Adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with concurrent use of clopidogrel or ticlopidine and proton-pump inhibitors in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: The Effects of Prophylactic Proton Pump Inhibitor Treatment in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used in clinical treatment. However, the pharmacokinetic interaction between PPIs and DAPT is still unclear in patients with cardiovascular disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the risks and benefits of the combination of PPI and DAPT in patients with coronary heart disease. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from inception to April 1, 2020, for eligible studies. The outcomes investigated in this study included major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, all-cause death, gastrointestinal complications, and platelet function testing. Studies were excluded from the review if other gastrointestinal medication or aspirin or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor monotherapy was administered. The review included 52 studies, and data from 40 studies were extracted for meta-analysis. No association was found between the risk of adverse clinical outcomes and the combination of PPI and DAPT based on the randomized controlled trial data (risk ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.09; P = 0.877; I2 = 0%). However, an increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes due to the use of PPIs was observed in patients treated with DAPT based on the data from observational studies (risk ratio: 1.259; 95% confidence interval: 1.079-1.468; P = 0.003; I2 = 67.8%), although the heterogeneity of these studies was high. In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that pharmacokinetic interactions between PPI and DAPT do not lead to adverse clinical outcomes.

Development of a structured clinical pharmacology review for specialist support for management of complex polypharmacy in primary care

AIMS

Polypharmacy is widespread and associated with medication-related harms, including adverse drug reactions, medication errors and poor treatment adherence. General practitioners and pharmacists cite limited time and training to perform effective medication reviews for patients with complex polypharmacy, yet no specialist referral mechanism exists. To develop a structured framework for specialist review of primary care patients with complex polypharmacy.

METHODS

We developed the clinical pharmacology structured review (CPSR) and stopping by indication tool (SBIT). We tested these in an age-sex stratified sample of 100 people with polypharmacy aged 65-84 years from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, an anonymised primary care database. Simulated medication reviews based on electronic records using the CPSR and SBIT were performed. We recommended medication changes or review to optimise treatment benefits, reduce risk of harm or reduce treatment burden.

RESULTS

Recommendations were made for all patients, for almost half (4.8 ± 2.4) of existing medicines (9.8 ± 3.1), most commonly stopping a drug (1.7 ± 1.3/patient) or reviewing with the patient (1.4 ± 1.2/patient). At least 1 new medicine (0.7 ± 0.9) was recommended for 51% patients. Recommendations predominantly aimed to reduce harm (44%). There was no relationship between number of recommendations made and time since last primary care medication review. We identified a core set of clinical information and investigations (polypharmacy workup) that could inform a standard screen prior to specialist review.

CONCLUSION

The CPSR, SBIT and polypharmacy workup could form the basis of a specialist review for patients with complex polypharmacy. Further research is needed to test this approach in patients in general practice.

Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors with Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

There is inconsistency in the literature regarding the clinical effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) when added to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in subjects with coronary artery disease (CAD). We performed meta-analysis stratified by study design to explore these differences.

METHODS AND RESULTS

39 studies [4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 35 observational studies) were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Inception-January 2018). In 221,204 patients (PPI = 77,731 patients, no PPI =143,473 patients), RCTs restricted analysis showed that PPI did not increase the risk of all-cause mortality (Risk Ratio (RR): 1.35, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.56-3.23, P = 0.50, I2 = 0), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.94, 95% CI, 0.25-3.54, P = 0.92, I2 = 56), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 0.97, 95% CI, 0.62-1.51, P = 0.88, I2 = 0) or stroke (RR: 1.11, 95% CI, 0.25-5.04, P = 0.89, I2 = 26). However, PPI significantly reduced the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (RR: 0.32, 95% CI, 0.20-0.52, P < 0.001, I2 = 0). Conversely, analysis of observational studies showed that PPI significantly increased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.25, 95% CI, 1.11-1.41, P < 0.001, I2 = 82), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 1.25, 95% CI, 1.03-1.52, P = 0.02, I2 = 71), MI (RR: 1.30, 95% CI, 1.16-1.47, P < 0.001, I2 = 82) and stroke (RR: 1.60, 95% CI, 1.43-1.78, P < 0.001, I2 = 0), without reducing GI bleeding (RR: 0.74, 95% CI, 0.45-1.22, P = 0.24, I2 = 79).

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of RCTs endorsed the use of PPI with DAPT for reducing GI bleeding without worsening cardiovascular outcomes. These findings oppose the negative observational data regarding effects of PPI with DAPT.

Patient-centered Outcomes with Concomitant Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Other Drugs

PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review of patient-centered outcomes after the concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and other drugs.

METHODS

We searched 4 databases in July 2016 to find studies that reported mortality and morbidity after the concomitant use of PPIs and other drugs. We conducted direct meta-analyses using a random-effects model and graded the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group approach.

FINDINGS

We included data from 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 16 randomized controlled trials, and 16 observational studies that examined the concomitant use of PPIs with medications from 10 drug classes. Low-quality evidence suggests that the use of PPIs is associated with greater morbidity when administered with antiplatelet drugs, bisphosphonates, antibiotics, anticoagulants, metformin, mycophenolate mofetil, or nelfinavir. Concomitant PPIs reduce drug-induced gastrointestinal bleeding and are associated with greater docetaxel and cisplatin response rates in patients with metastatic breast cancer. For demonstrated statistically significant relative risks and benefits from concomitant PPIs, the magnitudes of the effects are small, with <100 attributable events per 1000 patients treated, and the effects are inconsistent among specific drugs. Among individual PPIs, the concomitant use of pantoprazole or esomeprazole, but not omeprazole or lansoprazole, is associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke. Clopidogrel is associated with a greater risk for myocardial infarction compared with prasugrel. Conflicting results between randomized controlled trials and observational studies and high risk for bias in the body of evidence lessened our confidence in the results.

IMPLICATIONS

Available evidence suggests a greater risk for adverse patient outcomes after the concomitant use of PPIs and medications from 9 drug classes and warns against inappropriate drug combinations.

Long-term effect of β-blocker in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function: a propensity analysis

The current guidelines for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) recommended that β-blocker should be used in patients with decreased left ventricular (LV) systolic function for long-term period. However, the effect of β-blocker in AMI patients with preserved LV systolic function is uncertain. We sought to assess the long-term effect of β-blocker in AMI patients with preserved LV systolic function. During the follow-up period (1997-2011), total 3508 patients were performed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Of these patients, 424 AMI patients with preserved LV systolic function [ejection fraction (EF) > 40 %] were analyzed. Median follow-up period was 4.7 years. Then, patients were divided into two groups (β-blocker group 197 patients and no-β-blocker group 227 patients). However, there are substantial differences in baseline characteristics between two groups. Therefore, we calculated propensity score to match the patients in β-blocker and no-β-blocker groups. After post-match patients (N = 206, 103 matched pair), β-blocker therapy significantly reduced cardiac death compared with no-β-blocker [hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, p = 0.04], whereas β-blocker therapy was not associated with major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and all-cause death. β-Blocker is an effective treatment for AMI patients who underwent PCI with preserved LV systolic function.

Incidence of cardiovascular events and gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving clopidogrel with and without proton pump inhibitors: an updated meta-analysis

Background

Dual antiplatelet therapy is the standard of care after coronary stent placement but increases the bleeding risk. The effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on clopidogrel metabolism have been described, but the clinical significance is not yet definitive. We aimed to do an updated meta-analysis comparing outcomes in patients receiving clopidogrel with and without PPIs.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies in patients taking clopidogrel stratified by concomitant PPI use. Heterogeneity was examined with the Cochran Q test and I² statistics; p values inferior to 0.10 and I² >25% were considered significant for heterogeneity.

Results

We included 39 studies with a total of 214 851 patients, of whom 73 731 (34.3%) received the combination of clopidogrel and a PPI. In pooled analysis, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and cerebrovascular accidents were more common in patients receiving both drugs. However, among 23 552 patients from eight RCTs and propensity-matched studies, there were no significant differences in mortality or ischaemic events between groups. The use of PPIs in patients taking clopidogrel was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Conclusions

The results of our meta-analysis suggest that PPIs are a marker of increased cardiovascular risk in patients taking clopidogrel, rather than a direct cause of worse outcomes. The pharmacodynamic interaction between PPIs and clopidogrel most likely has no clinical significance. Furthermore, PPIs have the potential to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding in clopidogrel users.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose clopidogrel in Japanese patients after drug-eluting stent implantation: a randomized pilot trial

In Japan, a lower maintenance dose of ticlopidine is used than in the United States and Europe. Therefore a lower maintenance dose of clopidogrel may also be considered appropriate in Japanese patients. The present randomized pilot study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 50 mg clopidogrel in Japanese patients who underwent drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. A total of 200 patients with 277 lesions who underwent intravascular ultrasound-guided DES implantation were enrolled. The subjects were allocated to the 50- or 75-mg clopidogrel group. All patients received 100 mg aspirin daily before the procedure, and this continued indefinitely. The duration of clinical follow-up was 21.8 ± 5.7 months in the 75-mg group and 21.9 ± 6.1 months in the 50-mg group (P = 0.96). During follow-up, no cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis was observed in either group. Side effects of clopidogrel were observed in 4 patients (4.0 %) in the 75-mg group and in 4 patients (4.0 %) in the 50-mg group. Following this randomized pilot study, it may be justified to perform a large-scale randomized study comparing 50- and 75-mg dosing of clopidogrel in Japanese patients undergoing coronary stent implantation.