63–2.12).21 Wang et al.’s group studied PF-02341066 datasheet 98 East Asian patients, and found clopidogrel and PPI co-prescription was associated with a higher risk of re-infarction, odds ratio 1.62 (95% CI 1.01–2.59).22 Ho et al. studied 8205 patients following a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome and found that 29.8% of patients co-prescribed a PPI and clopidogrel versus

20.8% on clopidogrel alone died or were rehospitalized (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.25, 95% CI 1.11–1.41).23 Finally, Juurlink et al. carried out a nested cohort-control study involving 13.636 patients following myocardial infarction and concluded that the current use of a PPI was associated with an increased risk of re-infarction (adjusted OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03–1.57), although this was not seen for pantoprazole (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70–1.47).24 These studies have a number of serious shortcomings which require comment. First, Gilard and Sibbing et al.’s studies demonstrated a reduction in clopidogrel activity as determined by VASP and/or platelet aggregometry; whether this translates into a meaningful reduction in clopidogrel’s antiplatelet effect in terms of clinical outcomes is unclear. With regard to the studies demonstrating an adverse clinical outcome for patients co-prescribed a PPI and clopidogrel,

first the increase in the relative risk of cardiovascular events for patients taking PPI is very modest with odds ratios ranging from 1.25 to 1.79.20–24 Second, there were important differences between the cohort and control groups: for example in the Juurlink study, the PPI group included a statistically significantly higher rate of acute renal failure, http://www.selleckchem.com/products/Bortezomib.html congestive heart disease and diabetes mellitus (DM) with complications. Similarly, in the study by Ho et al. the PPI group also included a statistically significantly higher rate of chronic obstructive MCE pulmonary disease (COPD), DM, previous myocardial infarction, congestive cardiac failure, liver and renal disease. Despite the author’s statistical analyses, which attempted to control for these imbalances, such a study may

still result in unknown confounders, which makes attributing the adverse outcomes to PPI co-prescription problematic.20–24 Looked at from another perspective, these studies suggest that patients with multiple serious co-morbid illnesses are more likely to be at high risk of GI bleeding and therefore be prescribed a PPI.25 Third, in the Juurlink study the difference in the effect between pantoprazole and that of other PPIs is not statistically significant and the point estimate of the other PPIs lies within the 95% CI associated with the effect of pantoprazole. A formal test for heterogeneity of these odds ratios also shows no statistically significant difference (χ2 = 2.99, 1 degree of freedom, P = 0.08).26 Therefore, no conclusion should be drawn about the benefit of pantoprazole over other PPIs from this study.