Use of acid-suppressive drugs and risk of pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Observational studies and randomized controlled trials have yielded inconsistent findings about the association between the use of acid-suppressive drugs and the risk of pneumonia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize this association. METHODS: We searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE [PubMed], Embase and the Cochrane Library) from inception to Aug. 28, 2009. Two evaluators independently extracted data. Because of heterogeneity, we used random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled estimates of effect. RESULTS: We identified 31 studies: five case-control studies, three cohort studies and 23 randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis of the eight observational studies showed that the overall risk of pneumonia was higher among people using proton pump inhibitors (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.46, I(2) 90.5%) and histamine(2) receptor antagonists (adjusted OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.36, I(2) 0.0%). In the randomized controlled trials, use of histamine(2) receptor antagonists was associated with an elevated risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (relative risk 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.48, I(2) 30.6%). INTERPRETATION: Use of a proton pump inhibitor or histamine(2) receptor antagonist may be associated with an increased risk of both community- and hospital-acquired pneumonia. Given these potential adverse effects, clinicians should use caution in prescribing acid-suppressive drugs for patients at risk.
Project description:PURPOSE:Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly prescribed in the intensive care unit. However, data from systematic reviews and conventional meta-analyses are limited by imprecision and restricted to direct comparisons. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to examine the safety and efficacy of drugs available for SUP in critically ill patients. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2017 for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and sucralfate for SUP in critically ill patients. No date or language restrictions were applied. Data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by two reviewers. RESULTS:Of 96 potentially eligible studies, we included 57 trials enrolling 7293 patients. The results showed that PPIs are probably more effective for preventing clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB) than H2RAs [odds ratio (OR) 0.38; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.20, 0.73], sucralfate (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13, 0.69), and placebo (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10, 0.60) (all moderate quality evidence). There were no convincing differences among H2RA, sucralfate, and placebo. PPIs probably increase the risk of developing pneumonia compared with H2RAs (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.96, 1.68), sucralfate (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.20, 2.27), and placebo (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.95, 2.42) (all moderate quality). Mortality is probably similar across interventions (moderate quality). Estimates of baseline risks of bleeding varied significantly across studies, and only one study reported on Clostridium difficile infection. Definitions of pneumonia varied considerably. Most studies on sucralfate predate pneumonia prevention strategies. CONCLUSIONS:Our results provide moderate quality evidence that PPIs are the most effective agents in preventing CIB, but they may increase the risk of pneumonia. The balance of benefits and harms leaves the routine use of SUP open to question.
Project description:Concerns have been raised about the risk of fractures with acid-suppressive medications, such as proton pump inhibitors and histamine(2)-receptor antagonists.This meta-analysis evaluated the association between proton pump inhibitor or histamine(2)-receptor antagonist use and fractures. We performed a systematic search of published literature (1970 to October 10, 2010) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other sources. Ten publications reporting 11 studies were considered eligible for analysis.All studies were observational case-control or cohort studies and primarily evaluated older adults. The summary effect estimate for risk of hip fracture increased modestly among individuals taking proton pump inhibitors (relative risk [RR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.43). There also was an increase in spine (RR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.31-1.85) and any-site fractures (RR 1.16, 95% CI, 1.04-1.30) among proton pump inhibitor users. These findings were similar in both men and women and after stratification by duration of use. In contrast, histamine(2)-receptor antagonist use was not significantly associated with increased risk of hip fracture (RR 1.12, 95% CI, 0.97-1.30).In this meta-analysis of observational studies, proton pump inhibitors modestly increased the risk of hip, spine, and any-site fractures, whereas histamine(2)-receptor antagonists were not associated with fracture risk. The possibility of residual confounding cannot be excluded. Further skeletal evaluation should be considered for patients who are taking proton pump inhibitors and also at risk for osteoporotic fracture.
Project description:This study compared proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) for prevention of low-dose aspirin (LDA)-related gastrointestinal (GI) erosion, ulcer and bleeding. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and WanFang Data were searched from the date of their establishment to December 31, 2013. Randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs and H2RAs for prevention of GI injury associated with low-dose aspirin (LDA) were collected. Two reviewers independently abstracted studies and patient characteristics and appraised study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. We included nine RCTs involving 1047 patients. The meta-analysis showed that PPIs were superior to H2RAs for prevention of LDA-associated GI erosion/ulcer [odds ratio (OR=0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.16-0.50] and bleeding (OR=0.28, 95% CI: 0.14-0.59). In conclusion, PPIs were superior to H2RAs for prevention of LDA-related GI erosion/ulcer and bleeding. Higher quality, large, multicenter RCTs are needed to demonstrate the preventive effect of the two acid-suppressive drugs.
Project description:Although histamine H2-blockers (H2B) and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are used commonly to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in acute stroke, they are implicated in the increased risk of pneumonia in other disease populations. In acute stroke, the presence of distinctive risk factors of pneumonia, including dysphagia and impaired consciousness, makes inclusive analysis vulnerable to confounding. Our aim was to assess whether acid-suppressive drugs increase pneumonia in acute stroke in a population controlled for confounding.We analyzed acute stroke patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital. To minimize confounding, we only included subjects who could not feed orally during 14 days of hospitalization. Exposure was defined as H2B or PPI, given in days; the outcome was development of pneumonia within this period. The incidence was calculated from the total number of pneumonias divided by the sum of person-days at risk. We additionally performed multivariate Poisson regression and propensity score analyses, although the restriction largely eliminated the need for multivariate adjustment.A total of 132 pneumonias occurred in 3582 person-days. The incidence was 3.69%/person-day (95% confidence interval (CI); 3.03-4.37%/day). All subjects had dysphagia. Stroke severity and consciousness disturbances were well-balanced between the groups exposed to H2B, PPI, or none. The relative risk (RR) compared with the unexposed was 1.22 in H2B (95%CI; 0.83-1.81) and 2.07 in PPI (95% CI; 1.13-3.62). The RR of PPI compared with H2B was 1.69 (95%CI; 0.95-2.89). In multivariate regression analysis, the RRs of H2B and PPI were 1.24 (95% CI; 0.85-1.81) and 2.00 (95% CI; 1.12-3.57), respectively; in propensity score analyses they were 1.17 (95% CI; 0.89-1.54) and 2.13 (95% CI; 1.60-2.84).The results of this study suggested that prophylactic acid-suppressive therapy with PPI may have to be avoided in acute stroke patients susceptible to pneumonia.
Project description:Acid-suppressive medications, particularly proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), may decrease the risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) in patients with Barrett's oesophagus (BO). We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of studies evaluating the association between acid-suppressive medications (PPIs and histamine receptor antagonists (H2RAs)) and risk of OAC or high-grade dysplasia (BO-HGD) in patients with BO.We performed a systematic search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings up to June 2013 to identify studies reporting the association between use of acid-suppressive medications and risk of OAC and/or BO-HGD in patients with BO. Summary ORs with 95% CIs were estimated.We identified seven observational studies (2813 patients with BO, 317 cases of OAC or BO-HGD, 84.4% PPI users). On meta-analysis, PPI use was associated with a 71% reduction in risk of OAC and/or BO-HGD in patients with BO (adjusted OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.79). There was a trend towards a dose-response relationship with PPI use for >2-3?years protective against OAC or BO-HGD (three studies; PPI use >2-3?years vs <2-3?years: OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.06) vs 1.09 (0.47 to 2.56)). Considerable heterogeneity was observed. Two studies reported the association between H2RA use and risk of OAC and/or BO-HGD (1352 patients with BO, 156 cases of OAC, 25.4% on H2RAs), and both studies did not show a significant effect.Based on meta-analysis of observational studies, the use of PPIs is associated with a decreased risk of OAC and/or BO-HGD in patients with BO. None of the studies showed an increased risk of OAC. PPI use should be considered in BO, and chemopreventive trials of PPIs in patients with BO are warranted.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Inhaled corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for patients with severe COPD. They have been associated with increased risk of pneumonia but not with increased pneumonia-associated or overall mortality. METHODS:To further examine the effects of inhaled corticosteroids on pneumonia incidence, and mortality in COPD patients, we searched for potentially relevant articles in PubMed, Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and manufacturers' web clinical trial registries from 1994 to February 4, 2014. Additionally, we checked the included and excluded studies' bibliographies. We subsequently performed systematic review and meta-analysis of included randomized controlled trials and observational studies on the topic. RESULTS:We identified 38 studies: 29 randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies. The estimated unadjusted risk of pneumonia was increased in randomized trials: RR 1.61; 95% CI 1.35-1.93, p < 0.001; as well as in observational studies: OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.39-2.58, p < 0·001. Six randomized trials and seven observational studies were useful in estimating unadjusted risk of pneumonia -case-fatality: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.52-1.59, p = 0.74; and OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.59-0.88, p = 0.001, respectively. Twenty-nine randomized trials and six observational studies allowed estimation of unadjusted risk of overall mortality: RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.85-1.05, p = 0.31; and OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.65-0.97, p = 0.02, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Despite a substantial and significant increase in unadjusted risk of pneumonia associated with inhaled corticosteroid use, pneumonia fatality and overall mortality were found not to be increased in randomized controlled trials and were decreased in observational studies.
Project description:Stroke patients are at high risk of developing pneumonia, which is major cause of post-stroke mortality. Proton pump inhibitors and H2 receptor antagonists are anti-ulcer drugs, which may predispose to the development of pneumonia by suppression of the gastric acid with bactericidal activity. Unlike proton pump inhibitors and H2 receptor antagonists, mucoprotective agents have gastroprotective effects with no or less anti-acid property. We aimed to investigate effects of the acid-suppressive medications (proton pump inhibitors and H2 receptor antagonists) and mucoprotective agents on risk for post-stroke pneumonia using the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort in Korea. This retrospective cohort study included 8,319 patients with acute ischemic stroke. Use of proton pump inhibitors, H2 receptor antagonists, and mucoprotective agents (rebamipide, teprenone, irsogladine, ecabet, polaprezinc, sofalcone, sucralfate, and misoprostol) after stroke were determined based on the prescription records, which were treated as time-dependent variables. Primary outcome was the development of post-stroke pneumonia. During the mean follow-up period of 3.95 years after stroke, 2,035 (24.5%) patients had pneumonia. In the multivariate time-dependent Cox regression analyses (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]), there was significantly increased risk for pneumonia with use of proton pump inhibitors (1.56 [1.24-1.96]) and H2 receptor antagonists (1.40 [1.25-1.58]). In contrast to the proton pump inhibitors and H2 receptor antagonists, use of mucoprotective agents did not significantly increase the risk for pneumonia (0.89 [0.78-1.01]). In conclusion, the treatment with proton pump inhibitors and H2 receptor antagonists was associated with increased risk for pneumonia in stroke patients. Clinicians should use caution in prescribing the acid-suppressive medications for the stroke patients at great risk for pneumonia.
Project description:Recent studies have reported an association between maternal use of gastric acid-suppressive drugs during pregnancy and asthma in the offspring, but the association could have been confounded by unmeasured risk factors.We assessed the association between the use of acid-suppressive drugs during pregnancy and the risk of developing childhood asthma using a bidirectional crossover design.Mother-infant matched sets in the UK General Practitioners Research Database were used to identify children with a drug-treated asthma diagnosis during the years 2006-2010 who were matched to a sibling without asthma as controls. Primary exposure was use of any anti-suppressive drug during pregnancy, and subgroup analyses were conducted according to drug class (e.g. proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists) and trimester. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) with their corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).A total of 1,874 children with asthma and 1,874 control siblings were included in the analysis. The exposure rate among case and control pregnancies was 22 and 20 %, respectively. After adjustments for gender, birth order, mother's age and general practice visits, the exposure to any gastric-acid suppressive drug during pregnancy slightly increased the risk for developing asthma (OR 1.23, 95 % CI 1.01-1.51; p = 0.042). A trend towards increased risks was observed for those who used proton pump inhibitors and/or histamine 2 receptor antagonists (adjusted OR 1.72, 95 % CI 1.00-2.98; p = 0.048).These findings lend support to the emerging evidence that exposure to acid-suppressive drugs during pregnancy is associated with childhood asthma. More basic research is now warranted to investigate the mechanisms.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients. DESIGN:Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS:We included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates. RESULTS:Seventy two trials including 12?660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS:For higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019126656.
Project description:Routine vaccination of elderly people against pneumococcal diseases is recommended in many countries. National guidelines differ, recommending either the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23), the 13-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV13) or both. Considering the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of PPV23, we performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (VE) of PPV23 against invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumococcal pneumonia in adults aged ?60 years living in industrialized countries.We searched for pertinent clinical trials and observational studies in databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. We rated the overall quality of the evidence by GRADE criteria. We performed meta-analyses of studies grouped by outcome and study design using random-effects models. We applied a sensitivity analysis excluding studies with high risk of bias.We identified 17 eligible studies. Pooled VE against IPD (by any serotype) was 73% (95%CI: 10-92%) in four clinical trials, 45% (95%CI: 15-65%) in three cohort studies, and 59% (95%CI: 35-74%) in three case-control studies. After excluding studies with high risk of bias, pooled VE against pneumococcal pneumonia (by any serotype) was 64% (95%CI: 35-80%) in two clinical trials and 48% (95%CI: 25-63%) in two cohort studies. Higher VE estimates in trials (follow-up ~2.5 years) than in observational studies (follow-up ~5 years) may indicate waning protection. Unlike previous meta-analyses, we excluded two trials with high risk of bias regarding the outcome pneumococcal pneumonia, because diagnosis was based on serologic methods with insufficient specificity.Our meta-analysis revealed significant VE of PPV23 against both IPD and pneumococcal pneumonia by any serotype in the elderly, comparable to the efficacy of PCV13 against vaccine-serotype disease in a recent clinical trial in elderly people. Due to its broader serotype coverage and the decrease of PCV13 serotypes among adults resulting from routine infant immunization with PCV13, PPV23 continues to play an important role for protecting adults against IPD and pneumococcal pneumonia.