F et al. Ciprofloxacin prophylaxis during autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in patients with a high rate of fluoroquinolone-resistant gram-negative bacteria colonization. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2019; 163: 161–5.
    
    

31. Brown KA, Fisman DN, Moineddin R et al. The magnitude and duration of *Clostridium difficile* infection risk associated with antibiotic therapy: a hospital cohort study. PLoS One 2014; 9: e105454.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0105454&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25157757&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

32. Forster AJ, Daneman N, van Walraven C. Influence of antibiotics and case exposure on hospital-acquired *Clostridium difficile* infection independent of illness severity. Journal of Hospital Infection 2017; 95: 400–9.
    
    

33. Li C, Duan J, Liu S et al. Assessing the risk and disease burden of *Clostridium difficile* infection among patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia at a University Hospital in Central China. Infection 2017; 45: 621–8.
    
    

34. Habayeb H, Sajin B, Patel K et al. Amoxicillin plus temocillin as an alternative empiric therapy for the treatment of severe hospital-acquired pneumonia: results from a retrospective audit. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2015; 34: 1693–9.
    
    

35. Sprowson A, Symes T, Khan SK et al. Changing antibiotic prophylaxis for primary joint arthroplasty affects postoperative complication rates and bacterial spectrum. Surgeon 2013; 11: 20–4.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.surge.2012.02.007&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22709532&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

36. Lübbert C, Johann C, Kekulé AS et al. Immunosuppressive treatment as a risk factor for the occurrence of *Clostridium difficile* infection (CDI). Z Gastroenterol 2013; 51: 1251–8.
    
    

37. Lopardo G, Morfin-Otero R, Moran V, II et al. Epidemiology of *Clostridium difficile:* a hospital-based descriptive study in Argentina and Mexico. Braz J Infect Dis 2015; 19: 8–14.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.bjid.2014.07.004&link_type=DOI) 

38. Silva ALO, Marra AR, Martino MDV et al. Identification of *Clostridium difficile* asymptomatic carriers in a tertiary care hospital. Biomed Res Int 2017; 2017: 5450829.
    
    

39. Hassan SA, Rahman RA, Huda N et al. Hospital-acquired *Clostridium difficile* infection among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in acute medical wards. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2013; 43: 103–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4997/JRCPE.2013.203&link_type=DOI) 

40. Lin HJ, Hung YP, Liu HC et al. Risk factors for *Clostridium difficile*-associated diarrhea among hospitalized adults with fecal toxigenic *C. difficile* colonization. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2015; 48: 183–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jmii.2013.08.003&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24064285&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

41. Yang BK, Do BJ, Kim EJ et al. The simple predictors of pseudomembranous colitis in patients with hospital-acquired diarrhea: a prospective observational study. Gut and Liver 2014; 8: 41–8.
    
    

42. Gaertner WB, Madoff RD, Mellgren A et al. Postoperative diarrhea and high ostomy output impact postoperative outcomes after elective colon and rectal operations regardless of *Clostridium difficile* infection. Am J Surg 2015; 210: 759–65.
    
    

43. 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. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2018; 155: 670-+.
    
    

44. van Werkhoven CH, van der Tempel J, Jajou R et al. Identification of patients at high risk for *Clostridium difficile* infection: development and validation of a risk prediction model in hospitalized patients treated with antibiotics. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21: 786.e1-8.
    
    

45. Valerio M, Pedromingo M, Muñoz P et al. Potential protective role of linezolid against *Clostridium difficile* infection. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2012; 39: 414–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.01.005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22445203&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 

46. Hensgens MPM, Goorhuis A, Dekkers OM et al. Time interval of increased risk for *Clostridium difficile* infection after exposure to antibiotics. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2012; 67: 742–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkr508&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22146873&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F23%2F2021.02.21.21252172.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000300244100034&link_type=ISI) 

47. Bingley PJ, Harding GM. *Clostridium difficile* colitis following treatment with metronidazole and vancomycin. Postgrad Med J 1987; 63: 993–4.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6InBvc3RncmFkbWVkaiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiNjMvNzQ1Lzk5MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzAyLzIzLzIwMjEuMDIuMjEuMjEyNTIxNzIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

48. Stuart RL, Marshall C, Harrington G et al. ASID/ACIPC position statement - Infection control for patients with *Clostridium difficile* infection in healthcare facilities. Infect Dis Health 2019; 24: 32–43.