评估社区居住老年人延长抗生素治疗时间的危害:一项使用工具变量分析的队列研究

IF 8.2 1区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY Clinical Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2024-12-30 DOI:10.1093/cid/ciae629
Bradley J Langford, Kevin A Brown, Cindy Lau, Andrew Calzavara, Carsten Krueger, Valerie Leung, Nick Daneman, Kevin L Schwartz
{"title":"评估社区居住老年人延长抗生素治疗时间的危害:一项使用工具变量分析的队列研究","authors":"Bradley J Langford, Kevin A Brown, Cindy Lau, Andrew Calzavara, Carsten Krueger, Valerie Leung, Nick Daneman, Kevin L Schwartz","doi":"10.1093/cid/ciae629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Shorter courses of antibiotic therapy are increasingly recommended to reduce antibiotic exposure. However quantifying the real-world impact of duration of therapy is hindered by bias common in observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the harms and benefits of longer versus shorter duration of therapy in older adults. Methods This was a population-based cohort study using administrative health data from Ontario, Canada. We included outpatients aged 66 to 110 years who received a prescription for amoxicillin, cephalexin, and/or ciprofloxacin. Prescriptions were categorized as short (3-7 days) or long (8-14 days) duration. The primary outcome was a composite of antibiotic-related harms, including adverse reactions, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic resistance. The secondary outcome was a composite of safety measures including repeat antibiotic prescriptions, hospital visits and mortality. To reduce risk of bias, we used an instrumental variable analysis where the instrument was prescriber proportion of antibiotics that were long duration. Results Among 117,682 eligible patients, there was no difference in the primary harms outcome for patients receiving longer versus shorter courses of antibiotics (amoxicillin ORadj 0.99 (95%CI 0.84 to 1.15), cephalexin ORadj 1.11 (95%CI: 0.90 to 1.38), ciprofloxacin ORadj 0.94 (95%CI 0.74 to 1.20). Secondary safety outcomes were similar, with longer compared to shorter courses of antibiotic therapy (amoxicillin OR 1.01 (95%CI: 0.94 to 1.08), cephalexin OR 1.06 (95%CI 0.97 to 1.17), ciprofloxacin OR 0.99 (95%CI: 0.85 to 1.15)). Conclusion In this instrumental variable analysis of community-dwelling older adults, longer antibiotic courses were not associated with an increased benefit or harm compared to shorter courses.","PeriodicalId":10463,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Harms Associated with Prolonged Antibiotic Duration of Therapy in Community Dwelling Older Adults: A Cohort Study using Instrumental Variable Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Bradley J Langford, Kevin A Brown, Cindy Lau, Andrew Calzavara, Carsten Krueger, Valerie Leung, Nick Daneman, Kevin L Schwartz\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cid/ciae629\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Shorter courses of antibiotic therapy are increasingly recommended to reduce antibiotic exposure. However quantifying the real-world impact of duration of therapy is hindered by bias common in observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the harms and benefits of longer versus shorter duration of therapy in older adults. Methods This was a population-based cohort study using administrative health data from Ontario, Canada. We included outpatients aged 66 to 110 years who received a prescription for amoxicillin, cephalexin, and/or ciprofloxacin. Prescriptions were categorized as short (3-7 days) or long (8-14 days) duration. The primary outcome was a composite of antibiotic-related harms, including adverse reactions, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic resistance. The secondary outcome was a composite of safety measures including repeat antibiotic prescriptions, hospital visits and mortality. To reduce risk of bias, we used an instrumental variable analysis where the instrument was prescriber proportion of antibiotics that were long duration. Results Among 117,682 eligible patients, there was no difference in the primary harms outcome for patients receiving longer versus shorter courses of antibiotics (amoxicillin ORadj 0.99 (95%CI 0.84 to 1.15), cephalexin ORadj 1.11 (95%CI: 0.90 to 1.38), ciprofloxacin ORadj 0.94 (95%CI 0.74 to 1.20). Secondary safety outcomes were similar, with longer compared to shorter courses of antibiotic therapy (amoxicillin OR 1.01 (95%CI: 0.94 to 1.08), cephalexin OR 1.06 (95%CI 0.97 to 1.17), ciprofloxacin OR 0.99 (95%CI: 0.85 to 1.15)). Conclusion In this instrumental variable analysis of community-dwelling older adults, longer antibiotic courses were not associated with an increased benefit or harm compared to shorter courses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae629\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae629","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的人建议缩短抗生素疗程以减少抗生素暴露。然而,量化治疗持续时间对现实世界的影响受到观察性研究中常见偏差的阻碍。我们的目的是评估老年人较长时间治疗与较短时间治疗的危害和益处。方法:这是一项基于人群的队列研究,使用来自加拿大安大略省的行政卫生数据。我们纳入了66 - 110岁接受阿莫西林、头孢氨苄和/或环丙沙星处方的门诊患者。处方分为短疗程(3-7天)和长疗程(8-14天)。主要结局是抗生素相关危害的综合,包括不良反应、艰难梭菌感染和抗生素耐药性。次要结局是安全措施的综合,包括重复抗生素处方、医院就诊和死亡率。为了减少偏倚风险,我们使用了工具变量分析,其中工具是处方者长期使用抗生素的比例。结果在117,682例符合条件的患者中,接受较长疗程抗生素的患者的主要危害结局无差异(阿莫西林ORadj 0.99 (95%CI 0.84 - 1.15),头孢氨苄ORadj 1.11 (95%CI 0.90 - 1.38),环丙沙星ORadj 0.94 (95%CI 0.74 - 1.20)。次要安全性结果相似,较短和较长的抗生素治疗疗程(阿莫西林OR 1.01 (95%CI: 0.94 - 1.08),头孢氨苄OR 1.06 (95%CI: 0.97 - 1.17),环丙沙星OR 0.99 (95%CI: 0.85 - 1.15))。结论:在社区老年人的工具变量分析中,较长的抗生素疗程与较短的疗程相比,并没有增加益处或危害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating Harms Associated with Prolonged Antibiotic Duration of Therapy in Community Dwelling Older Adults: A Cohort Study using Instrumental Variable Analysis
Background Shorter courses of antibiotic therapy are increasingly recommended to reduce antibiotic exposure. However quantifying the real-world impact of duration of therapy is hindered by bias common in observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the harms and benefits of longer versus shorter duration of therapy in older adults. Methods This was a population-based cohort study using administrative health data from Ontario, Canada. We included outpatients aged 66 to 110 years who received a prescription for amoxicillin, cephalexin, and/or ciprofloxacin. Prescriptions were categorized as short (3-7 days) or long (8-14 days) duration. The primary outcome was a composite of antibiotic-related harms, including adverse reactions, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic resistance. The secondary outcome was a composite of safety measures including repeat antibiotic prescriptions, hospital visits and mortality. To reduce risk of bias, we used an instrumental variable analysis where the instrument was prescriber proportion of antibiotics that were long duration. Results Among 117,682 eligible patients, there was no difference in the primary harms outcome for patients receiving longer versus shorter courses of antibiotics (amoxicillin ORadj 0.99 (95%CI 0.84 to 1.15), cephalexin ORadj 1.11 (95%CI: 0.90 to 1.38), ciprofloxacin ORadj 0.94 (95%CI 0.74 to 1.20). Secondary safety outcomes were similar, with longer compared to shorter courses of antibiotic therapy (amoxicillin OR 1.01 (95%CI: 0.94 to 1.08), cephalexin OR 1.06 (95%CI 0.97 to 1.17), ciprofloxacin OR 0.99 (95%CI: 0.85 to 1.15)). Conclusion In this instrumental variable analysis of community-dwelling older adults, longer antibiotic courses were not associated with an increased benefit or harm compared to shorter courses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Clinical Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
25.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
900
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) is dedicated to publishing original research, reviews, guidelines, and perspectives with the potential to reshape clinical practice, providing clinicians with valuable insights for patient care. CID comprehensively addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of a wide spectrum of infectious diseases. The journal places a high priority on the assessment of current and innovative treatments, microbiology, immunology, and policies, ensuring relevance to patient care in its commitment to advancing the field of infectious diseases.
期刊最新文献
Introducing Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir + Ribavirin as a Generic Retreatment Regimen for Hepatitis C: Evaluation of a Government Program in Rwanda Refractory and Resistant Herpes Simplex Virus Mucocutaneous Infections in Immunocompromised Patients: Literature Review and Proposed Definitions for Use in Clinical Trials Thigh Injections of Cabotegravir + Rilpivirine in Virally Suppressed Adults With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1: A Substudy of the Phase 3b ATLAS-2M Study. Comparative Outcomes of Babesiosis in Immunocompromised and Non-Immunocompromised Hosts: A Multicenter Cohort Study. Policy Recommendations to Support Equitable Access to Long-Acting Injectables for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention and Treatment: A Policy Paper of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1