SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Background

Clostridium difficile colitis (CDC) is associated with an increased short-term mortality risk in hospitalised ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. We sought to determine whether CDC also impacts long-term risks of adverse health events in this population.

Aim

To determine whether CDC also impacts long-term risks of adverse health events in this population.

Methods

A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted of UC patients hospitalised in Ontario, Canada between 2002 and 2008. Patients with and without CDC were compared on the rates of adverse health events. The primary outcomes were the 5-year adjusted risks of colectomy and death.

Results

Among 181 patients with CDC and 1835 patients without CDC, the 5-year cumulative colectomy rates were 44% and 33% (P = 0.0052) and the 5-year cumulative mortality rates were 27% and 14% (P < 0.0001) respectively. CDC was associated with a higher adjusted 5-year risk of mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.40, 95% CI 1.37–4.20], but not of colectomy (aHR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90–1.54). CDC impacted mortality risk both during index hospitalisation (adjusted odds ratio 8.90, 95% CI 2.80–28.3) as well as over 5 years following hospital discharge among patients who recovered from their acute illness (aHR 2.41, 95% CI 1.37–4.22). Colectomy risk was not influenced by CDC in this cohort.

Conclusion

Clostridium difficile colitis is associated with increased short-term and long-term mortality risks among hospitalised ulcerative colitis patients. As colectomy risk is not similarly impacted by Clostridium difficile colitis, factors predictive of death among C. difficile-infected ulcerative colitis patients require elucidation.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Clostridium difficile colitis (CDC) is the leading cause of nosocomial infectious diarrhoea and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The past decade has witnessed a rise in the incidence and severity of CDC in hospitals across North America and Europe, largely attributable to the emergence of highly virulent strain of this organism.[1, 2]

Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are at increased risk of acquiring CDC.[3-5] The incidence of CDC among UC patients has also been rising in recent years, with CDC now being implicated in up to 5% of UC hospital admissions.[3-5] Nationwide studies have further reported that CDC is associated with a 3.8–5.5-fold higher acute mortality risk among hospitalised UC patients.[3, 6] The impact of CDC on acute colectomy risk in UC patients has been less consistent across studies.[3, 6-8]

In addition to increasing short-term health risks, CDC may pose sustained health risks to UC patients. Chronic C. difficile colonisation following an acute infectious episode may increase the risk of future CDC episodes in many patients.[9] Moreover, the impact of CDC on UC disease behaviour remains unknown. One study reported that CDC was associated with a greater 1-year colectomy risk in these patients.[7] However, no study has assessed the longer term impact of CDC on health outcomes in this population. As UC afflicts more than 500 000 individuals across North America, this could have significant implications for hospital care policy and health resource utilisation in these patients.[10, 11] Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of CDC on 5-year health outcomes among hospitalised UC patients.

Materials and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Data sources

Data for this study was acquired primarily from the Ontario version of the Canadian Institutes of Health Information Discharge Abstract Database (CIHI-DAD), which contains demographic and health information pertaining to all patient hospitalisations throughout Ontario. Additional information was obtained from The Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) database, The Ontario Registered Persons Database (RPDB), The Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) and Ontario Census Databases. Patient information was linked across hospitalisations and physician encounters and between databases at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), permitting detailed patient profiles and longitudinal health outcome assessments (http://www.ices.on.ca). This study was approved by the ICES Privacy Office.

Patients and study design

A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted of UC patients hospitalised at acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2008. The study start date coincided with the rising incidence of highly virulent C. difficile infectious outbreaks in North American hospitals and also with the onset of diagnostic reporting using ICD-10 codes in CIHI-DAD.[1, 2] Patients were eligible for study if they were given a ‘Most Responsible Diagnosis (MRD)’ of UC (K51.x in ICD-10) or else a MRD of CDC (A04.7 in ICD-10) with a co-morbid or secondary diagnosis of UC on a hospital discharge abstract corresponding to any hospitalisation within the study period. The MRD in CIHI-DAD corresponds to the acute illness that most significantly affected a patient's treatment course or accounted for the greatest length of hospital stay (LOHS). A co-morbid diagnosis is one that contributed significantly to a patient's in-hospital course, whereas a secondary diagnosis refers to a preadmission co-morbidity that did not complicate a patient's hospital course. A subgroup of patients who were discharged from hospital without undergoing colectomy was also evaluated, as it remains unknown whether CDC alters long-term disease behaviour specifically among UC patients who recover from their acute illness.

Patients were excluded from the study for the following indications: (i) Age younger than 18 years; (ii) Invalid identifying information in CIHI-DAD; (iii) Permanent residence outside of Ontario; (iv) Initial UC-related hospitalisation within the study period for elective indication (based on a specific designation for admission type in CIHI-DAD); (v) Hospitalisation for CDC within the previous 5 years; (vi) History of partial or total colectomy (using a 5-year look-back window), and (vii) Diagnosis of colorectal cancer from 5 years prior to index hospitalisation to the end of the study period.

To increase the positive predictive value (PPV) of a UC diagnosis, a published algorithm for identifying UC patients within health administrative data from the province of Manitoba, Canada, was applied to generate the final study cohort.[12] This algorithm required that patients had at least five UC-related physician contacts if they were registered with OHIP for 2 or more years or at least three UC-related physician contacts if they were registered with OHIP for less than 2 years (UC-related hospitalisation counted as a single contact). Physician contacts were identified in the CIHI-DAD and OHIP databases. The sensitivity and specificity of this definition in the original study were 74.4–87.7% and 91.3–93.7% respectively.[12] Notably, this definition has not been specifically validated for a hospitalised cohort or within Ontario health administrative data.

Comparator groups

Patients who were given a MRD or a co-morbid diagnosis of CDC at any hospitalisation during the study period were evaluated from the time of their first hospitalisation with this diagnosis (‘UC-CDC’ group). These patients were compared with those who were not given a diagnosis of CDC in any hospitalisation during the study period (‘UC-noCDC’ group) on the rates of adverse health events over 5 years following index hospitalisation, with a final follow-up date of 31 March 2010.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes were the adjusted 5-year risks of colectomy and death. Other outcomes assessed included: (i) The 5-year risks of colectomy, death, non-elective UC-related hospital readmission, and non-elective all-cause hospital readmission, among colectomy-free discharged patients; and (ii) The risks of colectomy and death and the acute care length of hospital stay (LOHS) during index hospitalisation.

Covariates

The associations between CDC and adverse outcomes were adjusted for the potentially confounding effects of age, gender, weighted Charlson co-morbidity score,[13] prior UC-related hospitalisation (using a 5-year look-back window), UC duration (using an 8-year look-back window), hospital teaching status, annual hospital UC admission volumes and year of hospitalisation. LOHS was also adjusted for the effects of in-hospital colectomy and in-hospital death. Prior UC-related hospitalisation and UC duration were used to partially adjust for baseline UC severity. Information on all variables was obtained solely from CIHI-DAD, except for the variable ‘UC duration’ for which both CIHI-DAD and OHIP databases were surveyed.

Statistical methods

Bivariate comparisons of in-hospital outcomes were conducted using the Chi-squared test (or Fisher's exact test) for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for interval variables. The Kaplan–Meier product limit method with log-rank test was used to compare time-to-event outcomes. To evaluate the adjusted effects of CDC on 5-year (longitudinal) and in-hospital (binary) outcomes, while simultaneously accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals, Cox proportional hazards models with robust variance estimates and generalised estimating equation (GEE) methods (to estimate logistic regression models) were used respectively. Negative binomial regression analysis was used to model acute care LOHS. A stepwise modelling approach was used when evaluating death outcome to ensure a minimum 1:10 ratio of covariates to outcome events.[14, 15] As such, hospitalisation year was excluded from the analysis of 5-year mortality risk (132 deaths), whereas no additional covariates (aside from CDC status) were included in the analysis of in-hospital mortality risk (13 deaths). Statistical significance was based on a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. All analyses were performed using sas 9.1 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Patients were censored at the time of colectomy in the analysis of 5-year mortality risk so that only patients with intact colons who were at risk of experiencing UC-related adverse events were analysed. In addition, patients who underwent colectomy on the date of rehospitalisation were censored on that date in the analyses of non-elective hospital readmission. Otherwise, patients were censored at the last study follow-up date. Loss to follow-up in this study was assumed to be negligible based on an annual Ontario emigration rate of 0.18% (http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo33b-eng.htm).

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Patients

Of 5743 UC patients who were hospitalised for UC or CDC during the study period, 2016 met entry criteria. Of excluded patients, 2278 did not satisfy the study case definition for UC, 478 were under 18 years of age, 580 were admitted for elective large bowel surgery at index hospitalisation; 155 had undergone prior partial or total colectomy; 130 had been previously hospitalised for CDC within the preceding 5 years; 100 were identified as having prevalent colorectal cancer, 4 were not Ontario residents and 2 had invalid identifying information.

In the study cohort, 181 patients (9.0%) were diagnosed with CDC during hospitalisation. Baseline characteristics of study patients are presented in Table 1. Eleven patients had missing information on one or more variables in this study. The cumulative 5-year rates of colectomy and death in the overall cohort were 34% and 15% respectively. In addition, 10% of patients underwent colectomy and 0.64% of patients died during index hospitalisation. Among patients who were discharged from hospital without undergoing colectomy, 46% were rehospitalised for a UC-related indication, and 70% were rehospitalised overall up to 5 years following hospital discharge.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study patients
CharacteristicUC-CDC, No. (%) (NTotal = 181)UC-noCDC, No. (%) (NTotal = 1835)P valuea
  1. a

    For comparison between UC-CDC and UC-noCDC groups.

  2. b

    Based on a 5-year look-back window.

  3. c

    Based on an 8-year look-back window.

Age
<4078 (43)858 (47) 
40–7071 (39)791 (43)0.0077
>7032 (18)186 (10) 
Gender
F99 (55)975 (53)0.69
M82 (45)860 (47) 
Charlson co-morbidity score
0129 (71)1542 (84) 
125 (14)192 (10)<0.0001
≥227 (15)101 (6) 
Previous hospitalisation for UCb
No70 (39)1626 (89)<0.0001
Yes111 (61)209 (11) 
UC disease durationc
≤2 years75 (41)568 (31)0.0039
>2 years106 (59)1267 (69) 
Annual hospital UC admission volumes (Quintile)
1 (Lowest)33 (18)309 (17) 
228 (16)332 (18) 
331 (17)392 (21)0.40
436 (20)360 (20) 
5 (Highest)53 (29)442 (24) 
Hospital type
Teaching113 (62)1270 (69)0.061
Nonteaching68 (38)565 (31) 
Admission year
<200595 (52)874 (48)0.21
≥200586 (48)961 (52) 

Five-year outcomes

Among hospitalised UC patients with and without CDC, the cumulative 5-year colectomy rates were 44% and 33% (P = 0.0073) and the cumulative 5-year mortality rates were 27% and 14% (P < 0.0001) respectively (Figures 1 and 2).

image

Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier colectomy-free survival curves for hospitalised UC patients, stratified by CDC status.

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier overall survival curves for hospitalised UC patients, stratified by CDC status.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Following covariate adjustment, CDC was associated with a higher 5-year mortality risk [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.40, 95% CI 1.37–4.20], but was not associated with a higher 5-year colectomy risk (aHR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90–1.54) (Table 2). Male gender (aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09–1.48), prior hospitalisation for UC (aHR 1.36, 95% CI 1.09–1.70), UC duration greater than 2 years (aHR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11–1.55) and admission to a teaching hospital (aHR 1.66, 95% CI 1.27–2.17) were independently associated with colectomy risk, whereas age (aHR 14.0, 95% CI 4.28–45.7 for age 40–70 vs. age <40; aHR 91.9, 95% CI 27.5–308 for age >70 vs. age <40) and co-morbidity burden (aHR 1.84, 95% CI 1.10–3.06 for Charlson score 1 vs. 0; aHR 4.28, 95% CI 2.68–6.82 for Charlson score ≥2 vs. 0) were strongly associated with mortality risk in this cohort (Table S1).

Table 2. Adjusted in-hospital and 5-year risks of colectomy and death with CDC among hospitalised UC patients
 ColectomyDeath
  1. aOR, adjusted odds ratio; aHR, adjusted hazard ratio. See 'Materials and Methods' section for covariates.

  2. a

    Adjusted odds of adverse outcomes during index hospitalisation.

  3. b

    No covariate adjustment due to limited number of death events (see 'Materials and Methods' section).

5-year aHR (95% CI)1.18 (0.90, 1.54)2.40 (1.37, 4.20)
In-hospital aOR (95% CI)a0.91 (0.53, 1.55)8.90 (2.80, 28.3)b

Outcomes during index hospitalisation

Clostridium difficile-infected patients had a similar in-hospital rate of colectomy (12% vs. 9.8%, P = 0.30), but a higher in-hospital rate of death (3.3% vs. 0.38%, P < 0.0001) as compared with uninfected patients. There was no difference in the median time-to-colectomy between patients with CDC (2.5 days, IQR 1.0–6.0 days) and those without CDC (2.0 days, IQR 1.0–6.0 days) (P = 0.75). No in-hospital deaths occurred among patients who underwent colectomy in this cohort. The acute care LOHS was 11 days [interquartile range (IQR) 6–19 days] in patients with CDC and 6 days (IQR 4–11 days) in patients without CDC (P < 0.0001).

Following covariate adjustment, CDC was associated with close to a 9-fold higher risk of in-hospital death (aOR 8.90, 95% CI 2.80–28.3), but was not associated with an increased risk of in-hospital colectomy (aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.53–1.55) (Table 2). CDC also increased the adjusted acute care LOHS by 55% (95% CI 37–76%). Co-morbid illnesses and in-hospital complications of patients who died during index hospitalisation are presented in Supplemental Table S2.

Five-year outcomes in patients discharged from hospital without undergoing colectomy

Among UC patients who were discharged from hospital following partial or complete recovery from their acute illness, patients who had been diagnosed with CDC had higher cumulative 5-year rates of colectomy (46% vs. 36%, P = 0.0054), death (12% vs. 14%, P < 0.0001), non-elective UC-specific hospital readmission (55% vs. 45%, P = 0.012) and non-elective all-cause hospital readmission (81% vs. 69%, P < 0.0001) as compared with patients who had not contracted CDC.

Following covariate adjustment, CDC was associated with higher 5-year risks of mortality (aHR 2.41, 95% CI 1.37–4.22) and all-cause hospital readmission (aHR 1.36, 95% CI 1.10–1.68), but not of colectomy (aHR 1.36, 95% CI 0.98–1.90) or UC-specific hospital readmission (aHR 1.22, 95% CI 0.89–1.66) (Table 3).

Table 3. Adjusted 5-year risks of adverse health events with CDC among UC patients discharged from hospital without undergoing colectomy
EventaHR (95% CI)
  1. aHR, adjusted hazard ratio. See 'Materials and Methods' section for covariates.

Colectomy1.36 (0.98, 1.90)
Death2.41 (1.37, 4.22)
UC-specific readmission1.22 (0.89, 1.66)
All-cause readmission1.36 (1.10, 1.68)

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

In this study of hospitalised UC patients, CDC was an independent risk factor for both 5-year mortality and 5-year rehospitalisation. CDC was also strongly predictive of in-hospital death and longer acute care LOHS, although the former association could not be adjusted for covariates. Conversely, CDC was not independently associated with 5-year or in-hospital risks of colectomy or 5-year risk of UC-specific hospital readmission. Colectomy risk was mainly influenced by disease-specific and hospital-specific factors in this study, which is compatible with other studies demonstrating that UC severity and colonic disease extent are predictive of colectomy risk in UC patients.[16-19]

Collectively, these findings implicate an episode of CDC as a potential risk factor for long-term mortality and rehospitalisation among hospitalised UC patients, possibly as a result of recurrent CDC episodes or through altering long-term UC behaviour. Colonised C. difficile spores and vegetative organisms in some patients could theoretically give rise to abnormal and/or exaggerated immune responses, as has been hypothesised for other host and pathogenic microbes in IBD.[20-26] In addition, the physiologic stress associated with CDC may exacerbate other illnesses, such as cardiovascular disease and renal insufficiency, which could further influence long-term prognosis in these patients.

Clostridium difficile colitis may also give rise to a more aggressive form of acute colitis, which may partly explain the higher in-hospital mortality risk observed in these patients. Use of immunosuppressive therapy, in addition to antibiotics, to treat CDC in the setting of UC may have also increased the duration and/or severity of colitis in many individuals.[27] In addition, some physicians may be inclined to persist longer with medical therapy in C. difficile-infected patients, which could lead to serious complications in patients who are not responding to therapy. It is possible that some patients who died would have benefited from colectomy earlier in the course of their acute illness. CDC could also have exacerbated life-threatening co-morbidities in some patients.

On the other hand, it is possible that unadjusted differences in co-morbidity burden, baseline UC severity or immunosuppressive medication use between infected and uninfected patients influenced the observed associations in this study. Although the Charlson index has been widely validated as a predictor of mortality among hospitalised patients, it may not capture the full extent of co-morbidity burden among hospitalised UC patients.[13, 28-30] Baseline disease severity was adjusted through variables that had reasonable face validity, including prior hospitalisation for UC and UC duration (based on the notion that UC is most aggressive in the first 2 years following diagnosis[31, 32]), as a validated UC disease activity index could not be calculated.[33] Still, admission of some patients with less severe colitis to expedite surgery may have partly selected for patients who were less likely to suffer death, but certain to undergo colectomy among uninfected patients. In addition, no information was available regarding in-hospital medications in this study. Additional studies with more complete adjustment for confounding are thus required to confirm the findings of this study.

Furthermore, C. difficile exposure status may have been misclassified in a proportion of patients, as a result of both misreporting on hospital discharge abstracts as well as inadequate stool testing for C. difficile. No studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CDC among UC patients within hospital administrative databases. Exposure misclassification may have largely been a random event, which would have attenuated measured associations without invalidating significant ones.[34] However, some patients with fulminant colitis on presentation may have died or undergone colectomy prior to C. difficile testing, which could have further biased the measured associations low. Conversely, C. difficile testing may have been performed more often in patients with severe or treatment-refractory disease, which could have then biased the measured associations high. Future studies with more rigorous case ascertainment methods are thus required to corroborate the findings of this study. Importantly, a high level of coding accuracy has been demonstrated for demographic data and codes for procedures in the Ontario version of the CIHI-DAD.[35]

This is the first study to demonstrate an association between CDC and long-term mortality risk among hospitalised UC patients. Population-based studies have reported a 3.8–5.5-fold higher in-hospital mortality risk and a significantly longer acute care LOHS with CDC in this setting.[3, 6] Although longer LOHS may be a risk factor for C. difficile acquisition, studies have shown that this infection is predominantly acquired prior to hospital admission among IBD patients.[4, 5] With respect to colectomy risk, a US nationwide study reported a decreased risk,[3] a UK nationwide study demonstrated a 1.7-fold higher risk,[6] and two single centre studies reported no difference in risk of in-hospital colectomy with CDC among hospitalised UC patients, although the latter studies may have been underpowered.[7, 8] Notably, one study reported a 2.4-fold higher colectomy risk at 1 year with CDC in this setting.[7] In addition to differences in study methodology, varying strategies for hospital-based care of UC patients in different settings may account for some of these differences.[36]

In summary, this study has demonstrated that CDC is associated with an increased risk of short-term and long-term adverse outcomes, particularly mortality, among hospitalised UC patients. Future prospective studies with rigorous case ascertainment methods and confounder adjustment, which evaluate the impact of CDC among both hospitalised and ambulatory IBD patients, will be important to confirm and expand upon the findings of this study. In particular, aetiologic factors underlying the observed associations in this study require elucidation. Importantly, the results of this study should not be generalised to ambulatory UC patients, who carry a variety of different C. difficile strains as compared with nosocomial patients and who may thus face considerably different risks with this infection.[9] Efforts should nevertheless be made by all health care practitioners to reduce the risk of C. difficile transmission among UC patients.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

All authors made significant contributions to the study design, data collection and data analysis and interpretation. S. K. M. drafted the manuscript while all co-authors made critical revisions to the manuscript. S. K. M. assumes full responsibility for data integrity and submission of the final manuscript. G. C. N. and A. H. S. were equally contributing senior authors for this study. Declaration of personal interests: None. Declaration of funding interests: Data acquisition for this study was funded by the The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and Axcan Pharma (now Aptalis Pharma) through a Fellowship Award with operating allowance. None of these bodies played any role in the study design, data analysis or interpretation, drafting of the manuscript or the decision to submit the article for publication.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information
  • 1
    Kuijper EJ, Coignard B, Tull P. Emergence of Clostridium difficile-associated disease in North America and Europe. Clin Microbiol Infect 2006; 12(Suppl. 6): 218.
  • 2
    Loo VG, Poirier L, Miller MA, et al. A predominantly clonal multi-institutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 24429.
  • 3
    Nguyen GC, Kaplan GG, Harris ML, Brant SR. A national survey of the prevalence and impact of Clostridium difficile infection among hospitalized inflammatory bowel disease patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 144350.
    Direct Link:
  • 4
    Rodemann JF, Dubberke ER, Seo d, Stone CD. Incidence of Clostridium difficile infection in inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 33944.
  • 5
    Issa M, Vijayapal A, Graham MB, et al. Impact of Clostridium difficile on inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 34551.
  • 6
    Jen MH, Saxena S, Bottle A, Aylin P, Pollok RC. Increased health burden associated with Clostridium difficile diarrhoea in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 132231.
  • 7
    Jodorkovsky D, Young Y, Abreu MT. Clinical outcomes of patients with ulcerative colitis and co-existing Clostridium difficile infection. Dig Dis Sci 2010; 55: 41520.
  • 8
    Kariv R, Navaneethan U, Venkatesh PG, Lopez R, Shen B. Impact of Clostridium difficile infection in patients with ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis 2011; 5: 3440.
  • 9
    Clayton EM, Rea MC, Shanahan F, et al. The vexed relationship between Clostridium difficile and inflammatory bowel disease: an assessment of carriage in an outpatient setting among patients in remission. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 11629.
  • 10
    Bernstein CN, Wajda A, Svenson LW, et al. The epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in Canada: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 155968.
    Direct Link:
  • 11
    Loftus EV Jr, Silverstein MD, Sandborn WJ, Tremaine WJ, Harmsen WS, Zinsmeister AR. Ulcerative colitis in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1940–1993: incidence, prevalence, and survival. Gut 2000; 46: 33643.
  • 12
    Bernstein CN, Blanchard JF, Rawsthorne P, Wajda A. Epidemiology of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in a central Canadian province: a population-based study. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 149: 91624.
  • 13
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 37383.
  • 14
    Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 13739.
  • 15
    Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 150310.
  • 16
    Farmer RG, Easley KA, Rankin GB. Clinical patterns, natural history, and progression of ulcerative colitis. A long-term follow-up of 1116 patients. Dig Dis Sci 1993; 38: 113746.
  • 17
    Hendriksen C, Kreiner S, Binder V. Long term prognosis in ulcerative colitis–based on results from a regional patient group from the county of Copenhagen. Gut 1985; 26: 15863.
  • 18
    Langholz E, Munkholm P, Davidsen M, Nielsen OH, Binder V. Changes in extent of ulcerative colitis: a study on the course and prognostic factors. Scand J Gastroenterol 1996; 31: 2606.
  • 19
    Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, Feagan BG, et al. Colectomy rate comparison after treatment of ulcerative colitis with placebo or infliximab. Gastroenterology 2009; 137: 125060.
  • 20
    Ekbom A, Adami HO, Helmick CG, Jonzon A, Zack MM. Perinatal risk factors for inflammatory bowel disease: a case-control study. Am J Epidemiol 1990; 132: 11119.
  • 21
    Morgan KL. Johne's and Crohn's. Chronic inflammatory bowel diseases of infectious aetiology? Lancet 1987; 1: 10179.
  • 22
    Pardi DS, Tremaine WJ, Sandborn WJ, et al. Early measles virus infection is associated with the development of inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 14805.
    Direct Link:
  • 23
    Rath HC, Schultz M, Freitag R, et al. Different subsets of enteric bacteria induce and perpetuate experimental colitis in rats and mice. Infect Immun 2001; 69: 227785.
  • 24
    Shanahan F. Inflammatory bowel disease: immunodiagnostics, immunotherapeutics, and ecotherapeutics. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 62235.
  • 25
    Swidsinski A, Ladhoff A, Pernthaler A, et al. Mucosal flora in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2002; 122: 4454.
  • 26
    Van Kruiningen HJ, Colombel JF, Cartun RW, et al. An in-depth study of Crohn's disease in two French families. Gastroenterology 1993; 104: 35160.
  • 27
    Ben-Horin S, Margalit M, Bossuyt P, et al. Combination immunomodulator and antibiotic treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 9817.
  • 28
    de Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. How to measure comorbidity. A critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 2219.
  • 29
    Humphries KH, Rankin JM, Carere RG, Buller CE, Kiely FM, Spinelli JJ. Co-morbidity data in outcomes research: are clinical data derived from administrative databases a reliable alternative to chart review? J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 3439.
  • 30
    Quan H, Parsons GA, Ghali WA. Validity of information on comorbidity derived rom ICD-9-CCM administrative data. Med Care 2002; 40: 67585.
  • 31
    Langholz E, Munkholm P, Davidsen M, Binder V. Colorectal cancer risk and mortality in patients with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 1992; 103: 144451.
  • 32
    Solberg IC, Lygren I, Jahnsen J, et al. Clinical course during the first 10 years of ulcerative colitis: results from a population-based inception cohort (IBSEN Study). Scand J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 43140.
  • 33
    D'Haens G, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. A review of activity indices and efficacy end points for clinical trials of medical therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 76386.
  • 34
    Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet 2002; 359: 24852.
  • 35
    Juurlink D, Preyra C, Croxford R, et al. Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database: A Validation Study. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 2006.
  • 36
    Squires DA. The U.S. health system in perspective: a comparison of twelve industrialized nations. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2011; 16: 114.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information
FilenameFormatSizeDescription
apt12073-sup-0001-TableS1-S2.docxWord document17K

Table S1. Adjusted covariate associations with 5-year risks of colectomy and death among hospitalised UC patients.

Table S2. Preadmission co-morbidities and in-hospital complications among UC patients who died in hospital, stratified by presence or absence of CDC.

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.