Which antibiotic is more likely to cause Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection, Unasyn (ampicillin/sulbactam) or cefepime?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: November 20, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Cefepime is More Likely to Cause C. difficile Infection Than Unasyn

Based on the available evidence, cefepime poses a significantly higher risk for C. difficile infection compared to Unasyn (ampicillin/sulbactam), and should be avoided when Unasyn is a viable alternative for the clinical indication.

Evidence Supporting Higher Risk with Cefepime

Direct Comparative Data

  • Cefepime demonstrates a 3-fold increased risk for CDI with an odds ratio of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.96-4.65; P < 0.001) in a large case-control study of 463 patients 1

  • Recent causal inference analysis confirms cefepime increases CDI risk with an average treatment effect of 0.0074 additional cases per daily dose-equivalent (95% CI: 0.0022-0.0126) 2

  • Cefepime was associated with CDI development after a median time of only 8 days of therapy 1

  • Meta-analyses demonstrate higher mortality with cefepime compared to other β-lactams (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.04-1.86), with the lowest mortality observed with piperacillin-tazobactam 3

Protective Effect of Ampicillin-Containing Regimens

  • Ampicillin/sulbactam (Unasyn) may actually provide protective effects against C. difficile colonization, as ampicillin-containing regimens have demonstrated in vitro inhibitory activity against C. difficile 4

  • Patients receiving ampicillin-based combinations were less likely to be asymptomatic carriers of C. difficile compared to those on non-inhibitory antibiotics 4

Antibiotic Risk Classification

High-Risk Antibiotics (Including Cefepime)

  • Third-generation cephalosporins, clindamycin, fluoroquinolones, and cephalosporins (which includes cefepime as a fourth-generation cephalosporin) are consistently identified as highest-risk antibiotics for CDI 3, 5

  • Cephalosporins as a class were targeted in 10 of 15 antibiotic stewardship studies aimed at reducing CDI incidence 3

Lower-Risk Alternatives

  • Ampicillin and amoxicillin, while historically associated with CDI risk, appear to have lower risk profiles than cephalosporins in contemporary data 6, 4

  • When continued antibiotic therapy is required in patients with CDI, parenteral aminoglycosides, sulfonamides, macrolides, vancomycin, or tetracycline/tigecycline are preferred as less frequently implicated agents 3

Clinical Implications

Risk Mitigation Strategies

  • Discontinue unnecessary antibiotics immediately when CDI is suspected or diagnosed, as continued antibiotic use significantly increases recurrence risk 3

  • Minimize duration of all antibiotic therapy - the risk of CDI increases with cumulative antibiotic exposure, with adjusted hazard ratios of 2.5 for 2 antibiotics, 3.3 for 3-4 antibiotics, and 9.6 for ≥5 antibiotics 3

  • Consider antibiotic stewardship interventions targeting cephalosporins, which have demonstrated 50-90% reductions in targeted antibiotic use and 33-90% reductions in CDI incidence 3

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Do not assume all β-lactams carry equal CDI risk - the evidence clearly demonstrates significant variation within this class, with cefepime carrying substantially higher risk than ampicillin/sulbactam 3, 1, 4

  • Avoid prolonged courses of cephalosporins when narrower-spectrum alternatives are available, as duration of exposure directly correlates with CDI risk 3, 1

  • Do not overlook the protective potential of certain antibiotics like piperacillin/tazobactam and ampicillin-containing regimens that may achieve intestinal concentrations sufficient to inhibit C. difficile 4

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.