Dataset Information

Use of acid-suppressive drugs and risk of pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Observational studies and randomized controlled trials have yielded inconsistent findings about the association between the use of acid-suppressive drugs and the risk of pneumonia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize this association.

Methods

We searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE [PubMed], Embase and the Cochrane Library) from inception to Aug. 28, 2009. Two evaluators independently extracted data. Because of heterogeneity, we used random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled estimates of effect.

Results

We identified 31 studies: five case-control studies, three cohort studies and 23 randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis of the eight observational studies showed that the overall risk of pneumonia was higher among people using proton pump inhibitors (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.46, I(2) 90.5%) and histamine(2) receptor antagonists (adjusted OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.36, I(2) 0.0%). In the randomized controlled trials, use of histamine(2) receptor antagonists was associated with an elevated risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (relative risk 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.48, I(2) 30.6%).

Interpretation

Use of a proton pump inhibitor or histamine(2) receptor antagonist may be associated with an increased risk of both community- and hospital-acquired pneumonia. Given these potential adverse effects, clinicians should use caution in prescribing acid-suppressive drugs for patients at risk.

SUBMITTER: Eom CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3042441 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of acid-suppressive drugs and risk of pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Eom Chun-Sick CS Jeon Christie Y CY Lim Ju-Won JW Cho Eun-Geol EG Park Sang Min SM Lee Kang-Sook KS

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20101220 3

<h4>Background</h4>Observational studies and randomized controlled trials have yielded inconsistent findings about the association between the use of acid-suppressive drugs and the risk of pneumonia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize this association.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE [PubMed], Embase and the Cochrane Library) from inception to Aug. 28, 2009. Two evaluators independently extracted data. Because of heterogeneity, we used ...[more]

PMID: 21173070

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review longitudinal studies evaluating use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and risk of pneumonia.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline through PubMed, Web of Science with conference proceedings (inception to June 2011), and US Food and Drug Administration website (June 2011). Systematic reviews and references of retrieved articles were also searched.Study selectionTwo reviewers independently selected randomised controlled trials and cohort and case-control studies evaluating the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and risk of pneumonia and retrieved characteristics of the studies and data estimates.Data synthesisThe primary outcome was incidence of pneumonia and the secondary outcome was pneumonia related mortality. Subgroup analyses were carried according to baseline morbidities (stroke, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease) and patients' characteristics (Asian and non-Asian). Pooled estimates of odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived by random effects meta-analysis. Adjusted frequentist indirect comparisons between ACE inhibitors and ARBs were estimated and combined with direct evidence whenever available. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) test.Results37 eligible studies were included. ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia compared with control treatment (19 studies: odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.80; I(2) = 79%) and ARBs (combined direct and indirect odds ratio estimate 0.69, 0.56 to 0.85). In patients with stroke, the risk of pneumonia was also lower in those treated with ACE inhibitors compared with control treatment (odds ratio 0.46, 0.34 to 0.62) and ARBs (0.42, 0.22 to 0.80). ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia among Asian patients (0.43, 0.34 to 0.54) compared with non-Asian patients (0.82, 0.67 to 1.00; P<0.001). Compared with control treatments, both ACE inhibitors (seven studies: odds ratio 0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; I(2)=51%) and ARBs (one randomised controlled trial: 0.63, 0.40 to 1.00) were associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, without differences between interventions.ConclusionsThe best evidence available points towards a putative protective role of ACE inhibitors but not ARBs in risk of pneumonia. Patient populations that may benefit most are those with previous stroke and Asian patients. ACE inhibitors were also associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, but the data lacked strength.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The effect of antipsychotic (AP) drugs on risk of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) remains unclear due to methodological limitations of, and inconsistencies across, existing studies. We aimed to systematically review studies reporting on the associations between AP drug use and stroke or MI risk, and to investigate whether associations differed among different sub-populations. METHODS:We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Cochrane Library (from inception to May 28, 2017) for observational studies reporting on AP drug use and MI or stroke occurrence. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for each outcome, performing sub-groups analyses by study population - specifically general population (i.e. those not restricted to patients with a particular indication for AP drug use), people with dementia only and psychiatric illness only. Where feasible we performed subgroup analyses by AP drug class. RESULTS:From 7008 articles, we included 29 relevant observational studies, 19 on stroke and 10 on MI. Results of cohort studies that included a general population indicated a more than two-fold increased risk of stroke, albeit with substantial heterogeneity (pooled HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.13, 4.74, I2 = 83.2%). However, the risk among patients with dementia was much lower, with no heterogeneity (pooled HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00, 1.33, I2 = 0%) and there was no clear association among studies of psychiatric populations (pooled HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.90, 2.30; substantial heterogeneity [I2 = 78.8])). Associations generally persisted when stratifying by AP class, but few studies reported on first generation AP drugs. We found no association between AP drug use and MI risk (pooled HR for cohort studies: 1.29, 95% CI 0.88, 1.90 and case-control studies: 1.07, 95% CI 0.94, 1.23), but substantial methodological and statistical heterogeneity among a relatively small number of studies limits firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS:AP drug use may be associated with an increased risk of stroke, but there is no clear evidence that this risk is further elevated in patients with dementia. Further studies are need to clarify the effect of AP drug use on MI and stroke risk in different sub-populations and should control for confounding by indication and stratify by AP drug class.

Project description:ObjectiveMany studies have previously investigated the potential association between mobile phone use and the risk of glioma. However, results from these individual studies are inconclusive and controversial. The objective of our study was to investigate the potential association between mobile phone use and subsequent glioma risk using meta-analysis.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of the Science Citation Index Embase and PubMed databases for studies reporting relevant data on mobile phone use and glioma in 1980-2016. The data were extracted and measured in terms of the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effects model. Subgroup analyses were also carried out. This meta-analysis eventually included 11 studies comprising a total 6028 cases and 11488 controls.ResultsThere was a significant positive association between long-term mobile phone use (minimum, 10 years) and glioma (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.08-1.91). And there was a significant positive association between long-term ipsilateral mobile phone use and the risk of glioma (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.12-1.92). Long-term mobile phone use was associated with 2.22 times greater odds of low-grade glioma occurrence (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.69-2.92). Mobile phone use of any duration was not associated with the odds of high-grade glioma (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.72-0.92). Contralateral mobile phone use was not associated with glioma regardless of the duration of use. Similarly, this association was not observed when the analysis was limited to high-grade glioma.ConclusionsOur results suggest that long-term mobile phone use may be associated with an increased risk of glioma. There was also an association between mobile phone use and low-grade glioma in the regular use or long-term use subgroups. However, current evidence is of poor quality and limited quantity. It is therefore necessary to conduct large sample, high quality research or better characterization of any potential association between long-term ipsilateral mobile phone use and glioma risk.

Project description:Objective To explore if there is an increased cancer risk associated with folic acid supplements given orally. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies of folic acid supplementation in humans reporting cancer incidence and/or cancer mortality. Studies on folic acid fortification of foods were not included. Data sources Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and Centre of Reviews and Dissemination, clinical trial registries and hand-searching of key journals. Results From 4104 potential references, 19 studies contributed data to our meta-analyses, including 12 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Meta-analysis of the 10 RCTs reporting overall cancer incidence (N=38?233) gave an RR of developing cancer in patients randomised to folic acid supplements of 1.07 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.14) compared to controls. Overall cancer incidence was not reported in the seven observational studies. Meta-analyses of six RCTs reporting prostate cancer incidence showed an RR of prostate cancer of 1.24 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.49) for the men receiving folic acid compared to controls. No significant difference in cancer incidence was shown between groups receiving folic acid and placebo/control group, for any other cancer type. Total cancer mortality was reported in six RCTs, and a meta-analysis of these did not show any significant difference in cancer mortality in folic acid supplemented groups compared to controls (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30). None of the observational studies addressed mortality. Conclusions A meta-analysis of 10 RCTs showed a borderline significant increase in frequency of overall cancer in the folic acid group compared to controls. Overall cancer incidence was not reported in the seven observational studies. Prostate cancer was the only cancer type found to be increased after folic acid supplementation (meta-analyses of six RCTs). Prospective studies of cancer development in populations where food is fortified with folic acid could indicate whether fortification similar to supplementation moderately increases prostate cancer risk.

Dataset Information

Use of acid-suppressive drugs and risk of pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Use of acid-suppressive drugs and risk of pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets