Skip to main content

Secondary vancomycin prophylaxis during antibiotic re-exposure for the prevention of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis

Journal
JAC-antimicrobial resistance (Q1)
Published
23 July 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Connor Prosty, Mark Sorin, Emily G McDonald, Todd C Lee
PMID
42495450
DOI
10.1093/jacamr/dlag141

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic re-exposure after an episode of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is common and is a strong risk factor for recurrent CDI (rCDI). Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vancomycin prophylaxis during antibiotic re-exposure were recently published, which we sought to evaluate by meta-analysis. METHODS: We updated a recent systematic review search of MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid to 9 March 2026. RCTs of vancomycin during antibiotic re-exposure as secondary CDI prophylaxis were included. Quality was assessed by the Cochrane RoB2 tool. A Bayesian meta-analysis of 56-day rCDI was conducted on the odds ratio (OR) scale using a weakly informative prior. The probabilities of any benefit (i.e. OR < 1) and that the number needed to treat (NNT) was <20 (i.e. risk difference > 5%) were computed from the posterior. The 95% predictive interval (95% PI) was computed, which corresponds to the predicted range of the effect estimate of a future RCT. RESULTS: Two RCTs at low risk of bias were included, which comprised 102 patients. The pooled OR was 0.61 [95% credible interval (95% CrI) = 0.27-1.40], which corresponded to a probability of any benefit with vancomycin prophylaxis of 88.0% and a probability that the NNT was <20 of 75.9%. The 95% PI was 0.19-2.00. CONCLUSIONS: Based on two small RCTs, there is a reasonable probability that secondary vancomycin prophylaxis during antibiotic re-exposure reduces 56-day rCDI. However, these results remain uncertain as the 95% PI is wide and consequently larger trials are needed.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.