4.8 Article

Proton pump inhibitors and risk of gastric cancer: population-based cohort study

Journal

GUT
Volume 71, Issue 1, Pages 16-24

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-325097

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [FDN-143328]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that the use of PPIs is associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer compared with the use of H2RAs, although the absolute risk remains low.
Objective To determine whether new users of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are at an increased risk of gastric cancer compared with new users of histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs). Design Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we conducted a population-based cohort study using a new-user active comparator design. From 1 January 1990 to 30 April 2018, we identified 973 281 new users of PPIs and 193 306 new users of H2RAs. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate HRs and 95% Cls of gastric cancer, and the number needed to harm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The models were weighted using standardised mortality ratio weights using calendar time-specific propensity scores. Secondary analyses assessed duration and dose-response associations. Results After a median follow-up of 5.0 years, the use of PPIs was associated with a 45% increased risk of gastric cancer compared with the use of H2RAs (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.98). The number needed to harm was 2121 and 1191 for five and 10 years after treatment initiation, respectively. The HRs increased with cumulative duration, cumulative omeprazole equivalents and time since treatment initiation. The results were consistent across several sensitivity analyses. Conclusion The findings of this large population-based cohort study indicate that the use of PPIs is associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer compared with the use of H2RAs, although the absolute risk remains low.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available