Influence of proton pump inhibitors on clinical outcomes in coronary heart disease patients receiving aspirin and clopidogrel: A meta-analysis

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.

Association between the Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Nested Case-Control Study Using a National Health Screening Cohort

We investigated the association of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use with the risk of stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD). The Korean National Health Insurance Service-Health Screening cohort from 2002 to 2003, the participants of which were followed up until 2019, was used. In study I, 45,905 participants who were diagnosed with stroke were matched with 91,810 control I participants. The history of PPI medication was examined. In study II, 40,928 participants who were diagnosed with IHD were matched with 81,856 control II participants. In both study I and study II, the previous history of PPI medication was examined. A propensity score overlap-weighted multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to estimate the overlap-weighted odds ratios (ORs) of PPI use for stroke (study I) and IHD (study II). Current PPI use was linked with higher odds for stroke in study I. The odds for stroke were higher in groups with a longer duration of PPI use (OR = 0.96 [95% CI = 0.92-1.00] < 1.55 [1.50-1.61] < 1.62 [1.57-1.68] for < 30 days, 30 to 180 days, and ≥180 days of PPI use). Previous PPI use was linked with higher odds for IHD in study II. The odds for stroke were higher in groups with a longer duration of PPI use (OR = 1.13 [95% CI = 1.08-1.18] < 2.12 [2.04-2.21] < 2.60 [2.51-2.69] for <30 days, 30 to 180 days, and ≥180 days of PPI use). Current PPI medication is associated with a high risk of stroke and IHD. A longer duration of PPI medication was related to a higher risk of stroke and IHD. However, a prior history of PPI medication was not linked with a high risk of stroke or IHD.

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.

Efficacy and safety of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors with aspirin-clopidogrel dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are usually prescribed to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) complications in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of the concomitant use of PPIs with aspirin-clopidogrel DAPT in patients with Coronary heart disease (CHD). Method: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to August 2022 for eligible studies. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to different PPI subtypes, populations, follow-up times and study types. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022332195). Results: A total of 173,508 patients from 18 studies [2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 3 post hoc analyses of RCTs, and 13 cohort studies] were included in this study. Pooled data revealed that coadministration of PPIs significantly increased the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.06-1.26, p = .001) and reduced the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) complications (HR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.30-0.64, p < .0001). Subgroup analysis results showed that the esomeprazole users and patients with coronary stenting in the PPI group were associated with an increased risk of MACEs compared with the non-PPI group. The occurrence of MACEs in PPI users was more common than that in non-PPI users in long-term follow-up (≥12 months) studies and in the observational studies. There was no significant differences in the incidences of net clinical adverse events (NACEs), all-cause mortality, or cardiac death between the two groups. Conclusion: In patients with CHD, the concomitant use of PPIs with aspirin and clopidogrel was associated with a reduced risk of GI complications but could increase the rates of MACEs (particularly in patients receiving esomeprazole or with coronary stenting). There was no clear evidence of an association between PPI use and NACEs, all-cause mortality, or cardiac death. The results could have been affected by the follow-up time and study type. Further large-scale RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

Inappropriate Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors Increases Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease

Antiplatelet drugs, as the cornerstone of the treatment of coronary heart disease, control the progression of the disease, but bring a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Relevant guidelines recommend the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to minimize the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. But for people at low risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, the harms associated with routine use of PPIs may far outweigh the benefits. PPIs increase the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding, inhibit the effect of antiplatelet drugs, impair vascular endothelial function, meanwhile induce hypomagnesemia, iron deficiency, vitamins D and K deficiency, etc. Eventually, PPIs may lead to an increase in cardiovascular events. However, the situation is that PPIs are often overused. This review elucidates the mechanisms by which PPIs increase cardiovascular events, thereby reminding clinicians to rationally prescribe PPIs.

Pre-existing Proton Pump Inhibitor Treatment and Short-Term Prognosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients

Introduction

Evidence suspects proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use is a risk factor of poor prognosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We aimed to investigate the association between pre-existing PPI use before emergency department (ED) visit and short-term prognosis of AMI patients.

Materials and Methods

AMI patients admitted to ED were included and categorized as cohorts with or without pre-existing PPI use. Hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, being admitted to intensive care unit (ICU), and length of (total) ICU stay were studied as prognostic outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression or linear regression were used to estimate the associations between pre-existing PPI use and the outcomes after adjusting for potential confounders.

Results

A total of 2001 AMI patients were included. No significant difference was found in hospital mortality and length of ICU stay between cohorts; patients with pre-existing PPI use showed a significantly longer length of hospital stay (median 3.81 vs. 3.20 days, P = 0.002) but lower proportion of being admitted to ICU (25.59% vs. 40.83%, P &lt; 0.001) compared to those without pre-existing PPI use. Pre-existing PPI use was not associated with hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58–1.99], length of hospital stay (β = 0.23, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.82), and length of ICU stay (β = −0.18, 95% CI −1.06 to 0.69), but was statistically significantly associated with lower risk of being admitted to ICU (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52–0.92).

Conclusion

The current study does not support newly diagnosed AMI patients with pre-existing PPI use before ED visit would experience worse short-term prognosis than those without.

Efficacy and Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Patients With Coronary Artery Diseases Receiving Oral Antiplatelet Agents and/or Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) plus antithrombotic strategy in patients with coronary artery diseases compared with antithrombotic strategy alone. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedical Medical Literature databases to retrieve randomized controlled trials investigating PPIs combined with antithrombotic strategy in coronary artery diseases. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). The primary safety outcome was gastrointestinal events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, significant bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions, and gastroduodenal ulcer. Overall, 43,943 patients were enrolled from 19 trials. The incidence of MACCE [relative risk (RR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.15], all-cause death (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69-1.01), cardiovascular death (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.69-1.12), myocardial infarction (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.88-1.09), stent thrombosis (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.76-1.34), and gastroduodenal ulcer (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.13-1.29) did not increase significantly in patients receiving PPIs compared with patients without those. There were significant differences in the risk of gastrointestinal events (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21-0.54) and significant bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions (RR 0.09; 95% CI 0.03-0.28) between the 2 groups. In patients with coronary artery diseases, PPIs plus antithrombotic strategy could reduce the risk of gastrointestinal events and significant bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions but may not affect the incidence of MACCE, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and gastroduodenal ulcer (PROSPERO: CRD42021277899, date of registration October 10, 2021).

Aspirin resistance in infants with shunt-dependent congenital heart disease

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cyanotic heart disease are at an increased risk of developing thrombosis. Aspirin has been the mainstay of prophylactic anticoagulation for shunt-dependent patients with several reports of prevalent aspirin resistance, especially in neonates. We investigate the incidence of aspirin resistance and its relationship to thrombotic events and mortality in a cohort of infants with shunt-dependent physiology.

METHODS

Aspirin resistance was assessed using the VerifyNow™ test on infants with single-ventricle physiology following shunt-dependent palliation operations. In-hospital thrombotic events and mortality data were collected. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of aspirin resistance on in-hospital thrombotic events and mortality risk.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were included with 41 of these patients being neonates. Six patients (12%) were aspirin resistant. A birth weight < 2500 grams was a significant factor associated with aspirin resistance (p = 0.04). Following a dose increase or additional dose administration, all patients with initial aspirin resistance had a normal aspirin response. There was no statistically significant difference between aspirin resistance and non-resistance groups with respect to thrombotic events. However, a statistically significant incidence of in-hospital mortality in the presence of thrombotic events was observed amongst aspirin-resistant patients (p = 0.04) in this study.

CONCLUSION

Low birth weight was associated with a higher incidence of aspirin resistance. Inadequate initial dosing appears to be the primary reason for aspirin resistance. The presence of both thrombotic events and aspirin resistance was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality indicating that these patients warrant closer monitoring.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: History, Mechanisms, Efficacy, and Future Directions

Over the past decade, the role of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) medication has evolved from a diagnostic tool for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE), by excluding patients with PPI responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE), to a therapy for EoE. This transition resulted from the Updated International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Proceedings of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE) Conference to support PPI therapy for EoE in children and adults. Additional recent advances have suggested a role for genetic variations that might impact response to PPI therapy for EoE. This review article will explore a brief background of EoE, the evolution of PPI therapy for EoE and its proposed mechanisms, efficacy and safety in children and adults, and considerations for future PPI precision medicine in patients with EoE.

Association of proton-pump inhibitor use with adverse health outcomes: A systematic umbrella review of meta-analyses of cohort studies and randomised controlled trials

AIMS

The aim was to perform an umbrella review to summarise the existing evidence on proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use and adverse outcomes and to grade the certainty of evidence.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched up to July 2021 for meta-analyses of cohort studies and/or randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Summary effect sizes from a random-effects model, between-study heterogeneity, 95% prediction interval, small-study effect, excess significance and credibility ceilings were devised to classify the credibility of evidence from meta-analyses of cohort studies, whereas the GRADE approach was used for meta-analyses of RCTs.

RESULTS

In meta-analyses of cohort studies, 52 of the 91 examined associations were statistically significant (P ≤ .05). Convincing evidence emerged from main analysis for the association between PPI use and risk of all-site fracture and chronic kidney disease in the elderly population. However, none of these associations remained supported by convincing evidence after sensitivity analyses. The use of PPI is also associated with an increased risk of mortality due to COVID-19 infection and other related adverse outcomes, but the quality of evidence was weak. In meta-analyses of RCTs, 38 of the 63 examined associations were statistically significant. However, no associations were supported by high or moderate-quality evidence.

CONCLUSION

This study's findings imply that most putative adverse outcomes associated with PPI use may not be supported by high-quality evidence and are likely to have been affected by underlying confounding factors. Future research is needed to confirm the causal association between PPI use and risk of fracture and chronic kidney disease.

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.

ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues to be among the most common diseases seen by gastroenterologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians. Our understanding of the varied presentations of GERD, enhancements in diagnostic testing, and approach to patient management have evolved. During this time, scrutiny of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has increased considerably. Although PPIs remain the medical treatment of choice for GERD, multiple publications have raised questions about adverse events, raising doubts about the safety of long-term use and increasing concern about overprescribing of PPIs. New data regarding the potential for surgical and endoscopic interventions have emerged. In this new document, we provide updated, evidence-based recommendations and practical guidance for the evaluation and management of GERD, including pharmacologic, lifestyle, surgical, and endoscopic management. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to evaluate the evidence and the strength of recommendations. Key concepts and suggestions that as of this writing do not have sufficient evidence to grade are also provided.

ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues to be among the most common diseases seen by gastroenterologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians. Our understanding of the varied presentations of GERD, enhancements in diagnostic testing, and approach to patient management have evolved. During this time, scrutiny of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has increased considerably. Although PPIs remain the medical treatment of choice for GERD, multiple publications have raised questions about adverse events, raising doubts about the safety of long-term use and increasing concern about overprescribing of PPIs. New data regarding the potential for surgical and endoscopic interventions have emerged. In this new document, we provide updated, evidence-based recommendations and practical guidance for the evaluation and management of GERD, including pharmacologic, lifestyle, surgical, and endoscopic management. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to evaluate the evidence and the strength of recommendations. Key concepts and suggestions that as of this writing do not have sufficient evidence to grade are also provided.

Antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapies in cardiogenic shock: a critical review of the published literature

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome, developing as a continuum, and progressing from the initial insult (underlying cause) to the subsequent occurrence of organ failure and death. There is a large phenotypic variability in CS, as a result of the diverse aetiologies, pathogenetic mechanisms, haemodynamics, and stages of severity. Although early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of acute myocardial infarction, the administration of timely and effective antithrombotic therapy is critical to improving outcomes in these patients. In addition, other clinical settings or non-acute myocardial infarction aetiologies, associated with high thrombotic risk, may require specific regimens of short-term or long-term antithrombotic therapy. In CS, altered tissue perfusion, inflammation, and multi-organ dysfunction induce unpredictable alterations to antithrombotic drugs' pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Other interventions used in the management of CS, such as mechanical circulatory support, renal replacement therapies, or targeted temperature management, influence both thrombotic and bleeding risks and may require specific antithrombotic strategies. In order to optimize safety and efficacy of these therapies in CS, antithrombotic management should be more adapted to CS clinical scenario or specific device, with individualized antithrombotic regimens in terms of type of treatment, dose, and duration. In addition, patients with CS require a close and appropriate monitoring of antithrombotic therapies to safely balance the increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis.

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.

Proton pump inhibitor use and mortality in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis of cohort studies

Background: Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is commonly used in patients with cirrhosis. However, some studies demonstrated that PPI use was associated with adverse outcome in patients with cirrhosis. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of cohort studies to evaluate the association between PPI use and mortality in cirrhotic patients.

Methods: Relevant studies were obtained via search of PubMed and Embase databases. A randomized-effect model was used to pool the results. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the source of heterogeneity.

Results: Overall, 21 cohort studies with 20,899 patients and 7457 death events were included. The pooled results with a randomized-effect model showed that PPI use was associated with significantly increased risk of mortality in patients with cirrhosis (adjusted relative risk [RR] = RR: 1.39, P<0.001) with considerable heterogeneity (I²=73%). Subgroup analyses showed that characteristics such as patient ethnicity, sample size, definition of PPI use, and complications of patients did not affect the association. However, the association between PPI use and mortality was independent of study characteristics including patient ethnicity, sample size, complications, definition of PPI use, and follow-up duration. However, the association between PPI use and mortality in cirrhotic patients was significant in retrospective studies (RR: 1.40, P<0.001), but not in prospective studies (RR: 1.34, P=0.33).

Conclusions: PPI use may be associated with moderately increased mortality in cirrhotic patients. Although prospective cohort studies are needed to validate our findings, PPI should only prescribed to cirrhotic patients with indications for the treatment.

Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events for concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors in patients inheriting CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles: meta-analysis

Background Efficacy of clopidogrel may be diminished due to either co-administration of proton pump inhibitors or carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles. However, patients may be at greater risk of major adverse cardiovascular events if taking clopidogrel together with proton pump inhibitors and also inherited the CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles which may cause further reduction of clopidogrel efficacy. This is due to the cumulative effects of drug-drug interactions and drug-gene interactions collectively referred to as multifactorial drug-gene interactions. Aim of the review The aim of this analysis was to estimate aggregated risk of major adverse cardiovascular events for either coronary heart disease or stroke patients with multifactorial drug-gene interactions versus clopidogrel alone with or without drug-gene interactions. Methods Literatures were searched using different resources based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software following either fixed/random effects model based on the levels of heterogeneity. A p value < 0.05 (2-sided) was considered statistically significant. Results In total, five studies consisting 8,802 patients of coronary artery diseases or stroke were included in this meta-analysis in which 3,767 were prescribed clopidogrel alone, 1,931 were concomitantly taking clopidogrel and PPIs, 2,146 were carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles and 958 were taking both clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors while also carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles. It was found that patients with multifactorial drug-gene interactions were associated with significantly increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to those taking clopidogrel alone without CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles (12% vs. 5.8%; RR 1.73; 95% CI 1.12-2.67; p = 0.01). Patients with multifactorial drug-gene interactions were also associated with significantly increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to drug-gene interactions (RR 1.63; 95% CI 1.31-2.03; p < 0.0001). Patients taking clopidogrel with proton pump inhibitors were also associated with 35% significantly increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to those taking only clopidogrel (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.11-1.65; p = 0.003). Conclusion Patients inheriting CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles have significantly increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events when taking clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors concurrently.

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.

A New Score for Predicting Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Administered Oral Antiplatelet Drugs

Antiplatelet drugs may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Currently, there is no specific score for predicting the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding caused by oral antiplatelet drugs. In this study, the gastrointestinal bleeding risk score was established and compared with the CRUSADE score in order to reduce the occurrence of clinical gastrointestinal bleeding events. Our study included 4052 patients who received oral antiplatelet drugs. Data were obtained from the patient medical records inpatient system. Cases of acute gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality were recorded. The bleeding score was established by logistic regression, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and the Hosmer–Lemeshow test. Finally, 171 patients had acute gastrointestinal bleeding. The mortality rates of patients in the bleeding and nonbleeding groups were 24.6 and 4.7%, respectively. A multivariate analysis revealed that an age of >65 years, anemia, recent major bleeding, a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, combined oral anticoagulants, and dual antiplatelet therapy are risk factors, and combined proton pump inhibitors are protective factors for acute gastrointestinal bleeding. We used these risk factors to establish a score for predicting acute gastrointestinal bleeding, named (ABC)₂D score. The area under the curve for (ABC)₂D score was 0.857 (p < 0.001), higher than the CRUSADE score of 0.693 (p < 0.001). The Hosmer–Lemeshow p value was 0.324. We developed the (ABC)₂D score based on seven risk factors (i.e., age, anemia, recent major bleeding, a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, no-proton pump inhibitors use, combined oral anticoagulants, and dual antiplatelet therapy). (ABC)₂D score was superior to the CRUSADE score. This new risk-scoring model may help to identify patients at a significant risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Hungary: Mixed-Method Study to Reveal Scale and Characteristics

Background

Due to their efficacy and tolerability, utilization of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) has significantly increased worldwide. Parallel to the clinical benefits, potential long-term side effects have been observed, which, along with increasing medical expenses and potential drug interactions, justifies the analysis of the trends of utilization.

Objective

The aim of the present study was to show the level, pattern, and characteristics of PPI use.

Methods

We assessed the nationwide use of proton pump inhibitors in ambulatory care based on aggregated utilization data from the National Health Insurance database. The annual PPI utilization was expressed as the number of packages and as number of DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants and per year. For 2018, we estimated PPI exposure as the number of packages and as the number of DDDs per user per year. The annual reimbursement costs of proton pump inhibitors were also calculated. Moreover, three patient-level surveys were carried out in non-gastroenterological inpatient hospital departments to reveal characteristics of proton pump inhibitor use, namely dose, duration, and indication.

Results

The PPI utilisation increased from 5867.8 thousand to 7124.9 thousand packages and from 41.9 to 50.4 DDD per 1,000 inhabitants and per day between 2014 and 2018. Nationwide data showed that 14% of the adult population was exposed to proton pump inhibitors in 2018, while among hospitalized patients, the prevalence of proton pump inhibitor use was between 44.5% and 54.1%. Pantoprazole was the most frequently used active ingredient, both in the nationwide data and in the patient-level surveys. In the patient-level survey in majority of patients (71.5%-80.0%) proton pump inhibitors were prescribed for prophylaxis. Many inpatients (29.4%-36.9%) used 80 mg pantoprazole per day. The average number of PPI packages per user was 6.5 in 2018 in the nationwide data. The duration of PPI therapy was typically between 1 and 5 years in the patient-level surveys and nearly 20% of the inpatients had been taking proton pump inhibitors for more than 5 years.

Conclusions

Our data suggests that Hungarian patients receive proton pump inhibitors in high doses and for a long time. Use of proton pump inhibitors beyond their recommended indications was also found.

[Second look: practical diagnostic and therapeutic checks in neurorehabilitation]

Post-acute inpatient neurorehabilitation facilities are increasingly treating patients who are not only severely ill and multimorbid but who are also referred from non-neurological departments. These patients are still often medically unstable so that the previous diagnostics and treatment must be reevaluated and when necessary adapted or supplemented. Certain interdisciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic problems, such as antithrombotic therapy, regularly reoccur. This article presents these problems in a checklist fashion, which should provide indications in individual cases when previously carried out measures need to be questioned and adapted.

How to advise patients on the risk of chronic proton pump inhibitor therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely prescribed and have excellent short-term tolerability. Administrative database studies have highlighted that many diseases are associated with PPI therapy including pneumonia, fracture, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality. This review therefore reviews the evidence of the risks and benefits of these drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is high-to-moderate quality evidence that PPIs are effective at treating many acid-related disorders. Recent randomized trials have suggested that the associations between PPIs and various diseases are likely to be related to bias and residual confounding and these drugs appear to be safe apart from a possible increased risk of enteric infections.

SUMMARY

PPIs should be used at the lowest dose and for the shortest duration possible. They are still relatively well-tolerated drugs but should only be prescribed for proven indications.

Proton Pump Inhibitors: The Good, Bad, and Ugly

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) continue to be the medication of choice for treatment of acid-related disease, with few if any overt side effects seen with daily use. They are often prescribed empirically, often in high doses and with many patients being treated with multiple PPIs without an objective diagnosis. Therefore, they are believed to be overprescribed and used without indication. In this article we discuss the appropriate clinical indications for PPIs, review in detail the major associated adverse events, and put in perspective key issues in balancing benefits and risk of this exceptional (and safe) class of drug.

Effect of Proton Pump Inhibitors on Risks of Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding among Users of Low-Dose Aspirin: A Population-Based Observational Study

Estimates of the effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on risks of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB and LGIB) among low-dose aspirin users in routine clinical practice are variable (UGIB) or lacking (LGIB). We aimed to establish these risks in the same observational study population. Using UK primary care data, we followed 199,049 new users of low-dose aspirin (75–300 mg/day) and matched non-users at start of follow-up to identify incident UGIB/LGIB cases. In nested case–control analyses, adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for concomitant PPI use vs. past (discontinued) PPI use among current low-dose aspirin users. For UGIB (n = 987), ORs (95% CIs) were 0.69 (0.54–0.88) for >1 month PPI use and 2.65 (1.62–4.3) for ≤1 month PPI use. Among the latter group, ORs (95% CIs) were 3.05 (1.75–5.33) for PPI initiation after start of aspirin therapy, and 1.66 (0.63–4.36) for PPI initiation on/before start of aspirin therapy. For LGIB (n = 1428), ORs (95% CIs) were 0.98 (0.81–1.17) for >1 month PPI use and 1.12 (0.73–1.71) for ≤1 month PPI use. Among low-dose aspirin users, maintaining PPI use (>1 month) was associated with a significantly reduced UGIB risk. Neither short nor long-term PPI use affected LGIB risk.

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.

Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group

DESCRIPTION

This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

[The relationship between the combined use of various proton pump inhibitors with antiplatelet drugs and the risk of cardiovascular complications]

In the article the problem of the combined use of clopidogrel and various proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in terms of cardiovascular complications risk and stent thrombosis is considered. The results of meta - analyses and a systematic reviews affecting this issue are represented in detail. The inter - drug interactions mechanisms of various PPIs with clopidogrel based on the characteristics of the metabolism in the liver cytochromes system are discussed. The authors conducted a search, systematization and analysis of studies regarding the association between cardiovascular risk and combined use of individual medications from PPI class with clopidogrel, and these results are presented in the review. Currently available data do not allow to answer the question about the differences between individual PPIs in their impact on the risk of adverse cardiovascular events due to the small number of such studies, design heterogeneity, differences in the inclusion criteria and end points as well as in the rate of administration of individual PPIs.