ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Differential fracture risk among proton pump inhibitors in older adults: evidence network and pharmacovigilance validation.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the first-line therapy for acid-related disorders, with particularly high rates of chronic use in adults aged ≥65 years. Nearly all existing studies treat PPIs as a uniform drug class, overlooking potential heterogeneity in fracture risk across individual agents. This study aimed to evaluate the relative fracture risk of individual PPIs in elderly adults, using a complementary dual-method approach of network meta-analysis (NMA) and disproportionality analysis. Methods: First, we performed a NMA to compare the relative risk of any-site fracture associated with individual PPIs. Second, we performed a complementary disproportionality analysis using data from the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database, with additional analysis of osteoporosis/osteopenia events defined by the Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Standardised Query (SMQ). Results: The NMA included 9 eligible studies, enrolling a total of 257,445 participants. Compared with non-PPI users, omeprazole (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.36-1.67), rabeprazole (OR 1.47, 95%CI 1.22-1.78), pantoprazole (OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.28-1.62), and lansoprazole (OR 1.32, 95%CI 1.14-1.53) were associated with a significantly increased risk of any-site fracture. In contrast, esomeprazole showed no significant association with overall fracture risk (OR 1.16, 95%CI 0.97-1.38). Pairwise comparisons from the NMA showed that esomeprazole had a lower relative fracture risk compared with other individual PPIs. In the FAERS analysis, we identified 16,908 PPI-related fracture adverse events. Consistent with NMA findings, omeprazole exhibited a significant fracture risk signal (ROR 1.25, 95%CI 1.03-1.51), while esomeprazole showed no significant signal for overall fracture (ROR 0.89, 95%CI 0.66-1.20). However, esomeprazole presented a strong positive risk signal in the narrow-scope MedDRA SMQ analysis for Osteoporosis/Osteopenia (ROR 2.44, 95%CI 1.41-4.20). Conclusion: Long-term PPI use is associated with increased fracture risk in elderly adults, with significant heterogeneity in bone safety profiles across individual PPI agents. Although esomeprazole was not significantly associated with fracture risk in NMA or FAERS fracture analyses, it showed a strong narrow-scope osteoporosis/osteopenia SMQ signal. This discordance indicates that absence of a fracture signal should not imply skeletal safety. These findings provide evidence-based guidance for individualized PPI prescribing in elderly patients, with careful benefit-risk assessment for those requiring extended-duration PPI regimens.
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.