Evidence Hub

Comparing safety of proton‐pump inhibitors versus H2‐receptor antagonists in kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Keyhan Mohammadi, Shakila Yaribash, Bahman Razi, Simin Dashti‐Khavidaki

Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 2021

4,844 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

What is known and objective Multiple studies have been conducted to compare the safety of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) as acid-suppressive treatment in kidney transplant recipients with conflicting results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the risk of adverse effects in kidney transplant patients receiving PPIs compared to those treated with H2RAs. Methods A systematic search was performed on the databases from inception to June 2021. The treatment effects were expressed as odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled by a random-effects model. Results and Discussions Eight studies, consisting 4,844 patients, were included. Patients were followed for a mean duration of 23.57 months after transplantation. Compared with H2RAs, PPIs exposure was associated with similar rate of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) (OR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.83–1.34, p = 0.67), mortality (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.56–3.07, p = 0.533), graft loss (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.59–1.93, p = 0.842), Clostridioides difficile infection (OR = 1.37, 95% CI 0.49–3.85, p = 0.545) and pneumonia (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 0.95–3.52, p = 0.072). The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 12 months was lower in patients who received PPIs than those treated with H2RAs (WMD = −1.01, 95% CI −1.89 to −0.12 ml/min/1.73m2, p = 0.02). The PPI-treated kidney transplant patients experienced higher rate of antibody-mediated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. 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: 4,844 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