MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206193178 · doi:10.1002/alz.057481

Associations between the use of histamine‐2 receptor antagonists vs. proton pump inhibitors and cognitive decline: A stratified longitudinal study in people with and without cognitive impairment

2021· article· en· W4206193178 on OpenAlexaff
Che‐Yuan Wu, Lisa Y. Xiong, Michael Ouk, Jodi D. Edwards, Jennifer S. Rabin, Nathan Herrmann, Krista L. Lanctôt, Moira K. Kapral, Marcus Law, Walter Swardfager

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalHealth Sciences CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of OttawaUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaClinical Dementia RatingHazard ratioInternal medicinePsychologyProportional hazards modelCognitionAlzheimer's diseaseConfidence intervalMedicinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Studies suggest associations between proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and higher dementia risk compared with no use; however, several studies did not consider histamine‐2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), the other common acid suppressant for similar indications. Comparisons between them are clinically relevant, both in older people with and without cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Method Participants using a PPI or H2RA were selected from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center database from September 2005 to February 2021. Cox regressions were used to compare 5‐year conversion from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, and 5‐year conversion from MCI to dementia, between PPI and H2RA users. In a propensity score matched sample of clinically diagnosed mild‐moderate AD, a linear mixed‐effects regression was used to assess PPI vs. H2RA use in rates of decline in global cognition (Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR®] Sum of Boxes; CDR‐SOB) up to 5 years. Delayed memory recall (Wechsler Memory Scale–Logical Memory test) was explored using a mixed‐effects negative binomial regression. Demographics, smoking, alcohol abuse, baseline CDR‐SOB, comorbidities, concurrent medications used, and apolipoprotein E genotype were included as covariates in Cox regressions or in propensity score. Result Cognitively normal H2RA (n=547, events=62) vs. PPI users (n=2237, events=312) did not differ in their risk for MCI or AD (Hazard Ratio; HR [95% Confidence Interval; CI] = 1.067 [0.807‐1.410]). In MCI, H2RA use (n=288, events=75) was associated with faster 5‐year dementia conversion (HR [95% CI] = 1.402 [1.085‐1.811]), compared with PPI use (n=1413, events=355). In AD, H2RA (n=212) vs. PPI (n=636) use was not associated with differential rates of decline in global cognition (B [95% CI] = ‐0.023 [‐0.324, 0.277] CDR‐SOB per year). However, H2RA use was associated with faster memory decline (Rate Ratio [95% CI] = 0.783 [0.671‐0.915]) in AD, but no associations with memory decline were found in MCI or normal cognition. Conclusion Differential associations with cognitive decline were not observed in cognitively normal older people. Among people with MCI or AD, H2RA use was associated with faster rates of conversion to dementia, or memory decline, respectively. Anti‐cholinergic burden might explain the associations.

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)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→