Proton pump Inhibitors and Risk of Enteric Infection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Self-controlled Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We tested whether proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are associated with enteric infections among those with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), after adequately accounting for baseline differences between PPI users and nonusers. METHODS: This was a self-controlled case series, with each patient serving as their own control. Ambulatory patients with IBD were included if they were tested for enteric infection by multiplex polymerase chain reaction testing panel (GIPCR) and/or Clostridoides difficile toxin PCR from 2015 to 2019 and received PPIs for some but not all of this period. Rates of enteric infections were compared between the PPI-exposed period vs pre- and post-PPI periods identical in duration to the exposed period. Conditional Poisson regression was used to adjust for time-varying factors. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-one IBD patients were included (49% ulcerative colitis, 46% Crohn's disease, and 5% indeterminate colitis). The median PPI duration was 7 months (interquartile range 4 to 11 months). A total of 25 (11%) patients had a positive GIPCR or C. difficile test in the PPI period, 9 (4%) in the pre-PPI period, and 8 (4%) in the post-PPI period. Observed incidence rates for enteric infections were 2.5, 7.4, and 2.2 per 100 person years for the pre-PPI, PPI, and post-PPI periods, respectively (adjusted incidence rate ratios, 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-6.0) for PPI vs pre-PPI and 2.9 (95% CI, 1.3-6.4) for PPI vs post-PPI). The adjusted absolute excess risk associated with PPIs was 4.9 infections per 100 person years. CONCLUSIONS: Proton pump inhibitors were associated with a 3-fold increased risk for enteric infection among those with IBD but had a modest absolute risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".