Back

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Exposure to Antibiotics Associated with Clostridioides difficile Infection in US Academic Dental Care

Gladden, A. D.; Westgard, L. K.; Tam, R. A.; Ugbala, M. C.; Foong, K. S.; Wurcel, A. G.

2026-07-08 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.06.25.26356622 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Severe Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) morbidity and mortality disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic patients in the United States. Antibiotic exposure is the primary modifiable risk factor for CDI, and clindamycin is among the agents most strongly associated with related harm. Characterizing inequities in prescribing is critical. Dentistry is a major source of clindamycin prescriptions. Academic dental clinics serve diverse patient populations and provide an ideal setting to evaluate prescribing across racial and ethnic groups. We therefore examined antibiotic use and cumulative clindamycin exposure as measures of CDI-associated risk. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of electronic health records from 5 US academic dental institutions from 2021 through 2023. We analyzed 552,428 encounters among 132,770 patients with documented race/ethnicity to estimate adjusted odds of receiving any oral antibiotic and clindamycin by race/ethnicity. Secondary outcomes evaluated total antibiotic exposure among dental provider-prescribed antibiotics, focusing on higher-than-standard cumulative dosing of clindamycin (>8400 mg) and amoxicillin (>10,500 mg). Results Oral antibiotic prescribing occurred in 1.9% of encounters. Compared with White patients, Black, Hispanic, and Other race patients had slightly lower adjusted odds of receiving any oral antibiotic, while Black patients had greater odds of receiving a higher-than-standard cumulative clindamycin dose when clindamycin was prescribed (adjusted odds ratio, 2.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.82). Conclusion Racial and ethnic inequities in dental antibiotic prescribing extended beyond antibiotic receipt to cumulative clindamycin exposure. Although CDI outcomes were not directly measured, these prescribing differences may have implications for disparities in CDI-associated harm and warrant further investigation.

Matching journals

The top 15 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.1%
2
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.2%
3
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
4
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.4%
5
Clinical Infectious Diseases
235 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.3%
6
Epidemiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
7
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.7%
8
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.5%
9
mSphere
302 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.2%
10
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
11
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
12
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
202 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
13
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
14
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
15
mBio
833 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.8%
50% of probability mass above
16
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.7%
17
American Journal of Epidemiology
67 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
18
Vaccine
203 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
19
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
68 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
20
Journal of Medical Microbiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
21
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
22
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.4%
23
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
142 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
24
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 33%
1.2%
25
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
26
BMC Research Notes
33 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
27
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
28
BMC Medical Education
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
29
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
30
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%