4.7 Article

Antibiotic use and intussusception in early childhood

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 64, 期 3, 页码 642-648

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkp217

关键词

pharmacoepidemiology; drug safety; children

资金

  1. Danish Medical Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Antibiotic use in childhood has been hypothesized to increase the risk of intussusception. Antibiotics have well-known effects on gut motility and microflora-possible mechanisms for the hypothesized association. We evaluated the risk of intussusception according to antibiotic use. Methods: We conducted a nationwide cohort study of all Danish singleton children born between 1995 and 2003 (n=611410) with individual-level information on antibiotic prescriptions, intussusception and potential confounding variables. Using Poisson regression, we estimated rate ratios of intussusception according to antibiotic use, including estimating increases in rate ratios per dose of antibiotics and rate ratios for time periods following antibiotic use. Results: Intussusception was diagnosed in 434 children during 1180749 person-years of follow-up. The intussusception rate ratio was 1.51 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.91] comparing antibiotic users with non-users. In the first week following use of extended-spectrum penicillins the rate ratio was 4.68 (95% CI, 2.93-7.47). In the first week following use of macrolides the rate ratio was 3.82 (95% CI, 1.22-11.90). The proportion of all cases attributable to extended-spectrum penicillins and macrolides was 4%. Conclusions: This is the first prospective study to show an association between antibiotics and intussusception. The association was strong, temporal and biologically plausible. The magnitude of the observed effect and a number of sensitivity analyses favour a causal relationship. However, the potential for confounding-by-indication cannot be completely discounted and controlled studies of the observed association will be necessary for more definite confirmation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据