Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of adverse cardiovascular events in aspirin treated patients with first time myocardial infarction: nationwide propensity score matched study
BMJ 2011; 342 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2690 (Published 11 May 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:d2690All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
We appreciate the comments by Fernandez-Fernandez et al. to our
article and find their discussion regarding differences in the effect of
individual H2-blockers interesting. However, due to the relatively small
number of patients receiving H2-blockers in our study, we were not able to
include an analysis of differences between individual H2-blockers.
Competing interests: No competing interests
We thank Jankowski and colleagues for their response to our paper:
Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of adverse cardiovascular events in
aspirin treated patients with first time myocardial infarction: nationwide
propensity score matched study (1)
We share their thoughts regarding the importance of residual
confounding and unmeasured confounders and we have thoroughly discussed
this in our paper. We conducted careful calculations to estimate the size
of a potential confounder or combination of confounders and found that it
would have to elevate the risk by a factor 4 to explain the observed risk
associated with concomitant treatment with aspirin and PPIs. The existence
of a confounder or combination of confounders with an effect of this size
is unlikely, although not impossible. Consequently, as discussed in our
paper, we cannot rule out that the increased risk is caused by differences
in unmeasured confounders or residual confounding.
Jankowski and colleagues argue that the fact that we did not find an
increased risk associated with the use of H2 receptor blockers may be
related to lack of power. In our study there are relatively few patients
treated with H2 receptor blockers (n=661) compared to patients treated
with PPI (n=4306), but we do not believe that more power would change the
estimate, which showed a HR of 1.04 with confidence limits 0.79 to 1.38
and a p-value of 0.78. We cannot exclude a Type I error in this analysis,
but we consider it to be unlikely.
Ex vivo studies on healthy volunteers and patients with coronary
artery disease show conflicting results on whether PPI treatment
significantly influences aspirin-induced inhibition of platelet
aggregation (2-4). Importantly, the largest of these studies was performed
on patients with coronary artery disease and support the hypothesis of a
pharmacodynamical interaction between aspirin and PPIs (4). Jankowski and
colleagues also point out that the COGENT trial (5) did not find an
increased risk related to PPI treatment in patients treated with
clopidogrel and aspirin. This trial was unfortunately underpowered and as
the authors conclude, the results do not rule out a clinically meaningful
difference in cardiovascular events due to use of a PPI (5).
Jankowski and colleagues point out in their conflict of interest that
their biggest COI is that they are gastroenterologists and they do not
want to be woken at 2am with a serious aspirin-related bleed that could
have been avoided by the use of PPIs. As cardiologists, we have similar
concerns. If the same patient had been treated with PPIs, he could end up
waking us up at 3am with a myocardial infarction needing acute
intervention.
Nevertheless, our study is only a small piece in the puzzle of
possible drug interactions with antiplatelet treatment and, for now, we
definitely agree that patients with a clear indication for PPI treatment
should indeed be treated with PPIs to reduce their risk of
gastrointestinal bleeding, especially as we know that bleeding in patients
with prior MI is associated with worse outcome. (6)
1. Charlot M, Grove EL, Hansen PR, Olesen JB, Ahlehoff O, Selmer C,
et al. Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of adverse cardiovascular events
in aspirin treated patients with first time myocardial infarction:
nationwide propensity score matched study. BMJ. 2011;342:d2690.
2. Nefesoglu FZ, Ayanoglu-Dulger G, Ulusoy NB, Imeryuz N. Interaction
of omeprazole with enteric-coated salicylate tablets. Int J Clin Pharmacol
Ther. 1998 Oct;36(10):549-53.
3. Niazi M, Andersson T, Naucler E, Sundin M, Naesdal J. Evaluation
of the pharmacokinetic interaction between esomeprazole (40 mg) and
acetylsalicylic acid (325 mg) in healthy volunteers. Int J Clin Pharmacol
Ther. 2009 Sep;47(9):564-9.
4. Wurtz M, Grove EL, Kristensen SD, Hvas AM. The antiplatelet effect
of aspirin is reduced by proton pump inhibitors in patients with coronary
artery disease. Heart. Mar;96(5):368-71.
5. Bhatt DL, Cryer BL, Contant CF, Cohen M, Lanas A, Schnitzer TJ, et
al. Clopidogrel with or without Omeprazole in Coronary Artery Disease. New
England Journal of Medicine. 2010;363(20):1909-17.
6. Sorensen R, Abildstrom SZ, Hansen PR, Hvelplund A, Andersson C,
Charlot M, et al. Efficacy of post-operative clopidogrel treatment in
patients revascularized with coronary artery bypass grafting after
myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Mar 8;57(10):1202-9.
Competing interests: No competing interests
We were interested to read the paper by Charlot et al. (1) reporting
that proton pump inhibitors (PPI) increase the risk of cardiovascular
events in patients taking aspirin (ASA). They are to be congratulated for
the well conducted study and the thoughtful discussion; however we
disagree with their interpretation of the data.
In any epidemiological study it is important to be cautious in
assuming that the association found is causal as it could be due to bias
or confounding factors. The current spate of articles that associate PPIs
with harm is a good example of this. PPI therapy has been shown to be
associated with an increased risk of hip fracture (2), pneumonia (3),
infective diarrhoea (4), as well as increased cardiac events in ischaemic
heart disease (IHD) patients taking clopidogrel (5, 6). PPI therapy may
cause all these diseases but it is likely that, in at least some cases,
the observed association is due to residual confounding.
The common theme in all studies evaluating the possible adverse
effects of PPI therapy is that sicker patients tend to be prescribed these
medications. Patients on PPI therapy were statistically significantly
more likely to be have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart
failure, coronary artery bypass surgery, previous myocardial infarction,
peripheral vascular disease, renal disease and even cancer (3, 5). Whilst
authors did adjust for these confounding factors it is likely with such
imbalances between groups other confounding factors that were not known or
not measured were also present. This is particularly true if the observed
association was relatively modest with an odds ratio or relative risk of
less than two as is the case with most of these studies.
The paper by Charlot et al. may be another example of this issue,
particularly as direct prospective studies on the interaction of ?ASA and
PPI show no detrimental effect on absorption of aspirin (7, 8). They did
conduct propensity matching which is a better approach to control for
confounding factors but there are still serious concerns regarding
residual confounding with this design, which is why we rely on the
randomized controlled trial (RCT). The authors dismiss this as an
unlikely possibility because the effect was not seen with H2 receptor
antagonists, which they state have identical indications. However,
firstly only 661 patients filled a script for H2 receptor antagonists
compared with 4306 being prescribed PPI therapy. Any lack of association
with H2 receptor antagonists may well relate to a lack of power of
detecting an association with these drugs. Secondly the indications are
not as identical as the authors claim. Patients with severe reflux and
Barrett's oesophagus are much more likely to be prescribed PPI therapy and
we have shown that Barrett's patients are more likely to die from IHD (9).
It is appropriate that an editorial in this issue of BMJ (10)
discusses the putative interaction between clopidogrel and PPI therapy.
The editorial did point out that the COGENT RCT (11) had failed to show
any harm in prescribing PPI therapy. In this RCT all patients were given
ASA as well as clopidogrel and randomized to PPI therapy or placebo.
There was no difference in IHD events between those randomized to PPI
therapy and placebo. Admittedly this study was underpowered but the
hazard ratio for any IHD event was 0.99 (95% confidence intervals (CI) =
0.68 to 1.44). The upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio was
therefore below the lower 95% CI given by the propensity matched study
reported by Charlot et al. Furthermore the COGENT study did show an
increase risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in those not allocated to PPI
therapy (11). It is interesting that the study by Charlot et al. did not
show any benefit of PPI therapy in reducing GI adverse events when other
RCTs have shown benefit, again suggesting unknown confounders are present.
Patients should not be prescribed any medication without careful
consideration of potential harms as well as benefits. However patients on
ASA have an increased risk of GI bleeding and if there are other serious
risk factors such as concomitant nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory or
anticoagulant therapy then it may be appropriate to prescribe PPI therapy
to prevent GI bleeding (12).
References
1. Charlot M, Grove EL, Hansen PR, Olesen JB, Ahlehoff O, Selmer C et
al. Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of adverse cardiovascular events in
aspirin treated patients with first time myocardial infarction: nationwide
propensity score matched study. BMJ 2011; 342: d2690.
2. Ngamruengphong S, Leontiadis GI, Rahdi S, Dentino A, Nugent K. Proton
pump inhibitors and risk of fracture: a systematic review and meta-
analysis of observational studies. American Journal of Gastroenterology
2011; advance on line publication doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.113.
3. Sarkar M, Hennessy S, Yang YX. Proton-pump inhibitor use and the risk
for community-acquired pneumonia. Annals of Internal Medicine 2008; 149:
391-8.
4. Leonard J. Marshall JK. Moayyedi P. Systematic review of the risk of
enteric infection in patients taking acid suppression. American Journal
of Gastroenterology 2007; 102: 2047-56.
5. Ho PM, Maddox TM, Wang L, Fihn SD, Jesse RL, Peterson ED, Rumsfeld JS.
Risk of adverse outcomes associated with concomitant use of clopidogrel
and proton pump inhibitors following acute coronary syndrome. JAMA 2009;
301: 937-44.
6. Laine L, Hennekens C. Proton pump inhibitor and clopidogrel
interaction: fact or fiction. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2010;
105: 34-41.
7. Nefesoglu FZ, Ayanoglu-Dulger G, Ulusoy NB, Imeryuz N. Interaction of
omeprazole with enteric-coated salicylate tablets. International Journal
of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 1998; 36: 549-53.
8. Niazi M, Andersson T, Naucler E, Sundin M, Naesdal J. Evaluation of
the pharmacokinetic interaction between esomeprazole (40 mg) and
acetylsalicylic acid (325 mg) in healthy volunteers. International Journal
of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2009; 47: 564-9.
9. Moayyedi P., Burch N., Akhtak-Danesh N., Enaganti SK., Harrison R.,
Talley NJ., Jankowski J. Mortality rates in patients with Barrett's
esophagus. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2008; 27: 316-20.
10. Small GR, Chow BJW, So DFY. Coprescription of clopidogrel and proton
pump inhibitors. BMJ 2010; 341: b4351.
11. Bhatt DL, Cryer BL, Contant CF, Cohen M, Lanas A, Schnitzer TJ, et
al. Clopidogrel with or without omeprazole in coronary artery disease. N
Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1909-17.
12. Rostom A, Moayyedi P, Hunt R; Canadian Association of
Gastroenterology Consensus Group. Canadian consensus guidelines on long-
term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy and the need for
gastroprotection: benefits versus risks. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009; 29:
481-96.
Competing interests: Our COI is that some have received speakers fees from Nycomed, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Abbott and all these companies make or distribute PPI therapy (although in most cases PPIs are now available generically). We are also also involved in the AspECT trial. Our biggest COI is we are mainly gastroenterologists and do not want to be woken at 2am with a serious aspirin related bleed that could have been avoided.
We read with interest the article "Proton pump inhibitor use and risk
of adverse cardiovascular
events in aspirin treated patients with first time myocardial infarction:
nationwide propensity score matched study" by Charlot el al (1). The
authors note that they did not observe an increased risk associated with
treatment using H2 receptor blockers. In this regard, it is important to
mention that if one choose H2 receptor blockers for gastroprotection, not
all H2 receptor blockers are equal. Ranitidine can prevent duodenal
ulceration in patients taking nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID)
for arthritis but is relatively ineffective in preventing NSAID-associated
gastric ulceration (2). In a study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis
or osteoarthritis who had been receiving standard doses of an NSAID, high
doses of famotidine (40 mg of famotidine twice daily ) were effective in
preventing both gastric and duodenal ulcers (3). In another recent study
(4), famotidine (20 mg twice daily) was also effective in the prevention
of gastric and duodenal ulcers in patients with diabetes or cardiovascular
disease taking low-dose aspirin.
1. Charlot M, Grove EL, Hansen PR, Olesen JB, Ahlehoff O, Selmer C,
et al. Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of adverse cardiovascular events
in aspirin treated patients with first time myocardial infarction:
nationwide propensity score matched study. BMJ 2011;342:d2690
2. Ehsanullah RSB, Page MC, Tildesley G, Wood JR. Prevention of
gastroduodenal damage induced by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs:
controlled trial of ranitidine. BMJ 1988;297:1017-21.
3. Taha AS, Hudson N, Hawkey CJ, Swannell AJ, Trye PN, Cottrell J, et
al. Famotidine for the prevention of gastric and duodenal ulcers caused
by nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1435-9.
4. Taha AS, McCloskey C, Prasad R, Bezlyak V. Famotidine for the
prevention of peptic ulcers and oesophagitis in patients taking low-dose
aspirin (FAMOUS): a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-
controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 374: 119-25.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of adverse cardiovascular events in aspirin treated patients with first time myocardial infarction: nationwide propensity score matched study
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) increase mortality[1][5][6], gastric cancer[2], hip fractures[3], chronic kidney disease[6], major cardiovascular events[5].
PPIs clinical efficacy was proved minimal. [4]
References
[1] https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/6/e015735
[2] https://gut.bmj.com/content/67/1/28
[3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-018-4788-y
[4] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1714919
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29233498
[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973085/
Competing interests: No competing interests