Adverse events in patients with cardiovascular disease taking proton pump inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) rank among the most frequently prescribed medications to treat acid-related diseases. Mounting concerns surround the potential for serious adverse events, including cardiovascular events, associated with their prolonged use/misuse.

AREAS COVERED

This comprehensive review explores cardiovascular adverse events linked to PPI use among high-risk cardiovascular patients. A structured search was conducted on PubMed.

EXPERT OPINION

Many patients with cardiovascular disease who require antiplatelet treatment will require long-term PPI treatment. Interpreting the published data is not straightforward. First, because there is no plausible mechanistic explanation for PPIs to induce cardiovascular events apart from the potential interaction with the metabolism of thienopyridines. Although several observational studies have shown an increased cardiovascular risk and mortality in patients taking long-term PPIs, most available clinical trials and meta-analyses of available studies do not. However, the absence of firm evidence of this link does not necessarily imply that this association does not exist, and other hypothesis must be explored. Anemia is a common event in patients who take antiplatelet therapy and PPIs, and it is a factor associated with cardiovascular events and death. Anemia in these patients is often attributed to erosive lesions of the small intestine, where PPI may play a key role by modifying the microbiota.

Impact of short-term proton pump inhibitors vs. histamine-2 receptor antagonists on gut microbiota in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Several randomized controlled studies have suggested that the prophylactic use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients could not reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and may increase adverse events such as intestinal infection and pneumonia. Gut microbiota may play a critical role in the process. PPIs has been widely prescribed for GIB prophylaxis in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This study aimed to determine the short-term effects of PPI and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) treatment on gut microbiota of ACS patients.

METHODS

The study was designed as a single-blind, multicenter, three-parallel-arm, randomized controlled trial conducted at three centers in Beijing, China. We enrolled ACS patients at low-to-medium risk of GIB and randomized (2:2:1) them to either PPI (n = 40), H2RA (n = 31), or control group (n = 21). The primary outcomes were the alterations in gut microbiota after 7 days of acid suppressant therapy. Stool samples were collected at baseline and 7 days and analyzed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing.

RESULTS

There were no significant changes in the diversity of gut microbiota after the short-term use of acid suppressants, but the abundance of Fusobacterium significantly increased and that of Bifidobacterium significantly decreased, especially in PPI users. In addition, the abundance of some pathogenic bacteria, including Enterococcus and Desulfovibrio, was significantly elevated in the PPI users. The fecal microbiota of the PPI users included more arachidonic acid metabolism than that of control group.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs may increase the risk of infection by adversely altering gut microbiota and elevating arachidonic acid metabolism, which may produce multiple proinflammatory mediators. For ACS patients at low-to-medium risk of GIB, sufficient caution should be paid when acid-suppressant drugs are prescribed, especially PPIs.

REGISTRATION

www.chictr.org.cn/ (ChiCTR2000029552).

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.

Generating Practice-Based Evidence in the Use of Guideline-Recommended Combination Therapy for Secondary Prevention of Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers, and statins for the secondary prevention of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). It is not clear whether variation in real-world practice reflects poor quality-of-care or a balance of outcome tradeoffs across patients. Methods: The study cohort included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized 2007-2008 for AMI. Treatment within 30-days post-discharge was grouped into one of eight possible combinations for the three drug classes. Outcomes included one-year overall survival, one-year cardiovascular-event-free survival, and 90-day adverse events. Treatment effects were estimated using an Instrumental Variables (IV) approach with instruments based on measures of local-area practice style. Pre-specified data elements were abstracted from hospital medical records for a stratified, random sample to create "unmeasured confounders" (per claims data) and assess model assumptions. Results: Each drug combination was observed in the final sample (N = 124,695), with 35.7% having all three, and 13.5% having none. Higher rates of guideline-recommended treatment were associated with both better survival and more adverse events. Unmeasured confounders were not associated with instrumental variable values. Conclusions: The results from this study suggest that providers consider both treatment benefits and harms in patients with AMIs. The investigation of estimator assumptions support the validity of the estimates.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors of in-hospital gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Background

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is one of the most serious complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and is correlated with poor outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the prevalence, risk factors and in-hospital mortality of GIB in patients with AMI.

Methods

This observational case-control study retrospectively enrolled consecutive patients with AMI from the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiovascular Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from January 2015 to December 2020. GIB after AMI was identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes from inpatient medical settings and validated by medical record review. AMI patients without GIB were accordingly classified as the control group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match with the GIB group and the control group. All anonymized clinical data were provided by the Biobank of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University.

Results

A total of 5,868 AMI patients were enrolled, 0.87% (51/5,868) of whom developed GIB after AMI. On the univariate analysis, history of diabetes, chronic kidney disease, Killip IV, a lower hemoglobin concentration, a higher serum level of creatinine, blood urea nitrogen and D-dimer were closely associated with the risk of GIB (P < 0.05). On the multivariable analysis, a lower hemoglobin concentration (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89–0.96, P < 0.001) was independently associated with the risk of GIB. Patients with GIB had a much higher in-hospital mortality rate than those without GIB (14.3 vs. 2.1%, P = 0.047). In-hospital mortality among patients with GIB after AMI appeared to be associated with a decreased hemoglobin concentration (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86–0.99, P = 0.045) and Killip IV (OR: 51.59, 95% CI: 2.65–1,005.30, P = 0.009).

Conclusion

The history of diabetes, poor renal function and heart failure were associated with the high risk of GIB in patients experiencing AMI. The in-hospital mortality in patients with AMI complicating GIB was higher than that in patients without GIB and was associated with a decreased hemoglobin concentration and high Killip classification.

Incidence, associated outcomes, and predictors of upper gastrointestinal bleeding following acute myocardial infarction: a SWEDEHEART-based nationwide cohort study

AIMS

Of all spontaneous bleeding complications in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is common and of specific interest since it could be prevented by several prophylactic measures. We aimed to determine the incidence, associated outcomes, and predictors of UGIB following acute MI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All patients with acute MI enrolled in the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry from January 2007 to June 2016 and discharged alive on any antithrombotic therapy (n = 149 477) were followed regarding UGIB for 1 year. Associated outcomes were determined by Cox proportional hazards regression with UGIB as a time-dependent covariate, adjusting for baseline characteristics, invasive treatment, and medical treatment at discharge. Predictors of UGIB were determined by logistic regression and machine learning models.At 1 year, UGIB had occurred in 2230 patients (cumulative incidence 1.5%) and was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR) 2.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.58-3.16] and stroke (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.32-2.45) but not with recurrent MI (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.42). The most important predictors of UGIB were haemoglobin, age, systolic blood pressure, blood glucose, smoking status, previous upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and antithrombotic and gastroprotective treatment.

CONCLUSION

After acute MI, readmission because of UGIB is common and significantly associated with poor prognosis. By using machine learning in addition to traditional logistic regression, new predictors of UGIB, such as blood glucose and smoking status, were identified.

Proton Pump Inhibitors and In-Hospital Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and in-hospital gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) taking dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study is based on the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-ACS project, an ongoing collaborative registry and quality improvement project of the American Heart Association and the Chinese Society of Cardiology. A total of 25,567 patients with ACS taking DAPT from 172 hospitals from July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018, were included. Multivariable Cox regression and propensity score-matched analyses were used to evaluate the association between PPI use and in-hospital GI bleeding.

RESULTS

Of these patients with ACS, 63.9% (n=16,332) were prescribed PPIs within 24 hours of admission. Patients using PPIs had a higher rate of GI bleeding compared with those not using PPIs (1.0% vs 0.5%; P<.001). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, early PPI use was associated with a 58% higher risk of GI bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.18; P=.005). Further propensity score matching attenuated the association but still showed that patients using PPIs had a higher rate of GI bleeding (0.8% vs 0.6%; P=.04).

CONCLUSION

In China, PPIs are widely used within 24 hours of admission in patients with ACS taking DAPT. An increased risk of GI bleeding is observed in inpatients with early PPI use. Randomized trials on early use of PPIs in patients with ACS receiving DAPT are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02306616.

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.

The Clinical Impact of Proton Pump Inhibitors When Co-Administered With Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Having Acute Myocardial Infarction With Low Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Insights From the China Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry

Background: The latest guidelines recommend the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to minimize gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), even though this co-administration may increase the risk of ischemia due to drug interactions. We have noticed that there are few studies conducted on patients with a lower risk of GIB. Therefore, we investigated the clinical effect of co-administration of PPI on DAPT patients with low GIB risk.

Methods and Results: From January 2013 to September 2014, a total of 17,274 consecutive patients on DAPT from 108 hospitals with low risk for GIB in the China Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAMI) registry were analyzed. The primary endpoints were GIB and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Multivariate logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effect of PPIs use. Of the analyzed patients, 66.6% (n = 11,487) were treated with PPIs. PPI use did not show an extra gastrointestinal protective effect in patients with low risk for GIB who were hospitalized and on follow-up after 2 years. Moreover, it was associated with an increased risk of stroke during the 2-year follow-up [hazard ratio (HR) 2.072, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.388–3.091, p = 0.0003] and an increased risk of MI after 6 months (HR 1.580, 95% CI 1.102–2.265, p = 0.0119). We found the same results after propensity score matching.

Conclusion: PPI use is prevalent in DAPT patients with low GIB risk. PPIs did not show an extra gastrointestinal protective effect, while an increased risk of stroke was observed during the 2-year follow-up.

Clinical Trial Registration:www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT01874691.

Clinical Outcomes of Concomitant Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The safety and efficacy associated with the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) by patients with coronary artery disease receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remain unclear. Methods: The evaluated outcomes included combined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. A random effects meta-analysis, stratified by study design, was performed and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Results: In total, 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (6930 patients) and 16 observational studies (183,546 patients) were included. Analysis of RCTs showed that there were no significant differences in the incidences of MACEs (risk ratio [RR] = 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.75-1.05]), MI (RR = 0.93 [95% CI = 0.76-1.15]), and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.79 [95% CI = 0.50-1.23]) in the PPI groups vs. the non-PPI groups. Pooled data from observational studies revealed an inconsistent association between the use of each PPI subtype and the increased risks of MACEs during clopidogrel treatment. There was no increased risk of MACEs or all-cause mortality associated with the use of PPIs (as a class) and other P2Y12 inhibitors. Both the RCTs and observational studies revealed that the use of PPIs significantly reduced the risks of GI bleeding. Conclusion: The use of PPIs was associated with a reduced risk of GI bleeding in patients treated with DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention or acute coronary syndrome. There was no clear evidence of an association between the use of PPIs and adverse cardiovascular events. Clinical Trial Registration: identifier [CRD42020190315].

The efficacy and safety of acid suppressants for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in cardiac care unit patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Concerns regarding adverse events associated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) prophylaxis in the intensive care unit have increased in recent years. Few studies have focused on acid suppressant use in the cardiac care unit (CCU) setting exclusively. We performed a cohort study to determine the efficacy and safety of acid suppressants for GIB prophylaxis in CCU patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adults who were admitted directly to the CCU for more than 2 days from January 1, 2014, to April 30, 2019. The Crusade score was calculated to evaluate the risk of GIB. The primary outcomes were clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIGIB), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 3318 patients enrolled, 2284 (68.8%) patients received PPIs, 515 (15.5%) received H2RAs, and 519 (15.7%) received no acid suppressants. After adjusting for potential confounders, utilization of PPIs (2.69, 95% confidence interval [0.62-11.73]) and H2RAs (1.41, 95% confidence interval [0.19-10.36]) were not associated with a lower risk of CIGIB than the control. Sensitivity analyses revealed that PPI use was an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality in patients over 75 years old, with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.08 (1.14-14.63). PPIs increased the risk of HAP in patients over 75 years old and in those with heart failure, with adjusted odds ratios of 2.38 (1.06-5.34) and 2.88 (1.34-7.28), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitors and H2RAs for GIB prophylaxis in CCU patients were not associated with a lower risk of CIGIB than the controls. PPI therapy is associated with increased risks of HAP and in-hospital mortality in patients over 75 years old. PPIs may increase the risk of HAP in patients with heart failure.

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.

Current status of proton pump inhibitor use in Japanese elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A subanalysis of the ANAFIE Registry

The real-world status of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving antithrombotic treatment is largely unknown. The All Nippon AF In the Elderly (ANAFIE) Registry, a prospective, multicenter, observational study, aimed to determine treatment patterns, risk factors, and outcomes among elderly (aged ≥75 years) Japanese non-valvular AF (NVAF) patients in the real-world clinical setting. The present subanalysis of the ANAFIE Registry determined the PPI prescription status of 32,490 elderly Japanese NVAF patients. Patients were stratified by PPI use (PPI+) or no PPI use (PPI−). Risk scores for stroke (CHADS₂, CHA₂DS₂-VASc) and bleeding (HAS-BLED), anticoagulant use, time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin, and anticoagulant/antiplatelet combination use were evaluated. PPIs were used in 11,981 (36.9%) patients. Compared with the PPI− group, the PPI+ group included a greater proportion of female patients (45.2% vs 41.3%; P <0.0001) and had significantly higher CHADS₂, CHA₂DS₂-VASc, and HAS-BLED scores (P <0.0001 for each) as well as higher prevalences of several comorbidities. In the PPI+ group, 54.6% of patients did not have gastrointestinal (GI) disorders and were likely prescribed a PPI to prevent GI bleeding events. Most of the patients with a GI disorder in the PPI+ group had reflux esophagitis. Compared with patients not receiving anticoagulants, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving anticoagulants received PPIs. For patients receiving anticoagulants, antiplatelet drugs, and both drugs, rates of PPI use were 34.1%, 44.1%, and 53.5%, respectively (P <0.01). Although the rate of PPI use was the highest for NVAF patients receiving both antiplatelet and anticoagulants, no clear differences were observed in the anticoagulants used. These data suggest that PPIs were actively prescribed in high-risk cases and may have been used to prevent GI bleeding among elderly NVAF patients receiving antithrombotic drugs.

Trial registration:UMIN000024006

Use of proton pump inhibitors is associated with lower rates of first-time ischemic stroke in community-dwelling elderly

AIM

Data on cardiovascular outcomes in elderly using proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are scant. We aimed to test the association between PPI use and the occurrence of first-time ischemic stroke (FTIS) among elderly.

METHODS

The electronic database of a centrally located district branch of a large health maintenance organization in Israel was retrospectively screened (2002-2016) for community-dwelling individuals (≥65-95 years) for demographics and co-morbidities. Follow-up was until FTIS, death or end of study. Findings were analyzed by PPI use and occurrence of FTIS.

RESULTS

29,639 subjects (without history of stroke and use of antiplatelet aggregation drugs) mean age of 82.2 ± 5.5 years (range: 65-95 years, 38% male) were analyzed: 8,600 (29%) used PPIs. Mean follow up was 10.58 years (SD ± 5.44). Similar total and annual occurrence rates of FTIS were depicted in PPI users and non-users (20.9% vs. 21% and 2% vs. 2.1%, respectively). On a Cox regression analysis, upon adjustment for age, gender and cardiovascular disease related risk factors, PPI use was significantly associated with lower rates of FTIS (HR 0.73, 95% C.I. 0.69-0.77, p < 0.001). The risk for FTIS was significantly lower in subjects using PPI at any dose and for any time period compared to non-users (HR 0.9, 95% C.I. 0.85-0.96 for 7-48 yearly prescriptions and HR 0.51, 95% C.I. 0.46-0.55 for ≥49 yearly prescriptions).

CONCLUSIONS

PPI use was associated with lower rates of FTIS in community-dwelling elders. Prospective large-scale studies are needed to fully elucidate the effect of PPI in this aging population.

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.

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.