Abstract 15722: Proton Pump Inhibitors and Risk of Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Ullah Mishuk ◽  
Shahariar Mohammed Fahim ◽  
Richard Hansen ◽  
Li Chen ◽  
Philippe Gaillard ◽  
...  

Introduction: Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) are generally considered safe, but recent evidence suggests otherwise. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the association between PPIs and the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), using both clinical trials and observational studies. Methods: A systematic search was performed in December 2019 to retrieve all potential studies using PubMed, PsycInfo, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov. This search initially identified any published studies describing any adverse event (AE) or outcomes related to PPI. Records were included in this study if 1) studies were published in English, 2) study design was clinical trials or observational studies, 3) PPI use was the exposure or treatment, and 4) study outcome was the incidence of MI. Two researchers independently reviewed all identified records, performed full article review, extracted data into structured evidence table, and conducted quality assessment using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Meta-analysis was performed using the RStudio software to assess the risk of MI with PPI use. Results: A total of 4,507 abstracts meeting the inclusion criteria were identified, and 20 full articles were included in this study, among which 10 were cohort, 3 were case-control, 3 were RCT post-hoc analysis, and 4 were RCT studies. The pooled Odds Ratio (OR)=1.40 with 95% CI=1.20-1.63 for all studies indicated the presence of an association between PPI use and increased risk of MI compared to PPI non-users. Meta-analysis found a similar association between PPI use and increased risk of MI in observational studies (OR=1.40; 95% CI=1.20, 1.64) but no association (OR=0.90; 95% CI=0.47, 1.73) in RCT-studies. Heterogeneity was high (I 2 > 75%) for all analyses except for RCTs (I 2 =0%). Conclusion: Although our meta-analysis identified the association between PPI use and increased risk of MI, results from RCTs did not agree with observational studies. Due to the mixed findings by study designs and high variation of heterogeneity among studies, the pharmacovigilance system should evaluate different levels of evidence to support decision making in safety of drug products.

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 292-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phung Anh Nguyen ◽  
Mohaimenul Islam ◽  
Cooper J Galvin ◽  
Chih-Cheng Chang ◽  
Soo Yeon An ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), one of the most widely used medications, are commonly used to suppress several acid-related upper gastrointestinal disorders. Acid-suppressing medication use could be associated with increased risk of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), although the results of clinical studies have been conflicting. Data sources A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library and Database of Systematic Reviews from the earliest available online year of indexing up to October 2018. Study selection We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to evaluate the risk of PPI use on CAP outcomes. Data extraction Included study location, design, population, the prevalence of CAP, comparison group and other confounders. We calculated pooled odds ratio (OR) using a random-effects meta-analysis. Results of data synthesis Of the 2577 studies screening, 11 papers were included in the systematic review and 7 studies with 65 590 CAP cases were included in the random-effects meta-analysis. In current PPI users, pooled OR for CAP was 1.86 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.30–2.66), and in the case of recent users, OR for CAP was 1.66 (95% CI, 1.22–2.25). In the subgroup analysis of CAP, significance association is also observed in both high-dose and low-dose PPI therapy. When stratified by duration of exposure, 3–6 months PPIs users group was associated with increased risk of developing CAP (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.22–3.45). There was a statistically significant association between the PPI users and the rate of hospitalization (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.83–3.66). Conclusion We found possible evidence linking PPI use to an increased risk of CAP. More randomized controlled studies are warranted to clarify an understanding of the association between PPI use and risk of CAP because observational studies cannot clarify whether the observed epidemiologic association is a causal effect or a result of unmeasured/residual confounding.


2011 ◽  
Vol 106 (7) ◽  
pp. 1209-1218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saowanee Ngamruengphong ◽  
Grigorios I Leontiadis ◽  
Saba Radhi ◽  
Andrew Dentino ◽  
Kenneth Nugent

Renal Failure ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 1237-1241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wisit Cheungpasitporn ◽  
Charat Thongprayoon ◽  
Wonngarm Kittanamongkolchai ◽  
Narat Srivali ◽  
Peter J. Edmonds ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 1042-1052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marija Glisic ◽  
Sara Shahzad ◽  
Stergiani Tsoli ◽  
Mahmuda Chadni ◽  
Eralda Asllanaj ◽  
...  

Aims The association between progestin-only contraceptive (POC) use and the risk of various cardiometabolic outcomes has rarely been studied. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of POC use on cardiometabolic outcomes including venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, hypertension and diabetes. Methods and results Nineteen observational studies (seven cohort and 12 case–control) were included in this systematic review. Of those, nine studies reported the risk of venous thromboembolism, six reported the risk of myocardial infarction, six reported the risk of stroke, three reported the risk of hypertension and two studies reported the risk of developing diabetes with POC use. The pooled adjusted relative risks (RRs) for venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and stroke for oral POC users versus non-users based on the random effects model were 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70–1.62), 0.98 (95% CI 0.66–1.47) and 1.02 (95% CI 0.72–1.44), respectively. Stratified analysis by route of administration showed that injectable POC with a RR of 2.62 (95% CI 1.74–3.94), but not oral POCs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.7–1.62), was associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. A decreased risk of venous thromboembolism in a subgroup of women using an intrauterine levonorgestrel device was observed with a RR of 0.53 (95% CI 0.32–0.89). No effect of POC use on blood pressure was found, but there was an indication for an increased risk of diabetes with injectable POCs, albeit non-significant. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that oral POC use is not associated with an increased risk of developing various cardiometabolic outcomes, whereas injectable POC use might increase the risk of venous thromboembolism.


2010 ◽  
Vol 138 (5) ◽  
pp. S-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saowanee Ngamruengphong ◽  
Grigorios I. Leontiadis ◽  
Michael D. Crowell ◽  
Hari P. Chaliki ◽  
Virender K. Sharma

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document