Clinical Approaches to Clostridioides difficile Infection Management: Insights From a Nationwide Survey of Korean Physicians

Abstract

Background: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains a significant public health challenge, with variable diagnostic and treatment practices. This study evaluated current clinical practices for CDI diagnosis and management in Korean physicians through a nationwide survey. Methods: An online survey was conducted among physicians treating CDI, including gastroenterologists and infectious disease specialists. The survey covered diagnostic approaches, treatment regimens, and management strategies, including differentiation based on disease severity and recurrence. Results: A total of 300 physicians responded. The most commonly reported indication for CDI testing was the occurrence of three or more diarrheal episodes within a 24-hour period. The majority of physicians (69.7%) preferred multiple diagnostic tests, favoring simultaneous testing (90.4%) over a stepwise approach. Preferred tests included nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) (69%), glutamate dehydrogenase+toxin A/B combined assay (56%) and toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (48%). Single-test users preferred toxin EIA (37.4%) and NAAT (29.7%). Treatment was primarily tailored to severity by 84.1% of physicians. For non-severe CDI, oral vancomycin (50.7%) and metronidazole (29%) were the main treatments, with 88% not recommending hospitalization. Severe CDI was treated with oral vancomycin (45.3%) or intravenous metronidazole in combination (44.9%), often for >= 14 days. For the first recurrence, 69.3% used oral vancomycin, with 22.6% opting for a tapered/pulsed regimen. Fecal microbiota transplantation use increased from 0.3% initially to 17.6% for multiple recurrences. In CDI with ileus, 64% preferred combination therapy, and 48% used vancomycin enemas. In inflammatory bowel disease patients, 99% underwent CDI testing for worsening diarrhea. Immunomodulators and biologics were continued in 79% and 73% of non-severe cases, respectively, but often paused during severe CDI. Conclusion: Korean physicians generally follow the recently developed Korean guideline for CDI practice, but certain gaps and inconsistencies in choices were observed in clinical situations. Further efforts are needed to monitor guideline implementation and to analyze gaps between guideline recommendations and real-world clinical practice to optimize CDI management in Korea.