J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2024; 30(4): 407-420  https://doi.org/10.5056/jnm24059
Potential Risks Associated With Long-term Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and the Maintenance Treatment Modality for Patients With Mild Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Seung Young Kim1 and Kwang Jae Lee2*
1Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; and 2Department of Gastroenterology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Correspondence to: *Kwang Jae Lee, MD, PhD
Department of Gastroenterology, Ajou University School of Medicine, 164, World Cup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16499, Korea
Tel: +82-31-219-5119, E-mail: kjl@ajou.ac.kr
Received: April 24, 2024; Revised: May 16, 2024; Accepted: June 1, 2024; Published online: October 30, 2024
© The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. All rights reserved.

cc This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) significantly affects the health-related quality of life and healthcare costs. The prevalence of this disease is increasing in Asia, leading to a rapid increase in the demand of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Despite effective symptom management during initial treatment, relapse rates after PPI cessation remain high in patients with GERD, warranting longterm maintenance therapy. Concerns regarding potential side effects related to the long-term use of PPIs are escalating with increased usage. Studies have reported diverse side effects of PPIs, such as increased fracture risk, cardiovascular concerns, enteric infections, neurological diseases, and potential associations with gastric cancer. However, definitive causal relationships remain unclear. This review comprehensively summarizes the latest knowledge on the potential risks associated with long-term use of PPIs. Continuous or noncontinuous therapy can be used as a maintenance treatment modality for GERD. For patients with mild GERD, including those with nonerosive and mildly erosive reflux disease, on-demand therapy following a sufficient period of continuous maintenance therapy is recommended as a long-term maintenance treatment option.
Keywords: Adverse effects; Gastroesophageal reflux; Maintenance; Proton pump inhibitors
Introduction

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a prevalent disorder, with an average global prevalence reported to be approximately 14%.1 As compared to the global average of GERD, West Asia has a higher prevalence, whereas South-East and East Asia have a lower prevalence.1 However, recent studies have reported an increasing trend of the GERD prevalence in Asia.2 Based on the presence of endoscopic mucosal injury, GERD is classified into erosive and nonerosive reflux diseases (ERD and NERD). ERD is found in approximately 25.0% of individuals with GERD symptoms, whereas NERD is identified in approximately 70.0% of patients.3,4 A large-scale prospective study reported that the prevalence of endoscopic erosive esophagitis in Korean patients undergoing checkups was 8.0%, with 58.0% of them being asymptomatic. In those with erosive esophagitis, grade A, B, C, and D according to Los Angeles (LA) classification were observed in 74.1%, 23.3%, 2.3%, and 0.2%, respectively.5 In a systematic review of Japanese studies, 87% of erosive esophagitis were grade A or B.6 In a cross-sectional study conducted in one region of China, 93.7% of erosive esophagitis were grade A or B.7 Thus, most ERD in countries of East Asia is LA-A or LA-B, suggesting that mild GERD is the most common form in those Asian countries.

The severity of symptoms correlates with esophageal acid exposure, and acid-suppressive agents such as a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) are generally prescribed for the treatment of GERD.8-10 GERD is a chronically recurrent disease, and the majority of patients with GERD require long-term maintenance treatment.11,12 The chronic nature of the disease can be associated with a considerable economic burden and decreased quality of life.13 Furthermore, many patients and physicians are still concerned about the potential adverse effects of long-term PPI use. However, to date, data on this issue is controversial. Moreover, only a few studies have been conducted in Asian countries. Therefore, in the present review, we aim to evaluate data on the potential adverse effects associated with long-term PPI use, particularly in Asian countries. We also tried to suggest the long-term maintenance treatment modality appropriate for patients with mild GERD, which is the most prevalent type of GERD in Asian countries.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Prevalence in Asia

The prevalence of GERD in Asia has been increasing. In a meta-analysis of population-based studies in Asia, the prevalence of GERD was reported to significantly increase from 11.0% in 2000-2009 to 15.0% in 2010-2019.2 Similarly, in observational studies for participants who underwent a medical check-up, the prevalence of GERD was significantly increased (6.0% vs 15.0%) in the same period (2000-2009 to 2010-2019). In this meta-analysis, a high heterogeneity was noted among the studies included. In another meta-analysis of 102 studies performed around the world, the prevalence of GERD was 13.9% and varied depending on the regions.1 In 54 studies from Asia, the prevalence was 12.9%; the highest prevalence was noted in Turkey (22.4%) and the lowest in China (4.2%). In that study, the prevalence of GERD in South Korea was 5.8%. The prevalence in population-based studies performed in East Asia since 2010 is listed in Table 1.14-22 In a large-scale prospective study based on data from the health checkup centers of 40 hospitals in Korea, the prevalence of GERD, including ERD and NERD, was reported to be 12.0%.5

Table 1 . Prevalence of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Reported in Population-based Studies From East Asia Since 2010

First authorYearCountrySample sizeGERD definitionMean age (yr)Men (%)Prevalence (%)
Liu142023China50183GERD-Q ≥ 849.442.05.6
Zhang152019China5680GERD-Q ≥ 838.955.310.8
Tan162016Hong Kong2074Montreal definitiona48.136.93.8
Cai172015China2950GERD-Q ≥ 842.450.54.8
Murase182014Japan9643GERD-Q ≥ 854.032.822.9
Min192014Korea5000Any troublesome heartburn and/or acid regurgitation at least once a week during 3 months preceding the interview43.251.17.1
Niu202012China1995GERD-Q ≥ 843.571.931.3
Hung212011Taiwan1238Chinese GERD-Q ≥ 1259.145.625.0
He222010China16091Montreal definitiona42.547.83.1

aAccording to the Montreal definition, a diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is defined as mild symptoms occurring on ≥ 2 days of the week, or moderate to severe (troublesome) symptoms occurring on ≥ 1 day of the week.

GERD-Q, gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire.


Maintenance Treatment Appropriate for Mild Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Despite adequate symptom control and mucosal healing by the initial treatment using PPIs, relapse occurs in approximately 50.0-80.0% of patients with NERD or mild erosive esophagitis with GERD.23,24 A randomized controlled trial of maintenance therapy for NERD patients found that 83.0% of patients using 20 mg omeprazole were in remission at 6 months, compared to 56.0% of those in the placebo group.25 This suggests that approximately half of patients with NERD may require long-term acid suppressive therapy to maintain a normal quality of life. Moreover, in cases of LA grade C esophagitis, the relapse rate is almost 100.0% within 6 months.26 Therefore, the current guidelines recommend maintenance therapy for individuals experiencing persistent or recurrent symptoms after discontinuing PPIs, as well as for those with severe erosive esophagitis or complications, such as Barrett’s esophagus.2,27,28

Several approaches for maintenance therapy have been proposed for the long-term management of GERD. These include continuous therapy, which refers to the daily intake of PPIs, on-demand therapy, which involves taking PPIs when symptoms arise and stopping them once the symptoms subside, intermittent therapy, which involves the use of PPIs for a specific duration, typically 1-2 weeks, in response to the symptoms, and threshold therapy, which indicates a gradually increasing interval between PPI intakes as long as symptoms do not reappear.29 The latter 3 methods can be described as noncontinuous therapies or broadly categorized as on-demand therapies. Studies comparing on-demand and continuous therapy for the maintenance treatment of GERD have yielded inconsistent results in terms of symptom relief, satisfaction with the present treatment, or the willingness to continue current therapy (Table 2).30-38 While some studies have reported the superior effect of continuous therapy, on-demand therapy is noninferior to or not significantly different from continuous therapy in other studies. The latest meta-analysis, comprising 11 studies (9 from the West and 2 from Asia), indicates no significant difference in treatment failure rates between the 2 groups (9.1% vs 7.3%) with an RR of 1.26 (95% CI, 0.76-2.07; P = 0.372). However, the advantage of on-demand therapy is the fact that the total amount of PPIs used in the on-demand treatment group is approximately half, compared with that of the continuous group.39

Table 2 . Studies Comparing Continuous Versus On-demand Therapy in the Maintenance Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

First authorYearCountryInstitutionsEnrolled patientsMaintenance treatmentContinuous (n)On-demand (n)Primary outcomeOutcome results (%, continuous/on-demand, P-value or interpretation)Conclusion
Jung302023KoreaMulti-centerNERD and mild EEPantoprazole 20 mg daily or on-demand for 6 mo147146Unwillingness to continue the present treatment36.1/45.9, failed to confirm the noninferiority of on-demand treatmentContinuous treatment seems to be more appropriate for the initial maintenance treatment of mild GERD than on-demand treatment.
Cho312018KoreaSingle-centerGERD (severe EE 2.5%)Esomeprazole 20 mg daily or esomeprazole 40 mg on-demand for 12 wk4139Heartburn resolution rate at 12 wk87.8/82.1, P = 0.471On-demand therapy with esomeprazole 40 mg appears to be sufficient for maintenance treatment in GERD patients.
Bayerdörffer322016Austria, France, Germany, South Africa and SpainMulti-centerNERDEsomeprazole 20 mg daily or on-demand for 6 mo297301Proportion of patients who discontinue the study due to unsatisfactory treatment9.8/6.3, NSOn-demand treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg is non-inferior to continuous maintenance treatment.
Nagahara332014JapanSingle-centerGERDOmeprazole 20 mg daily or on-demand for 6 mo5958Symptom relief at 6 mo66.7/74, NSOn-demand therapy appears to be sufficient as maintenance therapy for NERD patients.
Szucs342009SwitzerlandMulti-centerGERDEsomeprazole 20 mg daily or on-demand for 6 mo420484Heartburn relief at 6 mo86/80, P < 0.001The adjusted direct medical costs of on-demand treatment are significantly lower compared with a continuous treatment.
Morgan352007CanadaMulti-centerGERDRabeprazole 20 mg daily or on-demand for 6 mo137131Proportions of heartburn-free days90.3/64.8, P < 0.001Continuous therapy is associated with an increased number of medication intake days with less heartburn episodes versus on-demand therapy.
Bour362005FranceMulti-centerNERD and mild EERabeprazole 10 mg daily or on-demand for 6 mo8171Symptom relief at 6 months86.4/74.6, P = 0.065On-demand therapy provides an alternative to continuous therapy.
Janssen372005Germany, France, Switzerland and HungaryMulti-centerNERD and mild EEPantoprazole 20 mg daily or on-demand for 6 mo217215Treatment failure18.6/30.7, confirm the noninferiority of on-demand treatmentOn-demand treatment is noninferior to continuous therapy with regard to symptom control.
Tsai382004UKMulti-centerNERDLansoprazole 15 mg daily or Esomeprazole 20 mg on-demand for 6 mo311311Unwillingness to continue the present treatment13/6, P = 0.001On-demand therapy is more acceptable and economically more effective than continuous therapy.

GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease; NERD, non-erosive reflux disease; EE, erosive esophagitis; NS, not significant.



A prospective multicenter randomized study involving 304 patients with NERD or mild erosive esophagitis who underwent maintenance treatment using a half dose of PPIs following symptom improvement with a standard dose of PPIs for the comparison between the on-demand and continuous maintenance treatment was recently reported.30 Continuous and on-demand therapies were compared for a 6-month maintenance period. Unlike the findings of the recent meta-analysis,39 the results failed to show the noninferiority of on-demand treatment over continuous treatment. There is a significant difference in the proportion of patients unwilling to continue the assigned treatment modality between the on-demand and continuous treatment groups (45.9% vs 36.1%). Regarding the reasons for reluctance to continue the assigned maintenance treatment, poorly controlled symptoms were notably more common in the on-demand group than in the continuous treatment group (35.8% vs 17.0%, P = 0.009). Furthermore, compared with the on-demand group, the GERD symptom and health-related quality of life scores significantly more improved and the overall satisfaction score was significantly higher in the continuous treatment group, particularly at week 8 and 16 of maintenance treatment. However, at week 24 of maintenance treatment, there was no significant difference in the GERD symptom score or overall satisfaction between the 2 groups.30 Therefore, as a long-term maintenance treatment modality for mild GERD, a sequential maintenance treatment, that is switching to on-demand therapy after a sufficient period of continuous maintenance treatment using a half-dose PPI, may be desirable.

In a real-world survey conducted in patients receiving long-term PPIs for maintenance treatment of GERD, no significant differences were observed in overall satisfaction, degree of GERD symptom control, or preference for the current maintenance therapy modality among the continuous, on-demand, and intermittent therapy groups.40 However, the convenience score of taking PPIs was reported to be higher in the continuous therapy group than in the noncontinuous therapy group (31.6% vs 18.8%, respectively; P = 0.025). This preference is likely attributable to the perception that taking one pill daily without specific considerations is more convenient than providing instructions for self-administering the medication based on symptoms. Interestingly, patients with longer duration of GERD tended to receive noncontinuous therapy, such as on-demand therapy. Moreover, the noncontinuous therapy group was demonstrated to show significantly higher awareness of potential adverse effects associated with PPIs than the continuous therapy group.40 Therefore, for GERD patients who requires maintenance treatment using a PPI, physicians or medical staffs need to actively educate the advantages and disadvantages of continuous and noncontinuous maintenance treatment modalities. The benefits of noncontinuous therapy may be associated with concerns about potential adverse effects of long-term PPI use and cost effectiveness.

Taking all these findings into consideration, as a maintenance treatment modality following initial treatment using PPIs for patients with mild esophagitis or NERD, step-by-step sequential maintenance therapy is recommended, which is initially continuous maintenance treatment for a sufficient period of time until adequate control of symptoms, followed by noncontinuous treatment with carefully monitoring the patient’s symptoms.

Potential Adverse Effects Associated With Proton Pump Inhibitor Use

Acid-suppressive therapy with PPIs is established as the most efficacious approach for treating patients with GERD and has been used as the first-line treatment.26 PPIs are widely used for long-term maintenance treatment of GERD and acid-related diseases such as peptic ulcers. Therefore, they are known to be one of the most commonly used drugs in the US, and PPI use is reported to be increasing in the United States (US) population.41 The Health Insurance data of Korea estimating based on the number of GERD patients taking PPIs also showed increased prescription of PPIs for more than 12 weeks in Korea.13 As the use of PPIs increases, concerns regarding adverse effects are raised. The safety profile of PPIs is generally considered to be good, with less than 1% to 2% patients experiencing adverse effects and requiring discontinuation of the medication.42 However, several studies, which mainly include case-control studies and meta-analyses, have raised concerns about the adverse effects associated with long-term use of PPIs. These include alterations in the gut microbiome, enteric infections, micronutrient deficiencies, fundic gland polyps, gastrointestinal malignancy, chronic kidney disease, cognitive dysfunction, myocardial infarction, bacterial overgrowth, bacterial peritonitis, pneumonia, bone fracture, drug interactions, and even death.43 In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued several warnings regarding these adverse effects, including those related to bone fractures, interactions with clopidogrel, enteric infections, and hypomagnesemia.42 However, many of these associations need further investigation for causal relationship. Residual confounding factors and other analytical biases cannot be excluded. Furthermore, there is a lack of explanation for possible mechanisms. Randomized controlled trials reporting adverse events associated with PPI use are rare.44 In a recent meta-analysis evaluating the certainty of evidence on PPI use and adverse effects, the association between PPI use and risk of all-site fracture and chronic kidney disease in the elderly population was found to have convincing evidence. However, none of these associations remained supported by convincing evidence after sensitivity analyses. In meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, none of statistically significant associations were supported by high or moderate-quality evidence.45 Therefore, high-quality evidence is still required to confirm putative adverse effects associated with PPI use. Particularly, further research on the causal relationship for some adverse effects with convincing evidence is necessary.

Bone Fracture

The relationship between PPIs and bone health has been a research topic of interest for a long time. Based on several potential mechanisms including hypochlorhydria-associated malabsorption of calcium or vitamin B12, gastrin-induced parathyroid hyperplasia, and osteoclastic vacuolar proton pump inhibition, a possible link between PPI use and increased fracture risk has been proposed.46 Numerous studies have examined this association; some found a positive association, while others did not. Additionally, several meta-analyses have indicated a positive association with an increased risk of fracture (Table 3).47-50 A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that PPI users had an increased risk of developing any site fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.45), hip fracture (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.31), spine fracture (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.31-1.68), and osteoporosis (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.42) compared to nonusers. However, the risk is small and there is no correlation of PPI use with developing bone mineral density loss.49 Another meta-analysis also reported a significant association of PPI use with an increased fracture risk (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35), but not with bone mineral density loss.48 Although the results suggest that PPI therapy may increase fracture risk, confounding factors may be involved in the overall outcomes. Moreover, most of the included studies were retrospective observational studies, and moderate-to-high heterogeneity was observed. Observational data are affected by unmeasured and/or residual confounding factors, and data related to a dose- or duration-based response have been inconsistent. Thus, because of these limitations of current data, long-term and well-designed randomized controls are needed to confirm the association between PPI use and bone fractures or osteoporosis.

Table 3 . Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use With Risk of Bone Diseases

First authorYearIncluded studiesOutcomesNo. of included studiesHeterogeneity I2 (%)Metrics (95% CI)
Hussain472018Observational studiesHip fracture1768.0RR1.26 (1.17-1.35)
Nassar482018Population-based studies
Observational studies
Fracture of any site2278.6OR1.24 (1.18-1.31)
Hip fracture1589.6OR1.34 (1.24-1.46)
Spine fracture1091.5OR1.18 (0.93-1.42)
BMD loss572.0SMD0 (–0.18-0.19)
Liu492019Fracture of any site1378.6HR1.3 (1.16-1.45)
Hip fracture1772.5HR1.22 (1.15-1.31)
Spine fracture522.2HR1.49 (1.31-1.68)
Osteoporosis790.6HR1.23 (1.06-1.42)
Femoral BMD loss347.4SMD–0.27 (–0.62-0.09)
Spine BMD loss370.4SMD–0.06 (–0.04-0.99)
Poly502019Observational studiesHip fracture2476.7RR1.21 (1.14-1.28)

CI, confidence interval; RR, risk ratio; OR, odds ratio; BMD, bone mineral density; SMD, standardized mean difference; HR, hazard ratio.


Cardiovascular Risk

PPIs are primarily metabolized by the cytochrome P450 isoenzyme, CYP2C19. The antiplatelet drug clopidogrel is activated by CYP2C19, and there is concern that PPIs may decrease clopidogrel’s antiplatelet effect. Several retrospective studies have suggested an association between the use of PPIs and an increased rate of cardiovascular events.51,52 The FDA has also warned against the combination of clopidogrel with PPIs, particularly omeprazole. There are differences in the influence on CYP2C19 metabolism between PPIs. Thus, omeprazole and esomeprazole seem to have more effect on CYP2C19 metabolism, whereas lansoprazole, dexlansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole are likely to have less effect.53,54 However, evidence on the interaction between the use of PPIs and cardiovascular risk is inconsistent. A randomized controlled study of PPIs vs placebo in patients with coronary artery disease who were receiving dual antiplatelet therapy reported that there was no clinically significant interaction between clopidogrel and omeprazole.55 However, a recently published meta-analysis found a significant increase in cardiovascular-related events in patients who took clopidogrel and PPIs (Table 4).56-58 However, the number of randomized controlled trials included is small, and the increase in risk was not significant when only randomized controlled trials were analyzed.56 Additionally, a subgroup analysis including 7 studies conducted in Asia did not show a significant association. Therefore, the relationship between PPI use and cardiovascular risk is not clear yet.57

Table 4 . Clinical Outcomes of Concomitant Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Clopidogrel

First authorYearIncluded studiesOutcomesNo. of included studiesHeterogeneity I2 (%)Metrics (95% CI)
Luo5620222 RCTs and 16 observational studiesMACEs1859HR1.15 (1.06-1.26)
MI1318HR1.18 (1.11-1.24)
Cardiac death580HR1.09 (0.80-1.48)
All-cause mortality1378HR1.15 (0.94-1.41)
GI complication319HR0.44 (0.30-0.64)
Shi57202118 observational studies, ≥ 12 mo follow-upMACCEs1842OR1.38 (1.28-1.62)
MI1241OR1.30 (1.19-1.41)
Cardiac death1357OR1.35 (1.19-1.53)
All-cause mortality839OR1.54 (1.31-1.80)
GI bleeding reduction473OR1.50 (1.21-1.87)
Demsack58201810 RCTs and 17 observational studiesMACEs2390RR1.22 (1.06-1.39)
MI1466RR1.43 (1.24-1.66)
CV death1067RR1.21 (0.97-1.50)

CI, confidence interval; RCTs, randomized controlled trials; MACEs, major adverse cardiovascular events; MI, myocardial infarction; GI, gastrointestinal; MACCE, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events; CV, cardiovascular; HR, hazard ratio; OR, odds ratio; RR, risk ratio.


Enteric Infection

As gastric acid kills ingested microorganisms, PPIs may potentially contribute to an increased susceptibility to enteric infections. Enteric infections are attributed to alterations in the composition of the gut microbiota, particularly affecting the acid-sensitive organisms such as Vibrio cholera, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Norovirus.59 In a previous study in patients with stable cardiovascular and peripheral artery disease using aspirin or rivaroxaban, those given either a PPI or a placebo did not exhibit a significant increase in the risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), but showed a significant increase in the risk of other enteric infections.60 In the US, FDA issued a warning regarding the use of PPIs and the risk of developing CDI. In meta-analyses of studies reporting the risk of CDI related to the use of PPIs, the risk of community-associated or hospital-acquired CDI and recurrent CDI was found to be significant (Table 5).61-66 A recent comprehensive analysis based on meta-analyses of eight studies on the risk of CDI in PPI users revealed a significant elevation in the likelihood of developing CDI compared to nonusers. In the majority of included studies, a moderate risk for the development of CDI was identified, with ORs between 1.5 and 2.0.67 Although current evidence supports a positive link between PPI use and the development of CDI, clear recommendations are not established yet. Thus, the use of PPIs in patients at risk for CDI needs to be personalized.

Table 5 . Risk of Clostridium difficile Infection in Proton Pump Inhibitor Users

First authorYearPopulationOutcomeNo. of included studiesHeterogeneity I2 (%)OR (95% CI)
Metha612021Hospitalized patientsRecurrent CDI783.41.84 (1.18-2.85)
Arriola622016Hospitalized patientsCDI2382.01.81 (1.52-2.14)
D’Silva632021Overall patientsRecurrent CDI1655.61.69 (1.46-1.96)
Oshima642018Overall patientsCDI4994.02.30 (1.89-2.80)
Overall patientsRecurrent CDI1252.01.73 (1.39-2.15)
Cao652018Overall patientsCDI5080.61.26 (1.12-1.39)
Trifan662017Overall patientsCDI5685.41.99 (1.73-2.30)

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; CDI, Clostridium difficile infection.


Neurological Diseases

Inconsistent and conflicting findings have been observed in studies examining the potential association between the use of PPIs and cognitive decline or dementia. Recent population-based observational studies on the risk of dementia in PPI users are summarized in Table 6.68-78 Studies using the database from Korean National Health Insurance Service have shown variable results; some studies reported a significant increase in the risk of dementia, while others did not.73,74 This discrepancy is thought to be due to manipulative definitions for dementia and wash-out periods, and differences in analytical methods. A recent meta-analysis of nine observational studies did not provide supporting evidence for this association.79 Several studies investigating the relationship between the use of PPIs and Parkinson’s disease (PD) consistently suggest a weak positive association (Table 7).80-83 PD is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder, and its underlying mechanism remains poorly understood. A recent investigation using the population-based database from Korean National Health Insurance Service demonstrated an association between PPI use and PD after applying a 2-year or 3-year lag window before diagnosis, with evidence of a dose-response relationship. Moreover, older individuals aged ≥ 50 years were found to be more susceptible to the risk of PD related to the use of PPIs.81 It is presumed that PPIs can pass through the blood-brain barrier and inhibit lysosomal acidification through the inhibition of vacuolar proton pumps, preventing the degradation ability of fibrillar amyloid-β, an amyloid-β degradation product.84,85 Therefore, PPIs are likely to increase the risk for neurodegenerative diseases. Nevertheless, diverse confounders were not considered in the analysis. Thus, future studies with adjustments for the potential confounding factors are necessary to confirm this association.

Table 6 . Risk of Dementia in Proton Pump Inhibitor Users

First authorYearCountryFollow-up durations (yr)Age (yr)PPI users (n)Non-users (n)OutcomeMetrics (95% CI)
Ahn682022Germanymedian 4.3median 56.0674 5442023 632DementiaHR1.56 (1.50-1.63)
Lin692021Taiwanmax 10mean 55.04946711DementiaHR1.84 (1.35-2.51)
Wu702020Taiwanmean 4mean 56.025802583DementiaHR0.72 (0.50-1.03)
Torres-Bondia712020Spainmax 14mean 66.936 36099 362ADOR1.06 (0.93-1.21)
non-AD dementiaOR1.20 (1.05-1.37)
Chen722020Taiwanmax 12≥ 6593489348DementiaHR1.42 (1.07-1.84)
Park732018Koreamax 11≥ 6073427342DementiaSR1.21 (1.16-1.27)
Hwang742018Koreamax 6≥ 60194768 086DementiaHR0.99 (0.70-1.39)
Gray752018USAmean 7.5mean 74.04023082DementiaHR1.13 (0.82-1.56)
Tai762017Taiwanmean 9mean 55.678637863DementiaHR1.22 (1.05-1.42)
Gomm772016Germanymax 6mean 83.8295070 729DementiaHR1.44 (1.36-1.52)
Haenisch782015Germanymax 4mean 79.67132363DementiaHR1.38 (1.04-1.83)

PPI, proton pump inhibitor; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; HR, hazard ratio; SR, sequence ratio.



Table 7 . Risk of Parkinson’s Disease in Proton Pump Inhibitor Users

First authorYearStudy designCountryFollow-up durations (yr)Age (yr)Cohort study (n)Case-control study (n)HR/OR (95% CI)
PD cases/PPI usersPD cases/non-PPI usersPPI users/PD casesPPI users/control
Chen802023Retrospective cohortTaiwanmedian 5mean 47.1366/56 785258/56 7851.76 (1.48-2.08)
Hong812023Nested case-controlKoreamax 9mean 67.715 467/31 32655 407/125 3041.10 (1.07-1.13)
Kim822022Nested case-controlKoreamax 12≥ 50562/59931817/23 9721.12 (1.01-1.25)
Lai832020Nested case-controlTaiwanmax 12mean 76.5997/4280895/42801.15 (1.04-1.27)

PD, Parkinson’s disease; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; HR, hazard ratio; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.


Kidney Disease

Following the publication of the first observation regarding the association of PPIs with acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) in 1992, numerous case series have described this association.86 The largest case series is a study reporting 133 biopsy-proven cases of AIN in US, where 71.0% of the cases are drug-related; antibiotics are most commonly implicated (49%), followed by PPIs (14.0%) and NSAIDs (11.0%).87 However, the precise mechanism by which PPIs induce AIN is not clearly known. PPIs and/or their metabolites are presumed to be deposited within the tubulointerstitium of the kidney, that act as either haptens or directly stimulate T cells to mediate AIN.88 PPIs are known to be associated with both acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease. Recent reports showed that over half of patients with PPI-induced AIN did not fully recover, suggesting that PPIs may lead to chronic kidney disease through progression of AIN.87 Inflammation and damage to the tubulointerstitium may result in interstitial fibrosis and chronic interstitial nephritis, potentially leading to chronic kidney disease.88 Several studies support an association between PPI use and renal diseases (Table 8).89-93 A systematic review and meta-analysis revealed an increased risk of both AKI and chronic kidney disease associated with PPI use, with a number needed to harm of 27 (risk ratio, 1.44) for AKI and 20 (risk ratio, 1.36) for chronic kidney disease.94 In summary, the existing literature indicates an association between the use of PPIs and kidney diseases. Although there are no official warnings in the guidelines or PPI labeling, it seems desirable that healthcare providers consider periodic renal monitoring in patients on chronic PPI therapy.

Table 8 . Risk of Kidney Disease in Proton Pump Inhibitor Users

First authorYearStudy designCountryFollow-up durationsAge (yr)OutcomeCohort study (n)Case-control study (n)HR/OR
(95% CI)
KD cases/PPI usersKD cases/non-PPI usersPPI users/KD casesPPI users/control
Klesper892013Nested case-controlUSAwithin 1 yrmean 21.1AKI126/854191/32891.72 (1.27-2.32)
Antoniou902015Retrospective cohortCanadamedian 120 day≥ 65AKI1269/290 592518/290 5922.52 (2.27-2.79)
Hart91_AKI2019Retrospective cohortUSAmedian 90 daymean 44.1AKI115/13 88929/13 8893.93 (2.61-5.93)
Hart91_CKD2019Retrospective cohortUSAmedian 6.8 yrmean 44.2CKD1710/12 0931500/12 0931.20 (1.11-1.29)
Lazarus92_ARIC2016Prospective cohortUSAmedian 13.9 yrmean 63.0CKD56/3221224/92041.35 (1.17-1.55)
Lazarus92_Geisinger2016Retrospective cohortUSAmedian 6.2 yrmean 50.0CKD1921/16 90027 204/225 2211.22 (1.19-1.25)
Peng932016Nested case-controlTaiwanmean 3.9 yrmean 65.4ESRD2647/38082104/38081.88 (1.71-2.06)

KD, kidney disease; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; HR, hazard ratio; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; AKI, acute kidney injury; CKD, chronic kidney disease; ARIC, atherosclerosis risk in communities; ESRD, end-stage renal disease.


Gastric Cancer

An increasing number of observational studies have documented the risk of gastric cancer in patients receiving long-term PPI therapy. Nevertheless, current evidence on the association between PPI use and gastric cancer remains inconclusive. Recent observational studies on the risk of gastric cancer in PPI users are summarized in Table 9.95-103 Some investigations have reported an elevated risk of gastric cancer in PPI users,95,100 whereas others have failed to establish any significant link between PPI use and the development of gastric cancer.98,99 Several mechanisms have been proposed to elucidate how PPIs may contribute to the development of gastric cancer. First, the use of PPIs leads to a reduction in gastric acid production, resulting in hypergastrinemia.104 Gastrin, a trophic hormone, can act as a growth factor, thereby inducing hyperplasia and potentially functioning as a carcinogen in the stomach.105 Hypergastrinemia may induce hyperplasia of the enterochromaffin-like cells and increase the risk of cell proliferation.106,107 A possibility that chronic gastrin elevation may act as a potential factor during gastric carcinogenesis has been suggested.108 Another plausible mechanism is bacterial overgrowth and dysbiosis in the stomach, resulting from the reduction of gastric acidity due to PPI therapy. Alterations in the gut microbiota have been suggested to increase the risk of gastric cancer.109

Table 9 . Risk of Gastric Cancer in Proton Pump Inhibitor Users

First authorYearStudy designCountryPPI exposureCohort study (n)Case-control study (n)HR/OR (95% CI)HR/OR in patients with H. pylori eradication
GC cases/PPI usersGC cases/non-PPI userPPI users/GC casesPPI users/control
Tamim952008Nested case-controlCanadaAt least one234/1071837/71581.46 (1.22-1.74)
Wennerstrom962017Nested case-controlDenmarkAt least one3.34 (2.99-3.73)
Lai972019Nested case-controlTaiwan> 6 mo308/649341/6492.0 (1.36-2.95)
Liu98_PCCIU2020Nested case-controlUKAt least one329/11171213/53941.49 (1.24-1.8)
Liu98_Biobank2020Nested case-controlUKAt least one44/20 887 person-year206/1949 341 person-year1.28 (0.86-1.90)
Lee992020Nested case-controlUSA≥ 2 yr164/1233773/10 5431.07 (0.81-1.42)
Seo1002021Retrospective cohortKorea≥ 30 day118/11 74140/11 7412.37 (1.56-3.68)1.35 (0.79-2.31)
Niikura1012018Retrospective cohortJapanAt least one13/1188/415-3.61 (1.49-8.77)
Cheung1022018Retrospective cohortHong KongAt least weeklyNA/3271NA/60 1262.44 (1.45-4.2)
Kim1032023Retrospective cohortKorea≥ 180 day1117/144 0911020/144 0911.15 (1.06-1.25)

GC, gastric cancer; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; HR, hazard ratio; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; H. pylori, Helicobacter pylori; PCCIU, primary care clinical information unit.



Helicobacter pylori infection is known to be the principal causative agent for peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer.110,111 Many studies reporting the association between long-term PPI use and gastric cancer development often lack accurate documentation of H. pylori status. Thus, whether H. pylori infection and PPIs exert synergistic effects on gastric cancer development remains unclear. A previous population-based study from Hong Kong who received eradication therapy demonstrated that long-term use of PPIs was still associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer even in subjects after H. pylori eradication therapy.102 Another population-based study using Korean National Health Insurance Services Database for patients aged > 40 years who received H. pylori eradication therapy also revealed that long-term PPI use after H. pylori eradication therapy increased the risk of gastric cancer, with a positive dose-response relationship.103 Furthermore, in patients who underwent endoscopic resection for gastric neoplasms and received H. pylori eradication therapy using the Korean National Health Insurance Services database, the incidence of metachronous gastric cancer was reported to be significantly elevated in the PPI user group than in the non-user group, indicating that long-term PPI use is associated with an increased risk of metachronous gastric cancer in patients who undergo H. pylori eradication therapy.112 These observations imply that PPIs may increase the risk of gastric cancer in individuals with H. pylori-associated chronic gastritis and atrophy. Thus, the long-term use of PPIs seems to require caution for the development of gastric neoplasms, particularly in H. pylori-infected subjects.

Conclusions

The increasing prevalence of GERD in Asia has led to the common long-term use of PPIs, accompanied by increased concerns about their possible adverse effects. Although most studies are observational and clear causative relationships are lacking, warnings or potential of adverse effects related to the long-term use of PPIs continue to be published. Since GERD tends to relapse after discontinuation of medication, long-term maintenance therapy is commonly necessitated. Both patient’s satisfaction associated with symptom control and concerns regarding the possible side effects of PPIs should be considered for maintenance treatment of GERD. For patients with mild esophagitis or NERD, sequential step-by-step maintenance therapy, that means noncontinuous therapy with monitoring of the patient’s symptoms following continuous maintenance therapy for a sufficient period until adequate control of symptoms, is recommended.

Financial support

This study was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (Grant No. RS-2024-00355608). Funding played no role in the study design and decision to publish the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author contributions

Kwang Jae Lee contributed to conceptualizing, writing, and revising the manuscript; and Seung Young Kim contributed to conducting research and writing the manuscript.

References
  1. Nirwan JS, Hasan SS, Babar ZU, Conway BR, Ghori MU. Global prevalence and risk factors of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD): systematic review with meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2020;10:5814.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Jung HK, Tae CH, Song KH, et al. 2020 Seoul consensus on the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2021;27:453-481.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  3. Zagari RM, Fuccio L, Wallander MA, et al. Gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms, oesophagitis and barrett's oesophagus in the general population: the Loiano-Monghidoro study. Gut 2008;57:1354-1359.
    CrossRef
  4. Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R; Global Consensus Group. The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:1900-1920.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Kim N, Lee SW, Cho SI, et al. The prevalence of and risk factors for erosive oesophagitis and non-erosive reflux disease: a nationwide multicentre prospective study in Korea. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;27:173-185.
    CrossRef
  6. Fujiwara Y, Arakawa T. Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of GERD in the Japanese population. J Gastroenterol 2009;44:518-534.
    CrossRef
  7. Du J, Liu J, Zhang H, Yu CH, Li YM. Risk factors for gastroesophageal reflux disease, reflux esophagitis and non-erosive reflux disease among Chinese patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopic examination. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:6009-6015.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. Bell NJ, Burget D, Howden CW, Wilkinson J, Hunt RH. Appropriate acid suppression for the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Digestion 1992;51(suppl 1):59-67.
    CrossRef
  9. Lind T, Havelund T, Carlsson R, et al. Heartburn without oesophagitis: efficacy of omeprazole therapy and features determining therapeutic response. Scand J Gastroenterol 1997;32:974-979.
    CrossRef
  10. Freston JW, Malagelada JR, Petersen H, McCloy RF. Critical issues in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1995;7:577-586.
  11. Dean BB, Gano AD Jr, Knight K, Ofman JJ, Fass R. Effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in nonerosive reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;2:656-664.
    CrossRef
  12. Kinoshita Y, Ashida K, Hongo M; Japan Rabeprazole Study Group for NERD. Randomised clinical trial: a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the efficacy and safety of rabeprazole 5 mg or 10 mg once daily in patients with non-erosive reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;33:213-224.
    CrossRef
  13. Park S, Kwon JW, Park JM, Park S, Seo KW. Treatment pattern and economic burden of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease patients in Korea. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2020;26:281-288.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  14. Liu Z, Gao X, Liang L, et al. Prevalence, general and periodontal risk factors of gastroesophageal reflux disease in China. J Inflamm Res 2023;16:235-244.
    CrossRef
  15. Zhang H, Gao W, Wang L, et al. A population-based study on prevalence and risk factors of gastroesophageal reflux disease in the Tibet autonomous region, China. PeerJ 2019;7:e6491.
    CrossRef
  16. Tan VP, Wong BC, Wong WM, et al. gastroesophageal reflux disease: cross-sectional study demonstrating rising prevalence in a Chinese population. J Clin Gastroenterol 2016;50:e1-e7.
    CrossRef
  17. Cai ST, Wang LY, Sun G, et al. Overlap of gastroesophageal reflux disease and functional bowel disorders in the general Chinese rural population. J Dig Dis 2015;16:395-399.
    CrossRef
  18. Murase K, Tabara Y, Takahashi Y, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and dietary behaviors are significant correlates of short sleep duration in the general population: the Nagahama study. Sleep 2014;37:1809-1815.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Min BH, Huh KC, Jung HK, et al. Prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease in Korea: a population-based study using the rome III criteria. Dig Dis Sci 2014;59:2721-2729.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Niu CY, Zhou YL, Yan R, et al. Incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease in Uygur and Han Chinese adults in Urumqi. World J Gastroenterol 2012;18:7333-7340.
    CrossRef
  21. Hung LJ, Hsu PI, Yang CY, Wang EM, Lai KH. Prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease in a general population in Taiwan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;26:1164-1168.
    CrossRef
  22. He J, Ma X, Zhao Y, et al. A population-based survey of the epidemiology of symptom-defined gastroesophageal reflux disease: the systematic investigation of gastrointestinal diseases in China. BMC Gastroenterol 2010;10:94.
    CrossRef
  23. Min YW, Shin YW, Cheon GJ, et al. Recurrence and its impact on the health-related quality of life in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a prospective follow-up analysis. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2016;22:86-93.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  24. Hetzel DJ, Dent J, Reed WD, et al. Healing and relapse of severe peptic esophagitis after treatment with omeprazole. Gastroenterology 1988;95:903-912.
    CrossRef
  25. Lind T, Havelund T, Lundell L, et al. On demand therapy with omeprazole for the long-term management of patients with heartburn without oesophagitis--a placebo-controlled randomized trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999;13:907-914.
    CrossRef
  26. Katz PO, Gerson LB, Vela MF. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:308-328.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Iwakiri K, Fujiwara Y, Manabe N, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for gastroesophageal reflux disease 2021. J Gastroenterol 2022;57:267-285.
    CrossRef
  28. Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, Greer KB, Yadlapati R, Spechler SJ. ACG clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117:27-56.
    CrossRef
  29. Jung HK, Hong SJ, Jo YJ, et al. [Updated guidelines 2012 for gastroesophageal reflux disease.]. Korean J Gastroenterol 2012;60:195-218. [Korean].
    CrossRef
  30. Jung DH, Youn YH, Jung HK, et al. On-demand versus continuous maintenance treatment with a proton pump inhibitor for mild gastroesophageal reflux disease: a prospective randomized multicenter study. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2023;29:460-469.
    CrossRef
  31. Cho JH, Koo JY, Kim KO, Lee SH, Jang BI, Kim TN. On-demand versus half-dose continuous therapy with esomeprazole for maintenance treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized comparative study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e12732.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  32. Bayerdörffer E, Bigard MA, Weiss W, et al. Randomized, multicenter study: on-demand versus continuous maintenance treatment with esomeprazole in patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease. BMC Gastroenterol 2016;16:48.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  33. Nagahara A, Hojo M, Asaoka D, Sasaki H, Watanabe S. A randomized prospective study comparing the efficacy of on-demand therapy versus continuous therapy for 6 months for long-term maintenance with omeprazole 20 mg in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease in Japan. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014;49:409-417.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  34. Szucs T, Thalmann C, Michetti P, Beglinger C. Cost analysis of long-term treatment of patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with esomeprazole on-demand treatment or esomeprazole continuous treatment: an open, randomized, multicenter study in Switzerland. Value Health 2009;12:273-281.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  35. Morgan DG, O'Mahony MF, O'Mahony WF, et al. Maintenance treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: an evaluation of continuous and on-demand therapy with rabeprazole 20 mg. Can J Gastroenterol 2007;21:820-826.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  36. Bour B, Staub JL, Chousterman M, et al. Long-term treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients with frequent symptomatic relapses using rabeprazole: on-demand treatment compared with continuous treatment. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005;21:805-812.
    CrossRef
  37. Janssen W, Meier E, Gatz G, Pfaffenberger B. Effects of pantoprazole 20 mg in mildgastroesophageal reflux disease: once-daily treatment in the acute phase, and comparison of on-demand versus continuous treatment in the long term. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2005;66:345-363.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  38. Tsai HH, Chapman R, Shepherd A, et al. Esomeprazole 20 mg on-demand is more acceptable to patients than continuous lansoprazole 15 mg in the long-term maintenance of endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux patients: the COMMAND study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;20:657-665.
    CrossRef
  39. Kang SJ, Jung HK, Tae CH, Kim SY, Lee KJ. On-demand versus continuous maintenance treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease with proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2022;28:5-14.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  40. Huh CW, Son NH, Youn YH, et al. Real-world prescription patterns and patient satisfaction regarding maintenance therapy of gastroesophageal reflux disease: an observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2023;29:470-477.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  41. Mishuk AU, Chen L, Gaillard P, Westrick S, Hansen RA, Qian J. National trends in prescription proton pump inhibitor use and expenditure in the United States in 2002-2017. J Am Pharm Assoc 2021;61:87-94, e7.
    CrossRef
  42. Schnoll-Sussman F, Niec R, Katz PO. Proton pump inhibitors: the good, bad, and ugly. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2020;30:239-251.
    CrossRef
  43. Schubert ML. Adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors: fact or fake news?. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2018;34:451-457.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Ma C, Shaheen AA, Congly SE, Andrews CN, Moayyedi P, Forbes N. Interpreting reported risks associated with use of proton pump inhibitors: residual confounding in a 10-year analysis of national ambulatory data. Gastroenterology 2020;158:780-782, e3.
    CrossRef
  45. Veettil SK, Sadoyu S, Bald EM, et al. Association of proton-pump inhibitor use with adverse health outcomes: a systematic umbrella review of meta-analyses of cohort studies and randomised controlled trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2022;88:1551-1566.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  46. Freedberg DE, Kim LS, Yang YX. The risks and benefits of long-term use of proton pump inhibitors: expert review and best practice advice from the American gastroenterological association. Gastroenterology 2017;152:706-715.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  47. Hussain S, Siddiqui AN, Habib A, Hussain MS, Najmi AK. Proton pump inhibitors' use and risk of hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatol Int 2018;38:1999-2014.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  48. Nassar Y, Richter S. Proton-pump inhibitor use and fracture risk: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Metab 2018;25:141-151.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  49. Liu J, Li X, Fan L, et al. Proton pump inhibitors therapy and risk of bone diseases: an update meta-analysis. Life Sci 2019;218:213-223.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  50. Poly TN, Islam MM, Yang HC, Wu CC, Li YJ. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of hip fracture: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Osteoporos Int 2019;30:103-114.
    CrossRef
  51. Melloni C, Washam JB, Jones WS, et al. Conflicting results between randomized trials and observational studies on the impact of proton pump inhibitors on cardiovascular events when coadministered with dual antiplatelet therapy: systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2015;8:47-55.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  52. Serbin MA, Guzauskas GF, Veenstra DL. Clopidogrel-proton pump inhibitor drug-drug interaction and risk of adverse clinical outcomes among PCI-treated ACS patients: a meta-analysis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2016;22:939-947.
    CrossRef
  53. Frelinger AL 3rd, Lee RD, Mulford DJ, et al. A randomized, 2-period, crossover design study to assess the effects of dexlansoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and omeprazole on the steady-state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of clopidogrel in healthy volunteers. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:1304-1311.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  54. Li XQ, Andersson TB, Ahlström M, Weidolf L. comparison of inhibitory effects of the proton pump-inhibiting drugs omeprazole, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole on human cytochrome P450 activities. Drug Metab Dispos 2004;32:821-827.
    CrossRef
  55. Bhatt DL, Cryer BL, Contant CF, et al. Clopidogrel with or without omeprazole in coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1909-1917.
    CrossRef
  56. Luo X, Hou M, He S, et al. efficacy and safety of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors with aspirin-clopidogrel dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol 2022;13:1021584.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  57. Shi W, Yan L, Yang J, Yu M. Ethnic variance on long term clinical outcomes of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel in patients with stent implantation: a PRISMA-complaint systematic review with meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021;100:e24366.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  58. Demcsák A, Lantos T, Bálint ER, et al. PPIs are not responsible for elevating cardiovascular risk in patients on clopidogrel-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Physiol 2018;9:1550.
    CrossRef
  59. Schubert ML. Physiologic, pathophysiologic, and pharmacologic regulation of gastric acid secretion. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2017;33:430-438.
    CrossRef
  60. Moayyedi P, Eikelboom JW, Bosch J, et al. Safety of proton pump inhibitors based on a large, multi-year, randomized trial of patients receiving rivaroxaban or aspirin. Gastroenterology 2019;157:682-691, e2.
    CrossRef
  61. Mehta P, Nahass RG, Brunetti L. Acid suppression medications during hospitalization as a risk factor for recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2021;73:e62-e68.
    CrossRef
  62. Arriola V, Tischendorf J, Musuuza J, Barker A, Rozelle JW, Safdar N. Assessing the risk of hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection with proton pump inhibitor use: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:1408-1417.
    CrossRef
  63. D'Silva KM, Mehta R, Mitchell M, et al. Proton pump inhibitor use and risk for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2021;27:697-703.
    CrossRef
  64. Oshima T, Wu L, Li M, Fukui H, Watari J, Miwa H. Magnitude and direction of the association between Clostridium difficile infection and proton pump inhibitors in adults and pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol 2018;53:84-94.
    CrossRef
  65. Cao F, Chen CX, Wang M, et al. Updated meta-analysis of controlled observational studies: proton-pump inhibitors and risk of Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect 2018;98:4-13.
    CrossRef
  66. Trifan A, Stanciu C, Girleanu I, et al. Proton pump inhibitors therapy and risk of Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2017;23:6500-6515.
    CrossRef
  67. Tawam D, Baladi M, Jungsuwadee P, Earl G, Han J. The positive association between proton pump inhibitors and Clostridium difficile infection. Innov Pharm 2021;12:10.24926/iip.v12i1.3439.
    CrossRef
  68. Ahn N, Nolde M, Günter A, et al. Emulating a target trial of proton pump inhibitors and dementia risk using claims data. Eur J Neurol 2022;29:1335-1343.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  69. Lin HC, Huang KT, Lin HL, et al. Use of gastric acid-suppressive agents increases the risk of dementia in patients with upper gastrointestinal disease: a population-based retrospective cohort study. PLoS One 2021;16:e0249050.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  70. Wu CL, Lei WY, Wang JS, Lin CE, Chen CL, Wen SH. Acid suppressants use and the risk of dementia: a population-based propensity score-matched cohort study. PLoS One 2020;15:e0242975.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  71. Torres-Bondia F, Dakterzada F, Galvan L, et al. Proton pump inhibitors and the risk of Alzheimer's disease and non-Alzheimer's dementias. Sci Rep 2020;10:21046.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  72. Chen LY, Lin HJ, Wu WT, et al. clinical use of acid suppressants and risk of dementia in the elderly: a pharmaco-epidemiological cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:8271.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  73. Park SK, Baek YH, Pratt N, Kalisch Ellett L, Shin JY. the uncertainty of the association between proton pump inhibitor use and the risk of dementia: prescription sequence symmetry analysis using a Korean healthcare database between 2002 and 2013. Drug Saf 2018;41:615-624.
    CrossRef
  74. Hwang IC, Chang J, Park SM. A nationwide population-based cohort study of dementia risk among acid suppressant users. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2018;26:1175-1183.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  75. Gray SL, Walker RL, Dublin S, et al. Proton pump inhibitor use and dementia risk: prospective population-based study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2018;66:247-253.
    CrossRef
  76. Tai SY, Chien CY, Wu DC, et al. Risk of dementia from proton pump inhibitor use in Asian population: a nationwide cohort study in Taiwan. PLoS One 2017;12:e0171006.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  77. Gomm W, von Holt K, Thomé F, et al. Association of proton pump inhibitors with risk of dementia: a pharmacoepidemiological claims data analysis. JAMA Neurol 2016;73:410-416.
    CrossRef
  78. Haenisch B, von Holt K, Wiese B, et al. Risk of dementia in elderly patients with the use of proton pump inhibitors. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2015;265:419-428.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  79. Ahn N, Nolde M, Krause E, et al. Do proton pump inhibitors increase the risk of dementia? A systematic review, meta-analysis and bias analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2023;89:602-616.
    CrossRef
  80. Chen HL, Lei WY, Wang JH, Bair MJ, Chen CL. Proton pump inhibitor use and the risk for parkinson's disease: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023;102:e33711.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  81. Hong JT, Jung HK, Lee KJ, et al. Potential risk of proton pump inhibitors for parkinson's disease: a nationwide nested case-control study. PLoS One 2023;18:e0295981.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  82. Kim JH, Oh JK, Kim YH, Kwon MJ, Kim JH, Choi HG. association between proton pump inhibitor use and parkinson's disease in a Korean population. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2022;15:327.
    CrossRef
  83. Lai SW, Liao KF, Lin CL, Lin CH. association between parkinson's disease and proton pump inhibitors therapy in older people. Biomedicine (Taipei) 2020;10:1-4.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  84. Rojo LE, Alzate-Morales J, Saavedra IN, Davies P, Maccioni RB. Selective interaction of lansoprazole and astemizole with tau polymers: potential new clinical use in diagnosis of alzheimer's disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2010;19:573-589.
    CrossRef
  85. Badiola N, Alcalde V, Pujol A, et al. The proton-pump inhibitor lansoprazole enhances amyloid beta production. PLoS One 2013;8:e58837.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  86. Ruffenach SJ, Siskind MS, Lien YH. Acute interstitial nephritis due to omeprazole. Am J Med 1992;93:472-473.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  87. Muriithi AK, Leung N, Valeri AM, et al. Biopsy-proven acute interstitial nephritis, 1993-2011: a case series. Am J Kidney Dis 2014;64:558-566.
    CrossRef
  88. Moledina DG, Perazella MA. PPIs and kidney disease: from AIN to CKD. J Nephrol 2016;29:611-616.
    CrossRef
  89. Klepser DG, Collier DS, Cochran GL. Proton pump inhibitors and acute kidney injury: a nested case-control study. BMC Nephrol 2013;14:150.
    CrossRef
  90. Antoniou T, Macdonald EM, Hollands S, et al. Proton pump inhibitors and the risk of acute kidney injury in older patients: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ Open 2015;3:E166-E171.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  91. Hart E, Dunn TE, Feuerstein S, Jacobs DM. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of acute and chronic kidney disease: a retrospective cohort study. Pharmacotherapy 2019;39:443-453.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  92. Lazarus B, Chen Y, Wilson FP, et al. Proton pump inhibitor use and the risk of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:238-246.
    CrossRef
  93. Peng YC, Lin CL, Yeh HZ, Chang CS, Wu YL, Kao CH. Association Between the Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and the Risk of ESRD in Renal Diseases: A Population-Based, Case-Control Study. Medicine 2016;95:e3363.
    CrossRef
  94. Nochaiwong S, Ruengorn C, Awiphan R, et al. The association between proton pump inhibitor use and the risk of adverse kidney outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2018;33:331-342.
    CrossRef
  95. Tamim H, Duranceau A, Chen LQ, Lelorier J. Association between use of acid-suppressive drugs and risk of gastric cancer. A nested case-control study. Drug Saf 2008;31:675-684.
    CrossRef
  96. Wennerström ECM, Simonsen J, Camargo MC, Rabkin CS. Acid-suppressing therapies and subsite-specific risk of stomach cancer. Br J Cancer 2017;116:1234-1238.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  97. Lai SW, Lai HC, Lin CL, Liao KF. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of gastric cancer in a case-control study. Gut 2019;68:765-767.
    CrossRef
  98. Liu P, McMenamin ÚC, Johnston BT, et al. Use of proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists and risk of gastric cancer in two population-based studies. Br J Cancer 2020;123:307-315.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  99. Lee JK, Merchant SA, Schneider JL, et al. Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of gastric, colorectal, liver, and pancreatic cancers in a community-based population. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:706-715.
    CrossRef
  100. Seo SI, Park CH, You SC, et al. Association between proton pump inhibitor use and gastric cancer: a population-based cohort study using two different types of nationwide databases in Korea. Gut 2021;70:2066-2075.
    CrossRef
  101. Niikura R, Hayakawa Y, Hirata Y, Yamada A, Fujishiro M, Koike K. Long-term proton pump inhibitor use is a risk factor of gastric cancer after treatment for Helicobacter pylori: a retrospective cohort analysis. Gut 2018;67:1908-1910.
    CrossRef
  102. Cheung KS, Chan EW, Wong AYS, Chen L, Wong ICK, Leung WK. Long-term proton pump inhibitors and risk of gastric cancer development after treatment for Helicobacter pylori: a population-based study. Gut 2018;67:28-35.
    CrossRef
  103. Kim JW, Jung HK, Lee B, et al. Risk of gastric cancer among long-term proton pump inhibitor users: a population-based cohort study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2023;79:1699-1708.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  104. Dacha S, Razvi M, Massaad J, Cai Q, Wehbi M. Hypergastrinemia. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 2015;3:201-208.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  105. Lundell L, Vieth M, Gibson F, Nagy P, Kahrilas PJ. Systematic review: the effects of long-term proton pump inhibitor use on serum gastrin levels and gastric histology. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;42:649-663.106.
    CrossRef
  106. Zhuang K, Yan Y, Zhang X, Zhang J, Zhang L, Han K. Gastrin promotes the metastasis of gastric carcinoma through the β-catenin/TCF-4 pathway. Oncol Rep 2016;36:1369-1376.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  107. Ferraro G, Annibale B, Marignani M, et al. Effectiveness of octreotide in controlling fasting hypergastrinemia and related enterochromaffin-like cell growth. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996;81:677-683.
    CrossRef
  108. Burkitt MD, Varro A, Pritchard DM. Importance of gastrin in the pathogenesis and treatment of gastric tumors. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:1-16.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  109. Wroblewski LE, Peek RM Jr, Coburn LA. The role of the microbiome in gastrointestinal cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2016;45:543-556.
    CrossRef
  110. Hooi JKY, Lai WY, Ng WK, et al. Global prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2017;153:420-429.
    CrossRef
  111. Mukaisho K, Nakayama T, Hagiwara T, Hattori T, Sugihara H. Two distinct etiologies of gastric cardia adenocarcinoma: interactions among pH, Helicobacter pylori, and bile acids. Front Microbiol 2015;6:412.
    CrossRef
  112. Gong EJ, Jung HK, Lee B, et al. Proton pump inhibitor use and the risk of metachronous gastric cancer after H. pylori eradication in patients who underwent endoscopic resection for gastric neoplasms: a population-based cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2023;58:668-677.
    CrossRef


This Article


Cited By Articles
  • CrossRef (0)

Author ORCID Information

Services

Social Network Service

e-submission

Archives

Aims and Scope