Statin use and the risk of <em>Clostridium difficile</em> infection: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Statins have pleiotropic effects beyond cholesterol lowering by immune modulation. The association of statins with primary Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is unclear as studies have reported conflicting findings. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between statin use and CDI. Patients and methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1978 to December 2016 for studies assessing the association between statin use and CDI. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodologic quality of included studies. Weighted summary estimates were calculated using generalized inverse variance with random-effects model. Results: Eight studies (6 case–control and 2 cohort) were included in the meta-analysis, which comprised 156,722 patients exposed to statins and 356,185 controls, with 34,849 total cases of CDI available in 7 studies. The rate of CDI in patients with statin use was 4.3%, compared with 7.8% in patients without statin use. An overall meta-analysis of 8 studies using the random-effects model demonstrated that statins may be associated with a decreased risk of CDI (maximally adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66–0.97; P =0.02). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies, with an I 2 of 79%. No publication bias was seen. Meta-analysis of studies that adjusted for confounders revealed no protective effect of statins (adjusted OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70–1.01; P =0.06, I 2 =75%). However, a meta-analysis of only full-text studies using the random-effects model demonstrated a decreased risk of CDI with the use of statins (OR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61–0.99; P =0.04, I 2 =85%). Conclusion: Meta-analyses of existing studies suggest that patients prescribed a statin may be at decreased risk for CDI. The results must be interpreted with caution given the significant heterogeneity and lack of benefit on analysis of studies that adjusted for confounders. Keywords: Clostridium difficile infection, incidence, meta-analysis, statins
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".