Proton Pump Inhibitors and Survival in Patients With Colorectal Cancer Receiving Fluoropyrimidine-Based Chemotherapy

Impact of proton pump inhibitors on pathologic response rates following fluoropyrimidine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) negatively impact fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy efficacy in colorectal cancer. This study assessed PPI impact on major pathologic response (mPR) rates of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients receiving fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

An institutional retrospective review of resected PDAC patients receiving neoadjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (98% FOLFIRINOX) from 2011 to 2021 was conducted. Outcomes were stratified by use or nonuse of PPIs within 6 months of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation. Primary outcome was mPR defined as complete or near complete response.

RESULTS

Among 540 patients included, the median age was 64 (IQR: 60-70) years, 297 (55%) were male, and 202 (37%) were PPI users. 170 (31%) patients had mPR with similar rates among PPI users and nonusers (29% vs. 33%, p = 0.38). No difference in mPR was seen between PPI users and nonusers receiving chemoradiation (35% vs. 36%, p = 0.89) or ≥8 cycles of NAC (33% vs. 36%, p = 0.55). Median OS for PPI users was 30.9 versus 31.7 months for nonusers (p = 0.62). On multivariable analysis, PPI therapy was not associated with decreased survival.

CONCLUSION

PPI usage did not significantly influence mPR or OS following neoadjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in resected PDAC patients. Further analysis of all patients, not just those who underwent resection, is required.

Proton Pump Inhibitors and Oral-Gut Microbiota: From Mechanism to Clinical Significance

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are some of the most commonly prescribed drugs worldwide, but there are increasing concerns about digestive complications linked to PPIs. Next-generation sequencing studies have suggested that PPIs can significantly affect the composition of the gut microbiota, which in turn may substantially contribute to the development of these complications. Recently, emerging evidence has suggested that the translocation of oral microbes into the gut may be the primary mechanism underlying the alterations in the gut microbiota induced by PPIs in the presence of gastric acid suppression and impaired oral-gut barrier function. Moreover, the significance of oral-gut microbial translocation in health and disease conditions has gained increasing recognition. Consequently, it is imperative to enhance our understanding of the functions of the oral-gut microbiota axis in digestive disorders associated with PPI therapies. This review aims to summarize current research findings and further elucidate the contribution of the oral-gut microbiota to the pathogenesis of PPI-related digestive diseases. We aim to provide a theoretical foundation for future therapeutic and preventive strategies targeting PPI-related digestive complications through modulation of the oral-gut microbiota.

Proton pump inhibitors and cancer treatments: Emerging evidence against coadministration

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used in cancer patients despite accumulating data showing that they can impact the efficacy of major anticancer drugs. This is particularly important with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs).

RESULTS

Most TKIs require gastric acidity for their absorption and some retrospective series demonstrated that coprescription decreases the survival benefit of some TKI use (erlotinib, gefitinib and pazopanib). Relations between microbiota, the immune system, and the efficacy of immunotherapy are now obvious, just as modifications to gut flora after PPIs use are well-known. Many retrospective articles, including articles based on individual-participant data from randomized studies, demonstrated that patients treated with CPIs have a poorer outcome (overall survival, progression-free survival and response rate) when they received PPIs concomitantly, while there was no impact of such coprescription among patients in control arms, not treated with immunotherapies. Similar data were also observed in patients treated with palbociclib.

CONCLUSION

For these interactions, it is very important to use the precautionary principle and warn patients and physicians about this. In patients who require acid suppression because of severe symptoms, using antacids or H2 blockers could be recommended.

Lansoprazole (LPZ) reverses multidrug resistance (MDR) in cancer through impeding ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter-mediated chemotherapeutic drug efflux and lysosomal sequestration

AIMS

Lansoprazole is one of the many proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) that acts more strongly with ABCB1 and ABCG2. The present study is to investigate the potential of lansoprazole on reversal of ABCB1/G2-mediated MDR in cancer, in vitro and in vivo.

METHODS

Reversal studies and combination evaluation were conducted to determine the synergistic anti-MDR effects on lansoprazole. Lysosomal staining was used to determination of lansoprazole on ABCB1-mediated lysosomal sequestration. Substrate accumulation and efflux assays, ATPase activity, and molecular docking were conducted to evaluate lansoprazole on ABCB1/G2 functions. Western blot and immunofluorescence were used to detect lansoprazole on ABCB1/G2 expression and subcellular localization. MDR nude mice models were established to evaluate the effects of lansoprazole on MDR in vivo.

RESULTS

Lansoprazole attenuated ABCB1/G2-mediated MDR and exhibited synergistic effects with substrate drugs in MDR cells. In vivo experiments demonstrated that lansoprazole attenuated ABCB1/G2-mediated MDR and exhibited synergistic effects that augmented the sensitivity of substrate anticancer drugs in ABCB1/G2-mediated settings without obvious toxicity. Lansoprazole impeded lysosomal sequestration mediated by ABCB1, leading to a substantial increase in intracellular accumulation of substrate drugs. The effects of lansoprazole were not attributable to downregulation or alterations in subcellular localization of ABCB1/G2. Lansoprazole promoted the ATPase activity of ABCB1/G2 and competitively bound to the substrate-binding region of ABCB1/G2.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings present novel therapeutic avenues whereby the combination of lansoprazole and chemotherapeutic agents mitigates MDR mediated by ABCB1/G2 overexpression.

Compared to histamine-2 receptor antagonist, proton pump inhibitor induces stronger oral-to-gut microbial transmission and gut microbiome alterations: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We aim to compare the effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) on the gut microbiota through longitudinal analysis.

DESIGN

Healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive either PPI (n=23) or H2RA (n=26) daily for seven consecutive days. We collected oral (saliva) and faecal samples before and after the intervention for metagenomic next-generation sequencing. We analysed intervention-induced alterations in the oral and gut microbiome including microbial abundance and growth rates, oral-to-gut transmissions, and compared differences between the PPI and H2RA groups.

RESULTS

Both interventions disrupted the gut microbiota, with PPIs demonstrating more pronounced effects. PPI usage led to a significantly higher extent of oral-to-gut transmission and promoted the growth of specific oral microbes in the gut. This led to a significant increase in both the number and total abundance of oral species present in the gut, including the identification of known disease-associated species like Fusobacterium nucleatum and Streptococcus anginosus. Overall, gut microbiome-based machine learning classifiers could accurately distinguish PPI from non-PPI users, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.924, in contrast to an AUROC of 0.509 for H2RA versus non-H2RA users.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides evidence that PPIs have a greater impact on the gut microbiome and oral-to-gut transmission than H2RAs, shedding light on the mechanism underlying the higher risk of certain diseases associated with prolonged PPI use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2300072310.

The effect of concomitant proton pump inhibitor use on survival outcomes of Nivolumab-treated renal cell carcinoma patients: a multicenter study

AIM

We aimed to evaluate the effect of concomitant proton pump inhibitors (PPI) use with nivolumab on survival outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in second-line setting.

METHODS

The study was designed as a multicenter and retrospective involving patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving second-line nivolumab therapy. One hundred and nine patients with mRCC were divided into two groups based on whether they use PPI concomitantly with nivolumab: concomitant PPI users and non-users. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between the groups with and without concurrent PPIs.

RESULTS

Of 109 patients in our study, 59 were not using PPI concomitantly with nivolumab and 50 were using PPI concomitantly. The median PFS was 6.37 (5.2-7.5) months in the concomitant PPI group and 9.7 (4.5-15) months in the non-users (p = 0.03). The median OS was 14.6 (7.1-22.1) months in patients on PPI concurrently with nivolumab and 29.9 (17.1-42.7) months in the non-users (p = 0.01). Accordingly, PPI use for PFS (Non-use vs. Use = HR: 0.44, 95%Cl 0.28-0.96, p = 0.014) and PPI use for OS (Non-use vs. Use = HR: 0.68, 95%Cl 0.22-0.88, p = 0.01) were found to be as independent risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant use of PPIs is associated with worse survival outcomes in patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab. Clinicians should carefully consider the concomitant use of PPIs in such patients.

Drug-drug interactions with proton pump inhibitors in cancer patients: an underrecognized cause of treatment failure

New concepts and drugs have revolutionized medical treatment for cancers. These drugs, which are very expensive and usually well tolerated, have dramatically improved cancer prognosis. We must use them wisely for patients to fully benefit. Gastric acid antisecretory drugs and particularly proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) revolutionized the treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers and severe gastroesophageal reflux, but are frequently overused for symptomatic treatment of epigastric pain or heartburn. Long-term acid suppression may alter the efficacy of many anticancer drugs, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), by either decreasing gastric acid secretion and thus drug absorption, or by modifying the gut microbiome that modulates the response to ICIs. Oncologists thus need to pay particular attention to the concomitant use of PPIs and anticancer drugs. These interactions translate into major clinical impacts, with demonstrated loss of efficacy for some TKIs (erlotinib, gefitinib, pazopanib), and conflicting results with many other oral drugs, including capecitabine and CDK 4/6 inhibitors. Furthermore, the profound changes in the gut microbiome due to using PPIs have shown that the benefit of using ICIs may be suppressed in patients treated with PPIs. As the use of PPIs is not essential, we must apply the precautionary principle. The first sentence of a recent Comment in Nature was "Every day, millions of people are taking medications that will not help them". We fear that every day millions of cancer patients are taking medications that harm them. While this may well be only association and not causation, there is enough to make us pause until we reach a clear answer. All these data should encourage medical oncologists to refrain from prescribing PPIs, explaining to patients the risks of interaction in order to prevent inappropriate prescription by another physician.

The Association between Baseline Proton Pump Inhibitors, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, and Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Although emerging evidence suggests that proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-induced dysbiosis negatively alters treatment response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients, no study systematically investigates the association between PPIs, ICIs, and chemotherapy; (2) Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, and PubMed were searched from inception to 20 May 2022, to identify relevant studies involving patients receiving ICIs or chemotherapy and reporting survival outcome between PPI users and non-users. Survival outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Network meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. p-scores, with a value between 0 and 1, were calculated to quantify the treatment ranking, with a higher score suggesting a higher probability of greater effectiveness. We also conducted pairwise meta-analyses of observational studies to complement our network meta-analysis; (3) We identified 62 studies involving 26,484 patients (PPI = 8834; non-PPI = 17,650), including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial carcinoma (UC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the neck and head. Eight post-hoc analyses from 18 randomized-controlled trials were included in our network, which demonstrated that, in advanced NSCLC and UC, patients under ICI treatment with concomitant PPI (p-score: 0.2016) are associated with both poorer OS (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.37 to 1.67) and poorer PFS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.61) than those without PPIs (p-score: 1.000). Patients under ICI treatment with concomitant PPI also had poorer OS (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.31) and poorer PFS (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.48) in comparison with those receiving chemotherapy (p-score: 0.6664), implying that PPIs may compromise ICI's effectiveness, making it less effective than chemotherapy. Our pairwise meta-analyses also supported this association. Conversely, PPI has little effect on patients with advanced melanoma, RCC, HCC, and SCC of the neck and head who were treated with ICIs; (4) "PPI-induced dysbiosis" serves as a significant modifier of treatment response in both advanced NSCLC and UC that are treated with ICIs, compromising the effectiveness of ICIs to be less than that of chemotherapy. Thus, clinicians should avoid unnecessary PPI prescription in these patients. "PPI-induced dysbiosis", on the other hand, does not alter the treatment response to ICIs in advanced melanoma, RCC, HCC, and SCC of the head and neck.

Do proton pump inhibitors affect the effectiveness of chemotherapy in colorectal cancer patients? A systematic review with meta-analysis

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI), one of the most commonly prescribed medications, carry a myriad of adverse events. For colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, it still remains unclear whether the concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) would negatively affect chemotherapy. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 10 June 2022, to identify relevant studies involving CRC patients receiving chemotherapy and reporting comparative survival outcomes between PPI users and non-users. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. We identified 16 studies involving 8,188 patients (PPI = 1,789; non-PPI = 6,329) receiving either capecitabine-based or fluorouracil-based regimens. The overall survival (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.15; I2 = 0%) and progression-free survival (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.35; I2 = 29%) were similar between PPI users and non-users in patients taking capecitabine-based regimens, with low statis-tical heterogeneity. Although the subgroup analysis indicated that early-stage cancer patients taking capecitabine monotherapy with concurrent PPI had a significantly higher disease progression rate (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.21 to 3.16; I2 = 0%) than those who did not use PPIs, both groups had comparable all-cause mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.75 to 2.29; I2 = 0%). On the other hand, there was little difference in both OS and PFS in both early- and end-stage patients taking capecitabine combination therapy between PPI users and non-users. Conversely, the use of concomitant PPI in patients taking fluorouracil-based regimens contributed to a marginally significant higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.40; I2 = 74%), but with high statistical heterogeneity. In conclusion, PPI has little survival influence on CRC patients treated with capecitabine-based regimens, especially in patients taking capecitabine combination therapy. Thus, it should be safe for clinicians to prescribe PPI in these patients. Although patients treated with fluorouracil-based regimens with concomitant PPI trended toward higher all-cause mortality, results were subject to considerable heterogeneity. Systematic Review Registration: identifier https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022338161.

Re-thinking the possible interaction between proton pump inhibitors and capecitabine

Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI) rank within the top ten most prescribed medications in Europe and USA. A high frequency of PPI use has been reported amongst patients undergoing chemotherapy, to mitigate treatment-induced gastritis or gastro-oesophageal reflux. Several recent, mostly retrospective, observational studies have reported inferior survival outcomes among patients on capecitabine who concomitantly use PPI. Whilst this association is yet to be definitively established, given the prominence of capecitabine as an anti-cancer treatment with multiple indications, these reports have raised concern within the oncological community and drug regulatory bodies worldwide. Currently, the leading mechanism of interaction postulated in these reports has focussed on the pH altering effects of PPI and how this could diminish capecitabine absorption, leading to a decrease in its bioavailability. In this discourse, we endeavour to summarise plausible pharmacokinetic interactions between PPI and capecitabine. We provide a basis for our argument against the currently proposed mechanism of interaction. We also highlight the long-term effects of PPI on health outcomes, and how PPI use itself could lead to poorer outcomes, independent of capecitabine.

Association between the Co-administration of Histamine H2 Receptor Antagonists and the Effectiveness of Capecitabine in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: Propensity Score Analysis

Background: The association between the effectiveness of capecitabine and the concomitant administration of gastric acid suppressants remains controversial. We aimed to clarify whether the effectiveness of capecitabine is affected by the co-administration of histamine H₂ receptor antagonists (H₂RAs) in early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) patients using real-world data. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included consecutive patients with stage II-III CRC who received either capecitabine monotherapy or the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) as adjuvant therapy between January 2009 and December 2014 in Japan. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Additionally, multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, propensity score adjustment, and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were performed. Results: In total, 552 patients were included in this study, of which 30 were co-administered H₂RAs. RFS at five years was 76.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 57.2-88.1%) and 79.8% (95% CI: 76.0-83.0%) in the H₂RA and non-H₂RA groups, respectively. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score-adjusted analyses showed that the co-administration of H₂RAs was associated with a poor RFS among those receiving capecitabine monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI: 0.86-4.70 and HR, 1.81; 95% CI: 0.77-4.22, respectively). In contrast, these results were inconsistent with the group receiving the CapeOX regimen. Conclusions: The study findings suggest that the co-administration of H₂RAs may not reduce the effectiveness of capecitabine therapy in patients with early-stage CRC. To confirm this relationship, a prospective study with a pharmacokinetic approach is needed.

Moderne Antikoagulation mit FXa-Inhibitoren in der Onkologie: Ist die gastrointestinale Blutungsrate (mit)-entscheidend?

Das erhöhte Thrombose- und Blutungsrisiko bei aktiver Tumorerkrankung wird als sog. „thrombo-hämorrhagisches Syndrom“ bezeichnet, welches hohe Anforderungen an die Antikoagulation stellt. Aktuell liegen 4 randomisierte, prospektive Studien zum Einsatz von neuen, nicht Vitamin K-abhängigen oralen Antikoagulantien (NOAK) zur Behandlung von in der Onkologie aufgetretenen venösen Thromboembolien (VTE) vor. Dabei wurden die FXa-Inhibitoren Rivaroxaban, Edoxaban und zweimal Apixaban jeweils in einzelnen Studien gegenüber dem Standardtherapeutikum Dalteparin eingesetzt. Da es keinen direkten Head-to-Head-Vergleich der genannten FXa-Inhibitoren innerhalb einer Studie gibt, wurde zu jedem NOAK die jeweils größte Studie – stets verglichen gegenüber Dalteparin – ausgewertet. Die Studien wurden bzgl. ihrer Wirksamkeit, Sicherheit, fataler Blutungsraten, dem Risiko für gastrointestinale Blutungen (GIB) und sonstiger Unterschiede anhand deskriptiver Statistik analysiert. Unter Dalteparin ergab sich eine mittlere VTE-Rezidivrate von ca. 9% bei einem 6-monatigen Behandlungszeitraum. Alle 3 FXa-Inhibitoren waren gegenüber Dalteparin bezüglich der Wirksamkeit nicht unterlegen. Die VTE-Rezidivrate war bei mit Edoxaban und Apixaban behandelten Patienten um – 2,3% und bei Rivaroxaban um – 5,0% niedriger.

Bei der Sicherheit fanden sich – jeweils gegenüber Dalteparin – für Rivaroxaban und Edoxaban eine erhöhte Rate an schweren Blutungen (jeweils +2,4%); insbesondere war hierbei die Zahl GIB deutlich erhöht. Dagegen war für Apixaban die Zahl schwerer Blutungen, wie auch für verschiedene Blutungstypen inkl. GIB, nicht erhöht. In der Apixabanstudie war insgesamt die Rate von schweren GIB, die ca. 50% aller schweren Blutungen ausmachten, und die der klinisch-relevanten nicht schweren Blutungen, am niedrigsten. Die FXa-Inhibitoren sind der Standardtherapie mit Dalteparin in der VTE-Rezidivrate bei onkologischen Patienten nicht unterlegen. Die GIB-Rate scheint ein wichtiger prädiktiver Faktor für die Sicherheit dieser Substanzgruppe zu sein, sodass Tumorlokalisation, gastrointestinale Risikofaktoren und andere individuelle Kriterien in Zukunft stärker bei der Therapieentscheidung für oder gegen einen FXa-Inhibitor berücksichtigt werden sollten.

Repositioning of Lansoprazole as a Protective Agent Against Cisplatin-Induced Ototoxicity

Cisplatin (CDDP) is a well-known chemotherapeutic drug approved for various cancers. However, CDDP accumulates in the inner ear cochlea via organic cation transporter 2 (OCT2) and causes ototoxicity, which is a major clinical limitation. Since lansoprazole (LPZ), a proton pump inhibitor, is known to inhibit OCT2-mediated transport of CDDP, we hypothesized that LPZ might ameliorate CDDP-induced ototoxicity (CIO). To test this hypothesis, we utilized in vivo fluorescence imaging of zebrafish sensory hair cells. The fluorescence signals in hair cells in zebrafish treated with CDDP dose-dependently decreased. Co-treatment with LPZ significantly suppressed the decrease of fluorescence signals in zebrafish treated with CDDP. Knockout of a zebrafish homolog of OCT2 also ameliorated the reduction of fluorescence signals in hair cells in zebrafish treated with CDDP. These in vivo studies suggest that CDDP damages the hair cells of zebrafish through oct2-mediated accumulation and that LPZ protects against CIO, possibly inhibiting the entry of CDDP into the hair cells via oct2. We also evaluated the otoprotective effect of LPZ using a public database containing adverse event reports. The analysis revealed that the incidence rate of CIO was significantly decreased in patients treated with LPZ. We then retrospectively analyzed the medical records of Mie University Hospital to examine the otoprotective effect of LPZ. The incidence rate of ototoxicity was significantly lower in patients co-treated with LPZ compared to those without LPZ. These retrospective findings suggest that LPZ is also protective against CIO in humans. Taken together, co-treatment with LPZ may reduce the risk of CIO.

Long-Term Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Cancer Patients: An Opinion Paper

Simple Summary

Proton pump inhibitors are frequently used in cancer patients to alleviate some symptoms, epigastric pain or heartburn. However, acid suppression decreases the absorption of some oral-targeted anticancer treatments (tyrosine kinase inhibitors, CDK4/6 inhibitors) and induces changes in the gut microbiome. Recent data are showing that these interactions have important clinical impacts and medical oncologists and patients must be aware of these possible interactions.

Abstract

Multikinase inhibitors (MKIs), and particularly tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), are currently some of the major breakthroughs in cancer treatment. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) revolutionised the treatment of acid-related diseases, but are frequently overused for epigastric pain or heartburn. However, long-term acid suppression from using PPIs may lead to safety concerns, and could have a greater impact in cancer patients undergoing therapy, like bone fractures, renal toxicities, enteric infections, and micronutrient deficiencies (iron and magnesium). Moreover, acid suppression may also affect the pharmacokinetics of drugs (at least during acid suppression) and decrease the absorption of many molecularly-targeted anticancer therapies, which are mostly weak bases with pH-dependent absorption. This type of drug-drug interaction may have detrimental effects on efficacy, with major clinical impacts described for some orally administrated targeted therapies (erlotinib, gefitinib, pazopanib, palbociclib), and conflicting results with many others, including capecitabine. Furthermore, the long-term use of PPIs results in severe alterations to the gut microbiome and recent retrospective analyses have shown that the benefit of using CPIs was suppressed in patients treated with PPIs. These very expensive drugs are of great importance because of their efficacy. As the use of PPIs is not essential, we must apply the precautionary principle. All these data should encourage medical oncologists to refrain from prescribing PPIs, explaining to patients the risks of interaction in order to prevent inappropriate prescription by another physician.

Proton pump inhibitors and increased reporting odds of renal neoplasms: FAERS-based adverse event data mining and analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is associated with some safety issues. In this study, data mining was carried out to discover the potential association between renal neoplasms and PPIs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Neoplasms signals of PPIs were detected in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System from 2014 to 2020 by examining the reporting odds ratio. Adjusted odds ratios were analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Signals were detected with respect to renal hemangioma, acquired or unspecified cystic kidney disease, and papillary and unspecified renal cell carcinoma, of which intervals between adverse effects onset and medication were 7.00 (3.33, 15.67) years, 5.00 (1.70, 10.25) years, and 7.00 (4.72, 12.25) years, respectively. The lansoprazole had the strongest signal. Adjusted odds ratios for PPIs associated with renal cell carcinoma in cases with or without acquired cystic kidney disease or chronic kidney disease were 1.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-1.91] and 1.62 (95% CI 1.41-1.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to PPIs was related to the raised risk of renal neoplasms. Careful consideration should be given to the possibility of an increased risk when PPIs are administered.

Proton pump inhibitors and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is common worldwide, with reports suggesting that they may be overused. Several studies have found that PPI may affect colorectal cancer (CRC) risk.

AIM

To summarize current knowledge on the relationship between PPI and CRC from basic research, epidemiological and clinical studies.

METHODS

This systematic review was based on the patients, interventions, comparisons, outcome models and performed according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until May 17, 2021. The initial search returned 2591 articles, of which, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. The studies were categorized as basic research studies (n = 12), epidemiological studies (n = 11), and CRC treatment studies (n = 5). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool depending on the study design.

RESULTS

Data from basic research indicates that PPI do not stimulate CRC development via the trophic effect of gastrin but instead may paradoxically inhibit it. These studies also suggest that PPI may have properties beneficial for CRC treatment. PPI appear to have anti-tumor properties (omeprazole, pantoprazole), and are potential T lymphokine-activated killer cell-originated protein kinase inhibitors (pantoprazole, ilaprazole), and chemosensitizing agents (pantoprazole). However, these mechanisms have not been confirmed in human trials. Current epidemiological studies suggest that there is no causal association between PPI use and increased CRC risk. Treatment studies show that concomitant PPI and capecitabine use may reduce the efficacy of chemotherapy resulting in poorer oncological outcomes, while also suggesting that pantoprazole may have a chemosensitizing effect with the fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen.

CONCLUSION

An unexpected inhibitory effect of PPI on CRC carcinogenesis by way of several potential mechanisms is noted. This review identifies that different PPI agents may have differential effects on CRC treatment, with practical implications. Prospective studies are warranted to delineate this relationship and assess the role of individual PPI agents.