Copyright
©2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. May 14, 2012; 18(18): 2161-2171
Published online May 14, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i18.2161
Published online May 14, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i18.2161
Study | PPIs used | Population | Primary outcome | Author’s conclusions |
Gilard et al[7] OCLA study (double-blind, placebo-controled, randomized) | Omeprazole | 124 patients undergoing elective coronary stent implantation | VASP-PRI on 7 d | Omeprazole significantly decreases clopidogrel inhibitory effect |
Cuisset et al[11] PACA study (prospective, randomized) | Omeprazole vs Pantoprazole | 104 NSTE-ACS patients undergoing coronary stenting | VASP-PRI/ADP-Ag after 1 mo | Significantly better platelet response under pantoprazole (VASP-PRI), no difference for ADP-Ag |
O’Donoghue et al[26] PRINCIPLE-TIMI 44 (post hoc analysis of a RCT) | Not specified | 201 patients undergoing planned PCI | ADP Ag | Mean inhibition of platelet aggregation significantly lower for patients on PPI |
Siller-Matula et al[8] (prospective observational) | Pantoprazole esomeprazole | 300 patients with CAD undergoing PCI | VASP-PRI/ADP-Ag in the catheter laboratory | No association of PPIs with impaired response to clopidogrel |
Neubauer et al[13] (prospective observational) | Pantoprazole omeprazole esomeprazole | 336 patients undergoing coronary stent implantation | ADP Ag | Pantoprazole does not diminish the antiplatelet effectiveness of clopidogrel |
Angiolillo et al[12] (placebo controlled, randomized, cross-over) | Omeprazole pantoprazole | 282 healthy subjects | Clopi H4 ADP Ag VASP-PRI after 5 d | Presence of a metabolic drug-drug interaction between clopidogrel and omeprazole but not for pantoprazole |
Study | PPIs used | Procedures to minimize bias | Population | Primary outcome | Results |
Bhatt et al[25] (randomized, controlled, double-blind trial) | Omeprazole | 3873 patients with ACS or undergoing PCI | Mean 133 d- composite safety endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, coronary revascularisation | No difference between PPI and placebo group (HR with omeprazole 0.99, 95% CI: 0.68-1.44) | |
O’Donaghue et al[26] (post-hoc analysis of a RCT) | Pantoprazole omeprazole esomeprazole lansoprazole rabeprazole | Propensity score matching; multivariable and sensitivity analysis | 13 608 patients undergoing planned PCI for ACS | Composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI or stroke after 6-15 mo | No difference between PPI and clopidogrel alone group (HR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.80-1.11) |
Dunn et al[65] (post-hoc analysis of a RCT) | Not specified | Multivariable analysis | 2116 patients undergoing PCI | 28 d death, MI, urgent target vessel revas-cularisation 1 yr death, MI or stroke | Increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcome regardless of clopidogrel use (clopidogrel/PPI: OR 1.63, 95% CI: 1.02-2.63 vs placebo/PPI: OR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.03-2.34) |
Charlot et al[28] (retrospective cohort study) | Esomeprazole pantoprazole lansoprazole omeprazole rabeprazole | Propensity score matching; multivariable and sensitivity analysis | 56 406 patients discharged with first-time myocardial infarction | 1 yr composite end point of MI, stroke or cardiovascular death | Increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes in PPI users regardless of clopidogrel use (HR for PPI/clopidogrel: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.22-1.50 vs HR for PPI alone: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.34-1.53) |
Banerjee et al[32] (retrospective cohort study) | Predominantly omeprazole (88,9%) | Propensity score matching; multivariable and sensitivity analysis | 23 200 post PCI patients | 6-yr MACE | No increased risk for MACE in PPI users (HR 0,97, 95% CI: 0.65-1.44) |
Ray et al[27] (retrospective cohort study) | Pantoprazole lansoprazole esomeprazole omeprazole rabeprazole | Propensity score matching; multivariable and sensitivity analysis | 20 596 patients discharged after PCI or ACS | 1 yr composite end point of ACS, stroke or cardiovascular death | No increased risk for serious cardiovascular disease in PPI users (HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.82-1.19) |
Rassen et al[31] (retrospective cohort study) | Pantoprazole omeprazole rabeprazole lansoprazole esomeprazole | Propensity score matching; | 18 565 patients discharged after PCI or ACS (age > 65 yr) | 180 d composite end point of hospitalization for MI and PCI or death of any cause | Trend towards a higher risk of composite end point in PPI users (RR 1.26, 95% CI: 0.97-1.63) |
Simon et al[30] (retrospective cohort study) | Omeprazole esomeprazole pantoprazole lansoprazole | Propensity score matching; multivariable and sensitivity analysis | 2744 clopidogrel and PPI-naive patients with definite MI | In hospital and 1-yr death, reinfarction or stroke | No increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in PPI users (HR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.90-1.08) |
Harjai et al[29] (retrospective cohort study) | Omeprazole esomeprazole | Propensity score matching; multivariable and sensitivity analysis | 2651 patients discharged after PCI for stable and unstable CAD | 6-mo MACE | No increased risk for MACE in PPI users (HR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.63-1.27) |
van Boxel et al[14] (retrospective cohort study) | Pantoprazole omeprazole rabeprazole lansoprazole | Multivariable analysis | 18 139 clopidogrel users | 2 yr composite endpoint of ACS, stroke and any cause death | Increased risk of composite endpoint (HR 1.75, 95% CI: 1.58-1.94), myocardial infarction (HR 1.93, 95% CI: 1.40-2.65) and unstable angina pectoris (HR 1.79, 95% CI: 1.60-2.03) |
Juurlink et al[16] (population-based nested case-control study) | Omeprazole rabeprazole lansoprazole pantoprazole | Nested case –control; multivariable and sensitivity analysis | 13 636 patients discharged after ACS (age > 65 yr) | 90-d readmission for acute MI | Increased risk of reinfarction (OR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.03-1.57) in PPI users except pantoprazole |
Ho et al[15] (retrospective cohort study) | Omeprazole rabeprazole lansoprazole pantoprazole | Multivariable and sensitivity analysis | 8205 patients discharged after ACS | 3 yr death or rehospitalization for ACS | Increased risk for death or rehospitalization in PPI users (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.11-1.41) |
Study | Observed adverse event | Ascertainment | Results |
Bhatt et al[25] | Composite of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (of known and unknown origin): overt bleeding, ulcers, symptomatic erosions, obstruction, perforation or decrease in hemoglobin of 2 g/dL | Endoscopic and radiologic confirmation (in known origin subgroup) | Significative reduction of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the omeprazole treated group (1.1% against 2.9% under placebo; HR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.18-0.63) |
Ray et al[27] | Hospitalization for bleeding at a gastroduodenal site (excluding angiodysplasia) or other gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal sites | Validated diagnostic codes with PPV of 91% | Adjusted 50% reduction of hospitalization in the PPI treated group (HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.39-0.65), no significant difference concerning bleeding at other sites |
van Boxel et al[14] | Occurence of complicated or non complicated peptic ulcer disease | ICD-9 diagnostic codes | Low incidence (0.7% with PPI against 0.2%) but significant increase of peptic ulcer disease in the PPI treated group even after multivariable adjusting (HR 4.76, 95% CI: 1.18-19.17) |
Charlot et al[28] | Hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding | ICD-9 diagnostic codes | No reduction between the clopidogrel with PPI and clopidogrel alone group |
Harjai et al[29] | TIMI major bleeding: intracranial hemorrage or a ≥ 5 g/dL decrease in hemoglobine TIMI minor bleeding: observed blood loss with decrease ≥ 3 g/dL in hemoglobine | Guthrie Health System database | No significant difference between the clopidogrel with PPI and clopidogrel alone group |
Simon et al[30] | In-hospital major bleeding (not specified) or need for blood transfusion | FAST-MI registry | No significant difference between the clopidogrel with PPI and clopidogrel alone group |
- Citation: Drepper MD, Spahr L, Frossard JL. Clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors - where do we stand in 2012? World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18(18): 2161-2171
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v18/i18/2161.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i18.2161