The Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) in Pregnancy: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Heartburn and acid reflux are common medical disorders in pregnancy and can result in serious discomfort and complications. Furthermore, some pregnant women also experience more severe gastrointestinal conditions, such as Helicobacter pylori infections, peptic ulcers, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. To allow the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in pregnancy, the fetal safety of this drug class must be established. The aim of this study is to determine the fetal safety of PPIs during early pregnancy through systematic literature review. METHODS: All original research assessing the safety of PPIs in pregnancy was sought from inception to July 2008. Two independent reviewers identified articles, compared results, and settled differences through consensus. The Downs-Black scale was used to assess quality. Data assessed included congenital malformations, spontaneous abortions, and preterm delivery. A random effects meta-analysis combined the results from included studies. RESULTS: Of the 60 articles identified, 7 met our inclusion criteria. Using data from 134,940 patients, including 1,530 exposed and 133,410 not exposed to PPIs, the overall odds ratio (OR) for major malformations was 1.12 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.86-1.45). Further analysis revealed no increased risk for spontaneous abortions (OR=1.29, 95% CI: 0.84-1.97); similarly, there was no increased risk for preterm delivery (OR=1.13, 95% CI: 0.96-1.33). In the secondary analysis of 1,341 exposed and 120,137 not exposed to omeprazole alone, the OR and 95% CI for major malformations were 1.17 and 0.90-1.53, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these results, PPIs are not associated with an increased risk for major congenital birth defects, spontaneous abortions, or preterm delivery. The narrow range of 95% CIs is further reassuring, suggesting that PPIs can be safely used in pregnancy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".