Concomitant proton-pump inhibitor use, platelet activity, and clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with prasugrel versus clopidogrel and managed without revascularization: insights from the Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes trial

An update on oral antiplatelet drug interactions with proton pump inhibitors: what are the risks?

INTRODUCTION

Aspirin and anti-P2Y12 are widely prescribed in cardiovascular patients, often in combination with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to limit the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleedings. The potential interaction between PPIs and antiplatelet agents has been widely discussed, but doubts remain as to whether PPIs may reduce the cardiovascular protection provided by aspirin, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and clopidogrel.

AREAS COVERED

Many pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) studies have confirmed the interaction, especially between PPIs and clopidogrel, but with uncertain consequences on clinical outcomes. Therefore, we aimed to summarize the evidence for the widespread combined use of oral antiplatelet drugs and PPIs, to outline the current evidence supporting or opposing drug-drug interaction, and to discuss the clinical implications of such interactions.

EXPERT OPINION

A large body of evidence describes the PK/PD interaction of antiplatelet drugs with PPIs and its potential role in increasing clinical cardiovascular adverse events, but no solid clinical data have confirmed these effects. In the light of the published studies, there seems to be no restriction on the choice of PPI with aspirin, prasugrel, and/or ticagrelor. The choice of a PPI with no (or minimal) interference with the hepatic cytochrome P450 2C19 is preferred in patients receiving clopidogrel.

Proton pump inhibitors and gastroprotection in patients treated with antithrombotic drugs: A cardiologic point of view

Aspirin, other antiplatelet agents, and anticoagulant drugs are used across a wide spectrum of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. A concomitant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment is often prescribed in these patients, as gastrointestinal complications are relatively frequent. On the other hand, a potential increased risk of cardiovascular events has been suggested in patients treated with PPIs; in particular, it has been discussed whether these drugs may reduce the cardiovascular protection of clopidogrel, due to pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions through hepatic metabolism. Previously, the concomitant use of clopidogrel and omeprazole or esomeprazole has been discouraged. In contrast, it remains less known whether PPI use may affect the clinical efficacy of ticagrelor and prasugrel, new P2Y12 receptor antagonists. Current guidelines recommend PPI use in combination with antiplatelet treatment in patients with risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding, including advanced age, concurrent use of anticoagulants, steroids, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. In patients taking oral anticoagulant with risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding, PPIs could be recommended, even if their usefulness deserves further data. H. pylori infection should always be investigated and treated in patients with a history of peptic ulcer disease (with or without complication) treated with antithrombotic drugs. The present review summarizes the current knowledge regarding the widespread combined use of platelet inhibitors, anticoagulants, and PPIs, discussing consequent clinical implications.

The Safety of Long-Term Proton Pump Inhibitor Use on Cardiovascular Health: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most prescribed classes of drugs worldwide as a first-line treatment of acid-related disorders. Although adverse effects are rare and rapidly reversible after a short exposure, concerns have been recently raised about a greater toxicity on cardiovascular health after a longer exposure, especially when combined with clopidogrel. We aimed to evaluate the safety of long-term PPI use on cardiovascular health in patients with known atheromatous cardiovascular disease. Methods: A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and grey literature in April 2022. Articles published between 2014 and 2022 were considered relevant if they were designed as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included post hoc analyses or prospective observational studies and if they investigated clinical cardiovascular outcomes associated with PPI use for 6 months or more in patients suffering from cardiovascular disease requiring antiplatelet agent therapy and/or coronary angioplasty. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 software (Computer program, the Cochrane Collaboration, 2020, London, UK). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for the RCTs and the Newcastle−Ottawa scale for the observational studies. Results: A total of 10 full-text articles involving 53,302 patients were included. Substantial heterogeneity was found among the 10 included studies. The primary analysis showed no significant differences between the PPI group and the control group for the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause death (ACD), or target vessel revascularization (TVR) using a random-effects model (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98−1.35, p = 0.08, I2 = 73%; OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.94−1.65, p = 0.13, I2 = 63%; and OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.76−1.87, p = 0.45, I2 = 61%, respectively). The primary analysis yielded similar results for the risks of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and cardiovascular death (CVD) using a fixed-effects model (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88−1.09, p = 0.66, I2 = 0%; OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90−1.17, p = 0.73, I2 = 0%; and OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94−1.16, p = 0.44, I2 = 35%, respectively). Likewise, a subgroup analysis based on eight randomized controlled trials failed to identify any association between PPI use and the risks of MACEs, MI, stroke, TVR, ACD, or CVD using a fixed-effects model (overall pooled OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96−1.06; p = 0.66; I2 = 0%). The pulled data from the two included observational studies (OS) demonstrated a significantly increased risk of MACEs in the PPI group (OR 1.42, 95% CI [1.29−1.57], p <0.001; I2 = 0%). In another subgroup analysis, no evidence of an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events in the co-therapy PPI/clopidogrel versus clopidogrel alone groups was found with the exception of the risk of ACD (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.23−1.82, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%). Nevertheless, after performing a sensitivity analysis reaching heterogeneity I2 = 0%, the co-prescription of PPIs and clopidogrel was at increased risk of MACEs (p < 0.001), CVD (p = 0.008), and TVR (p < 0.001) but remained statistically non-significant for the risk of MI (p = 0.11). Conclusions: The overall results of this meta-analysis showed that long-term PPI use was not associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. However, inconsistent results were found for combined PPI/clopidogrel therapy. These results should be considered with caution in light of the significant heterogeneity, the limited number of included studies, and the lack of adjustment for potential confounders.

Co-prescription of Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy and Proton Pump Inhibitors: Current Guidelines

Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) prevents thrombotic complications associated with coronary artery disease, acute coronary syndrome, and stent thrombosis following the percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. When initiating DAPT, the risk of thrombosis must be balanced with the increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB). Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are concurrently prescribed with DAPT to reduce bleeding risk.

In this review, we discuss the benefits and potential complications of DAPT/PPI co-prescription. The only large international randomized control trial (RCT), Clopidogrel and the Optimization of Gastrointestinal Events Trial (COGENT), shows robust evidence that PPIs are a safe and effective method to reduce the risk of bleeding in patients on DAPT. However, more large-scale RCTs are needed to study potential long-term effects and draw a stronger conclusion on this topic.

Impact of renal function on residual platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with clopidogrel

Background

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common comorbidity in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and may potentially influence platelet function.

Hypothesis

We explored the influence of renal function on platelet reactivity to investigate whether high residual platelet reactivity (HRPR) is associated with cardiovascular events.

Methods

ACS patients treated with aspirin and clopidogrel were prospectively enrolled. Patients were categorized into two groups on the basis of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): non‐CKD (eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m²) and CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m²). Platelet function was measured by thromboelastography ≥5 days after maintenance dual antiplatelet therapy. Major adverse clinical events (MACEs) were collected at 1 year after discharge.

Results

There were 282 non‐CKD patients and 212 CKD patients. A significant difference in median MA_ADP value was observed between the two groups (15.0 mm vs. 31.3 mm, p < .001). HRPR was more prevalent in the CKD group than the non‐CKD group (27.4% vs 9.6%, p < .001). At 1‐year follow‐up, the incidence of MACEs was significantly higher for those with both CKD and HRPR compared with those with either CKD or HRPR (37.9% vs. 18.5%, p < .001). The relationship between HRPR and MACEs was consistent across CKD strata without evidence of interaction. Adding platelet reactivity to eGFR improved the model with area under the curve increasing from 0.703 to 0.734.

Conclusion

In patients with ACS, the risk of HRPR increased with declining eGFR. Both CKD and HRPR were associated with MACEs at 1‐year follow‐up.

Gastroprotection in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy: a position paper of National Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO) and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO)

Aspirin and P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonists are widely used across the spectrum of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Gastrointestinal complications, including ulcer and bleeding, are relatively common during antiplatelet treatment and, therefore, concomitant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment is often prescribed. However, potential increased risk of cardiovascular events has been suggested for PPIs, and, in recent years, it has been discussed whether these drugs may reduce the cardiovascular protection by aspirin and, even more so, clopidogrel. Indeed, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies suggested an interaction through hepatic CYP2C19 between PPIs and clopidogrel, which could translate into clinical inefficacy, leading to higher rates of cardiovascular events. The FDA and the EMA sent a warning in 2010 discouraging the concomitant use of clopidogrel with omeprazole or esomeprazole. In addition, whether the use of PPIs may affect the clinical efficacy of the new P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonists, ticagrelor and prasugrel, remains less known. According to current guidelines, PPIs in combination with antiplatelet treatment are recommended in patients with risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding, including advanced age, concurrent use of anticoagulants, steroids or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Like vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), DOACs can determine gastrointestinal bleeding. Results from both randomized clinical trials and observational studies suggest that high-dose dabigatran (150 mg bid), rivaroxaban and high-dose edoxaban (60 mg daily) are associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding as compared with apixaban and warfarin. In patients taking oral anticoagulant with GI risk factor, PPI could be recommended, even if usefulness of PPIs in these patients deserves further data. Helicobacter pylori should always be searched, and treated, in patients with history of peptic ulcer disease (with or without complication). Given the large number of patients treated with antithrombotic drugs and PPIs, even a minor reduction of platelet inhibition or anticoagulant effect potentially carries a considerable clinical impact. The present joint statement by ANMCO and AIGO summarizes the current knowledge regarding the widespread use of platelet inhibitors, anticoagulants, and PPIs in combination. Moreover, it outlines evidence supporting or opposing drug interactions between these drugs and discusses consequent clinical implications.

Platelet Reactivity in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Awaiting Surgical Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Approximately 10% to 15% of these patients will undergo coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for index events, and current guidelines recommend stopping clopidogrel at least 5 days before CABG. This waiting time has clinical and economic implications.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate if a platelet reactivity-based strategy is noninferior to standard of care for 24-h post-CABG bleeding.

METHODS

In this randomized, open label noninferiority trial, 190 patients admitted with ACS with indications for CABG and on aspirin and P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors, were assigned to either control group, P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor withdrawn 5 to 7 days before CABG, or intervention group, daily measurements of platelet reactivity by Multiplate analyzer (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Vienna, Austria) with CABG planned the next working day after platelet reactivity normalization (pre-defined as ≥46 aggregation units).

RESULTS

Within the first 24 h of CABG, the median chest tube drainage was 350 ml (interquartile range [IQR]: 250 to 475 ml) and 350 ml (IQR: 255 to 500 ml) in the intervention and control groups, respectively (p for noninferiority <0.001). The median waiting period between the decision to undergo CABG and the procedure was 112 h (IQR: 66 to 142 h) and 136 h (IQR: 112 to 161 h) (p < 0.001), respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, a 6.4% decrease in the median in-hospital expenses was observed in the intervention group (p = 0.014), with 11.2% decrease in the analysis per protocol (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy based on platelet reactivity-guided is noninferior to the standard of care in patients with ACS awaiting CABG regarding peri-operative bleeding, significantly shortens the waiting time to CABG, and decreases hospital expenses. (Evaluation of Platelet Aggregability in the Release of CABG in Patients With ACS With DAPT; NCT02516267).

Dabigatran Dual Therapy vs Warfarin Triple Therapy Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation With/Without a Proton Pump Inhibitor: A Pre-Specified Analysis of the RE-DUAL PCI Trial

Background and Objective

In patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention, if a proton pump inhibitor is used, could that allow the use of warfarin triple therapy, or is there additional reduction in bleeding while using it with dual therapy?

Methods

The RE-DUAL PCI trial randomized 2725 patients with atrial fibrillation post-percutaneous coronary intervention to dabigatran dual therapy (110 or 150 mg twice daily, with clopidogrel or ticagrelor) or warfarin triple therapy (with clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin for 1–3 months). This prespecified subgroup analysis evaluated risks of a first major bleeding event or clinically relevant non-major bleeding event, all gastrointestinal bleeding, and a composite efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality/thromboembolic event or unplanned revascularization according to baseline use of a proton pump inhibitor.

Results

Of 2678 analyzed patients, 1641 (61.3%) were receiving a proton pump inhibitor at baseline. Dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy reduced the risk of major bleeding events or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events vs warfarin triple therapy regardless of proton pump inhibitor use, with comparable risk of the composite efficacy endpoint (all interaction p values > 0.05). For gastrointestinal bleeding, no interaction was observed between study treatment and proton pump inhibitor use (interaction p values 0.84 and 0.62 for dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy, respectively, vs warfarin triple therapy).

Conclusions

Dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy reduced the risk of major bleeding events or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events vs warfarin triple therapy, regardless of proton pump inhibitor use at baseline, in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Risk of the composite efficacy endpoint appeared to be similar for dabigatran dual therapy vs warfarin triple therapy in patients receiving/not receiving a proton pump inhibitor.

ClinicalTrials.gov unique identifier

NCT02164864.

Video abstract

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40265-020-01323-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Risk of Adverse Cardiovascular Events Following a Myocardial Infarction in Patients Receiving Combined Clopidogrel and Proton Pump Inhibitor Treatment: A Nested Case-Control Study

Background

The clinical implications of potential interactions between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and clopidogrel have been debated for over a decade.

Objective

We assessed the association between combined clopidogrel–PPI treatment and the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and three secondary outcomes.

Patients and Methods

A nested case–control study was conducted within Cerner Corporation’s Health Facts^® database. A retrospective cohort of patients who experienced a first MI and started clopidogrel treatment was created. Within this cohort, patients experiencing a second MI (cases) were matched with up to five controls. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs). Findings were compared with those obtained from models with three negative control exposure drugs: H₂ receptor antagonists, prasugrel, and ticagrelor.

Results

In total, 2890 recurrent MI cases were identified within 12 months following entry into the cohort of clopidogrel users (N = 52,006). aOR for PPI use versus non-use among clopidogrel users was 1.08 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95–1.23]. Similar ORs were obtained for secondary endpoints. A positive association between combined use of clopidogrel/PPIs and increased risk of MI was seen in the group aged 80–89 years (aOR 1.26; 95% CI 1.05–1.51). No associations with MI were observed for (1) H2 receptor antagonist use versus non-use among clopidogrel users or (2) PPI use versus non-use among prasugrel users or among ticagrelor users.

Conclusions

Overall, our findings do not support a significant adverse clinical impact of concomitant clopidogrel/PPI use by patients with MI. Nonetheless, investigation of the possible association seen in those aged 80–89 years may be warranted.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40801-020-00204-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prasugrel in the treatment of acute coronary syndrome

Dual antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome. The combination of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor in patients who receive a coronary stent reduces the rate of stent thrombosis and the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events. The newer P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) have better efficacy than clopidogrel. Prasugrel provides greater inhibition of platelet aggregation and has a rapid onset of action. Current acute coronary syndrome guidelines recommend the use of both newer P2Y12 inhibitors. However, emerging data have shown that prasugrel is more efficient than ticagrelor in reducing the incidence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death, without increased risk of major bleeding.

Proton pump inhibitors and cardiovascular adverse effects: Real or surreal worries?

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most widely prescribed agents, either for treatment or prophylaxis of gastrointestinal (GI) disease, that are often administered for prolonged or chronic use. Patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease frequently receive PPIs for prophylaxis against GI bleeding due to common use of antithrombotic drugs. Over the last several years there is a growing number of reports associating chronic PPI use with a variety of serious CV and non-CV adverse effects. In this context, PPI use has been independently associated with an increased risk of CV morbidity (myocardial infarction, stroke, other CV events) and mortality. However, the critique remains that these data do not largely derive from randomized controlled trials. On the other hand, in certain conditions, the benefits of PPIs may outweigh the risks of adverse CV effects. As the indications for prolonged, particularly lifelong, prophylactic use of PPIs are not compelling and in the light of evidence of serious CV and other adverse effects, clinicians have to reconsider such long-term use of these drugs. Importantly, histamine 2 blockers have not been found to be associated with increased CV risk and thus may be an alternative therapeutic option in certain patients. These issues are amply discussed together with the potential mechanisms of these pleiotropic and off-target effects of PPIs, which are also depicted in an illustrative schema; data are also presented on differential effects of specific agents involved, alternative modes of therapy available, and relevant current guidelines on this issue.

Effects of Clopidogrel and Proton Pump Inhibitors on Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus after Bare Metal Stent Implantation: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Background

To investigate whether there is an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with diabetes associated with adding proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to clopidogrel (CLO) therapy after bare-metal stent (BMS) deployment.

Methods

We used the National Health Insurance Research Database to conduct this retrospective cohort study. We enrolled 6,757 patients with diabetes who underwent BMS deployment and received CLO with/without PPIs for 90 days (6,243 in the CLO subgroup and 514 in the CLO plus PPI subgroup). The endpoints were acute coronary syndrome and re-admission for revascularization (PCI or coronary artery bypass graft surgery) after 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results

The patients who received CLO with PPIs had no significant increase in adverse CV events compared to those without PPIs within 1 year after BMS deployment [3-month hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65-1.15; 6 months, HR = 0.95, 95% CI, 0.78-1.15; 1 year, HR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.81-1.12].

Conclusions

In patients with diabetes undergoing BMS deployment, there was no evidence of an increased risk of CV events among concomitant users of CLO and PPIs. Our results indicate that the use of PPIs may not modify the protective effect of CLO after BMS implantation.

Proton Pump Inhibition in Patients Treated With Novel Antithrombotic Drugs: Should We Worry About Thrombosis?

Proton pump inhibition (PPI) administered together with antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents reduces the risk of gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Several novel antithrombotic agents have been recently introduced for patients with acute coronary syndrome (prasugrel and ticagrelor) or for patients requiring long-term anticoagulation (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and betrixaban). In fact, these agents might offer even stronger inhibition of platelets or coagulation compared with older agents; therefore, the need for gastroprotection might be even stronger when these new agents are used for long-term antithrombotic therapy. On the contrary, there are several reports regarding an adverse interaction between PPI and antithrombotic agents connected with a reduction in antithrombotic therapy on-treatment levels, implicating a higher risk of thrombosis. This interaction was demonstrated in clopidogrel-treated patients and more recently also in dabigatran-treated patients. This article discusses a possible novel antithrombotic therapy/PPI interaction leading to higher risk of thrombosis.

Outcome of stroke patients on clopidogrel plus proton-pump inhibitors: a single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcome and mortality in patients co-prescribed clopidogrel with proton pump inhibitors (PPI).

OBJECTIVE

Investigate the impact of concomitant prescription of clopidogrel and PPI on 30-day unplanned readmission and one-year all-cause mortality.

DESIGN

Retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

SETTING

Single academic tertiary center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included patients admitted with a diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke between 2010 and 2014. Demographic and outcome data were collected and compared for patients on clopidogrel plus PPI vs those on clopidogrel plus H2blockers and those not on clopidogrel.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

One-year mortality and 30-day unplanned readmissions were compared among different patient groups using multivariable logistic regression modeling.

SAMPLE SIZE

464 patients.

RESULTS

Out of 464 patients, 175 (37.7%) were discharged on clopidogrel. The concomitant prescription of clopidogrel and PPI was noted in 107 (24.4%) and clopidogrel and H2 blockers in 36 patients (7.8%). The one-year all-cause mortality in the entire cohort was 22.2%. Patients on clopidogrel plus PPI did not have a higher risk of one-year mortality compared to the non-PPI cohort (6.2% vs. 4.8%, p 0.7). There was a non-significant suggestion of lower one-year mortality in patients on clopidogrel plus PPI vs those not on clopidogrel (6.2% vs. 10.1%, p 0.23). In multivariable logistic regression, the use of clopidogrel plus PPI did not predict higher one-year mortality (odds ratio 0.6, P=0.6). The risk of unplanned 30-day readmission was lower in those with clop-idogrel plus PPI (odds ratio 0.6, P=.03).

CONCLUSION

The use of clopidogrel plus PPI resulted in lower readmission rates and was not associated with higher mortality compared with the non-PPI cohorts.

LIMITATIONS

Single center study, not generalizable. Given the retrospective nature of this study, we did not collect data on duration of treatments or patient compliance.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

No Significant Association Between Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Risk of Stroke After Adjustment for Lifestyle Factors and Indication

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are among the top 10 most prescribed medications worldwide. We investigated the association between PPI use and ischemic stroke.

METHODS

We collected data on 68,514 women (mean age, 65 ± 7 years) enrolled in the Nurses' Health Study since 2000 and 28,989 men (mean age, 69 ± 8 years) in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study since 2004, without a history of stroke. We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association between risk of incident stroke and PPI use among participants. The primary end point was first incident stroke.

RESULTS

In the 2 cohorts, we documented 2599 incident strokes (2037 in women and 562 in men) over a 12-year period, encompassing 949,330 person-years. After adjustment for established risk factors for stroke, PPI use was associated with a significant increase in risk of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.37). The association was reduced after we adjusted for potential indications for PPI use, including history of peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or gastrointestinal bleeding, and prior use of histamine-2 receptor antagonist therapy (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.27). Regular PPI use was not associated with increased risk of stroke overall or hemorrhagic stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, we did not find a significant association between PPI use and ischemic stroke, after accounting for indications for PPI use. Prior reports of an increased risk of stroke may be due to residual confounding related to chronic conditions associated with PPI use.

Cerebrovascular Outcomes With Proton Pump Inhibitors and Thienopyridines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Pharmacokinetic and prior studies on thienopyridine and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) coadministration provide conflicting data for cardiovascular outcomes, whereas there is no established evidence on the association of concomitant use of PPI and thienopyridines with adverse cerebrovascular outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies from inception to July 2017, reporting following outcomes among patients treated with thienopyridine and PPI versus thienopyridine alone (1) ischemic stroke, (2) combined ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, (3) composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and cardiovascular death, (4) MI, (5) all-cause mortality, and (6) major or minor bleeding events. After the unadjusted analyses of risk ratios, we performed additional analyses of studies reporting hazard ratios adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

We identified 22 studies (12 randomized controlled trials and 10 cohort studies) comprising 131 714 patients. Concomitant use of PPI with thienopyridines was associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.16; P<0.001), composite stroke/MI/cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29; P=0.04), and MI (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00-1.40; P=0.05). Likewise, in adjusted analyses concomitant use of PPI with thienopyridines was again associated with increased risk of stroke (hazard ratios adjusted, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04-1.61; P=0.02), composite stroke/MI/cardiovascular death (hazard ratios adjusted, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.47; P=0.02), but not with MI (hazard ratios adjusted, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.93-1.52; P=0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Co-prescription of PPI and thienopyridines increases the risk of incident ischemic strokes and composite stroke/MI/cardiovascular death. Our findings corroborate the current guidelines for PPI deprescription and pharmacovigilance, especially in patients treated with thienopyridines.

Proton-pump inhibitors adverse effects: a review of the evidence and position statement by the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva

INTRODUCTION

In the last few years a significant number of papers have related the use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) to potential serious adverse effects that have resulted in social unrest.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this paper was to provide a literature review for the development of an institutional position statement by Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD) regarding the safety of long-term PPI use.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed to draw conclusions based on a critical assessment of the following: a) current PPI indications; b) vitamin B12 deficiency and neurological disorders; c) magnesium deficiency; d) bone fractures; e) enteric infection and pneumonia; f) interactions with thienopyridine derivatives; e) complications in cirrhotic patients.

RESULTS

Current PPI indications have remained unchanged for years now, and are well established. A general screening of vitamin B12 levels is not recommended for all patients on a PPI; however, it does seem necessary that magnesium levels be measured at therapy onset, and then monitored in subjects on other drugs that may induce hypomagnesemia. A higher risk for bone fractures is present, even though causality cannot be concluded for this association. The association between PPIs and infection with Clostridium difficile is mild to moderate, and the risk for pneumonia is low. In patients with cardiovascular risk receiving thienopyridines derivatives it is prudent to adequately consider gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks, given the absence of definitive evidence regardin potential drug-drug interactions; if gastrointestinal risk is found to be moderate or high, effective prevention should be in place with a PPI. PPIs should be cautiously indicated in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs are safe drugs whose benefits outweigh their potential side effects both short-term and long-term, provided their indication, dosage, and duration are appropriate.

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.

Impact of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use on the Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Prasugrel Versus Clopidogrel: Insights From the Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) Study

Background

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastrointestinal bleeding events but may alter clopidogrel metabolism. We sought to understand the comparative effectiveness and safety of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in the context of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use.

Methods and Results

Using data on 11 955 acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention at 233 hospitals and enrolled in the TRANSLATE‐ACS study, we compared whether discharge PPI use altered the association of 1‐year adjusted risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; death, MI, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) and Global Use of Strategies To Open Occluded Arteries (GUSTO) moderate/severe bleeding between prasugrel‐ and clopidogrel‐treated patients. Overall, 17% of prasugrel‐treated and 19% of clopidogrel‐treated patients received a PPI at hospital discharge. At 1 year, patients discharged on a PPI versus no PPI had higher risks of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21‐1.58) and GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding (adjusted HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.15‐2.09). Risk of MACE was similar between prasugrel and clopidogrel regardless of PPI use (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.62‐1.26 with PPI, adjusted HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90‐1.28 without PPI, interaction P=0.31). Comparative bleeding risk associated with prasugrel versus clopidogrel use differed based on PPI use but did not reach statistical significance (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.36‐1.48 with PPI, adjusted HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.79‐2.27 without PPI, interaction P=0.17).

Conclusions

PPIs did not significantly affect the MACE and bleeding risk associated with prasugrel use, relative to clopidogrel.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01088503.

Drug Interaction Between Clopidogrel and Ranitidine or Omeprazole in Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Double-Blind, Double Dummy, Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are often prescribed to patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, this class of medication, especially omeprazole, has been associated with a reduction in clopidogrel efficacy, leading many clinicians to substitute omeprazole with ranitidine.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to compare the antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel before and after the addition of omeprazole or ranitidine.

METHODS

We measured platelet aggregability at baseline and after 1 week of clopidogrel 75 mg daily. Subjects were then randomized in a double-blinded, double-dummy fashion to omeprazole 20 mg twice daily (bid) or ranitidine 150 mg bid. We repeated aggregability tests after 1 additional week, using VerifyNow P2Y12™ (Accumetrics; San Diego, CA, USA), depicting aggregability as percent inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA).

RESULTS

We enrolled 41 patients in the omeprazole group and 44 in the ranitidine group. IPA was significantly decreased after the addition of omeprazole to clopidogrel (from 26.3 ± 32.9 to 17.4 ± 33.1 %; p = 0.025), with no statistical significant changes observed in the ranitidine group (from 32.6 ± 28.9 to 30.1 ± 31.3 %; p = 0.310). The comparison of IPA in both groups at the end of the follow-up showed a trend toward significance (p = 0.07, 95 % confidence interval [CI] -1.19 to 26.59); after excluding homozygous patients for 2C19*2 genotype, the comparison of IPA between the groups reached statistical significance (32.7 ± 30.8 vs. 17.7 ± 33.4 %, respectively, for ranitidine and omeprazole groups; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike omeprazole, ranitidine did not influence platelet aggregability response to clopidogrel.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01896557.