Evidence Hub

Commonly prescribed medications and risk of pneumonia and all-cause mortality in people with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a UK population-based cohort study

A. Morgan, G. M. Massen, Hannah R. Whittaker, I. Stewart, Gisli Jenkins, P. M. George, J. Quint

Pneumonia, 2025

17,105 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

A growing body of evidence suggests that prolonged use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is associated with increased risks of pneumonia. A substantial proportion of people with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) are prescribed PPIs or ICS to treat common comorbidities, giving rise to concerns that use of these medications may be associated with potential harms in this patient population. We used UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum primary care data linked to national mortality and hospital admissions data to create a cohort of people diagnosed with IPF on or after 1 January 2010. Patients were assigned to one of three exposure categories according to their prescribing history in the 12 months prior to IPF diagnosis as follows: “regular” users (≥ 4 prescriptions), “irregular” users (1–3 prescriptions) and “non-users” (no prescriptions). We explored the association between PPI/ICS prescription and pneumonia hospitalisation and all-cause mortality using multinomial Cox regression models. A total of 17,105 people met our study inclusion criteria; 62.6% were male and 15.9% were current smokers. Median age at IPF diagnosis was 76.7 years (IQR: 69.6–82.7). 19.9% were regularly prescribed PPIs, and 16.0% ICS, prior to IPF diagnosis. Regular prescribing of PPIs and ICS was positively associated with hospitalisation for pneumonia; the adjusted HR for pneumonia hospitalisation comparing regular PPI users with non-users was 1.14 (95%CI:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 17,105 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free