Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-PPI-07 standard review

Acid blockers and pneumonia

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

Overview

Eom CS et al.. CMAJ 2011 · PMID 21173070 · DOI 10.1503/cmaj.092129

PPI users had 27% higher odds of pneumonia in observational studies, with large differences between studies.

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Pneumonia risk.

How was the study done?

Meta-analysis.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

31 studies.

What was actually found?

Possible association.

How large was the observed effect?

OR 1.27.

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Small possible risk.

What are the study's limitations?

Heterogeneity.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Partly supports.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Applicable.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Causation for PPIs.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Eom CS, Jeon CY, Lim JW, Cho EG, Park SM, Lee KS
Journal
CMAJ
Year
2011
Identifier
PMID 21173070 DOI 10.1503/cmaj.092129 · PMC3042441
Verification
verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

not stated in abstract

2. Research question

Are acid-suppressive drugs associated with pneumonia?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Meta-analysis – Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and RCTs
Population

Adults in 31 studies

Country

Multinational

Period

to Aug 2009

Sample size

31 studies (8 observational, 23 RCTs)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

see abstract

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

PPI or H2RA

Comparator

Non-use/placebo

Endpoints

Community- and hospital-acquired pneumonia

Statistical methods

Random-effects

5. Actual results

Results

Observational: PPI adjusted OR 1.27 (1.11–1.46), I² 90.5%; H2RA OR 1.22 (1.09–1.36). RCTs (H2RA): hospital-acquired pneumonia RR 1.22 (1.01–1.48).

Absolute risks

not reported in abstract

Authors' conclusion

Acid suppressants may be associated with increased pneumonia risk; caution in at-risk patients.

6. Strengths

  • Includes RCT data for H2RAs

7. Weaknesses

  • Very high heterogeneity for PPIs
  • PPI evidence observational only

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
AMSTAR 2
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

PPI estimate from heterogeneous observational studies.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

See results.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

C-PPI-05.

11. Independent contrary findings

COMPASS RCT: no significant pneumonia difference.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

High: European (Swedish, UK, Dutch, German) data show similar associations; PPIs are widely used in Germany.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Weak, heterogeneous association.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultsmoderate
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilitypartly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidencemixed
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)partly correct but over-interpreted

14. Open questions

15. Linked fact checks

Use by the Tayebat archive

Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.

What the archive says about the study

Listed in the archive bibliography of the acid-blockers rule without its own interpretation; used implicitly to support the rule summary ('long-term suppression turns against the body: CKD, bacterial overgrowth, C. difficile, pneumonia, B12 and magnesium deficiency, hip fractures, microbiome change, excess mortality').

A. What was actually studied?

Are acid-suppressive drugs associated with pneumonia?

B. What did the authors find?

Observational: PPI adjusted OR 1.27 (1.11–1.46), I² 90.5%; H2RA OR 1.22 (1.09–1.36). RCTs (H2RA): hospital-acquired pneumonia RR 1.22 (1.01–1.48).

C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?

Acid suppressants may be associated with increased pneumonia risk; caution in at-risk patients.

D. What does the archive derive from it?

Supports pneumonia claim.

E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?

Weakly; 'may be associated'.

Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
partly correct but over-interpreted