0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation | Less Is More

Proton Pump Inhibitors and Risk for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection FREE

Amy Linsky, MD; Kalpana Gupta, MD, MPH; Elizabeth V. Lawler, DSc; Jennifer R. Fonda, MA; John A. Hermos, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Financial Disclosure: None reported.


Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(9):772-778. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.73.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used gastric acid suppressants, but they are often prescribed without clear indications and may increase risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). We sought to determine the association between PPI use and the risk of recurrent CDI.

Methods  Retrospective, cohort study using administrative databases of the New England Veterans Healthcare System from October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2008. We identified 1166 inpatients and outpatients with metronidazole- or vancomycin hydrochloride–treated incident CDI, of whom 527 (45.2%) received oral PPIs within 14 days of diagnosis and 639 (54.8%) did not. We determined the hazard ratio (HR) for recurrent CDI, defined by a positive toxin finding in the 15 to 90 days after incident CDI.

Results  Recurrent CDI was more common in those exposed to PPIs than in those not exposed (25.2% vs 18.5%). Using Cox proportional survival methods, we determined that the adjusted HR of recurrent CDI was greater in those exposed to PPIs during treatment (1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.82). Risks among exposed patients were highest among those older than 80 years (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15-3.01) and those receiving antibiotics not targeted to C difficile during follow-up (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.11-1.64).

Conclusions  Proton pump inhibitor use during incident CDI treatment was associated with a 42% increased risk of recurrence. Our findings warrant further studies to examine this association and careful consideration of the indications for prescribing PPIs during treatment of CDI.

Figures in this Article

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most commonly prescribed agents in outpatient and inpatient settings, but they are often used without a clear indication.1,2 Although PPIs have been considered relatively safe, studies have demonstrated that PPI use and the use of other gastric acid suppressants are associated with a variety of infections, including Salmonella and Campylobacter gastroenteritis and community-acquired and nosocomial pneumonia.37

Proton pump inhibitors have also been associated with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI).811Clostridium difficile is a spore-forming bacterium with a toxin that is associated with diarrheal illnesses. Symptomatic recurrence occurs in approximately 20% of patients after treatment, with even higher rates after subsequent episodes.1215 The incidence of CDI in the United States has nearly tripled in the past decade, with antibiotic and hospital exposures recognized as the preeminent risks for infection.16,17 Other putative risk factors include older age, frailty, and environmental factors.18

Several observational studies have associated community-acquired and nosocomial CDI with PPI use, finding risks of CDI 2 to 3 times higher in PPI users compared with nonusers.811,17,19,20 Other research has failed to associate PPIs with CDI.21,22 The exact relationship between PPI use and incident CDI remains elusive, and no causative pathway has been demonstrated. The relationship between PPI exposure and the risk of recurrent CDI is even less clear, with fewer studies and conflicting findings.23,24 To further address this question, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using data from the New England Veterans Healthcare System (VISN 1) to determine the association between PPI use and the risk of recurrent CDI.

STUDY SETTING

We used linked pharmacy and administrative databases from VISN 1 from October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2008. The New England region consists of 8 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers and affiliated clinics, including 3 large, urban, tertiary care centers and 5 smaller facilities providing inpatient and outpatient care. The VISN 1 pharmacy files were obtained from Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture. The data elements of the outpatient and inpatient pharmacy files used in this study include patient identification, date of birth, drug name and dose, drug administration route, quantity, VA drug class, date of original prescription, number of days of medication supplied, and refill date. Laboratory data were obtained from the electronic medical record. Comorbidities were captured via the VA national patient care database located at the Austin Automation Center, Austin, Texas. Analyses were conducted at the Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center, VA Cooperative Studies coordinating center, VA Boston Healthcare System. The study was approved by the institutional review board of the VA Boston Healthcare System, which waived informed consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorization.

STUDY POPULATION

From the data sets, we identified patients with a first positive finding of a C difficile toxin from October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2008. This search yielded the index date for 1549 patients. The laboratories of VISN 1 use enzyme immunoassay tests for toxins A and B, with a standard practice of testing only loose stool samples. This sample of incident cases was then restricted to 1546 patients with a minimum of 1 year of prior VA health care system use to establish their use of the VA system. We further limited the study population to 1408 patients for whom treatment was initiated within the VA system with metronidazole or oral vancomycin hydrochloride and then to 1166 patients whose treatment started within 3 days before or after the index CDI (Figure 1).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Determination of study population. CDI indicates Clostridium difficile infection; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; and VA, Veterans Affairs.

Graphic Jump Location
PRIMARY EXPOSURE AND OUTCOMES

The main exposure variable was the use of any oral PPI during the 14 days after incident CDI diagnosis, coinciding with the treatment window. For inpatients (n = 981), PPI exposure was defined as any pharmaceutical dispensing of a PPI during this postdiagnosis window. For outpatients (n = 185), the end date of the most recent antecedent prescription was extended by 10% (eg, 9 days for a 90-day prescription) to account for potentially missed doses. If the predicted prescription end date fell after the index date, then the subject was placed in the PPI-exposed group. For all outpatients, actual prescription end dates fell beyond the index date. With these exposure criteria, 527 patients (45.2%) were categorized as PPI exposed and 639 patients (54.8%) as non–PPI exposed (Figure 1).

The primary outcome measure was a positive finding for a C difficile toxin occurring 15 to 90 days after the incident CDI diagnosis date. We established a 15- to 90-day follow-up window to provide a period of observation that would capture the greatest number of possible recurrent cases based on clinical observations and previous studies.12,24 Patients were censored at death or 90 days after the index date. We also calculated the time to recurrence, defined as the number of days from the later of either the index date or the start of incident CDI treatment until the recurrent diagnosis date. Thus, the calculated time to recurrence could be as short as 12 days.

COVARIATES

Covariates that may influence the risk of recurrent CDI and those that may influence exposure to PPIs were included in our analysis. These variables were age, sex, comorbid conditions, medication used before the index date, initial incident CDI antibiotic treatment (metronidazole or vancomycin), non–CDI-targeted antibiotic exposure during follow-up, VA nursing home admission during the study period, and, for those who were inpatients, the duration of hospitalization after the index date.

Comorbidities were determined from administrative records using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes, including selected diagnoses recorded in the 2 years before the index date. Comorbidities and their ICD-9-CM codes were hypertension (codes 401-404), diabetes (250), ischemic heart disease (410-414), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (491, 492, and 496), esophageal disease (530), peptic ulcer disease (531-535), solid tumors (140-199), and rheumatologic disease (710, 714, and 720). Medication used in the 90 days before the index date was included to represent the acuity and severity of the comorbid conditions and those drugs that might directly increase susceptibility to infections. Specific medications were antibiotics, systemic and inhaled corticosteroids, chemotherapeutics, and immunomodulators. In addition, we recorded inpatient and outpatient prescriptions for H2 receptor antagonists.

We determined the initial antibiotic treatment for CDI because differences in clinical severity may affect the choice of antibiotic. There may also be different treatment success rates.25,26 We evaluated how many patients changed from metronidazole to vancomycin therapy within the 14 days after diagnosis. Because antibiotic exposure is a major risk factor for CDI,20,27,28 we determined whether patients were exposed to non–CDI-targeted antibiotics during follow-up. Similarly, because hospital exposure is a major risk factor,29,30 we determined the number of days patients were hospitalized after incident CDI diagnosis. We categorized this variable as 0 days, discharged fewer than 14 days after the index diagnosis, and discharged at least 14 days after the index diagnosis. To account for the possible effect of PPI exposure from day 15 to censorship, we determined whether patients were dispensed or prescribed PPIs by using the same criteria as during the treatment window.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We used χ2 tests to compare categorical variables between PPI-exposed and non–PPI-exposed groups, setting α = .05. We compared age using Wilcoxon 2-sample tests. Rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined for recurrence during the follow-up period. To account for time to recurrence, we used survival analysis techniques, calculating Cox proportional hazards ratios (HRs) for additional positive findings of C difficile toxin. We included in the final model those variables that were statistically different between the groups or that were thought to be clinically relevant. We tested the proportional hazards assumption by including an interaction term in the final model between PPI exposure and the natural logarithm of time. Post hoc stratified analyses were conducted by patient age, non-CDI antibiotic exposure, and PPI exposure after treatment for incident CDI.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Positive toxin findings alone may not represent clinically relevant, recurrent CDI. Thus, we determined HRs excluding 34 patients (13.5% of 251 total cases of recurrence) with a new positive toxin finding for whom there was no VA pharmacy record of additional CDI antibiotic treatment. Because continued hospital exposure could favor CDI recurrence, we determined whether alternative categorization of inpatient time to discharge influenced hazard rates. We also analyzed to what extent patients with recurrent CDI had intervening positive toxin results. All analyses were performed using SAS statistical software (version 9.1.3; SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina).

STUDY POPULATION

The study population of 1166 veteran patients meeting criteria for recurrent CDI was predominantly male (97.2%), with a median age of 74 (interquartile range, 63-82) years. Overall, 527 (45.2%) of the patients were exposed to a PPI concurrent with antibiotic treatment (PPI-exposed group) and 639 (54.8%) were not exposed to concurrent PPI use (non–PPI-exposed group) (Figure 1 and Table 1). Almost all PPI-exposed patients (96.7%) were prescribed omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, or the equivalent dose of another PPI; the remaining patients received lower or higher PPI doses. Age and sex were similar among the PPI-exposed and non–PPI-exposed patients. The PPI-exposed group had a higher prevalence of ICD-9-CM coded ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, esophageal disease, peptic ulcer disease, and rheumatologic disease. This group also had greater exposure to systemic corticosteroids. Metronidazole was the initial antibiotic used for treatment of incident CDI in more than 90% of both groups. Similar proportions (11%) in each group were switched from metronidazole to oral vancomycin within the treatment window. However, patients in the PPI-exposed group were more likely to have been inpatients and were more likely to have inpatient stays exceeding 14 days than those in the non–PPI-exposed group. Also, those in the PPI-exposed group were more likely to have been exposed to non-CDI antibiotics during follow-up. Of those in the PPI-exposed group, 434 (82.4%) had continued exposure to PPIs during follow-up days 15 to 90. In the non–PPI-exposed group, there were only 41 patients (6.4%) exposed to PPIs during this follow-up. Similar proportions of each group had an admission to a VA nursing home during the study window.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of the Study Populationa
RELATIONSHIP OF PPI TO RECURRENT CDI

The primary outcome of additional positive findings for C difficile toxin occurred in 251 patients (21.5%). The unadjusted incidence of recurrent toxin in the 15 to 90 days after incident CDI was greater in the PPI-exposed compared with the non–PPI-exposed group (133 of 527 [25.2%] vs 118 of 639 [18.5%]). Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier recurrence-free survival curves are seen in Figure 2, with an associated HR of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.11-1.82; P = .006) for those in the PPI-exposed group compared with those in the non–PPI-exposed group. After adjusting for age, initial incident CDI antibiotic treatment (metronidazole or vancomycin), additional antibiotic exposure (yes or no), duration of hospital exposure (0, <14, or ≥14 days), and differing baseline comorbidities (ischemic heart, esophageal, peptic ulcer, pulmonary, and rheumatologic diseases) and medications (systemic corticosteroids), the HR associated with PPI exposure remained elevated at 1.42 (95% CI, 1.10-1.83; P = .008) (Table 2). The proportional hazards assumption was met for the adjusted model because the interaction term between exposure and the logarithm of time was not significant (P = .65).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Recurrence-free survival in those exposed vs unexposed to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) during treatment for incident Clostridium difficile infection. Time to recurrence started from the incident toxin finding or the start of antibiotic treatment (≤3 days after the diagnosis).

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Association of CDI Treatment-Concurrent PPI Exposure With Recurrent CDI Within 90 Days
EFFECT MODIFICATION

We evaluated potential effect modification by age, non-CDI antibiotic exposure during follow-up, and PPI exposure during follow-up. We found an increasing risk of recurrence associated with PPI use with increasing age (Table 2). Stratification by non-CDI antibiotic exposure in the follow-up window modified the association of PPIs and recurrent CDI on the ratio scale. Those exposed to additional antibiotics had a 71% greater risk of recurrence associated with PPIs, whereas those not exposed to antibiotics had a 30% greater risk of recurrence. However, we were not sufficiently powered to detect a statistically significant effect modification for age or non-CDI antibiotic exposure.

Most patients in the PPI-exposed group (434 of 527 [82.4%]) and very few of the non–PPI-exposed group (41 of 639 [6.4%]) received PPIs during the 15- to 90-day follow-up (Table 1). Patients prescribed PPIs during both treatment and follow-up had an increased risk of recurrence compared with those who were not exposed to PPIs in either time window (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.09-1.89; P = .01). Greater risk for recurrence, although not powered for statistical significance, was also seen in the smaller subgroups who were exposed to PPIs in the treatment period only (41 patients; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.68-2.51; P = .43) or in the follow-up period only (93 patients; HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.93-2.46; P = .10).

SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

We determined the proportion of those classified as having recurrent CDI whose treatment with CDI-targeted antibiotics was documented in the VA pharmacy. Of the 251 cases meeting our criteria for recurrent CDI, 217 (86.5%) were prescribed metronidazole or oral vancomycin at the time of the additional positive toxin finding. Restricting our risk analyses to these patients did not change our estimates (adjusted HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.15-2.01; P = .003).

Because a change from metronidazole to vancomycin therapy may reflect more severe disease clinically or failure to respond to the original CDI treatment antibiotic, we evaluated the influence of any exposure to vancomycin on the association of PPIs and recurrence. Controlling for any vancomycin treatment within the first 14 days did not alter our findings (adjusted HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84; P = .008).

We conducted adjusted analyses using varied categorical lengths of hospitalization following incident CDI diagnosis and found no differences in the HRs associating PPI exposure with recurrent CDI (data not shown).

Of the 251 recurrent cases, 121 (48.2%) had no intervening test for C difficile toxin, 100 (39.8%) had an intervening test with a negative result, and 30 (12.0%) had an intervening test with positive results, mostly within several days of the index date. There was no difference in PPI exposure among those with intervening negative test results or no intervening tests (P = .43).

Our findings indicate that PPI use concurrent with treatment for CDI was associated with a 42% increased risk of recurrent CDI in the subsequent 15 to 90 days. In stratified analyses, exposure during treatment and within the follow-up window was associated with a 44% greater recurrence, whereas patients prescribed PPIs in only 1 of the 2 exposure windows (ie, treatment only or follow-up only) demonstrated a higher but nonstatistically significant risk of recurrent infection.

Proton pump inhibitors have been linked to higher risks of community-acquired and nosocomial CDI,811,19 but other studies have not shown this association.21,22 Few studies have specifically focused on the association of PPIs with recurrent CDI. A retrospective medical record review of 140 patients in a single VA medical center demonstrated 4-fold increased odds of recurrence in those exposed to PPIs concurrently with CDI treatment, although HRs accounting for time to recurrence were not analyzed.24 A small prospective medical record review of patients with endoscopically proved pseudomembranous colitis found higher relapse rates in those prescribed antiulcer medications but did not distinguish between PPIs and other gastric acid suppressants.31 Similarly, a case-control study showed a slightly greater risk of recurrence in patients exposed to H2 receptor antagonists, but the investigators did not assess the risk of PPIs.13 Others have not found a difference in recurrence rates due to acid-suppressing medications23; however, those investigators did not distinguish between PPIs and H2 receptor antagonists, which are generally less potent. The data presented herein represent, to our knowledge, the largest evaluation of this potentially modifiable exposure to PPIs and risk of CDI recurrence.

One potential mechanism to explain this association may be that elevated gastric pH levels facilitate the growth of potentially pathogenic upper and lower gastrointestinal tract flora.3,32,33 Although C difficile spores are acid resistant, vegetative forms are susceptible to acidity.34,35 Furthermore, elevated gastric pH levels may allow or facilitate conversion from spore to vegetative forms of C difficile in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Other potential mechanisms include impairment of leukocytes and other immune responses and antimicrobial properties of PPIs.3639

Our study had several strengths, including use of data from the VA's large, multisite, integrated health care system. The ability to link information from laboratory, pharmacy, and administrative data enabled comprehensive assessment of multiple aspects of patients' health care. We also incorporated time to recurrence into our analyses, and stratified and sensitivity analyses supported the association of PPI use with recurrent CDI. Finally, our data are compatible with plausible biological mechanisms and with results from previous studies indicating increased risk of infections, including CDI, with PPI exposure.411

As with all studies using administrative and clinical data extracts, our findings should be viewed in the context of the following limitations. Use of observational databases allows for potential misclassification of exposure (eg, for outpatients, use of non-VA prescribed or over-the-counter PPIs or other gastric acid suppressants, and conversely, nonadherence to VA-prescribed PPI therapy). However, there exists significant financial incentive for most veterans to obtain prescriptions directly from the VA. Furthermore, because most of our sample initially had CDI treatment as inpatients, we are confident in the quality of our PPI exposure data.

A positive test result for a C difficile toxin by itself does not necessarily indicate a clinically relevant recurrence and could lead to potential misclassifications of the outcome. However, our findings remained robust when we assessed overdiagnosis of recurrent CDI by analyzing only the 217 subjects (86.5%) who had an additional positive toxin finding and additional documented treatment with CDI-targeted antibiotics. The hazards of recurrence in this restricted sample were similar to those of the entire study population (adjusted HRs, 1.52 vs 1.42, respectively).

Our data cannot, with certainty, determine to what extent the patients had recurrent CDI after a short period of treatment success or experienced treatment failure. Further examination revealed that 39.8% of the recurrent cases had an intervening negative stool toxin finding and 48.2% had no intervening tests. There was no difference in PPI exposure among these subgroups. From these data, there was little evidence to suggest that patients classified as having recurrent CDI had persistently positive toxin results between their index and recurrence dates. Nevertheless, to distinguish recurrent disease from treatment failure would require a prospective, systematic testing of subjects receiving treatment for CDI.

Patient frailty has been associated with CDI.40 Although we controlled for differences in comorbid conditions, other than incorporating use of selected medications to treat these conditions, we did not directly assess the severity of illnesses. In addition, our study was conducted in a predominantly male veteran population, and our results may not generalize to all patients. Previous studies have found women to be at greater risk for CDI than men,8 but other large investigations have associated PPIs with C difficile in both sexes.10,40 Overall, these findings may be generalized to other elderly populations with similar access to PPIs.

After incident CDI diagnosis, our sample had other potentially important exposures increasing their risk of recurrent CDI. Although we controlled for patients' time in the hospital after incident disease, we were unable to incorporate C difficile pressure in specific settings such as hospital wards.18 We also did not find any difference between groups for nursing home admissions during the study window. In our adjusted analyses, controlling for non-CDI antibiotic exposure during follow-up did not affect the risk associated with PPI exposure during treatment. When stratifying results, the risk associated with PPIs increased for those with additional antibiotic exposure, and statistical significance was no longer reached in those who received no further antibiotic treatment. Given the direction of the association, lack of further antibiotic treatment does not necessarily negate the effect of PPIs.

Most patients remained exposed or nonexposed to PPIs during the treatment and follow-up windows; very few received PPIs only during days 1 to 14 or only during days 15 to 90. Continued exposure to PPIs was associated with a risk of recurrent CDI similar to that found for the originally defined PPI-exposed group. Thus, to what extent the PPI exposure concurrent with CDI treatment, during follow-up, or during both periods is driving the association with recurrence is unclear.

The effect of any risk attributable to PPIs, regardless of magnitude, is increased owing to the high prevalence of use for this class of medication. Proton pump inhibitors are often used without a clear indication. Studies of outpatients have found that of those receiving long-term acid-suppressive therapy, only 61% had a relevant gastrointestinal tract–related diagnosis.2 Similarly, studies of inpatients found acid-suppressing medications frequently prescribed for stress ulcer prophylaxis in non–intensive care unit settings,4143 a practice contrary to the American Society of Health System Pharmacists guidelines.44 Choudhry et al45 studied patients with CDI and PPI use for prescription indication; an appropriate indication was not identified in 53.4% of the patients. We did not assess the indications for PPI use in our patients.

In conclusion, the study identified a 42% increased risk of recurrent CDI related to PPI use. Given the morbidity and cost associated with recurrent CDI and the lack of readily modifiable risk factors, our findings have important clinical implications. The data presented herein support the need for critical assessment of PPI use in patients being treated for CDI as well as further research to test this association.

Correspondence: Amy Linsky, MD, Department of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, 801 Massachusetts Ave, Second Floor, Boston, MA 02118 (Amy.Linsky@bmc.org).

Accepted for Publication: November 20, 2009.

Author Contributions: Dr Linsky had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Linsky, Gupta, Lawler, and Hermos. Acquisition of data: Linsky and Fonda. Analysis and interpretation of data: Linsky, Gupta, Lawler, Fonda, and Hermos. Drafting of the manuscript: Linsky and Hermos. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Linsky, Gupta, Lawler, Fonda, and Hermos. Statistical analysis: Linsky, Lawler, and Fonda. Administrative, technical, and material support: Linsky, Lawler, Fonda, and Hermos. Study supervision: Linsky, Gupta, and Hermos.

Funding/Support: The study was supported by the resources of the VA Cooperative Studies Program and using the facilities of the VA Boston Healthcare System.

Previous Presentations: This study was presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine; May 14, 2009; Miami, Florida; and at the 25th International Conference on Pharmacoepidemiology and Therapeutic Risk Management; August 16, 2009; Providence, Rhode Island.

Additional Contributions: Galina Sokolovskaya, MS, provided programming assistance and David Gagnon, MD, provided statistical consultation.

Heidelbaugh  JJGoldberg  KLInadomi  JM Overutilization of proton pump inhibitors: a review of cost-effectiveness and risk. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104 (2) ((suppl 2)) S27- S32
PubMed Link to Article
Jacobson  BCFerris  TGShea  TLMahlis  EMLee  THWang  TC Who is using chronic acid suppression therapy and why? Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98 (1) 51- 58
PubMed Link to Article
Brummer  RJStockbrugger  RW Effect of nizatidine 300 mg at night and omeprazole 20 mg in the morning on 24-hour intragastric pH and bacterial overgrowth in patients with acute duodenal ulcer. Dig Dis Sci 1996;41 (10) 2048- 2054
PubMed Link to Article
Dial  MS Proton pump inhibitor use and enteric infections. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104 (2) ((suppl 2)) S10- S16
PubMed Link to Article
García Rodríguez  LARuigómez  APanés  J Use of acid-suppressing drugs and the risk of bacterial gastroenteritis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5 (12) 1418- 1423
PubMed Link to Article
Sarkar  MHennessy  SYang  YX Proton-pump inhibitor use and the risk for community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Intern Med 2008;149 (6) 391- 398
PubMed Link to Article
Herzig  SJHowell  MDNgo  LHMarcantonio  ER Acid-suppressive medication use and the risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia. JAMA 2009;301 (20) 2120- 2128
PubMed Link to Article
Dial  SAlrasadi  KManoukian  CHuang  AMenzies  D Risk of Clostridium difficile diarrhea among hospital inpatients prescribed proton pump inhibitors: cohort and case-control studies. CMAJ 2004;171 (1) 33- 38
PubMed Link to Article
Dial  SDelaney  JABarkun  ANSuissa  S Use of gastric acid–suppressive agents and the risk of community-acquired Clostridium difficile–associated disease. JAMA 2005;294 (23) 2989- 2995
PubMed Link to Article
Aseeri  MSchroeder  TKramer  JZackula  R Gastric acid suppression by proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor for Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103 (9) 2308- 2313
PubMed Link to Article
Cunningham  RDale  BUndy  BGaunt  N Proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor for Clostridium difficile diarrhoea. J Hosp Infect 2003;54 (3) 243- 245
PubMed Link to Article
Nair  SYadav  DCorpuz  MPitchumoni  CS Clostridium difficile colitis: factors influencing treatment failure and relapse: a prospective evaluation. Am J Gastroenterol 1998;93 (10) 1873- 1876
PubMed
Tal  SGurevich  AGuller  VGurevich  IBerger  DLevi  S Risk factors for recurrence of Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea in the elderly. Scand J Infect Dis 2002;34 (8) 594- 597
PubMed Link to Article
Garey  KWSethi  SYadav  YDuPont  HL Meta-analysis to assess risk factors for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect 2008;70 (4) 298- 304
PubMed Link to Article
Maroo  SLamont  JT Recurrent clostridium difficile. Gastroenterology 2006;130 (4) 1311- 1316
PubMed Link to Article
Kelly  CPLaMont  JT Clostridium difficile: more difficult than ever. N Engl J Med 2008;359 (18) 1932- 1940
PubMed Link to Article
Loo  VGLibman  MDMiller  MA  et al.  Clostridium difficile: a formidable foe. CMAJ 2004;171 (1) 47- 48
PubMed Link to Article
Dubberke  ERReske  KAOlsen  MA  et al.  Evaluation of Clostridium difficile–associated disease pressure as a risk factor for C difficile–associated disease. Arch Intern Med 2007;167 (10) 1092- 1097
PubMed Link to Article
Dial  SDelaney  JASchneider  VSuissa  S Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of community-acquired Clostridium difficile–associated disease defined by prescription for oral vancomycin therapy. CMAJ 2006;175 (7) 745- 748
PubMed Link to Article
Dial  SKezouh  ADascal  ABarkun  ASuissa  S Patterns of antibiotic use and risk of hospital admission because of Clostridium difficile infection. CMAJ 2008;179 (8) 767- 772
PubMed Link to Article
Lowe  DOMamdani  MMKopp  ALow  DEJuurlink  DN Proton pump inhibitors and hospitalization for Clostridium difficile–associated disease: a population-based study. Clin Infect Dis 2006;43 (10) 1272- 1276
PubMed Link to Article
Wilcox  MHMooney  LBendall  RSettle  CDFawley  WN A case-control study of community-associated Clostridium difficile infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62 (2) 388- 396
PubMed Link to Article
Kyne  LWarny  MQamar  AKelly  CP Association between antibody response to toxin A and protection against recurrent Clostridium difficile diarrhoea. Lancet 2001;357 (9251) 189- 193
PubMed Link to Article
Cadle  RMMansouri  MDLogan  NKudva  DRMusher  DM Association of proton-pump inhibitors with outcomes in Clostridium difficile colitis. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007;64 (22) 2359- 2363
PubMed Link to Article
Teasley  DGGerding  DNOlson  MM  et al.  Prospective randomised trial of metronidazole versus vancomycin for Clostridium-difficile–associated diarrhoea and colitis. Lancet 1983;2 (8358) 1043- 1046
PubMed Link to Article
Zar  FABakkanagari  SRMoorthi  KMDavis  MB A comparison of vancomycin and metronidazole for the treatment of Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea, stratified by disease severity. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45 (3) 302- 307
PubMed Link to Article
Lai  KKMelvin  ZSMenard  MJKotilainen  HRBaker  S Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea: epidemiology, risk factors, and infection control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18 (9) 628- 632
PubMed Link to Article
Baxter  RRay  GTFireman  BH Case-control study of antibiotic use and subsequent Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29 (1) 44- 50
PubMed Link to Article
McFarland  LVMulligan  MEKwok  RYStamm  WE Nosocomial acquisition of Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med 1989;320 (4) 204- 210
PubMed Link to Article
Bignardi  GE Risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect 1998;40 (1) 1- 15
PubMed Link to Article
Moshkowitz  MBen-Baruch  EKline  ZShimoni  ZNiven  MKonikoff  F Risk factors for severity and relapse of pseudomembranous colitis in an elderly population. Colorectal Dis 2007;9 (2) 173- 177
PubMed Link to Article
Giannella  RABroitman  SAZamcheck  N Influence of gastric acidity on bacterial and parasitic enteric infections: a perspective. Ann Intern Med 1973;78 (2) 271- 276
PubMed Link to Article
Thorens  JFroehlich  FSchwizer  W  et al.  Bacterial overgrowth during treatment with omeprazole compared with cimetidine: a prospective randomised double blind study. Gut 1996;39 (1) 54- 59
PubMed Link to Article
Gurian  LWard  TTKaton  RM Possible foodborne transmission in a case of pseudomembranous colitis due to Clostridium difficile: influence of gastrointestinal secretions on Clostridium difficile infection. Gastroenterology 1982;83 (2) 465- 469
PubMed
Jump  RLPultz  MJDonskey  CJ Vegetative Clostridium difficile survives in room air on moist surfaces and in gastric contents with reduced acidity: a potential mechanism to explain the association between proton pump inhibitors and C difficile–associated diarrhea? Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007;51 (8) 2883- 2887
PubMed Link to Article
Alarcón  TDomingo  DSánchez  ISanz  JCMartínez  MJLópez-Brea  M In vitro activity of ebrotidine, ranitidine, omeprazole, lansoprazole, and bismuth citrate against clinical isolates of Helicobacter pylori. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1998;17 (4) 275- 277
PubMed Link to Article
Zedtwitz-Liebenstein  KWenisch  CPatruta  SParschalk  BDaxbock  FGraninger  W Omeprazole treatment diminishes intra- and extracellular neutrophil reactive oxygen production and bactericidal activity. Crit Care Med 2002;30 (5) 1118- 1122
PubMed Link to Article
Yoshida  NYoshikawa  TTanaka  Y  et al.  A new mechanism for anti-inflammatory actions of proton pump inhibitors: inhibitory effects on neutrophil-endothelial cell interactions. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000;14 ((suppl 1)) 74- 81
PubMed Link to Article
Agastya  GWest  BCCallahan  JM Omeprazole inhibits phagocytosis and acidification of phagolysosomes of normal human neutrophils in vitro. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol 2000;22 (2) 357- 372
PubMed Link to Article
Dubberke  ERReske  KAYan  YOlsen  MAMcDonald  LCFraser  VJ Clostridium difficile–associated disease in a setting of endemicity: identification of novel risk factors. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45 (12) 1543- 1549
PubMed Link to Article
Pham  CQRegal  REBostwick  TRKnauf  KS Acid suppressive therapy use on an inpatient internal medicine service. Ann Pharmacother 2006;40 (7-8) 1261- 1266
PubMed Link to Article
Grube  RRMay  DB Stress ulcer prophylaxis in hospitalized patients not in intensive care units. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007;64 (13) 1396- 1400
PubMed Link to Article
Nardino  RJVender  RJHerbert  PN Overuse of acid-suppressive therapy in hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95 (11) 3118- 3122
PubMed
 ASHP therapeutic guidelines on stress ulcer prophylaxis: ASHP Commission on Therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on November 14, 1998. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56 (4) 347- 379
PubMed
Choudhry  MNSoran  HZiglam  HM Overuse and inappropriate prescribing of proton pump inhibitors in patients with Clostridium difficile–associated disease. QJM 2008;101 (6) 445- 448
PubMed Link to Article

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Determination of study population. CDI indicates Clostridium difficile infection; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; and VA, Veterans Affairs.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Recurrence-free survival in those exposed vs unexposed to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) during treatment for incident Clostridium difficile infection. Time to recurrence started from the incident toxin finding or the start of antibiotic treatment (≤3 days after the diagnosis).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of the Study Populationa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Association of CDI Treatment-Concurrent PPI Exposure With Recurrent CDI Within 90 Days

References

Heidelbaugh  JJGoldberg  KLInadomi  JM Overutilization of proton pump inhibitors: a review of cost-effectiveness and risk. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104 (2) ((suppl 2)) S27- S32
PubMed Link to Article
Jacobson  BCFerris  TGShea  TLMahlis  EMLee  THWang  TC Who is using chronic acid suppression therapy and why? Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98 (1) 51- 58
PubMed Link to Article
Brummer  RJStockbrugger  RW Effect of nizatidine 300 mg at night and omeprazole 20 mg in the morning on 24-hour intragastric pH and bacterial overgrowth in patients with acute duodenal ulcer. Dig Dis Sci 1996;41 (10) 2048- 2054
PubMed Link to Article
Dial  MS Proton pump inhibitor use and enteric infections. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104 (2) ((suppl 2)) S10- S16
PubMed Link to Article
García Rodríguez  LARuigómez  APanés  J Use of acid-suppressing drugs and the risk of bacterial gastroenteritis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5 (12) 1418- 1423
PubMed Link to Article
Sarkar  MHennessy  SYang  YX Proton-pump inhibitor use and the risk for community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Intern Med 2008;149 (6) 391- 398
PubMed Link to Article
Herzig  SJHowell  MDNgo  LHMarcantonio  ER Acid-suppressive medication use and the risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia. JAMA 2009;301 (20) 2120- 2128
PubMed Link to Article
Dial  SAlrasadi  KManoukian  CHuang  AMenzies  D Risk of Clostridium difficile diarrhea among hospital inpatients prescribed proton pump inhibitors: cohort and case-control studies. CMAJ 2004;171 (1) 33- 38
PubMed Link to Article
Dial  SDelaney  JABarkun  ANSuissa  S Use of gastric acid–suppressive agents and the risk of community-acquired Clostridium difficile–associated disease. JAMA 2005;294 (23) 2989- 2995
PubMed Link to Article
Aseeri  MSchroeder  TKramer  JZackula  R Gastric acid suppression by proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor for Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103 (9) 2308- 2313
PubMed Link to Article
Cunningham  RDale  BUndy  BGaunt  N Proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor for Clostridium difficile diarrhoea. J Hosp Infect 2003;54 (3) 243- 245
PubMed Link to Article
Nair  SYadav  DCorpuz  MPitchumoni  CS Clostridium difficile colitis: factors influencing treatment failure and relapse: a prospective evaluation. Am J Gastroenterol 1998;93 (10) 1873- 1876
PubMed
Tal  SGurevich  AGuller  VGurevich  IBerger  DLevi  S Risk factors for recurrence of Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea in the elderly. Scand J Infect Dis 2002;34 (8) 594- 597
PubMed Link to Article
Garey  KWSethi  SYadav  YDuPont  HL Meta-analysis to assess risk factors for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect 2008;70 (4) 298- 304
PubMed Link to Article
Maroo  SLamont  JT Recurrent clostridium difficile. Gastroenterology 2006;130 (4) 1311- 1316
PubMed Link to Article
Kelly  CPLaMont  JT Clostridium difficile: more difficult than ever. N Engl J Med 2008;359 (18) 1932- 1940
PubMed Link to Article
Loo  VGLibman  MDMiller  MA  et al.  Clostridium difficile: a formidable foe. CMAJ 2004;171 (1) 47- 48
PubMed Link to Article
Dubberke  ERReske  KAOlsen  MA  et al.  Evaluation of Clostridium difficile–associated disease pressure as a risk factor for C difficile–associated disease. Arch Intern Med 2007;167 (10) 1092- 1097
PubMed Link to Article
Dial  SDelaney  JASchneider  VSuissa  S Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of community-acquired Clostridium difficile–associated disease defined by prescription for oral vancomycin therapy. CMAJ 2006;175 (7) 745- 748
PubMed Link to Article
Dial  SKezouh  ADascal  ABarkun  ASuissa  S Patterns of antibiotic use and risk of hospital admission because of Clostridium difficile infection. CMAJ 2008;179 (8) 767- 772
PubMed Link to Article
Lowe  DOMamdani  MMKopp  ALow  DEJuurlink  DN Proton pump inhibitors and hospitalization for Clostridium difficile–associated disease: a population-based study. Clin Infect Dis 2006;43 (10) 1272- 1276
PubMed Link to Article
Wilcox  MHMooney  LBendall  RSettle  CDFawley  WN A case-control study of community-associated Clostridium difficile infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62 (2) 388- 396
PubMed Link to Article
Kyne  LWarny  MQamar  AKelly  CP Association between antibody response to toxin A and protection against recurrent Clostridium difficile diarrhoea. Lancet 2001;357 (9251) 189- 193
PubMed Link to Article
Cadle  RMMansouri  MDLogan  NKudva  DRMusher  DM Association of proton-pump inhibitors with outcomes in Clostridium difficile colitis. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007;64 (22) 2359- 2363
PubMed Link to Article
Teasley  DGGerding  DNOlson  MM  et al.  Prospective randomised trial of metronidazole versus vancomycin for Clostridium-difficile–associated diarrhoea and colitis. Lancet 1983;2 (8358) 1043- 1046
PubMed Link to Article
Zar  FABakkanagari  SRMoorthi  KMDavis  MB A comparison of vancomycin and metronidazole for the treatment of Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea, stratified by disease severity. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45 (3) 302- 307
PubMed Link to Article
Lai  KKMelvin  ZSMenard  MJKotilainen  HRBaker  S Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea: epidemiology, risk factors, and infection control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18 (9) 628- 632
PubMed Link to Article
Baxter  RRay  GTFireman  BH Case-control study of antibiotic use and subsequent Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29 (1) 44- 50
PubMed Link to Article
McFarland  LVMulligan  MEKwok  RYStamm  WE Nosocomial acquisition of Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med 1989;320 (4) 204- 210
PubMed Link to Article
Bignardi  GE Risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect 1998;40 (1) 1- 15
PubMed Link to Article
Moshkowitz  MBen-Baruch  EKline  ZShimoni  ZNiven  MKonikoff  F Risk factors for severity and relapse of pseudomembranous colitis in an elderly population. Colorectal Dis 2007;9 (2) 173- 177
PubMed Link to Article
Giannella  RABroitman  SAZamcheck  N Influence of gastric acidity on bacterial and parasitic enteric infections: a perspective. Ann Intern Med 1973;78 (2) 271- 276
PubMed Link to Article
Thorens  JFroehlich  FSchwizer  W  et al.  Bacterial overgrowth during treatment with omeprazole compared with cimetidine: a prospective randomised double blind study. Gut 1996;39 (1) 54- 59
PubMed Link to Article
Gurian  LWard  TTKaton  RM Possible foodborne transmission in a case of pseudomembranous colitis due to Clostridium difficile: influence of gastrointestinal secretions on Clostridium difficile infection. Gastroenterology 1982;83 (2) 465- 469
PubMed
Jump  RLPultz  MJDonskey  CJ Vegetative Clostridium difficile survives in room air on moist surfaces and in gastric contents with reduced acidity: a potential mechanism to explain the association between proton pump inhibitors and C difficile–associated diarrhea? Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007;51 (8) 2883- 2887
PubMed Link to Article
Alarcón  TDomingo  DSánchez  ISanz  JCMartínez  MJLópez-Brea  M In vitro activity of ebrotidine, ranitidine, omeprazole, lansoprazole, and bismuth citrate against clinical isolates of Helicobacter pylori. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1998;17 (4) 275- 277
PubMed Link to Article
Zedtwitz-Liebenstein  KWenisch  CPatruta  SParschalk  BDaxbock  FGraninger  W Omeprazole treatment diminishes intra- and extracellular neutrophil reactive oxygen production and bactericidal activity. Crit Care Med 2002;30 (5) 1118- 1122
PubMed Link to Article
Yoshida  NYoshikawa  TTanaka  Y  et al.  A new mechanism for anti-inflammatory actions of proton pump inhibitors: inhibitory effects on neutrophil-endothelial cell interactions. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000;14 ((suppl 1)) 74- 81
PubMed Link to Article
Agastya  GWest  BCCallahan  JM Omeprazole inhibits phagocytosis and acidification of phagolysosomes of normal human neutrophils in vitro. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol 2000;22 (2) 357- 372
PubMed Link to Article
Dubberke  ERReske  KAYan  YOlsen  MAMcDonald  LCFraser  VJ Clostridium difficile–associated disease in a setting of endemicity: identification of novel risk factors. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45 (12) 1543- 1549
PubMed Link to Article
Pham  CQRegal  REBostwick  TRKnauf  KS Acid suppressive therapy use on an inpatient internal medicine service. Ann Pharmacother 2006;40 (7-8) 1261- 1266
PubMed Link to Article
Grube  RRMay  DB Stress ulcer prophylaxis in hospitalized patients not in intensive care units. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007;64 (13) 1396- 1400
PubMed Link to Article
Nardino  RJVender  RJHerbert  PN Overuse of acid-suppressive therapy in hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95 (11) 3118- 3122
PubMed
 ASHP therapeutic guidelines on stress ulcer prophylaxis: ASHP Commission on Therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on November 14, 1998. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56 (4) 347- 379
PubMed
Choudhry  MNSoran  HZiglam  HM Overuse and inappropriate prescribing of proton pump inhibitors in patients with Clostridium difficile–associated disease. QJM 2008;101 (6) 445- 448
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Response

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com