Evidence Hub

The Mortality Risk of Proton Pump Inhibitors in 1.9 Million US Seniors: An Extended Cox Survival Analysis

Baik SH, Fung KW, McDonald CJ

Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2022

1,930,728 participants · 21 citations

Abstract

Background & aims: Observational studies have linked proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with increased risk of mortality and other safety outcomes, in contradiction with a recent PPI randomized controlled trial (RCT). Observational studies may be prone to reverse causality, where deaths are attributed to the treatment rather than the conditions that are treated (protopathic bias).

Methods: We analyzed an incident drug user cohort of 1,930,728 elderly Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries to evaluate the PPI-associated risk of death with a Cox regression analysis with time-varying covariates and propensity score adjustments. To correct for protopathic bias which occurs when a given drug is associated with prodromal signs of death, we implemented a lag-time approach by which any study drug taken during a 90-day look-back window before each death was disregarded.

Results: Among 1,930,728 study individuals, 80,972 (4.2%) died during a median 3.8 years of follow-up, yielding an overall unadjusted death rate/1000 person-years of 9.85; 14.31 for PPI users and 7.93 for non- users. With no lag-time, PPI use (vs no use) was associated with 10% increased mortality risk (adjusted HR=1.10; 95% CI 1.08-1.12). However, with a lag-time of 90 days, mortality risk associated with PPI use was near zero (adjusted HR=1.01; 95% CI 0.99-1.02).

Conclusion: Given the usage patterns of PPIs in patients with conditions that may presage death, protopathic bias may explain the association of PPIs with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 1,930,728 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free