Proton pump inhibitors therapy and risk of bone diseases: An update meta-analysis
Introduction
Proton pump inhibitors are among the most widely used acid-suppressive medicines with the capacity to treat a broad range of acid-related diseases, including heart-burn symptoms, dyspepsia, chronic cough, gastroesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcers, or for the prevention of the gastric injuries induced by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and surgery, through a mechanism involving the inhibition of gastric acid secretion [1,2]. PPIs are generally well tolerated by the majority of patients and have traditionally been considered to be relatively safe. However, there have been reports linking PPI use to incidence of hypomagnesemia, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, pancreatic cancer and dementia [[3], [4], [5], [6], [7]]. Particularly, there have been concerns related to the potential association between the use of PPI and the risk of bone events, such as bone fractures, osteoporosis, and BMD loss. This association was first reported by Yang et al. [8], where persons taking PPI suffered were 1.44 times more likely to develop hip fracture compared to controls. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a cautionary note on the increased risk of fractures with the use of high dose and/or long-term PPI [9]. Subsequently, several observational studies having been performed to determine the association of PPI use with osteoporosis or BMD loss. Although numerous observational studies supported this notion, some studies have reported conflicting results. These inconsistencies could be partly explained by different types of study designs, population characteristics, and different baseline levels. Furthermore, the association between bone diseases and PPI use may be over-estimated due to the existence of other confounders. Actually, the mechanism by which PPI increases the risk of fracture, osteoporosis, and BMD loss has yet to be elucidated.
Given this background, the use of PPI needs to be re-evaluated to guide clinical treatment decisions. Analysis of large numbers of cases may enhance the statistical power of meta-analysis to assess the relationship between exposure and outcome. To close this gap, we conducted an update meta-analysis to determine the link between PPI use and fractures, osteoporosis, and BMD loss.
Section snippets
Search strategy
We searched for articles published on PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception up to May 2018, using the following key words and text in combination, both as Mesh terms and text words: (“bone mineral density” OR “bone density” OR “osteoporosis” OR “osteoporoses” OR bone Loss” OR “fractures, Bone” OR “broken bones” OR “bone, broken” OR “bones, broken” OR “broken bone” OR “bone fractures” OR “bone fracture” OR “fracture, bone” OR “fractures” OR “fracture”) and (“proton pump
Literature search
We initially retrieved 1313 articles, of which 147 articles were excluded after adjusting for duplicates. Of the remaining 1166 articles, 1112 were excluded after the initial title and abstract screening, because they were review articles, laboratory studies, or irrelevant to our study purpose. The full texts of the remaining 54 articles were examined in detail, of which 23 articles were excluded according to the eligibility criteria (Fig. 1). Among the included studies, one of them reported
Discussion
This is an update meta-analysis of 32 observational studies involving 2-181-546 individuals which evaluated the effect of PPI use on the risk of bone diseases, such as bone fractures, osteoporosis and BMD loss. Our meta-analysis found that there was a moderate increased risk of any-site fractures, hip fracture, spine fracture and osteoporosis in people using PPI, but found no correlation between PPI use and BMD loss. In stratified analysis, the association of PPI use with any-site fractures or
Conclusion
Results of this meta-analysis suggest that PPI may moderately increase the risk of any-site, hip, spine fracture. However, the relationship between PPI and BMD remains uncertain. Due to the widespread use of PPI and the impact of fractures on human health, clinicians should carefully evaluate the patient condition before prescribing PPI therapy.
The following is the supplementary data related to this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
We thank Prof. Jiaming Sun for his assistance in structuring the search strings and linguistic advice. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81701922 to Zhenxing Wang, No. 81601701 to Jiecong Wang).
References (49)
- et al.
Proton pump inhibitors in GORDAn overview of their pharmacology, efficacy and safety
Pharmacol. Res.
(2009) A case series of proton pump inhibitor–induced hypomagnesemia
Am. J. Kidney Dis.
(2010)The role of macrolide antibiotics in increasing cardiovascular risk
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2015)Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of hip fracture in kidney transplant recipients
Am. J. Kidney Dis.
(2017)Proton-pump inhibitor use and hip fractures in men: a population-based case-control study
Ann. Epidemiol.
(2014)Proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists are associated with hip fractures among at-risk patients
Gastroenterology
(2010)Proton-pump inhibitor use is not associated with osteoporosis or accelerated bone mineral density loss
Gastroenterology
(2010)Use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and history of earlier fracture are independent risk factors for fracture in postmenopausal women. The WHILA study
Maturitas
(2014)Use of proton pump inhibitors and risk of fragility hip fracture in a Mediterranean region
Bone
(2013)The effect of dose and type of proton pump inhibitor use on risk of fractures and osteoporosis treatment in older Australian women: a prospective cohort study
Bone
(2015)