4.7 Article

Long-Term Proton Pump Inhibitor Use Is Not Associated With Changes in Bone Strength and Structure

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 112, Issue 1, Pages 95-101

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2016.481

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Priority Award in Osteoporosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES : Multiple studies have reported an association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and fracture. However, the causality of this association is questionable, as there is not a well defined mechanism of action, nor is there evidence of an effect on PPIs on areal bone mineral density (aBMD) using dual photon X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). It is possible that PPIs may induce changes in bone structure which would predispose to fracture in the absence of changes in aBMD. We used three-dimensional quantitative computed tomography (3D-QCT) imaging to determine if long-term PPI use was associated with structural changes in bone independent of aBMD. METHODS: We enrolled a sample of long-term (>= 5 years) PPI users matched to a similar cohort of persons with no PPI use in the previous 5 years. All subjects underwent assessment of aBMD using DXA, volumetric BMD using 3D-QCT, as well as markers of bone metabolism. Measures of bone strength, including buckling ratio and section modulus, were also compared between the two samples. RESULTS: 104 subjects were enrolled (52 PPI users and 52 PPI non-users). There were no differences detected in standard BMD, volumetric BMD, markers of bone metabolism or measures of bone strength between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term PPI use is not associated with any changes in bone mineral density or bone strength that would predispose to an increased risk of fracture. These findings provide further evidence that the association between PPI use and fracture is not causal.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available