MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981639126 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2047

2369. Prescribing Choices and C. difficile Infection Risk: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Nursing Home Residents in Ontario, Canada

2019· article· en· W2981639126 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kevin A. Brown, Kevin L. Schwartz, Bradley J. Langford, Christina Diong, Gary Garber, Nick Daneman

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntibioticsClindamycinNitrofurantoinAntimicrobial stewardshipAmoxicillinRelative riskRisk factorIncidence (geometry)CohortInternal medicineConfidence intervalCiprofloxacinAntibiotic resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Antibiotics are the primary modifiable risk factor for C. difficile infection (CDI). However, the comparative risks of different prescribing choices are not known. Our objective was to quantify the benefits of: (1) preventing antibiotic initiation, (2) substituting high-risk antibiotics for low-risk antibiotics, (3) reducing antibiotic duration. Methods We conducted a cohort study of residents of over 600 Ontario nursing homes in the 2014 to 2017 period. All non-acute care hospital antibiotic exposures were identified from the Ontario Drug Benefit database, while CDI was identified using outpatient billings and/or hospital ICD-10 codes. Logistic regression models were used to examine the risk of CDI as a function of time-varying antibiotic exposures, while controlling for 14 different risk factors. Based on the models, we estimated the comparative risks of specific antibiotic regimens. Results We identified 1,944 cases of CDI, for an incidence of 1.60 per 100,000 person-days. The 90-day risk among residents without antibiotics was 0.84 per 1,000 residents (‰), compared with 1.85‰ in those with a 7-day course of antibiotics. Preventing a 7-day course reduced CDI risk by 45% (see table, adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50, 0.60). The antibiotics conferring the highest risks were clindamycin at 4.1‰, moxifloxacin at 3.2‰, and amoxiclav at 3.0‰. Comparing 7-day courses of antibiotics with similar indications: nitrofurantoin engendered 37% less risk than ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin resulted in 31% less risk than amoxicillin-clavulanate, and cephalexin had 51% less risk than clindamycin. Reduced antibiotic durations were associated with less C. difficile risk. Compared with a 10-day course, a 7-day course was associated with 12% less risk, while a 5-day course was associated with 21% less risk. Conclusion We have quantified, using a real-world population-based cohort of nursing home residents, the reduction in CDI risk incurred by preventing unnecessary antibiotic initiations, preferring low-risk agents over high-risk agents, and reducing duration. These figures will help clinicians compare risks and benefits of different prescribing choices with regards to CDI prevention. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207