Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-PPI-110 in-depth review
PPI-death link fades when reverse causation is handled
Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality.
Overview
Lo CH et al.. Gastroenterology 2022 · PMID 35788344 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.067
PPI users died somewhat more often, but when the analysis accounted for illness leading to PPI use, there was no clear extra risk.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Check PPIs and mortality with better bias control.
- How was the study done?
Two prospective cohorts, 14 years.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
71,887 adults, 22,125 deaths.
- What was actually found?
HR 1.19 unlagged, 1.04 lagged; no duration effect.
- How large was the observed effect?
1.04 (0.97-1.11).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
PPIs are unlikely to shorten life by themselves.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 45 excess deaths per 1000 as a drug effect.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderately applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot exclude small risks in subgroups.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Lo CH et al.
- Journal
- Gastroenterology
- Year
- 2022
- Identifier
- PMID 35788344 DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.067
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
NIH grants (NCI, NIDDK); COI not in abstract
2. Research question
Is regular PPI use associated with all-cause and cause-specific mortality after accounting for protopathic bias?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Prospective cohorts (Nurses' Health Study, Health Professionals Follow-up Study) with lag-time analysis
- Population
US nurses and health professionals
- Country
USA
- Period
2004-2018
- Sample size
71,887 (50,156 women, 21,731 men); 22,125 deaths
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Cohort participants with PPI data from 2004
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Regular PPI use
- Comparator
Non-use
- Endpoints
All-cause and cause-specific mortality
- Statistical methods
Cox models; modified lag-time approach up to 6 years
5. Actual results
- Results
Unlagged: all-cause HR 1.19 (1.13-1.24); cancer 1.30, CVD 1.13, respiratory 1.32, digestive 1.50. With lags up to 6 years: all-cause 1.04 (0.97-1.11); cancer 1.07 (0.89-1.28); CVD 0.94 (0.81-1.10); respiratory 1.20 (0.95-1.50); digestive 1.38 (0.88-2.18). Longer duration did not confer higher risk.
- Absolute risks
Not reported in abstract
- Authors' conclusion
After accounting for protopathic bias, PPI use was not associated with higher mortality.
6. Strengths
- Large prospective cohorts with detailed covariates
- Lag analysis addresses reverse causation
- No duration-response
7. Weaknesses
- Observational
- Health professionals, mostly White
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Residual confounding possible; bias handling better than earlier studies.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Lagging removed about three quarters of the log-HR (stats/C-PPI-01_kidney_mortality.py), consistent with reverse causation.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Directly addresses the archive's excess-death figure: the association largely disappears when reverse causation is handled.
11. Independent contrary findings
Xie 2019 (A-PPI-12) reported excess deaths vs H2RA in US veterans.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Strong counter-evidence to causal excess mortality.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | high |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | high |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Specific subgroups (e.g., CKD).