Recent Safety Concerns With Proton Pump Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been recent concerns about the safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We focus here on 3 specific concerns-the possible interaction between PPIs and clopidogrel, the postulated link between PPI use and fractures, and the possibility that long-term PPI use might lead to hypomagnesemia. There is evidence for an in vitro interaction between clopidogrel and at least some PPIs. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned against the use of certain PPIs by patients on clopidogrel. However, a randomized controlled trial that compared clopidogrel alone with the combination of clopidogrel and omeprazole found no increase in adverse cardiovascular outcomes and a reduction in the rate of adverse gastrointestinal outcomes attributable to omeprazole. PPI use may be a weak risk factor for certain fractures, but the quality of evidence is relatively poor and there is a strong possibility of confounding. The mechanism whereby PPI use might increase fracture risk is unknown. Currently, no additional measures concerning calcium supplementation or bone mineral density monitoring are recommended for patients on a PPI. The FDA has suggested monitoring serum magnesium levels in patients on PPI therapy. The mechanism and frequency of PPI-induced hypomagnesemia are unclear. PPI treatment should not be withheld from patients who genuinely require it, but the PPI should be taken in the lowest effective dose and only for as long as clinically indicated. The same is, of course, true for all medicines. The benefits of PPI therapy greatly outweigh the risks.
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 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".