Do proton pump inhibitors increase mortality? A systematic review and in‐depth analysis of the evidence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were primarily approved for short-term use (2 to 8 weeks). However, PPI use continues to expand. Widely believed to be safe, we reviewed emerging evidence on increased mortality with PPI long-term use. Our 2016 systematic PPI drug class review found that mortality was not reported as an outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared different PPIs. We sought more recent and comprehensive data on PPI harm outcomes from research syntheses as a follow-on. A search was conducted from January 2014 to January 2020. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) and primary studies reporting all-cause mortality in adults treated with a PPI for any indication (duration >12 weeks) compared to patients without PPI treatment (no use, placebo, or H2RA use). Two independent investigators assessed study eligibility, synthesized evidence, and assessed the quality of the included studies. Data on all-cause mortality were sought, analyzed, critically examined, and interpreted herein. From 1304 articles, one SR was identified that reported on all-cause mortality. The SRs pooled three observational studies with data to 1 year: odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53-1.84. A RCT, the COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulant Strategies) RCT with data to 3 years: hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92-1.15. The US Veterans Affairs cohort study using a large national dataset with data to 10 years found a HR of 1.17, 95% CI (1.10-1.24) and (NNH) of 22. The most common causes of death were from cardiovascular and chronic kidney diseases, with an excess death of 15 and 4 per 1000 patients, respectively, over the 10-year period. Harms arising from real-world medication use are best evaluated using a pharmacovigilance "convergence of proof" approach using data from a variety of sources and various study designs. Given that most PPI indications for use recommended a treatment duration of less than 12 weeks, it seems clear that PPIs were significantly overused in older patients. The median exposure time to PPI ranged from 1 to 4.6 years. Signals of serious harms including increased mortality with long-term PPI use are reported in observational studies. The COMPASS trial findings are not inconsistent with contemporaneous findings from observational studies. The COMPASS RCT was unlikely to detect an increase in mortality given the trial was not powered to detect this outcome. The potential increase in mortality in older patients associated with prolonged PPI exposure needs to be conveyed to health professionals. Clinicians and patients may be able to reverse the relentless expansion of long-term PPI exposure by reviewing indications and considering potential harms as well as benefits.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,085 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,014 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».