Evidence Hub

Systematic review with meta‐analysis: risk of adverse cardiovascular events with proton pump inhibitors independent of clopidogrel

Riley J. Batchelor, Radya Kumar, Julia Gilmartin‐Thomas, Ingrid Hopper, William W. Kemp, Danny Liew

Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2018

447 participants · 66 citations

Abstract

Summary Background Clopidogrel's anti‐platelet effects may be attenuated by a pharmacokinetic interaction with co‐prescribed proton pump inhibitors, which inhibit oxidative pathways that convert clopidogrel into its active metabolites. Despite this, the impact of PPIs on cardiovascular risk in the absence of clopidogrel is not well defined. Aim To report on a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the association between PPIs and cardiovascular risk, independent of clopidogrel. Methods The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched in October 2017. The primary outcome was association between PPI monotherapy and any adverse cardiovascular event. The secondary outcome was association between proton pump inhibitor monotherapy and acute myocardial infarction. Studies were excluded if they reported or did not adjust for concomitant anti‐platelet therapy or involved participants aged less than 18 years. Results A total of 22 studies were included in the systematic review. Data from 16 studies were included in the meta‐analysis (involving 447 408 participants). Of these, eight were randomised controlled trials, seven were observational studies and one was a retrospective analysis of a randomised controlled trial. An increased risk of any adverse cardiovascular event with PPI monotherapy was observed using pooled data from observational studies (risk ratio 1.25, 95% CI…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 447 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