Should patients prescribed long-term low-dose aspirin receive proton pump inhibitors? Systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Several clinical guidelines recommend the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients taking low-dose aspirin. Although co-prescription of PPIs should be justified, most of these guidelines report no or limited supporting data. This study aimed at systematically reviewing the effects of co-administration of PPIs in patients taking low-dose aspirin on the risks of adverse gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) events, and on patient adherence to aspirin. Methods: We searched PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases and bibliographies of the retrieved articles in November 2013 for relevant studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in patients taking low-dose aspirin with and without PPIs. We excluded studies in patients concomitantly taking clopidogrel or any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug other than aspirin. Two authors independently reviewed and extracted information from the studies. Main outcomes considered were relative risks (RRs) of peptic ulcer and ulcer complications, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and CV-related mortality, and adherence to aspirin prescription associated with co-administration of PPIs. Risk of bias in the observational studies and RCTs was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, respectively. Pooled RRs were computed using a random effects model. Results: We included 13 studies, of which four (cohorts) reported on the effect on peptic ulcer, five (two cohort and three case-control) on GI bleeding, three (two RCTs and one cohort) on both GI bleeding and peptic ulcer, and one (cohort) on both GI bleeding and CV events. No study reported on adherence to aspirin prescription. Co-administration of PPIs in patients receiving low-dose aspirin was associated with risk reductions of 73% (pooled RR [95% CI ] = 0.27 [0.17-0.42]) and of 50% (pooled RR [95% CI ] = 0.50 [ 0.32-0.80]) in the occurrence of peptic ulcer and GI bleeding, respectively (Figure 1). Estimated RRs [95% CI] of myocardial infarction, stroke, and CV death were reported in one study only and were 1.33 [1.13-1.56], 1.20 [0.99-1.46], and 2.19 [1.92-2.49], respectively. There was evidence of bias in publications reporting on peptic ulcers and GI bleeding. Conclusions: The practice of co-prescribing PPIs in patients taking low-dose aspirin is supported by some data, but the evidence is rather weak. It currently remains unclear whether the benefits of co-administration of PPIs in users of low-dose aspirin outweigh their potential harms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".