Proton pump inhibitors increase significantly the risk of<i>Clostridium difficile</i>infection in a low‐endemicity, non‐outbreak hospital setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) have been linked to higher risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). The relevance of this association in hospitals with low disease activity, where an outbreak strain is nondominant, has been assessed in relatively few studies. AIM: To assess the association of PPI and CDI in a setting of low disease activity. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at two hospitals. Patients admitted for > or = 7 days receiving antibiotics were included. Demographics, exposure to PPI, antibiotics and other drugs in relation to diagnosis of CDI were assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of 14 719 patients, 149 (1%) first episode CDI were documented; PPI co-exposure increased CDI [1.44 cases/100 patients vs. 0.74 cases/100 non-exposed (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.42-2.72)]. By logistic regression, PPI days (adjusted OR: 1.01 per day, 95% CI: 1.00-1.02), histamine-2 blockers, antidepressants, antibiotic days, exposure to medications, age, admission service and length of admission were significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: A statistically significant increase in CDI was observed in antibiotic recipients who received PPI, but the absolute risk increase is modest. In settings of with low rates of CDI, the benefit of PPI therapy outweighs the risk of developing CDI. These data support programmes to decrease inappropriate use of PPI in hospitalized patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".