Observational studyJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2025
Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Incident Cardiovascular Disease in Older Postmenopausal Women.
Observational study in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Incident Hypertension in Menopausal Women.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEpidemiological studies have been inconsistent regarding an association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and risk of primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) events.
methodsWe studied 85,189 postmenopausal women (mean age 63 years at baseline) without known CVD at enrollment into the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study (1993-1998). PPI use was determined from medication inventories at baseline and Year-3. CVD events were physician adjudicated and defined as a composite of coronary heart disease, stroke, and CVD mortality. Follow up was from baseline to September 2010. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for incident CVD according to baseline PPI use (no/yes), use duration (non-user, < 1 year, 1-3 years, > 3 years), and time-varying based on updated Year-3 information. Propensity score adjustment was used to control for residual confounding.
resultsAt baseline, 1747 (2.1%) women reported using PPIs. During a mean follow-up of 11 years, 5778 (6.8%) cases of primary CVD were identified. PPI users had significantly higher risk of CVD compared with non-users in the fully adjusted model (HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.02-1.43), and after propensity score adjustment (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.21-1.32). Longer PPI use duration was associated with incrementally higher CVD risk (HRs: < 1 year: 1.11, 1-3 years: 1.27, > 3 years: 1.33; p for trend = 0.02).
conclusionsPPI use was associated with higher risk of incident primary CVD in older postmenopausal women. These findings underscore the importance of guideline-directed PPI use to avoid unwanted adverse events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.