Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Med Life with Dr. Horton
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Members Corner
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Med Life with Dr. Horton
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Members Corner
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors

David N. Juurlink, Jack V. Tu and Muhammad M. Mamdani
CMAJ June 09, 2009 180 (12) 1229; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1090015
David N. Juurlink
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jack V. Tu
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Muhammad M. Mamdani
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Three of the authors respond:

As Mark Friesen correctly points out, association and causation are not synonymous. Whenever clinicians impute causality, they make a judgment based largely on common-sense principles. Our study 1 satisfies many of the Hill criteria, 2 including biological plausibility, temporality, coherence, consistency, consideration of alternative explanations and specificity.

Healthy skepticism about the results of observational studies is important because such studies can be subject to unmeasured confounding. However, Friesen offers no argument as to why unmeasured confounding should apply to some proton pump inhibitors (omeprazole, lansoprazole and rabeprazole) but not to pantoprazole.

The interaction between proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel is the subject of considerable ongoing research. Friesen notes that Simon and colleagues adjusted for omeprazole use in their study, but it was neither designed nor powered to address the study question at hand. 3 In addition, of the 3 studies on this topic presented in abstract form at the American Heart Association meeting in October 2008, 2 reached conclusions similar to ours. 4,5 One of these studies, now published in full, 6 used a different analytical technique and data from those in other jurisdictions but yielded results virtually identical to ours. The third abstract, cited by Mark Friesen, described a post-hoc analysis of the CREDO trial that actually appears to support the same conclusion. 7 The study examined only the effect of baseline omeprazole use and found that patients receiving clopidogrel in combination with omeprazole had a higher rate of death, myocardial infarction or urgent revascularization at 28 days than patients receiving clopidogrel alone (10.3% and 5.4%, respectively; p = 0.051).

We agree that rabeprazole, omeprazole and lansoprazole exhibit differential inhibitory effects on cytochrome P450 2C19 8 and collectively contribute to the 40% increased risk of early re-infarction seen in our study. Although rabeprazole itself does not inhibit cytochrome P450 2C19, its thioether metabolite is a potent inhibitor, with an inhibition constant (Ki) second only to that of lansoprazole. 8 Moreover, Ho and colleagues recently showed that use of rabeprazole was strongly associated with an increased risk of recurrent events during clopidogrel therapy (odds ratio 2.83, 95% confidence interval 1.96–4.09). 6 Together, these observations make it difficult to justify the co-prescription of rabeprazole and clopidogrel. Although a post-hoc analysis of our study by individual proton pump inhibitors is intuitively appealing, such an analysis would almost certainly yield misleading conclusions. Stratification by every available agent would compromise both precision and discriminatory power, and the analyses would inflate the type I error rate by introducing multiple comparisons. Consequently, a real yet modest association could easily be misinterpreted as no effect.

Allen and McLean-Veysey suggest that pantoprazole and other proton pump inhibitors are not significantly different from each other on the basis of the observation that the point estimate for other proton pump inhibitors lies within the 95% confidence interval associated with pantoprazole. This highlights the widely underappreciated point that hypothesis testing is more than the simple generation of a number; it should be informed by an element of judgment and information from outside the experiment. A detailed exposition on this point is available elsewhere. 9

In our study, the comparison of pantoprazole with other proton pump inhibitors was a secondary analysis and is subject to the limitations of conventional hypothesis testing, including the influence of reduced sample size on significance levels. We anticipate that future research using alternative approaches and larger sample sizes will confirm the differential effects of various proton pump inhibitors on the clinical benefits of clopidogrel, as predicted by the pharmacology of these drugs. 8

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Juurlink DN, Gomes T, Ko DT, et al. A population-based study of the drug interaction between proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel. CMAJ 2009;180:713–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Hill AB. The environment and disease: Association or causation?Proc R Soc Med 1965;58:295–300.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Simon T, Verstuyft C, Mary-Krause M, et al. Genetic determinants of response to clopidogrel and cardiovascular response. N Engl J Med 2009;360: 363–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Ho PM, Maddox TM, Wang L, et al. Proton pump inhibitors may attenuate the benefits of clopido-grel among ACS patients: empirical evidence from 3,311 ACS patients. Circulation 2008;118: S_1165.
  5. 5.↵
    Aubert RE, Epstein RS, Teagarden JR, et al. Proton pump inhibitors effect on clopidogrel effectiveness: the Clopidogrel Medco Outcomes Study. Circulation 2008;118:S_815.
  6. 6.↵
    Ho PM, Maddox TM, Wang L, et al. Risk of adverse outcomes associated with concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors following acute coronary syndrome. JAMA 2009;301:937–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Dunn SP, Macaulay TE, Brennan DM, et al. Baseline proton pump inhibitor use is associated with increased cardiovascular events with and without the use of clopidogrel in the CREDO trial. Circulation 2008;118:S_815.
  8. 8.↵
    Li XQ, Andersson TB, Ahlstrom M, et al. Comparison of inhibitory effects of the proton pump-inhibiting drugs omeprazole, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole on human cytochrome P450 activities. Drug Metab Dispos 2004;32:821–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Goodman SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: the P value fallacy. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:995–1004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 180 (12)
CMAJ
Vol. 180, Issue 12
9 Jun 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
Citation Tools
Interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors
David N. Juurlink, Jack V. Tu, Muhammad M. Mamdani
CMAJ Jun 2009, 180 (12) 1229; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1090015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors
David N. Juurlink, Jack V. Tu, Muhammad M. Mamdani
CMAJ Jun 2009, 180 (12) 1229; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1090015
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Three of the authors respond:
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Scopus
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Avoiding harm to patients: properly calculating costs of harm
  • Continuity of care: the key in telemedicine
  • Open secret: Time of day matters in clinical practice
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • CMA Members
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact

Copyright 2019, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire