[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.147.238.168. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Table 1.  
Analysis of Risk Factors for Clostridium difficile Death or Recurrence Within 90 Days for 754 Patients in the Cohort
Analysis of Risk Factors for Clostridium difficile Death or Recurrence Within 90 Days for 754 Patients in the Cohort
Table 2.  
Differences Between Users and Nonusers of PPIsa
Differences Between Users and Nonusers of PPIsa
Table 3.  
Unadjusted and Adjusted CSHRs for Initial Relapse of Clostridium difficile and Estimated sHRs for Recurrence Using Competing Risk Regression
Unadjusted and Adjusted CSHRs for Initial Relapse of Clostridium difficile and Estimated sHRs for Recurrence Using Competing Risk Regression
Table 4.  
Indications for PPI Use Among 191 Patients Who Underwent Medical Record Review
Indications for PPI Use Among 191 Patients Who Underwent Medical Record Review
1.
Polage  CR, Solnick  JV, Cohen  SH.  Nosocomial diarrhea: evaluation and treatment of causes other than Clostridium difficileClin Infect Dis. 2012;55(7):982-989.
PubMedArticle
2.
Zimlichman  E, Henderson  D, Tamir  O,  et al.  Health care–associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(22):2039-2046.
PubMedArticle
3.
Kwok  CS, Arthur  AK, Anibueze  CI, Singh  S, Cavallazzi  R, Loke  YK.  Risk of Clostridium difficile infection with acid suppressing drugs and antibiotics: meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(7):1011-1019.
PubMedArticle
4.
Drekonja  DM, Butler  M, MacDonald  R,  et al.  Comparative effectiveness of Clostridium difficile treatments: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(12):839-847.
PubMedArticle
5.
Janarthanan  S, Ditah  I, Adler  DG, Ehrinpreis  MN.  Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea and proton pump inhibitor therapy: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(7):1001-1010.
PubMedArticle
6.
Deshpande  A, Pant  C, Pasupuleti  V,  et al.  Association between proton pump inhibitor therapy and Clostridium difficile infection in a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10(3):225-233.
PubMedArticle
7.
Health Canada. Proton pump inhibitors (antacids): possible risk of Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea. 2012. http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2012/13651a-eng.php. Accessed January 20, 2015.
8.
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea can be associated with stomach acid drugs known as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).2012. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm290510.htm. Accessed January 19, 2015.
9.
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: possible increased risk of fractures of the hip, wrist, and spine with the use of proton pump inhibitors.2012. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm213206.htm. Accessed January 19, 2015.
10.
Health Canada. Proton pump inhibitors: hypomagnesemia accompanied by hypocalcemia and hypokalemia. 2011. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medeff/bulletin/carn-bcei_v21n3-eng.php#_Proton_pump_inhibitors. Accessed January 19, 2015.
11.
Health Canada. Plavix (blood thinner): new recommendations for use with PPIs (antacids). 2011. http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2011/13545a-eng.php. Accessed January 20, 2015.
12.
Maggio  M, Corsonello  A.  Harmful effects of proton pump inhibitors: discrepancies between observational studies and randomized clinical trials: reply. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(16):1559-1560.
PubMedArticle
13.
Zink  DA, Pohlman  M, Barnes  M, Cannon  ME.  Long-term use of acid suppression started inappropriately during hospitalization. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21(10):1203-1209.
PubMedArticle
14.
Naunton  M, Peterson  GM, Bleasel  MD.  Overuse of proton pump inhibitors. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2000;25(5):333-340.
PubMedArticle
15.
Freedberg  DE, Salmasian  H, Friedman  C, Abrams  JA.  Proton pump inhibitors and risk for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection among inpatients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(11):1794-1801.
PubMedArticle
16.
Linsky  A, Gupta  K, Lawler  EV, Fonda  JR, Hermos  JA.  Proton pump inhibitors and risk for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(9):772-778.
PubMedArticle
17.
Kim  JW, Lee  KL, Jeong  JB,  et al.  Proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor for recurrence of Clostridium-difficile–associated diarrhea. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(28):3573-3577.
PubMedArticle
18.
Cadle  RM, Mansouri  MD, Logan  N, Kudva  DR, Musher  DM.  Association of proton-pump inhibitors with outcomes in Clostridium difficile colitis. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2007;64(22):2359-2363.
PubMedArticle
19.
Cohen  SH, Gerding  DN, Johnson  S,  et al; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; Infectious Diseases Society of America.  Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(5):431-455.
PubMedArticle
20.
Wolbers  M, Koller  MT, Stel  VS,  et al.  Competing risks analyses: objectives and approaches. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(42):2936-2941.
PubMedArticle
21.
Wolkewitz  M, Cooper  BS, Bonten  MJ, Barnett  AG, Schumacher  M.  Interpreting and comparing risks in the presence of competing events. BMJ. 2014;349:g5060.
PubMedArticle
22.
Fine  JP, Gray  RJ.  A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446):496-509.Article
23.
White  IR, Royston  P, Wood  AM.  Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377-399.
PubMedArticle
24.
Sung  JJ, Chung  SC, Ling  TK,  et al.  Antibacterial treatment of gastric ulcers associated with Helicobacter pyloriN Engl J Med. 1995;332(3):139-142.
PubMedArticle
25.
Lau  JY, Sung  JJ, Lee  KK,  et al.  Effect of intravenous omeprazole on recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(5):310-316.
PubMedArticle
26.
Chey  WD, Wong  BC; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology.  American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(8):1808-1825.
PubMedArticle
27.
Lanza  FL, Chan  FK, Quigley  EM; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology.  Guidelines for prevention of NSAID-related ulcer complications. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(3):728-738.
PubMedArticle
28.
Rostom  A, Moayyedi  P, Hunt  R; Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Consensus Group.  Canadian consensus guidelines on long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy and the need for gastroprotection: benefits versus risks. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29(5):481-496.
PubMedArticle
29.
van Vliet  EP, Steyerberg  EW, Otten  HJ,  et al.  The effects of guideline implementation for proton pump inhibitor prescription on two pulmonary medicine wards. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29(2):213-221.
PubMedArticle
30.
Lai  KC, Lam  SK, Chu  KM,  et al.  Lansoprazole for the prevention of recurrences of ulcer complications from long-term low-dose aspirin use. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(26):2033-2038.
PubMedArticle
31.
McFarland  LV, Surawicz  CM, Rubin  M, Fekety  R, Elmer  GW, Greenberg  RN.  Recurrent Clostridium difficile disease: epidemiology and clinical characteristics. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(1):43-50.
PubMedArticle
32.
Pathak  R, Enuh  HA, Patel  A, Wickremesinghe  P.  Treatment of relapsing Clostridium difficile infection using fecal microbiota transplantation. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2013;7:1-6.
PubMed
33.
McFarland  LV.  Alternative treatments for Clostridium difficile disease: what really works? J Med Microbiol. 2005;54(pt 2):101-111.
PubMedArticle
34.
D’Agostino  RB  Sr, Collins  SH, Pencina  KM, Kean  Y, Gorbach  S.  Risk estimation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection based on clinical factors. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(10):1386-1393.
PubMedArticle
35.
Louie  TJ, Miller  MA, Mullane  KM,  et al; OPT-80-003 Clinical Study Group.  Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(5):422-431.
PubMedArticle
36.
van Nood  E, Vrieze  A, Nieuwdorp  M,  et al.  Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficileN Engl J Med. 2013;368(5):407-415.
PubMedArticle
37.
Amir  I, Konikoff  FM, Oppenheim  M, Gophna  U, Half  EE.  Gastric microbiota is altered in oesophagitis and Barrett’s oesophagus and further modified by proton pump inhibitors. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16(9):2905-2914.
PubMedArticle
Original Investigation
Less Is More
May 2015

Continuous Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy and the Associated Risk of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • 2McGill Centre for Quality Improvement, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • 3Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 4Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):784-791. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.42
Abstract

Importance  Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and a high risk of recurrence. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use is associated with an initial episode of CDI, and PPIs are frequently overprescribed. For many, the use of PPIs could likely be discontinued before CDI recurrence.

Objectives  To determine whether PPI use was associated with a risk of initial CDI recurrence, to assess what proportion of patients who developed CDI were taking a PPI for a non–evidence-based indication, and to evaluate whether physicians discontinued unnecessary PPIs in the context of CDI.

Design, Setting, and Participants  We conducted a retrospective cohort study of incident health care–associated CDI cases to determine the association between continuous PPI use and CDI recurrence within 90 days. The setting was 2 university-affiliated hospitals, the 417-bed Montreal General Hospital (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) and the 517-bed Royal Victoria Hospital (Montreal, Quebec, Canada). The cohort consisted of 754 patients who developed health care–associated CDI between January 1, 2010, and January 30, 2013, and who survived for a minimum of 15 days after their initial episode of nosocomial CDI.

Exposure  Continuous PPI use.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Recurrence of CDI within 15 to 90 days of the initial episode.

Results  Using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, the cause-specific hazard ratios for recurrence were 1.5 (95% CI, 1.1-2.0) for age older than 75 years, 1.5 (95% CI, 1.1-2.0) for continuous PPI use, 1.003 (95% CI, 1.002-1.004) per day for length of stay, and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.9-1.7) for antibiotic reexposure. The use of PPIs was common (60.7%), with only 47.1% of patients having an evidence-based indication. Proton pump inhibitors were discontinued in only 3 patients with CDI.

Conclusions and Relevance  After adjustment for other independent predictors of recurrence, patients with continuous PPI use remained at elevated risk of CDI recurrence. We suggest that the cessation of unnecessary PPI use should be considered at the time of CDI diagnosis.

Introduction

Clostridium difficile is the most common cause of infectious diarrhea in hospitalized patients1 and is associated with significant attributable costs (US $11 000 per nosocomial case2) and morbidity and risk of mortality.3Quiz Ref IDEven when an initial episode of C difficile infection (CDI) is successfully treated, approximately 20% of patients will experience 1 or more recurrences.4 The management of patients with multiple recurrences is challenging, and therapeutic options are limited. Therefore, when faced with a patient with an initial episode of CDI, an important goal must be the prevention of subsequent episodes.

A reasonable approach to preventing recurrence is to minimize modifiable risk factors such as antibiotic exposure. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use is prevalent and has been identified as an important exposure before an initial episode of CDI.3,5,6 Consequently, Health Canada7 and the US Food and Drug Administration8 have released advisories that in all patient populations PPIs should be used at the lowest dosage possible for the shortest duration that is clinically indicated.

Despite associations with CDI and other recognized adverse events,811 PPIs are still overprescribed.1214 Given that many patients receive these drugs without evidence-based indications, we hypothesized that unnecessary PPI use could be discontinued in patients with CDI to minimize recurrence risk. This would be an intervention of negligible cost with substantial potential benefit. Nevertheless, although the association between PPI use and incident CDI is well established, the evidence implicating PPIs with recurrence is limited to a few conflicting studies.1518

The objectives of our study were 3-fold. First was to determine whether PPI use was associated with a risk of initial CDI recurrence. Second was to assess what proportion of patients who developed CDI were taking a PPI for a non–evidence-based indication. Third was to evaluate whether physicians discontinued unnecessary PPIs in the context of CDI.

Methods
Ethics

Ethics approval was granted by the McGill University Health Centre Research Ethics Board. Informed consent was waived.

Description of the Cohort

This was a retrospective cohort study consisting of all patients who developed an initial episode of health care–associated CDI between January 1, 2010, and January 30, 2013, and who survived for a minimum of 15 days after their initial episode of nosocomial CDI. The study was conducted at 2 university-affiliated hospitals, the 417-bed Montreal General Hospital (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) and the 517-bed Royal Victoria Hospital (Montreal, Quebec, Canada).

As per Quebec standards, health care–associated CDI cases were those in which (1) symptoms occurred more than 3 days after admission or (2) symptoms caused readmission in a patient who had been hospitalized within the previous 30 days and who was not a resident in a long-term care facility. All potential cases were adjudicated by an infection control nurse for symptoms and were diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction for toxin B. Patients who were polymerase chain reaction positive without 3 episodes of diarrhea were excluded from the study. Exceptions included patients with ileus, toxic megacolon, colitis determined by results from computed tomography or colonoscopy, or autopsy-proven disease.

Patients within the cohort were evaluated for a recurrence of CDI, defined as recurrent symptoms (without alternative explanation) in association with a second positive C difficile polymerase chain reaction assay occurring between 15 and 90 days after the initial episode. While the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines suggest that a recurrence should be defined as occurring within 56 days of the initial episode,19 they recognize that the definition is not evidence based. We chose to include episodes occurring between days 57 and 90 because we believed that they were also clinically important, as well as to ensure that our results would be directly comparable to those of the conflicting large observational studies15,16 that have previously addressed this issue. Censoring occurred at CDI recurrence or at death within 90 days. Those who did not die or experience a recurrence were censored at 90 days.

There were 809 patients identified, of whom 55 were excluded because they died before day 15 and therefore could never have had a recurrence. This left a cohort of 754 patients whose cases were analyzed.

Exposure Assessment

The main exposure of interest was continuous PPI use. Exposure was defined as the receipt of a PPI at the time of the initial episode of C difficile with either (1) ongoing exposure for at least 75% of days in the hospital in those who remained hospitalized or (2) a discharge prescription for a PPI that was valid beyond 90 days after the initial episode. To ensure that patients with CDI recurrence remained exposed, they were also reevaluated at the time of recurrence for a valid PPI prescription from at least 48 hours before recurrence. More than 90% of exposed patients were receiving pantoprazole sodium (40 mg daily) because this is one of only 2 PPIs (along with dissolvable lansoprazole) on our hospital formularies.

Other Demographics

We extracted information on the treatment of the initial episode of CDI, the unit that the infection was attributed to (medical, surgical, critical care, or other), the admitting hospital (to control for differences in local colonization pressure), and length of stay. In our hospitals, the duration of initial treatment of CDI is 14 days.

Age, sex, and date of death (if deceased) were obtained from the patient registration database. Patient comorbidities were obtained from International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, data manually abstracted by medical record personnel during the index admission (eAppendix in the Supplement). Vancomycin-resistant enterococci and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization status were obtained from the hospitals’ respective microbiology laboratories.

Antibiotic Reexposure

Ninety-nine percent (752 of 754) of patients were exposed to antibiotics before the initial episode of C difficile. We obtained in-hospital antibiotic reexposure data from our hospital pharmacy database following the standard 14 days of therapy for index CDI (within 15-90 days of the initial episode).

Process of Evaluating Indications for PPIs Use

A general internist (E.G.M.) reviewed the indications for PPI use through a medical record review of all consecutive patients admitted to a medical clinical teaching unit or to a critical care unit (191 of 493 PPI users [38.7%]). One hundred of these medical records were subsequently reviewed by a second physician (J.M.) for an independent verification of the indication. κ Agreement was 0.94. Consensus for 3 cases of disagreement was reached after discussion with a third physician (T.C.L.). Patients admitted to these units (and not to surgical units) were chosen because they have detailed admission notes, providing the most accurate history obtainable to determine the rationale for PPI therapy (eAppendix in the Supplement).

Statistical Analysis

With statistical software (STATA, version 13; StataCorp LP), we used a Cox proportional hazards model to determine the cause-specific hazards ratios for both initial recurrence and death as a competing risk.20,21 We also performed competing risk regression22 to determine subdistribution hazard ratios for both end points, and we present both analyses for comparison.21

We first conducted a univariate analysis looking for associations between comorbid conditions and C difficile recurrence. Factors that were associated with P < .25 and those believed a priori to be important were considered for inclusion in the multivariable models. Backward elimination was then used to arrive at the final models, with antibiotic reexposure being an important potential confounder included in all models. All variables in the final model were checked for significant interactions.

The proportional hazards assumption was tested by including a factor × time interaction for all variables. If this led to violation of the proportional hazards assumption, the interaction with time was included in the model as the means of correction of that violation, and the results for such variables are presented for days 15, 28, and 56.

Data were missing for both initial antibiotic therapy and antibiotic reexposure. For our multivariable analysis, we imputed these variables with multiple imputation using chained equations.23 Imputation models included the variables to be included in the analysis models. Twenty imputations were performed using logit for binary variables. Convergence was verified graphically, and the residuals were plotted against the fitted values to evaluate model fit. A complete case analysis was also performed to confirm that the conclusions were not changed by the imputation technique.

Results

Among 754 eligible patients, there were 52 deaths without recurrence (6.9%), 193 documented recurrences (25.6%), and 509 survivors without documented recurrence within 90 days (67.5%). The comorbidities and clinical characteristics of these patients are listed in Table 1. Among 193 patients who experienced a recurrence, 157 recurrences (81.3%) occurred between days 15 and 56. The distribution of the timing of all 193 recurrences was as follows: 15 to 21 days (37 patients [19.2%]), 22 to 28 days (43 patients [22.3%]), 29 to 35 days (28 patients [14.5%]), 36 to 42 days (24 patients [12.4%]), 43 to 49 days (12 patients [6.2%]), 50 to 56 days (13 patients [6.7%]), and 57 to 90 days (36 patients [18.7%]).

The PPI users differed from nonusers in multiple ways (Table 2). Most important, they were more likely to experience a CDI recurrence (28.8% vs 20.6%, P = .007) or to die (10.3% vs 4.7%, P = .007) within 15 to 90 days of the initial episode.

Quiz Ref IDIn the multivariable analysis, the following remained independently associated with the rate of recurrence: age older than 75 years, continuous PPI use, length of stay, and vancomycin treatment of the initial episode. The cause-specific hazards ratios and subdistribution hazard ratios are listed in Table 3.

Among 458 of 754 patients (60.7%) who were taking a PPI at CDI diagnosis, 191 (41.7%) underwent medical record review, of whom 30 of 191 (15.7%) were cases and 161 of 191 (84.3%) were controls. Ninety of these 191 PPI users (47.1%) had an evidence-based indication for therapy (Table 4). The most common evidence-based indication for PPI use was age older than 60 years with 2 other concurrent risk factors for peptic ulcer disease (39 patients [20.4%]). Quiz Ref IDProton pump inhibitor use was discontinued in only 3 of 458 patients (0.6%).

Discussion

In this retrospective cohort study, 754 patients with an initial episode of health care–associated CDI were evaluated to determine if PPI use was associated with CDI recurrence. Quiz Ref IDRecurrence was common, occurring in 193 of 754 patients (25.6%) within 90 days. After adjustment using 2 different but complementary methods of accounting for the competing risk of death, patients who were continuous users of PPIs had a cause-specific hazard ratio of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.1-2.0) and a subdistribution hazard ratio of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.9) for CDI recurrence. Probable overuse of PPIs was seen in more than 50%. Despite this, PPI use was were almost never discontinued.

Although the association between PPI use and incident CDI is well established, few studies have looked at the association of PPI use with recurrent disease. Recurrences are associated with a higher attributable cost, increased length of stay, and greater morbidity and mortality than an initial episode of CDI.31 Recurrent CDI is difficult to treat, with patients who experience an initial episode of recurrence having a 40% chance of developing a second recurrence and a 60% chance of further recurrences.32,33

A PubMed search identified 4 prior studies1518 examining the association between PPI use and recurrent CDI. Two of these studies17,18 involved fewer than 150 patients each and demonstrated an association between PPI use and recurrence.

The association was strengthened with the findings by Linsky et al16 in a mixed population of 1166 inpatients and outpatients diagnosed as having CDI by enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay. In their cohort, 45% of patients were taking a PPI. After adjusting for comorbidities, antibiotic reexposure, and censoring for death, they established that PPI use was associated with CDI recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8).

In contrast, Freedberg et al15 analyzed hospitalized patients with CDI and found no association among 894 patients with incident CDI diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction. Exposure was defined as PPI receipt for a minimum of 2 days during CDI therapy (62% were exposed). This definition differs from other studies that have looked at continuous exposure. Unlike in the study by Linsky et al16 and in the present study, Freedberg et al15 did not adjust for antibiotic reexposure, potentially confounding the analysis.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

Quiz Ref IDOur observational study has the potential for unmeasured and residual confounding. Except for peak white blood cell count and the number of episodes of diarrhea, we believe that we adjusted for many of the confounders associated with recurrent CDI.34 Although we do not routinely type for Cdifficile strain, provincially this has not changed over the study period, and roughly 50% are North American pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type 1 (NAP1) in Quebec.

There is a possibility that patients who experienced CDI recurrence at another center would not have been captured in our study. However, patients in our jurisdiction are routinely routed back to their usual hospital, and we believe that we captured most recurrences.

Rehospitalization and outpatient visits may be important risk factors for the receipt of a PPI and for recurrent CDI. While we were unable to specifically adjust for these interactions, we have attempted to minimize this confounding through the adjustment for age, comorbid illnesses, admission to a medical unit, and length of stay.

Although we did not have a strict method to determine PPI adherence in the community, we attempted to minimize incorrectly labeling patients with recurrence as being exposed by reverifying ongoing PPI use at the time of CDI recurrence. While this may have introduced differential misclassification bias in the patients who did not experience a recurrence, we believe that this would only have served to bias our study toward the null and therefore does not invalidate our conclusions.

Finally, patients whose initial CDI therapy was extended beyond 14 days were not examined separately. This represented less than 5% of patients, and we believe that this is unlikely to have nullified the association we observed between PPI use and recurrent CDI.

The strengths of our study are the large number of participants, our use of both the Cox proportional hazards model and competing risk regression model for dealing with the competing risk of death, the adjustment for potential confounders (including antibiotic reexposure), and a reasonable definition of continuous PPI exposure. To date, this is also the largest study to enumerate whether PPIs prescribed in the population with CDI are for evidence-based indications, as well as to demonstrate that their use is almost never discontinued in the context of infection.

Options for the Prevention of Recurrent CDI

Currently available options for the prevention of recurrent CDI are expensive, are difficult to access, and have limited evidence. Fidaxomicin is potentially equivalent to oral vancomycin for the initial treatment of disease and decreased the rates of recurrence (15.4% vs 25.3%, P = .005) when evaluated at days 36 to 40 for non-NAP1 strains.35 In our hospitals, fidaxomicin is not widely accessible because the Quebec formulary cites limited cost-effectiveness vs that of vancomycin. Another emerging viable treatment option, fecal transplantation,36 is also not widely available and is subject to governmental restrictions in many countries.

By contrast, PPI use is common, it is associated with CDI recurrence in 2 large observational studies,15,16 and the association is biologically plausible given the effect of PPI therapy on the gut microbiome.37 For more than half of the patients with incident CDI, we have shown that the indication for PPI use is not evidence based and have demonstrated that their PPI could be safely discontinued. The cost of PPI discontinuation is negligible, and tapering the PPI dosage before discontinuation may help to curb any complications such as symptoms of rebound hyperacidity. In the absence of a randomized clinical trial clearly demonstrating that ongoing nonindicated PPI use is safe, we suggest that the use of non–evidence-based PPIs should almost certainly be discontinued in the context of CDI.

Conclusions

New drugs and fecal transplantation may represent future treatments of CDI. In today’s era of choosing wisely, we propose that the prevention of CDI recurrence should begin with the cessation of unnecessary PPIs, a potentially unnecessary and frequently overused class of medications.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: January 7, 2015.

Corresponding Author: Emily G. McDonald, MD, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, 687 Pine Ave W, Room A421, Montreal, QC H3A 1A1, Canada (emily.mcdonald@mail.mcgill.ca).

Published Online: March 2, 2015. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.42.

Author Contributions: Drs McDonald and Lee had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: McDonald, Frenette, Lee.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: McDonald, Frenette, Lee.

Statistical analysis: McDonald, Lee.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Milligan.

Study supervision: Frenette, Lee.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

References
1.
Polage  CR, Solnick  JV, Cohen  SH.  Nosocomial diarrhea: evaluation and treatment of causes other than Clostridium difficileClin Infect Dis. 2012;55(7):982-989.
PubMedArticle
2.
Zimlichman  E, Henderson  D, Tamir  O,  et al.  Health care–associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(22):2039-2046.
PubMedArticle
3.
Kwok  CS, Arthur  AK, Anibueze  CI, Singh  S, Cavallazzi  R, Loke  YK.  Risk of Clostridium difficile infection with acid suppressing drugs and antibiotics: meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(7):1011-1019.
PubMedArticle
4.
Drekonja  DM, Butler  M, MacDonald  R,  et al.  Comparative effectiveness of Clostridium difficile treatments: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(12):839-847.
PubMedArticle
5.
Janarthanan  S, Ditah  I, Adler  DG, Ehrinpreis  MN.  Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea and proton pump inhibitor therapy: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(7):1001-1010.
PubMedArticle
6.
Deshpande  A, Pant  C, Pasupuleti  V,  et al.  Association between proton pump inhibitor therapy and Clostridium difficile infection in a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10(3):225-233.
PubMedArticle
7.
Health Canada. Proton pump inhibitors (antacids): possible risk of Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea. 2012. http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2012/13651a-eng.php. Accessed January 20, 2015.
8.
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea can be associated with stomach acid drugs known as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).2012. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm290510.htm. Accessed January 19, 2015.
9.
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: possible increased risk of fractures of the hip, wrist, and spine with the use of proton pump inhibitors.2012. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm213206.htm. Accessed January 19, 2015.
10.
Health Canada. Proton pump inhibitors: hypomagnesemia accompanied by hypocalcemia and hypokalemia. 2011. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medeff/bulletin/carn-bcei_v21n3-eng.php#_Proton_pump_inhibitors. Accessed January 19, 2015.
11.
Health Canada. Plavix (blood thinner): new recommendations for use with PPIs (antacids). 2011. http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2011/13545a-eng.php. Accessed January 20, 2015.
12.
Maggio  M, Corsonello  A.  Harmful effects of proton pump inhibitors: discrepancies between observational studies and randomized clinical trials: reply. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(16):1559-1560.
PubMedArticle
13.
Zink  DA, Pohlman  M, Barnes  M, Cannon  ME.  Long-term use of acid suppression started inappropriately during hospitalization. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21(10):1203-1209.
PubMedArticle
14.
Naunton  M, Peterson  GM, Bleasel  MD.  Overuse of proton pump inhibitors. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2000;25(5):333-340.
PubMedArticle
15.
Freedberg  DE, Salmasian  H, Friedman  C, Abrams  JA.  Proton pump inhibitors and risk for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection among inpatients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(11):1794-1801.
PubMedArticle
16.
Linsky  A, Gupta  K, Lawler  EV, Fonda  JR, Hermos  JA.  Proton pump inhibitors and risk for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(9):772-778.
PubMedArticle
17.
Kim  JW, Lee  KL, Jeong  JB,  et al.  Proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor for recurrence of Clostridium-difficile–associated diarrhea. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(28):3573-3577.
PubMedArticle
18.
Cadle  RM, Mansouri  MD, Logan  N, Kudva  DR, Musher  DM.  Association of proton-pump inhibitors with outcomes in Clostridium difficile colitis. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2007;64(22):2359-2363.
PubMedArticle
19.
Cohen  SH, Gerding  DN, Johnson  S,  et al; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; Infectious Diseases Society of America.  Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(5):431-455.
PubMedArticle
20.
Wolbers  M, Koller  MT, Stel  VS,  et al.  Competing risks analyses: objectives and approaches. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(42):2936-2941.
PubMedArticle
21.
Wolkewitz  M, Cooper  BS, Bonten  MJ, Barnett  AG, Schumacher  M.  Interpreting and comparing risks in the presence of competing events. BMJ. 2014;349:g5060.
PubMedArticle
22.
Fine  JP, Gray  RJ.  A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446):496-509.Article
23.
White  IR, Royston  P, Wood  AM.  Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377-399.
PubMedArticle
24.
Sung  JJ, Chung  SC, Ling  TK,  et al.  Antibacterial treatment of gastric ulcers associated with Helicobacter pyloriN Engl J Med. 1995;332(3):139-142.
PubMedArticle
25.
Lau  JY, Sung  JJ, Lee  KK,  et al.  Effect of intravenous omeprazole on recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(5):310-316.
PubMedArticle
26.
Chey  WD, Wong  BC; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology.  American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(8):1808-1825.
PubMedArticle
27.
Lanza  FL, Chan  FK, Quigley  EM; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology.  Guidelines for prevention of NSAID-related ulcer complications. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(3):728-738.
PubMedArticle
28.
Rostom  A, Moayyedi  P, Hunt  R; Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Consensus Group.  Canadian consensus guidelines on long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy and the need for gastroprotection: benefits versus risks. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29(5):481-496.
PubMedArticle
29.
van Vliet  EP, Steyerberg  EW, Otten  HJ,  et al.  The effects of guideline implementation for proton pump inhibitor prescription on two pulmonary medicine wards. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29(2):213-221.
PubMedArticle
30.
Lai  KC, Lam  SK, Chu  KM,  et al.  Lansoprazole for the prevention of recurrences of ulcer complications from long-term low-dose aspirin use. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(26):2033-2038.
PubMedArticle
31.
McFarland  LV, Surawicz  CM, Rubin  M, Fekety  R, Elmer  GW, Greenberg  RN.  Recurrent Clostridium difficile disease: epidemiology and clinical characteristics. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(1):43-50.
PubMedArticle
32.
Pathak  R, Enuh  HA, Patel  A, Wickremesinghe  P.  Treatment of relapsing Clostridium difficile infection using fecal microbiota transplantation. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2013;7:1-6.
PubMed
33.
McFarland  LV.  Alternative treatments for Clostridium difficile disease: what really works? J Med Microbiol. 2005;54(pt 2):101-111.
PubMedArticle
34.
D’Agostino  RB  Sr, Collins  SH, Pencina  KM, Kean  Y, Gorbach  S.  Risk estimation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection based on clinical factors. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(10):1386-1393.
PubMedArticle
35.
Louie  TJ, Miller  MA, Mullane  KM,  et al; OPT-80-003 Clinical Study Group.  Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(5):422-431.
PubMedArticle
36.
van Nood  E, Vrieze  A, Nieuwdorp  M,  et al.  Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficileN Engl J Med. 2013;368(5):407-415.
PubMedArticle
37.
Amir  I, Konikoff  FM, Oppenheim  M, Gophna  U, Half  EE.  Gastric microbiota is altered in oesophagitis and Barrett’s oesophagus and further modified by proton pump inhibitors. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16(9):2905-2914.
PubMedArticle
×