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

Original publication

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
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualityhigh
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultshigh
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilitypartly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Specific subgroups (e.g., CKD).

15. Linked fact checks