Tag Archives: proton pump inhibitor therapy

Favorite Posts of 2021

Posted on by

I am happy to say that this is the last nightcall that I will have this year!

Today, I’ve compiled some of my favorite posts from the past year. I started this blog a little more than 10 years ago. I am grateful for the encouragement/suggestions from many people to help make this blog better. Also, I want to wish everyone a Happy New Year.

GI:

IBD:

LIVER:

Nutrition:

Other Topics:

Thanks to Jennifer

How PPIs Improve Functional Dyspepsia

Posted on by

L Wauters et al. Gastroenterol 2021; 160: 1521-1531. Proton Pump Inhibitors Reduce Duodenal Eosinophilia, Mast Cells, and Permeability in Patients With Functional Dyspepsia

In this single-center prospective study, the authors show that pantoprazole (40 mg daily for 4 weeks) improves symptoms and duodenal eosinophilia in adults with functional dyspepsia (FD).

Key finding:

  • Symptoms and duodenal eosinophils, mast cells (all, P < .0001), and paracellular passage (P = .02) were significantly higher in FD-starters (patients new to PPI treatment) vs HVs and reduced with PPI therapy.
  • The authors note that systemic inflammation, subjective stress and salivary cortisol were also higher in patients with FD vs controls (off PPI).

My take: This study indicates that improvement in symptoms in FD related to PPIs is likely often due to improvement in duodenal mucosal inflammation and barrier dysfunction rather than by changing acidity.

Related blog posts:

Why Observational Studies Are Misleading & PPI Association with Kidney Stones

Posted on by

M Simonov et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 72-79. Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors Increases Risk of Incident Kidney Stones

Commentary: P Moayyedi. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 41-42. Full Text Link: Leaving No Stone Unturned in the Search for Adverse Events Associated With Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors

 The retrospective study by Simonov et al used data from the Women’s Veteran’s Cohort Study (1999-2017) with 465,891 patients. Key findings:

  • Overall, 2.4% of the cohort developed kidney stones. PPI use was associated with kidney stones in the unadjusted analysis, hazard ratio [HR], 1.74 (95% CI, 1.67–1.82), and persisted in the adjusted analysis with HR, 1.46 (CI, 1.38–1.55). The association was maintained in a propensity score-matched subset of PPI users and nonusers (adjusted HR, 1.25; CI 1.19–1.33).
  • H2RAs were also associated with increased risk with adjusted HR, 1.47

While this study is interesting, the editorial provides a great deal of insight into how this study and many others can be misleading. Key points:

  • “It seems that every few months a new issue arises, with the list of problems that PPIs might cause becoming ever longer, including pneumonia, fracture, heart disease, Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea, dementia, chronic kidney disease, low B12 levels, gastric cancer, and even all-cause mortality.”
  • If the findings in the study are correct, with the unadjusted HR, “this translates to a number needed to harm (NNH) of 365 patients who need to take PPIs for 1 year to observe 1 extra episode of kidney stones…if the adjusted HR is used …the NNH was 1550.”

Limitations:

  • Confounding variables are hard to eliminate in an observational study. “Studies usually show that patients who are prescribed PPIs are, on average, sicker than those who are not taking these drugs.”
  • In the only large randomized controlled study (>17,000 patients over 3 years) of PPIs, there was no difference in pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, fracture, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality in the PPI compared with the placebo arms.”Enteric infections, which were slightly more common in patients randomized to PPIs, but even there the NNH was more than 900 per year.”
  • Biases undermine the interpretation of observational studies. One example for PPIs is its association with pneumonias in prior observational studies.
    • “The effect was strongest within the first week of prescription when the odds ratio was approximately 4, although this was reduced to approximately 1.5 after 1 month. This marked reduction in risk over a relatively short period of time is not biologically plausible and a more likely explanation is that the association is the result of protopathic bias. Patients presenting to the clinician with a cough may be diagnosed with silent reflux and given a PPI. A few days later other symptoms develop, and pneumonia is made as the final diagnosis. This will not be apparent when simply interrogating a database where the researcher will observe that a PPI was prescribed before the onset of pneumonia and will imply the association is causal when this is not the case.”
  • This same type of bias could be present with the association between PPI and kidney stones.
    •  “Patients may present with abdominal pain and be given a PPI as a therapeutic trial, assuming the pain may be acid-related when subsequently it is found that the pain relates to kidney stones. Simonov et al reported that 3% were prescribed PPIs within 1 month of the diagnosis of kidney stones, but did not provide the analysis that would allow us to interpret whether protopathic bias may play a role in the associations observed”

My take: It is unlikely that PPIs cause kidney stones; however, if this is a risk factor, it is very rare. Understanding how PPIs have been incorrectly linked to a multitude of problems is a valuable lesson for any practitioner and emphasizes the need for randomized controlled studies to determine medication safety.

Related blog posts:

Most Popular 2020 Posts

Posted on by

I want to thank all of you who take an interest in my blog, particularly those who give suggestions, references, and encouragement. The following posts were the most popular from the past year.

Related post: Favorite Posts of 2020

Sandy Springs at Sunrise

How Effective Are PPIs for Eosinophilic Esophagitis?

Posted on by

Emilio J. Laserna‐Mendieta et al. AP&T 2020; https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15957.  Full article link: Efficacy of proton pump inhibitor therapy for eosinophilic oesophagitis in 630 patients: results from the EoE connect registry

“This cross‐sectional study collected data on PPI efficacy from the multicentre EoE CONNECT database.” Overall, 630 patients (76 children) received PPI as initial therapy (n = 600) or after failure to respond to other therapies (n = 30)

Key findings:

  • PPI therapy achieved eosinophil density below 15 eosinophils per high‐power field in 48.8% and a decreased symptom score ≥50% from baseline in 71.0% of patients.
  • More EoE patients with an inflammatory rather than stricturing phenotype accomplished clinico‐histological remission after PPI therapy (OR 3.7; 95% CI, 1.4‐9.5)
  • PPI treatment is more effective in achieving clinico‐histological remission of the disease when used in higher instead of standard or lower doses (50.8% vs 35.8%), and when the duration of therapy is prolonged from 8 to 12 weeks (50.4% vs. 65.2%)

My take: This study confirms previous studies which have generally found that PPIs are effective in 40-50% of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.  Higher doses of PPIs are needed to achieve the highest response rates.

“Bar chart for histological (A) and symptomatic (B) responses for proton pump inhibitor (PPI) mono‐therapy to induce and maintain remission in patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis. For induction of remission, patients were classified according to the PPI dosage prescribed: high dose was double dosage or higher, and low dose was standard dosage or lower. For maintenance therapy, only patients with dosage reduction from that used for induction were included. eos/hpf: eosinophils per high power field”

Related blog posts:

Job Security Study: Lots of People Have Reflux Symptoms & COVID-19 Due To Singing

Posted on by

A recent study (SD Delshad, CV Almario et al. Gastroenterol 2020; 158: 1250-61) used survey data from an APP, MyGiHealth, to assess prevalence of reflux symptoms and symptoms that had not responded to proton pump inhibitor treatment.

Key findings:

  • In 2015, among 71,812 participants, 32,878 (44.1%) reported reflux symptoms previously and 23,039 (30.9%) reported reflux symptoms in previous week
  • 35% with reflux symptoms were currently receiving treatment: 55% PPIs, 24% H2RAs, and 24% antacids
  • Of the 3229 taking daily PPIs, 54% reported persistent reflux symptoms (≥2 days per week)
  • Age range of respondents was 33% for 18-29, 27% for 30-39, 17% for 40-49, 15% for 50-59, and 8% ≥60

Limitations: 

  • Potential selection bias as there was only a 5.5% response rate among the entire eligible population of 1.3 million
  • Reflux symptoms frequently is not due to reflux disease

My take: There are a lot of folks with reflux symptoms and many have ongoing symptoms despite treatment; hence, lots of opportunity to help (and job security)

Related blog posts:

Also from NY Times: Coronavirus Ravaged a Choir. But Isolation Helped Contain It.

“One sick singer attended choir practice, infecting 52 others, two of whom died. A study released by the C.D.C. shows that self-isolation and tracing efforts helped contain the outbreak.”  Only 8 of the 61 choir members did not get sick.

Graphical Abstract

Reducing Inappropriate Proton Pump Inhibitor Usage & U.S. Children with COVID-19

Posted on by

D Lin et atl. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 763-6.  In a retrospective chart review, the authors examined pharmacy data from patients in the Harris Health System (Harris county -Houston, TX) which had more than 1.9 million outpatient clinic visits in 2017.

In January 2018, multiple efforts were made to try to reduce inappropriate proton pump inhibitor (PPI) usage.  This included grand rounds and system-wide emails to providers.  In addition, a suggested tapering algorithm (order in EPIC) was given to reduce the likelihood of rebound acid hypersecretion which could undermine the goal of stopping PPI.

Key points:

  • Taper: When ready to taper, start with “a PPI every other day for 2 weeks, followed by a PPI every 4 days for 2 additional weeks before discontinuation.”
  • De-escalation: Before educational intervention, in 2017, there were 66,261 unique PPI prescriptions. After educational intervention, in 2018, there were 55,322 unique PPI prescriptions (16.5% decrease). This equates to ~800,000 fewer capsules or pills dispensed in 1 calendar year
  • The most “important driver” for de-escalation was the initiation of the discussion by the ambulatory primary care provider
  • The authors recommend clinic followup within a month after starting de-escalation and gastroenterology evaluation for patients with severe symptoms or those refractory to PPI treatment

My take: This study indicates that 1 in 6 PPI users were able to de-escalate off treatment.  Physician initiative is crucial to improve appropriate medication use.

Related blog posts:

Recent study from JAMA Pediatrics (5/11/20) -Full text: Characteristics and Outcomes of Children With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infection Admitted to US and Canadian Pediatric Intensive Care Units

Of the 48 children with COVID-19 admitted to participating PICUs (14 hospitals)… Forty patients (83%) had significant preexisting comorbidities; 35 (73%) presented with respiratory symptoms and 18 (38%) required invasive ventilation….At the completion of the follow-up period, 2 patients (4%) had died and 15 (31%) were still hospitalized, with 3 still requiring ventilatory support and 1 receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The median (range) PICU and hospital lengths of stay for those who had been discharged were 5 (3-9) days and 7 (4-13) days, respectively.

NY Times Summary of Study: Details of U.S. Children Severely Affected by Coronavirus

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

Year in Review: My Favorite 2019 Posts

Posted on by

Yesterday, I listed the posts with the most views.  The posts below were the ones I like the most.

General/General Health:

Nutrition:

Liver:

Endoscopy:

Intestinal Disorders:

 

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.

 

How Genetics Influence Response to PPIs in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Posted on by

About two years ago, James Franciosi presented research at NASPGHAN meeting indicating that the main difference between children with eosiniophilic esophagitis (EoE) who respond to proton pump inhibitiors (PPIs) compared to those who do not was related to their metabolism of PPIs and not related to the nature of their underlying EoE.

Related blog: #NASPGHAN17 Eosionophilic Esophagitis Session

Now, more has been published on this topic: EB Mougey et al. JPGN 2019; 69: 581-7.

In this study with 92 patients, data was collected from participants in a prospective clinical trial of high-dose PPI for EoE.

Key findings:

  • 57 (62%) were responsive to PPIs and 35 (38%) were not responsive to PPIs
  • Carriage of STAT6 allele variant rs1059513 predicted responsiveness to PPIs with OR of 6.16
  • Carriage of STAT6 rs324011 synergizes with CYP2C19*17 to predict PPI-nonresponsive EoE

Discussion: 

  • Carriers of CYP2C19*17 are more likely to fail PPIs for EoE.  Children with CYP2C19*17 gain of function “have a 7.7 fold better odds of failing PPI therapy” than noncarriers.
  • CYP2C19*17 effects “appears to be exerted within a specific range of PPI doses…and does not appear to exert influence at the low and high ends of this dose range.”
  • STAT6, which in this study is a cofactor, “upregulates transcription of CCL26 (eostaxin-3) 53-fold in esophageal eosinophilia relative to levels in peptic esophagitis and 490-fold over levels found in normal esophageal biopsies.”
  • PPIs effectiveness “does not correlate with esophageal” acid exposure; thus, its effects are mediated via an anti-inflammatory mechanism.

My take: This study indicates that genotype-guided dosing of PPIs for the treatment of EoE is likely to be worthwhile.

 

View from Yonah Mountain, GA

Esophagitis in Pediatric Esophageal Atresia

Posted on by

A recent study (JL Yasuda et al. JPGN 2019; 69: 163-70) shows that esophagitis is common with and without proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in children with esophageal atresia (EA).

Background: This study encompassed 310 patients (34% long gap EA) and 576 endoscopies (median age 3.7 years)

Key findings:

  • Erosive esophagitis was found in 8.7% of patients.
  • 15.2% of patients had esophagitis with >15 eos/hpf; 49% of patients had ≥1 eos/hpf (histologic eosinophilia)
  • 87% of endoscopies were preceded by acid suppression therapy; being on acid suppression reduced the odds for abnormal esophageal biopsy (P=0.011).
  • Histologic esophagitis was “highly prevalent even with high rates of acid suppressive medications use.”
  • For example, among those receiving PPI monotherapy, 150 had normal biopsy and 136 had abnormal biopsy.  Among those off all acid suppression, 30 had normal biopsy and 45 had abnormal biopsy.
  • For erosive esophagitis, this occurred in 12 on PPI and was not present in 274 on PPI therapy. Among those off all acid suppression, 4 had erosive esophagitis and 70 did not.
  • Presence or integrity of fundoplication was not significantly associated with esophagitis.

While this is a large study, the findings have several limitations. This is a single center retrospective study and this center attracts highly complex cases of EA.

My take: In addition to fairly high rates of erosive esophagitis and eosinophilic esophagitis, this study shows a high incidence of microscopic esophagitis, the significance of this is unclear.   This study supports the current recommendations of 3 endoscopies in childhood and perhaps more frequent surveillance in those with more complex EA.

Related blog posts:

Sign in Hood River, OR