Prescribing proton pump inhibitor and clopidogrel together: current state of recommendations

Proton pump inhibitor co-prescription with dual antiplatelet therapy among patients with acute coronary syndrome in Qatar

BACKGROUND

There are increasing concerns about clinically significant interactions between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and clopidogrel, resulting in adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, published evidence on the prevalence and predictors of PPI use with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the prevalence of PPI use among patients with ACS receiving DAPT and possible predictors of co-prescribing the PPIs with the DAPT.

SETTING

Heart Hospital, a specialized tertiary care center in Qatar.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective observational study of a prescription database was conducted. Subjects included 626 patients admitted between January and December 2012 with the diagnosis of ACS who received DAPT and discharged with or without a PPI. Univariate analysis and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis were performed to determine the predictors of PPI-DAPT co-prescription.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of PPI co-prescribing with DAPT in proportions and percentages and odd ratios for the predictors of PPI-DAPT co-prescribing.

RESULTS

A total of 626 patients were analyzed for PPI prevalence, with 200 patients (32 %) being prescribed PPI with DAPT upon discharge. After controlling for confounders, PPI use on admission (aOR 14.5; 95 % CI 7.6-27.6, p < 0.001), nationality (aOR 3.2; 95 % CI 1.1-9.9, p = 0.041), and having a history of diabetes (aOR 0.5; 95 % CI 0.24-0.99, p = 0.046) significantly influenced PPI-DAPT co-prescribing. Users of PPI on admission compared to nonusers were about 15 times more likely to be prescribed PPI with DAPT upon discharge; likewise, having Qatari nationality increased the likelihood of co-prescribing PPI with DAPT upon discharge by three folds. Lastly, patients with a history of diabetes were 50 % less likely to be prescribed PPIs upon discharge compared to those with no history of diabetes.

CONCLUSION

The rate of PPI co-prescribing with DAPT in the population studied was relatively high. The strongest predictor of PPI co-prescription with DAPT upon discharge was PPI use on admission. Furthermore, PPI prescribing was significantly predicted by nationality and not having diabetes. Further studies are warranted to better predict the factors associated with PPI-DAPT co-prescription and to investigate rational prescribing of PPIs among ACS patients.

Effect of proton-pump inhibitors on the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding associated with NSAIDs, aspirin, clopidogrel, and warfarin

BACKGROUND

We investigated the effects of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) on lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) and of their interactions with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), low-dose aspirin, clopidogrel, and warfarin on LGIB risk.

METHODS

We prospectively studied 355 patients emergently hospitalized for LGIB and 8,221 nonbleeding patients. All patients underwent colonoscopy. Smoking, alcohol drinking, drug exposure, and the Charlson comorbidity index score were assessed before colonoscopy. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) of LGIB were estimated.

RESULTS

LGIB was significantly associated with older age, higher comorbidity index, and NSAID, aspirin, clopidogrel, or warfarin use. PPI use was significantly associated with older age, male sex, being a current alcohol drinker, higher comorbidity index, and NSAID, aspirin, clopidogrel, warfarin, acetaminophen, or corticosteroid use. Multivariate analysis adjusted by the confounding factors revealed LGIB was not significantly associated with PPI use (AOR 0.87; 95 % confidence interval 0.68-1.13; p = 0.311), or specifically with omeprazole (AOR 1.18; p = 0.408), esomeprazole (AOR 0.76; p = 0.432), lansoprazole (AOR 0.93; p = 0.669), or rabeprazole (AOR 0.63; p = 0.140). In the interaction model, no significant interactions were observed between PPIs and NSAIDs (AOR 1.40; p = 0.293), aspirin (AOR 1.09; p = 0.767), clopidogrel (AOR 0.99, p = 0.985), or warfarin (AOR 1.52; p = 0.398).

CONCLUSIONS

This large case-control study demonstrated that PPI use did not lead to an increased risk of LGIB, regardless of the type of PPI used. Further, LGIB risk was not affected by PPI use, irrespective of concomitant therapy with NSAIDs, low-dose aspirin, clopidogrel, or warfarin.

Risk of lower and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, transfusions, and hospitalizations with complex antithrombotic therapy in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Complex antithrombotic therapy (CAT) prescribed to elderly patients increases the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. We quantified upper (UGIE) and lower gastrointestinal (LGIE) events, transfusions, and hospitalizations in a national cohort of elderly veterans prescribed CAT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Veterans ≥60 years of age prescribed anticoagulant-antiplatelet, aspirin (ASA)-antiplatelet, ASA-anticoagulant, or triple therapy (ie, TRIP, anticoagulant-antiplatelet-ASA) were identified from the national pharmacy database (October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2008). Prescription-fill data were linked to Veteran Affairs and Medicare encounter files, each person-day of follow-up was assessed for CAT exposure, and outcomes were defined by using diagnostic code algorithms derived following chart abstraction. Incidence density ratios (compared with the reference category of no CAT) and survival analysis was conducted. Among 78,133 veterans (98.6% white; mean age, 72.3 [standard deviation 7.7]), 64% were prescribed ASA-antiplatelet and anticoagulant-antiplatelet and 6% were prescribed TRIP. The incidence of UGIE was 20.1/1000 patient-years, and the incidence of LGIE was 70.1/1000 patient-years. ASA-anticoagulant and TRIP were associated with the highest incidence of transfusion and hospitalization. A 40% to 60% increased risk of UGIE was observed with all strategies. LGIE was 30% higher with anticoagulant-antiplatelet, and transfusion increased with ASA-anticoagulant (hazard ratio, 6.1; 95% confidence interval, 5.2-7.1) and TRIP (hazard ratio, 5.0; 95% confidence interval, 4.2-5.8). Increased risk of hospitalization was noted with all strategies. The number needed to harm for UGIE or LGIE ranged from 52 to 65 and 15 to 23, respectively. The number needed to harm for hospitalization was 39 (anticoagulant-antiplatelet), 34 (ASA-anticoagulant), 67 (ASA-antiplatelet), and 45 (TRIP) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Among elderly patients, CAT-related LGIE and UGIE are clinically relevant risks resulting in increased hospitalizations and transfusions.

P2Y12 Receptor Inhibitors in Acute Coronary Syndromes: What Is New on the Horizon?

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor represents the cornerstone therapy for patients with acute coronary syndromes or undergoing percutaneous interventions, leading to a reduction of subsequent ischemic events. Variable response to clopidogrel has received close attention, and pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacogenomic factors have been identified as culprits. This led to the introduction of newer, potentially safer, and more effective antiplatelet agents (prasugrel and ticagrelor). Additionally, several point-of-care assays of platelet function have been developed in recent years to rapidly screen individuals on antiplatelet therapy. While the routine use of platelet function testing is uncertain and not currently recommended, it may be useful in instances when the degree of platelet inhibition may be uncertain such as high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or when there may be a suspected pharmacodynamic interaction with other drugs. The current paper focuses on the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors and their pharmacogenetics and indications in patients with acute coronary syndromes or receiving percutaneous coronary interventions as well as the applicability of platelet function testing in this clinical context.

Activation of the bile acid receptor GPBAR1 protects against gastrointestinal injury caused by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and aspirin in mice

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Low doses of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid; ASA) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. GPBAR1 is a bile acid receptor expressed in the gastrointestinal tract. Here, we have investigated whether GPBAR1 was required for mucosal protection in models of gastrointestinal injury caused by ASA and NSAIDs. EXPERIMENTAL APPROCH: GPBAR1(+/+) and GPBAR1(-/-) mice were given ASA (10-50 mg.kg(-1)) or naproxen. Gastric and intestinal mucosal damage was assessed by measuring lesion scores.

KEY RESULTS

Expression of GPBAR1, mRNA and protein, was detected in mouse stomach. Mice lacking GPBAR1 were more sensitive to gastric and intestinal injury caused by ASA and NSAIDs and exhibited a markedly reduced expression of cystathionine-γ-liase (CSE), cystathionine-β-synthase (CBS) and endothelial NOS enzymes required for generation of H(2)S and NO, in the stomach. Treating GPBAR1(+/+) mice with two GPBAR1 agonists, ciprofloxacin and betulinic acid, rescued mice from gastric injury caused by ASA and NSAIDs. The protective effect of these agents was lost in GPBAR1(-/-) mice. Inhibition of CSE by DL-propargylglycine completely reversed protection afforded by ciprofloxacin in wild type mice, whereas treating mice with an H(2)S donor restored the protective effects of ciprofloxacin in GPBAR1(-/-) mice. Deletion of GPBAR1 altered the morphology of the small intestine and increased sensitivity to injury caused by naproxen.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

GPBAR1 is essential to maintain gastric and intestinal mucosal integrity. GPBAR1 agonists protect against gastrointestinal injury caused by ASA and NSAIDs by a COX-independent mechanism.

Proton pump inhibitors: potential adverse effects

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes adverse effects of potential proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), including nutritional deficiencies (B12 and magnesium), rebound acid hypersecretion, acute interstitial nephritis, gastric carcinoid tumor, cardiovascular risk with clopidogrel and PPI coprescription, bone fractures, enteric infections and pneumonia. An epidemiologic framework is applied to assess clinical relevance and reinforce best practice recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

The evidence for PPI adverse events is limited by the absence of Level 1 (randomized controlled trial) studies. The best evidence supports Clostridium difficile and bone fractures in susceptible populations. A substantial reduction in gastrointestinal bleeding risk without increase in cardiovascular events was observed in the COGENT trial when clopidogrel was coprescribed with omeprazole. The risk of pneumonia is inconsistent, and although acute interstitial nephritis, nutritional deficiencies (including B12 and hypomagnesemia), gastric carcinoid and rebound hyperacidity are biologically plausible, studies have failed to demonstrate supportive clinical relevance.

SUMMARY

Prescribe PPI for robust indications only. Strong data supporting risk of adverse events are lacking; however, exercise caution in the elderly and in patients with other risk factors for bone fractures or C. difficile infection.

Clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors - where do we stand in 2012?

Clopidogrel in association with aspirine is considered state of the art of medical treatment for acute coronary syndrome by reducing the risk of new ischemic events. Concomitant treatment with proton pump inhibitors in order to prevent gastrointestinal side effects is recommended by clinical guidelines. Clopidogrel needs metabolic activation predominantly by the hepatic cytochrome P450 isoenzyme Cytochrome 2C19 (CYP2C19) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are extensively metabolized by the CYP2C19 isoenzyme as well. Several pharmacodynamic studies investigating a potential clopidogrel-PPI interaction found a significant decrease of the clopidogrel platelet antiaggregation effect for omeprazole, but not for pantoprazole. Initial clinical cohort studies in 2009 reported an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events, when under clopidogrel and PPI treatment at the same time. These observations led the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medecines Agency to discourage the combination of clopidogrel and PPI (especially omeprazole) in the same year. In contrast, more recent retrospective cohort studies including propensity score matching and the only existing randomized trial have not shown any difference concerning adverse cardiovascular events when concomitantly on clopidogrel and PPI or only on clopidogrel. Three meta-analyses report an inverse correlation between clopidogrel-PPI interaction and study quality, with high and moderate quality studies not reporting any association, rising concern about unmeasured confounders biasing the low quality studies. Thus, no definite evidence exists for an effect on mortality. Because PPI induced risk reduction clearly overweighs the possible adverse cardiovascular risk in patients with high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, combination of clopidogrel with the less CYP2C19 inhibiting pantoprazole should be recommended.