4.5 Article

Proton pump inhibitors use and risk of chronic kidney disease in diabetic patients

Journal

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 147, Issue -, Pages 67-75

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.11.019

Keywords

PPIs; CKD; DM

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: Chronic kidney disease consumes a huge amount of medical resources and proton pump inhibitors may be a potential factor for the increasing prevalence. This population-based cohort study investigates the risk of chronic kidney disease in a diabetic population using proton pump inhibitors in Taiwan. Methods: This study is based on a specific diabetic database obtained from the National Health Insurance Research Database. Individuals with a new diagnosis of diabetes from 2002 to 2013 were enrolled. Exposure to proton pump inhibitors was defined as at least one prescription and dosage over 180 DDD (defined daily dose) in one year after the index date. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model and competing-risk regression model were applied. Results: There were 5994 patients in the final cohort of proton pump inhibitor users and 23,976 patients in the matched controlled cohort based on 1: 4 propensity score matching. Compared with no exposure users, PPIs exposure group had more anemia prevalence, anti-hypertension medication and NSAIDs prescriptions. The multivariable Cox proportional hazard model showed that the adjusted hazard ratio of chronic kidney disease was 1.52 (95% CI 1.40-1.65) in diabetic individuals with PPIs exposure, compared with no exposure users. Conclusions: Proton pump inhibitors use is associated with 1.52-fold increased risk of chronic kidney disease in diabetic patients when the dosage is over 180 DDD in one year in Taiwan. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available