iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29085200
Proton pump inhibitors therapy and risk of Clostridium difficile infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Sep 21;23(35):6500-6515.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i35.6500.

Proton pump inhibitors therapy and risk of Clostridium difficile infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Review

Proton pump inhibitors therapy and risk of Clostridium difficile infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Anca Trifan et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Aim: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) therapy and the risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). METHODS We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed and seven other databases through January 1990 to March 2017 for published studies that evaluated the association between PPIs and CDI. Adult case-control and cohort studies providing information on the association between PPI therapy and the development of CDI were included. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effect. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 test and Cochran's Q statistic. Potential publication bias was evaluated via funnel plot, and quality of studies by the Newcastle-Otawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS).

Results: Fifty-six studies (40 case-control and 16 cohort) involving 356683 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Both the overall pooled estimates and subgroup analyses showed increased risk for CDI despite substantial statistical heterogeneity among studies. Meta-analysis of all studies combined showed a significant association between PPI users and the risk of CDI (pooled OR = 1.99, CI: 1.73-2.30, P < 0.001) as compared with non-users. The association remained significant in subgroup analyses: by design-case-control (OR = 2.00, CI: 1.68-2.38, P < 0.0001), and cohort (OR = 1.98, CI: 1.51-2.59, P < 0.0001); adjusted (OR = 1.95, CI: 1.67-2.27, P < 0.0001) and unadjusted (OR = 2.02, CI: 1.41-2.91, P < 0.0001); unicenter (OR = 2.18, CI: 1.72-2.75, P < 0.0001) and multicenter (OR = 1.82, CI: 1.51-2.19, P < 0.0001); age ≥ 65 years (OR = 1.93, CI: 1.40-2.68, P < 0.0001) and < 65 years (OR = 2.06, CI: 1.11-3.81, P < 0.01). No significant differences were found in subgroup analyses (test for heterogeneity): P = 0.93 for case-control vs cohort, P = 0.85 for adjusted vs unadjusted, P = 0.24 for unicenter vs multicenter, P = 0.86 for age ≥ 65 years and < 65 years. There was significant heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 85.4%, P < 0.001) as well as evidence of publication bias (funnel plot asymmetry test, P = 0.002).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides further evidence that PPI use is associated with an increased risk for development of CDI. Further high-quality, prospective studies are needed to assess whether this association is causal.

Keywords: Clostridium difficile infection; Meta-analysis; Proton pump inhibitors; Risk; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors deny any conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of the meta-analysis.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funnel plot with 95% confidence limits.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Khanna S, Pardi DS. The growing incidence and severity of Clostridium difficile infection in inpatient and outpatient settings. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;4:409–416. - PubMed
    1. Kuntz JL, Chrischilles EA, Pendergast JF, Herwaldt LA, Polgreen PM. Incidence of and risk factors for community-associated Clostridium difficile infection: a nested case-control study. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:194. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kurti Z, Lovasz BD, Mandel MD, Csima Z, Golovics PA, Csako BD, Mohas A, Gönczi L, Gecse KB, Kiss LS, et al. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection between 2010 and 2013: Trends and outcomes from an academic center in Eastern Europe. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:6728–6735. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Honda H, Dubberke ER. The changing epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2014;30:54–62. - PubMed
    1. Dubberke ER, Butler AM, Yokoe DS, Mayer J, Hota B, Mangino JE, Khan YM, Popovich KJ, Fraser VJ. Multicenter study of Clostridium difficile infection rates from 2000 to 2006. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31:1030–1037. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances