PD29-02 ASSOCIATION OF PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS CUMULATIVE USE WITH PROSTATE CANCER RISK AND ADVERSE OUTCOMES: A POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Epidemiology & Natural History I (PD29)1 May 2024PD29-02 ASSOCIATION OF PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS CUMULATIVE USE WITH PROSTATE CANCER RISK AND ADVERSE OUTCOMES: A POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS Rashid K. Sayyid, Raj Tiwari, Bo Zhang, Andrew Wilton, Katherine Lajkosz, Jessica Cockburn, Rui Bernardino, Zizo Al-Daqqaq, Majed Al-Rumayyan, Refik Saskin, and Neil E. Fleshner Rashid K. SayyidRashid K. Sayyid , Raj TiwariRaj Tiwari , Bo ZhangBo Zhang , Andrew WiltonAndrew Wilton , Katherine LajkoszKatherine Lajkosz , Jessica CockburnJessica Cockburn , Rui BernardinoRui Bernardino , Zizo Al-DaqqaqZizo Al-Daqqaq , Majed Al-RumayyanMajed Al-Rumayyan , Refik SaskinRefik Saskin , and Neil E. FleshnerNeil E. Fleshner View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008736.23117.7f.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are intended for short-term use; however, long-term, off-label use of PPIs continues to increase (6-10% of Americans). The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of cumulative PPI use with PCa diagnosis and adverse outcomes. METHODS: This is a population-based study, using provincewide-linked administrative data from Ontario including all men≥66 years with no prior PCa diagnosis, work-up, or treatment, and no PPI/H2-blocker prescriptions within the year preceding study inclusion (study period: January 2003 to December 2018). The primary exposure was cumulative PPI use, with H2-blockers as a positive control. Associations between study exposure and time-to-event outcomes were evaluated using multivariable complementary log-log logistic regression. RESULTS: The study cohort included 559,425 men (median follow-up: 10.1 years). Median age was 66 years. Any PPI use was observed in 26.1% of men. Annual PPI use increased from 0.9% to 15% between 2003 and 2019. On multivariable modeling, adjusted for age, income quintile and comorbidities, cumulative PPI exposure was associated with significantly increased rates of PCa diagnosis (HR=4.10, 95% CI:3.97-4.23). This association persisted following further adjustment for frequency of general practitioner visits and PSA testing (HR=2.87, p<0.001). Cumulative PPI exposure was also associated with increased rates of clinically significant (HR=4.42, 95% CI:4.11-4.75) and high-grade PCa (HR=3.78, 95% CI:3.37-4.24), time to first ADT prescription/bilateral orchiectomy (HR=2.93, 95% CI:2.77-3.09), and PSA doubling time≤6 months (HR=3.12, 95% CI:2.98-3.27). Compared to PPI use, the associations between H2-blocker use and study outcomes were of significantly lower magnitudes of effect. CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based cohort of elderly men, cumulative PPI intake was associated with clinically significant increases in the rates of PCa diagnosis, independent of PSA testing frequency and/or GP visits, as well as adverse PCa-related outcomes. In lieu of prospective data, these results should be used to counsel long-term PPI users regarding the long-term risks of adverse PCa outcomes. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e618 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Rashid K. Sayyid More articles by this author Raj Tiwari More articles by this author Bo Zhang More articles by this author Andrew Wilton More articles by this author Katherine Lajkosz More articles by this author Jessica Cockburn More articles by this author Rui Bernardino More articles by this author Zizo Al-Daqqaq More articles by this author Majed Al-Rumayyan More articles by this author Refik Saskin More articles by this author Neil E. Fleshner More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».