Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure. This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.
Among 9469 included participants, 1516 (16%) were regular users of acid suppressants, and 7953 (84%) were not…propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to match users of acid suppressants and nonusers.
The odds ratio (OR) of testing positive for COVID-19 associated with PPI or H2RA therapy in the PSM cohort was 1.083 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.892–1.315) and 0.949 (95% CI, 0.650–1.387), respectively.
Omeprazole use alone was significantly related to an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from the subgroup analysis in patients with upper gastrointestinal diseases (OR, 1.353; 95% CI, 1.011–1.825)
My take: This study provides reassurance that acid blockers are unlikely to contribute to the risk of SARS-CoV-2 or to related complications.
A recent study (C Ma et al. Gastroenterol 2020; 158: 780-82) used cross-sectional data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) (2006-2015) with a total 7,872,115,883 weighted observations. They used this data to evaluate medication exposures and outcomes.
There was no association between PPI use and dementia, pneumonia, or intestinal infections. There was a trend towards intestinal infections (AOR 1.48, CI 0.80-2.71) but this did not reach statistical significance. “Sensitivity analysis showed an association between PPI use and C difficile.”
There was an association with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (AOR 1.26); however, this was seen with a multitude of drug classes including statins, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.
This study notes that a recent large randomized controlled trial found no statistically significant differences between those receiving PPIs and those receiving placebo except for intestinal infections.
With regard to CKD, “it is extremely unlikely that all of these medications increase the risk of CKD, and therefore, it is likely that these findings are due to residual confounding.”
My take: With the exception of C difficile/intestinal infections, this study provides further evidence of the safety of PPIs and a lack of association between these medications and purported PPI-related adverse events. That said, it is still a good idea to limit use for appropriate indications.
Related blog posts:
PPIs: Good News on Safety Large randomized double-blind study of pantoprazole: “we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections.”
This study selected ~350,000 patients from a database which identified more than 1.7 million PPI users. These patients were ‘new’ PPI users.
Key finding: Over a median follow-up of 5.71 years, PPI use was associated with increased risk of death compared with H2 blockers use (HR 1.25, CI 1.23 to 1.28).
The authors note the limitations of this observational study; however, they suggest that the findings cannot be fully explained by residual confounders. They recommend limiting PPI use to “instances and durations where it is medically indicated.”
My take: As noted in a recent post (see below), some risks attributed to PPIs in observational studies do not pan out. Yet, PPI therapies need to be better-targeted to those who will truly benefit from them.
While all pediatric gastroenterologists know that the title of this blog entry is right, it is helpful to have data.
A recent study (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 612-19) used a reflux questionnaire to evaluate responsiveness of regurgitation from 2 randomized controlled trials. The trials compared a newer acid blocker (AZD0865 dosed at 25-75 mg/day)) to esomeprazole (20-40 mg/day). Patients had either non-erosive reflux disease (NERD , n=1460), or reflux esophagitis, (RE, n=1314). Inclusion criteria included the presence of substernal burning for ≥4 days/week.
Regurgitation-taste (RT), defined as an “acid taste in the mouth,” or regurgitation-movement (RM), defined as an “unpleasant movement of material upwards from the stomach” were analyzed. Among NERD patients, either or both symptoms were present in 53% at baseline compared with 54% among the RE group. In both NERD and RE patients, the presence of these regurgitation symptoms was associated with a poorer response to therapy.
Complete response of NERD patients with regurgitation symptoms: RT 34%, RM 26%; in comparison to heartburn response of NERD patients which was 49%
Complete response of RE patients with regurgitation symptoms: RT 44%, RM 33%; in comparison to heartburn response of NERD patients which was 55%
Additional references/blog entries:
-Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 1419-25. Response of regurgitation to PPI therapy.