Adverse outcomes of long-term use of proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis with a particular focus on subgroups

BACKGROUND

The role of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the benefit-risk ratio of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD with a particular focus on subgroups.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD versus control and including at least 1000 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and net clinical benefit. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Subgroup analyses involving sex, concomitant statin treatment, diabetes, and smoking were performed.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials comprising 164,225 patients were included. The risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was similar for aspirin and control groups (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.02; RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.08; respectively). Aspirin reduced the relative risk (RRR) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 9% (RR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95), myocardial infarction by 14% (RR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95), and ischemic stroke by 10% (RR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99), but was associated with a 46% relative risk increase of major bleeding events (RR 1.46; 95% CI, 1.30-1.64) compared with controls. Aspirin use did not translate into a net clinical benefit adjusted for event-associated mortality risk (mean 0.034%; 95% CI, - 0.18 to 0.25%). There was an interaction for aspirin effect in three patient subgroups: (i) in patients under statin treatment, aspirin was associated with a 12% RRR of MACE (RR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96), and this effect was lacking in the no-statin group; (ii) in non-smokers, aspirin was associated with a 10% RRR of MACE (RR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99), and this effect was not present in smokers; and (iii) in males, aspirin use resulted in a 11% RRR of MACE (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.95), with a non-significant effect in females.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin use does not reduce all-cause or cardiovascular mortality and results in an insufficient benefit-risk ratio for CVD primary prevention. Non-smokers, patients treated with statins, and males had the greatest risk reduction of MACE across subgroups.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019118474.

Proton pump inhibitors and dysbiosis: Current knowledge and aspects to be clarified

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are common medications within the practice of gastroenterology. These drugs, which act through the irreversible inhibition of the hydrogen/potassium pump (H+/K+-ATPase pump) in the gastric parietal cells, are used in the treatment of several acid-related disorders. PPIs are generally well tolerated but, through the long-term reduction of gastric acid secretion, can increase the risk of an imbalance in gut microbiota composition (i.e., dysbiosis). The gut microbiota is a complex ecosystem in which microbes coexist and interact with the human host. Indeed, the resident gut bacteria are needed for multiple vital functions, such as nutrient and drug metabolism, the production of energy, defense against pathogens, the modulation of the immune system and support of the integrity of the gut mucosal barrier. The bacteria are collected in communities that vary in density and composition within each segment of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Therefore, every change in the gut ecosystem has been connected to an increased susceptibility or exacerbation of various GI disorders. The aim of this review is to summarize the recently available data on PPI-related microbiota alterations in each segment of the GI tract and to analyze the possible involvement of PPIs in the pathogenesis of several specific GI diseases.

Proton pump inhibitors and risk of hip fracture: a meta-analysis of observational studies

We performed a meta-analysis of relevant studies to quantify the magnitude of the association between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and risk of hip fracture. Patients with PPIs had a greater risk of hip fracture than those without PPI therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.14-1.28, p < 0.0001). These results could be taken into consideration with caution, and patients should also be concerned about the inappropriate use of PPIs.

INTRODUCTION

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are generally considered as first-line medicine with great safety profile, commonly prescribed for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and peptic ulcer disease. However, several epidemiological studies documented that long-term use of PPIs may be associated with an increased risk of hip fracture. Although, the optimal magnitude of the hip fracture risk is still undetermined. We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis of relevant studies to quantify the magnitude of the association between PPIs and risk of hip fracture.

METHODS

We collected relevant articles using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science from January 1, 1990, to March 31, 2018. We included only the large (n ≥ 500) observational studies with a follow-up duration of at least one year in which the hip fracture patients were identified by a standard procedure. Two of the authors extracted data from each included study independently according to a standardized protocol.

RESULTS

A total of 24 observational studies with 2,103,800 participants (319,568 hip fracture patients) met all the eligibility criteria. Patients with PPIs had a greater risk of hip fracture than those without PPI therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.14-1.28, p < 0.0001). An increased association was also observed in both low and medium doses of PPI taken and hip fracture risk (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.29, p = 0.002; RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14-1.44, p < 0.0001), but it appeared to be even greater among the patients with higher dose (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.20-1.40, p < 0.0001). Moreover, the overall pooled risk ratios were 1.20 (95% CI 1.15-1.25, p < 0.0001) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.10-1.40, p < 0.0001) for the patients with short- and long-term PPI therapy, respectively, compared with PPI non-users.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that PPI use is significantly associated with an increased risk of hip fracture development, which is not observed in H2RA exposure. Physicians should, therefore, exercise caution when considering a long-term PPI treatment to their patients who already have an elevated risk of hip fracture. In addition, patients should be concerned about the inappropriate use of PPIs; if necessary, then, they should continue to receive it with a clear indication.

A Case-Control Study: Clinical Characteristics of Nosocomial Bloodstream Infections Versus Non-bloodstream Infections of Acinetobacter spp

Background

Acinetobacter spp. are among the most common causes of bacterial nosocomial infections, including pneumonia and bloodstream infections. Previous studies on the risk factors of bloodstream Acinetobacter spp. infections (BSAcIs) primarily compared uninfected patients to those with BSAcIs. However, the identified risk factors contribute to either BSIs or Acinetobacter spp. infections. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the risk factors of BSAcIs in comparison to non-bloodstream Acinetobacter infections (non-BSAcIs).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 10 years of medical records of BSAcIs from a teaching hospital in Shanghai. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were compared between BSAcIs and non-BSAcIs. Treatment outcomes of carbapenem- and sulbactam-based regimens were also evaluated.

Results

Respiratory tract infections (43.1%, 44/102) were the most common source of BSAcIs. The in-hospital mortality rate of BSAcIs (22.5%, 23/102) was significantly higher than that of non-BSAcIs (10.8%, 24/204). Compared with non-BSAcIs, the previous use of corticoids, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) usage, and the implementation of intracranial drainage were independent risk factors for BSAcIs. The clinical efficacy rate of antimicrobial treatment of carbapenem-susceptible BSAcIs was significantly higher than that of carbapenem-non-susceptible (CNS) BSAcIs (74.0% vs 44.3%). Sulbactam-based regimens had similar clinical efficacy rates as carbapenem-based regimens for treating CNS-BSAcIs (50.0% vs 45.8%).

Conclusions

The in-hospital mortality rate of BSAcIs was significantly higher than that of non-BSAcIs. Glucocorticoids, PPI usage, and intracranial drainage were independent risk factors for BSAcIs. Sulbactam-based regimens had similar clinical efficacy rates as carbapenem-based regimens for treating CNS-BSAcIs.