Potentially false Overinterpreted Certainty of evidence: low provisional C-PPI-01

Long-term PPI use causes chronic kidney disease and excess deaths (about 45 extra deaths per 1,000 users, mainly from cardiovascular disease, kidney disease and upper gastrointestinal cancer).

In short: This claim is probably false as stated: long-term PPI users do have more kidney disease and deaths in observational data, but a large randomised trial and better-controlled studies indicate that most or all of the excess reflects the users' poorer health rather than the drug; a small kidney effect remains possible.
Conclusion: Probably false as a causal claim: the link between long-term PPIs and death largely reflects users' poorer health; a small kidney effect remains possible.

Original statement

حمض المعدة ليس عدوّاً يجب قمعه، بل أداة أساسية للهضم وقتل الميكروبات وامتصاص الحديد وفيتامين ب12 والكالسيوم والمغنيزيوم. تثبيطه لفترات طويلة بـ PPIs (أوميبرازول، نكسيم، كونترلوك) أو مثبطات H2 ينقلب على الجسم: مرض كلوي مزمن، فرط نمو بكتيري، عدوى مطثية عسيرة، التهاب رئوي، نقص B12 والمغنيزيوم، كسور ورك، تغيّر الميكروبيوم، وزيادة الوفيات. والأخطر أنّ الجسم يدمن الدواء عبر فرط الإفراز الارتدادي بعد الإيقاف، فيتحوّل الاستخدام القصير إلى اعتماد مزمن. | في JAMA Internal Medicine 2016، تابع لازاروس وزملاؤه أكثر من 10 آلاف مشارك ووجدوا أنّ مستخدمي PPIs لديهم خطر إصابة بمرض الكلى المزمن أعلى بـ 50% مقارنة بغير المستعملين، ويتضاعف تقريباً مع جرعتين يومياً. وفي BMJ 2019 تابع شي وآل-علي 157 ألف مستخدم جديد للـ PPI مقابل H2 لخمس سنوات: 45 وفاة زائدة لكل ألف مستخدم، من أمراض القلب والكلى وسرطان المعدة العلوي.

not verbatim – paraphrase. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

Long-term PPI use causes chronic kidney disease and excess deaths (about 45 extra deaths per 1,000 users, mainly from cardiovascular disease, kidney disease and upper gastrointestinal cancer).

Origin

Source status
Archive editors
Attribution
Archive editors (eltayebat.com); not verified as Elawady's own words
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/rule/acid-blockers/
Attribution uncertainty
Written by the archive operators; study selection is the archive's, not necessarily Elawady's.
Claimed mechanism

Not specified in detail; implied: chronic acid suppression damages the kidney and other organs.

Claimed health effect

Incident CKD, CKD progression and excess all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

Population concerned

Long-term PPI users (adults).

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Diverging source versions

في JAMA Internal Medicine 2016، تابع لازاروس وزملاؤه أكثر من 10 آلاف مشارك ووجدوا أنّ مستخدمي PPIs لديهم خطر إصابة بمرض الكلى المزمن أعلى بـ 50% مقارنة بغير المستعملين، ويتضاعف تقريباً مع جرعتين يومياً. وفي BMJ 2019 تابع شي وآل-علي 157 ألف مستخدم جديد للـ PPI مقابل H2 لخمس سنوات: 45 وفاة زائدة لكل ألف مستخدم، من أمراض القلب والكلى وسرطان المعدة العلوي.

Source status
Archive editors
Attribution
Archive editors (eltayebat.com)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/rule/acid-blockers/

Scientific assessment

Potentially false – The available evidence tends to speak against the statement, but is not conclusive.

Certainty of evidence: low – Further research is likely to change the assessment considerably.

1. What was claimed?

The archive says long-term PPI use causes CKD and about 45 excess deaths per 1,000 users.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

The cited studies exist and report the numbers in essence correctly: ARIC adjusted HR 1.50 for incident CKD; Xie 2019 reported 45.20 excess deaths per 1,000 PPI users versus H2 blockers. The CKD association replicates across databases and in a 2024 meta-analysis (HR 1.26 vs non-users, 1.34 vs H2RA; I-PPI-112).

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

The step from association to causation is not justified. PPI users are sicker at baseline (confounding by indication and frailty), and illness before death often leads to PPI prescriptions (reverse causation): when this was handled, the mortality association disappeared (I-PPI-110), and the COMPASS RCT found no excess deaths (I-PPI-01). The 45/1,000 figure is a cumulative estimate over up to 10 years in older US veterans, not a demonstrated drug effect. The 'twice-daily nearly doubles risk' statement compares HR 1.46 with HR 1.15 from the Geisinger cohort, not ARIC, and the narrative wrongly states 'five years' of follow-up for Xie 2019.

4. What remains unclear?

Whether a small part of the association is causal cannot be excluded: COMPASS lasted only about 3 years and was not powered for rare long-term kidney outcomes.

5. Which studies support it?

Lazarus 2016 (A-PPI-01), Xie 2017 (A-PPI-02), Klatte 2017 (A-PPI-03), Xie 2017 BMJ Open (A-PPI-13), Xie 2019 BMJ (A-PPI-12): observational associations, HRs mostly 1.15-1.50. Ang 2024 meta-analysis (I-PPI-112): incident CKD HR 1.26 (1.16-1.38); overlaps with the archive-cited cohorts.

6. Which studies contradict it?

COMPASS RCT (I-PPI-01): all-cause mortality HR 1.03 (0.92-1.15); CKD OR 1.17 (0.94-1.45), inconclusive. Lo 2022 (I-PPI-110): mortality HR 1.19 fell to 1.04 (0.97-1.11) with lag analysis; no duration-response. Gonzalez-Perez 2025 (I-PPI-111): kidney decline HR 0.99 (0.66-1.48) vs ranitidine. Brown 2021 (I-PPI-02): HR shrank with adjustment and appeared for implausible causes of death.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

PPIs are among the most widely prescribed drugs in Germany and Europe; several (e.g. pantoprazole, omeprazole) are sold over the counter in small packs for short-term use. European data (Stockholm, UK GPRD/CPRD, Rotterdam) are among the cited cohorts, so the observational findings apply to European users with the same confounding limits.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Elawady describes PPIs (Controloc, Nexium) as widely used and sold without prescription in Egypt. No Egypt-specific outcome data were reviewed. The biology and trial results are not expected to differ by country; H. pylori infection, which is common in many countries, is an additional reason why acid-suppression and eradication therapy are prescribed.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

PPIs should be used for a documented indication at the lowest effective dose and reviewed regularly, as gastroenterology societies advise. Fear of kidney damage or death alone is not a reason to stop a PPI that is clearly indicated (AGA 2022 BPA 10).

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

Observational associations with CKD (pooled HR 1.26; I-PPI-112) and death (A-PPI-12, A-PPI-13) are consistent, but the large COMPASS RCT found no excess mortality over 3 years (HR 1.03, 0.92-1.15; I-PPI-01), a 14-year cohort found that the mortality association disappeared when reverse causation was handled (HR 1.19 -> 1.04, 0.97-1.11; I-PPI-110), and a European active-comparator cohort found no difference in kidney decline versus H2RAs after adjustment (HR 0.99; I-PPI-111). The causal mortality claim is therefore probably false; a small kidney effect cannot be excluded (COMPASS CKD OR 1.17, 0.94-1.45), so certainty remains low.

Source quality

Archive cites peer-reviewed cohort studies correctly in numbers; the causal language ('turns against the patient', 'excess deaths') goes beyond what observational designs allow.

Regional transferability

Cohorts are from the USA, Sweden, UK, Germany; transferable to Europe and Egypt as associations, with the same limits.

Individual exceptions

Absolute risks matter: in the Xie 2019 cohort the 45 excess deaths per 1,000 are a 10-year cumulative estimate in older, mostly male US veterans.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

Overinterpreted – A real finding exists, but the claim draws more from it than the data allow (e.g. association taken as cause, animal data applied to humans, small effect presented as large).

Research question: In adults, does long-term PPI use cause chronic kidney disease and excess deaths (about 45 per 1,000 users)?

Research question in detail (PECO)
Population
Adult long-term PPI users
Intervention or exposure
Long-term PPI use
Comparison
Non-use, H2RA use, or placebo
Geographic scope
universal pharmacology
Outcomes
  • Incident CKD / kidney function decline
  • All-cause and cause-specific mortality

Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.

What speaks for the claim?

  • PPIs linked with chronic kidney disease in pooled studies

    Ang SP et al.. Biomedicines 2024 · PMID 39061988 · DOI 10.3390/biomedicines12071414 Meta-analysisabstract checkednewly added

    Meta-analysis of 12 observational studies: PPI use associated with higher incident CKD, also versus H2RA.

    Actual result
    HR 1.26 (1.16-1.38) vs non-users; 1.34 (1.13-1.59) vs H2RA
    Methodological quality
    moderate for association (overlaps with A-PPI-01/02)
    Relevance
    direct but observational
    Limitations
    Confounding by indication; not independent of archive-cited cohorts

    Original publication

  • PPIs and death in US veterans

    Xie Y et al.. BMJ 2019 · PMID 31147311 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.l1580 Cohort studyfull text checked

    US veterans cohort: excess deaths with PPI vs H2RA, about 45 per 1,000 over up to 10 years.

    Actual result
    45.20 excess deaths per 1,000 (packet)
    Methodological quality
    moderate (large active-comparator cohort)
    Relevance
    direct source of the archive figure
    Limitations
    Older male veterans; residual confounding

    Original publication

What speaks against the claim?

What does the overall evidence say?

Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.

Which position is better supported?

The CKD association is reproducible but its causal nature is uncertain; the excess-mortality claim is not supported by randomised data or by better-controlled cohorts.

Why some studies weigh more

The RCT and bias-controlled cohorts (lag analysis, active comparator) outweigh crude associations; the meta-analysis overlaps with archive-cited cohorts and is counted as one body of observational evidence.

Is a causal relationship established? Not established Patterns typical of confounding/reverse causation (attenuation with lag, associations with implausible causes of death in I-PPI-02, crude-to-adjusted collapse in I-PPI-111).

Remaining uncertainty

A small long-term kidney effect cannot be excluded (COMPASS CKD CI up to 1.45).

Justified conclusion

The archive presents an observational association as a proven causal effect; the 45/1,000 excess deaths figure is not a demonstrated drug effect.

Why do studies seem to disagree?

Cohorts with non-users or H2RA users answer 'are PPI users at higher risk?', the RCT and lag analyses answer 'does the drug cause it?'. They disagree mainly because users differ from non-users.

Does this depend on the country?
General biological effects
Pharmacology of PPIs is the same in Egypt and Europe.
Eating habits
Not decisive.
Origin of the food
Not relevant.
Contaminants
Not relevant (except ranitidine NDMA impurities, C-PPI-08).
National production conditions
Generic products are used in both regions; no evidence of different pharmacological effects.
Legal rules
PPIs are partly available without prescription in Egypt and (small packs, short-term) in the EU; prescribing practices differ.
Actual monitoring data
No Egyptian outcome data identified; one Egypt/Iraq pharmacist survey (I-PPI-120).

A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.

Statistical re-check
  • Attenuation of log-HR with lagging – Only 23% of the unlagged log-HR remains after lagging recalculated
  • Overlap of RCT CKD CI with pooled observational estimate – COMPASS CKD 1.17 (0.94-1.45) overlaps Ang 1.26 (1.16-1.38): RCT does not exclude a small effect recalculated
  • Log-symmetry of CIs – All reported CIs consistent recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
Main outcome
Excess mortality caused by long-term PPI
Starting level
high (randomised trials)
Reasons for downgrading
  • imprecision (3-year RCT)
  • indirectness (RCT population on antithrombotics)
Result
moderate

Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.

Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
  • AGA (American Gastroenterological Association): AGA Clinical Practice Update on De-Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review (Targownik LE et al., Gastroenterology 2022; I-PPI-04) (2022) · Original publication
    Best Practice Advice read verbatim in the PubMed record: regular review and documentation of the indication (BPA 1); trial of de-prescribing for all without a definitive indication (BPA 2); complicated GERD (severe erosive oesophagitis, oesophageal ulcer, peptic stricture) generally not for discontinuation (BPA 4); Barrett's oesophagus, eosinophilic oesophagitis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis generally not for de-prescribing (BPA 5); assess upper GI bleeding risk first and do not de-prescribe in high-risk patients (BPA 6-7); warn about transient rebound symptoms (BPA 8); tapering or abrupt stop both possible (BPA 9); decide on indication, not on fear of PPI-associated adverse events (BPA 10). The publisher page could not be fetched (HTTP 403).
Search strategy

Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).

DatabaseDateSearchLooking forHitsIncluded
Europe PMC26 October 2026TITLE:("proton pump inhibitor*") AND TITLE:(kidney OR renal OR mortality OR death) AND ("Mendelian randomization" OR "target trial" OR "meta-analysis" OR "negative control" OR "active comparator") AND PUB_YEAR:[2019 TO 2026]both directions29
PubMed (E-utilities esearch)26 October 2026(proton pump inhibitors[mh]) AND (mortality[mh] OR "renal insufficiency, chronic"[mh]) AND (randomized controlled trial[pt] OR "active comparator"[tiab] OR "lag"[tiab]) AND 2019:2026[dp]both directions6
PubMed efetch (record of PMID 35183361)26 October 2026efetch id=35183361 (AGA 2022 de-prescribing BPA statements); publisher page attempted via WebFetch returned HTTP 403guidelines1

Open questions

Long-term (>5 years) randomised or target-trial data for kidney outcomes.

How deeply was this checked?

12 linked studies: 4 checked in full text (3 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 8 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.

Last scientific review: 26 October 2026

History of the verdict
  1. 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Unclear / insufficient evidence (low)
  2. 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Verdict changed: Unclear / insufficient evidence (low) → Potentially false (low)
    The interpretation changed: newly added bias-controlled studies (lag analysis in 72,000 people; European active-comparator cohort) agree with the COMPASS RCT that the mortality association is largely non-causal. The causal claim of 45 excess deaths per 1,000 is therefore probably false; CKD remains uncertain, so certainty stays low.
    New sources: I-PPI-110 I-PPI-111 I-PPI-112

In plain language

Large studies found that people who take PPIs for years more often develop kidney disease and die earlier. But people who take PPIs are often older and sicker to begin with, and illness before death often leads to a PPI prescription. When studies accounted for this, the extra deaths largely disappeared, and a large randomised trial found no extra deaths over three years. A small effect on the kidneys cannot be ruled out, but the claim that PPIs cause about 45 extra deaths per 1,000 users is probably not correct.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (6)

  • PPI use and chronic kidney disease

    Lazarus B et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2016 · PMID 26752337 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7193
    Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    PPI users had about 1.2–1.5 times the rate of new chronic kidney disease compared with non-users or H2-blocker users.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Test whether PPI use is linked to new CKD.

    How was the study done?

    Follow-up of two large US cohorts.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    10,482 plus 248,751 adults with normal kidney function.

    What was actually found?

    PPI use was associated with more new CKD.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Adjusted HR 1.50 (ARIC), 1.24 (Geisinger).

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Long-term PPI users may have a slightly higher kidney risk, or may simply be sicker.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational; confounding; outcome definitions differ.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports an association, not a proven harm.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applicable as association.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot show that PPIs cause CKD.

    Scientific details →

  • PPIs and kidney decline without acute kidney injury

    Xie Y et al.. Kidney Int 2017 · PMID 28237709 · DOI 10.1016/j.kint.2016.12.021
    Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked

    Compared with H2-blocker users, PPI users had 19–30% higher rates of kidney decline.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Kidney outcomes without prior AKI.

    How was the study done?

    Veterans cohort, 5 years.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    144,032 new users.

    What was actually found?

    Modestly higher risk of CKD outcomes with PPIs.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 1.19–1.30.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Possible small kidney risk.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational; veterans.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Partly supports.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Association transferable.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Causation.

    Scientific details →

  • PPIs and CKD progression in Stockholm

    Klatte DCF et al.. Gastroenterology 2017 · PMID 28583827 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.046
    Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked

    PPI starters had about 26% higher risk of kidney function decline than H2-blocker starters.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    CKD progression with PPIs.

    How was the study done?

    Swedish regional database.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    About 115,000 new users.

    What was actually found?

    Modestly higher progression risk.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 1.26.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Possible small risk.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Residual confounding acknowledged.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Partly supports.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Directly European.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Causation.

    Scientific details →

  • PPIs and death in US veterans

    Xie Y et al.. BMJ 2019 · PMID 31147311 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.l1580
    Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archivefull text checked★ key study

    PPI users had an estimated 45 more deaths per 1,000 over about 10 years than H2-blocker users.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Mortality with PPIs.

    How was the study done?

    Veterans cohort.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    214,467 new users.

    What was actually found?

    Small excess mortality association.

    How large was the observed effect?

    45.20/1,000 over 10 years.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Use PPIs only when needed.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Confounding; specific population.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Partly supports.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    That PPIs cause death.

    Scientific details →

  • PPIs and death risk (veterans)

    Xie Y et al.. BMJ Open 2017 · PMID 28676480 · DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015735
    Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked

    PPI users had about 15–34% higher hazard of death depending on method.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    All-cause mortality.

    How was the study done?

    Veterans cohort.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    349,312.

    What was actually found?

    Higher hazard of death.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 1.16–1.34.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Association only.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Confounding.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Partly supports.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Causation.

    Scientific details →

  • PPIs linked with chronic kidney disease in pooled studies

    Ang SP et al.. Biomedicines 2024 · PMID 39061988 · DOI 10.3390/biomedicines12071414
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    Pooling 12 observational studies, PPI users had about 26% higher relative risk of developing chronic kidney disease.

    Pooled CKD HR 1.26 vs non-users, 1.34 vs H2RA (association)

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Pool studies on PPIs and CKD.

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    700,125 participants.

    What was actually found?

    HR 1.26 vs non-users; 1.34 vs H2RA.

    How large was the observed effect?

    1.26 (1.16-1.38).

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Association is consistent but may reflect sicker users.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational only.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports the association, not causation.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot prove PPIs damage kidneys.

    Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (5)

  • Pantoprazole safety in a large randomised trial

    Moayyedi P et al.. Gastroenterology 2019 · PMID 31152740 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.05.056
    Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    Over three years, only gut infections were more common with pantoprazole (1.4% vs 1.0%).

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Test PPI harms in an RCT.

    How was the study done?

    Placebo-controlled trial.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    17,598 heart/vascular patients.

    What was actually found?

    No excess harm except enteric infections.

    How large was the observed effect?

    OR 1.33 enteric infections.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    PPIs are largely safe for 3 years.

    What are the study's limitations?

    3-year duration; specific population.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts most broad harm claims; supports infection risk.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applicable.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Very long-term effects.

    Scientific details →

  • Why PPI–death links may be misleading

    Brown JP et al.. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2021 · PMID 33393677 · DOI 10.1111/bcp.14728
    Cohort studyindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    The link between PPIs and death shrank with better adjustment and appeared even for causes PPIs could not plausibly cause.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Confounding in PPI mortality.

    How was the study done?

    UK cohort.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    >2 million.

    What was actually found?

    Association attenuates; implausible associations.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 1.65 → 1.31.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Sicker people get PPIs.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Limits C-PPI-01.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    UK.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    True causal effect.

    Scientific details →

  • How to stop PPIs safely (AGA 2022)

    Targownik LE et al.. Gastroenterology 2022 · PMID 35183361 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.12.247
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Stop PPIs without a definite indication; keep them in Barrett's, severe oesophagitis and high bleeding risk; expect temporary rebound.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    De-prescribing guidance.

    How was the study done?

    Expert review.

    What was actually found?

    10 statements.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Many people can stop; some must not.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Expert opinion.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports overuse claim; contradicts universal ban and 'cannot stop'.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applicable.

    Scientific details →

  • PPI-death link fades when reverse causation is handled

    Lo CH et al.. Gastroenterology 2022 · PMID 35788344 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.067
    Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    PPI users died somewhat more often, but when the analysis accounted for illness leading to PPI use, there was no clear extra risk.

    Mortality HR 1.19 falls to 1.04 (0.97-1.11) with lag

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    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 details →

  • No extra kidney decline with PPIs vs H2 blockers in Spain

    González-Pérez A et al.. J Gen Intern Med 2025 · PMID 39627545 · DOI 10.1007/s11606-024-09213-8
    Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    In 122,606 new users, kidney function worsened equally often with PPIs and ranitidine after accounting for differences between users.

    No difference in worsening kidney function vs H2RA after adjustment

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Compare kidney outcomes of PPI and H2RA starters.

    How was the study done?

    Population cohort.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    122,606 people in Aragon.

    What was actually found?

    Adjusted HR 0.99 for eGFR<60; less AKI with PPI.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 0.99 (0.66-1.48).

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    PPIs are unlikely to be a major cause of kidney decline.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Few H2RA users; short follow-up.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts PPIs causing CKD.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Directly applicable.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot exclude small long-term effects.

    Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)

  • AGA advice on long-term PPIs

    Freedberg DE et al.. Gastroenterology 2017 · PMID 28257716 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.01.031
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    PPIs are justified for defined indications; risks do not require routine monitoring.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Risk–benefit guidance.

    How was the study done?

    Expert review.

    What was actually found?

    10 best practice statements.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Use for real indications at lowest dose.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Expert opinion.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Mixed: supports indication-based use.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applicable.

    Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

PPIs are among the most widely prescribed drugs in Germany and Europe; several (e.g. pantoprazole, omeprazole) are sold over the counter in small packs for short-term use. European data (Stockholm, UK GPRD/CPRD, Rotterdam) are among the cited cohorts, so the observational findings apply to European users with the same confounding limits.

Egypt

Elawady describes PPIs (Controloc, Nexium) as widely used and sold without prescription in Egypt. No Egypt-specific outcome data were reviewed. The biology and trial results are not expected to differ by country; H. pylori infection, which is common in many countries, is an additional reason why acid-suppression and eradication therapy are prescribed.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Potentially false Probably false as a causal claim: the link between long-term PPIs and death largely reflects users' poorer health; a small kidney effect remains possible.

This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.

References

  1. Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and the Risk of Chronic Kidney Disease.. Lazarus B et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2016 · PMID 26752337 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7193
  2. Long-term kidney outcomes among users of proton pump inhibitors without intervening acute kidney injury.. Xie Y et al.. Kidney Int 2017 · PMID 28237709 · DOI 10.1016/j.kint.2016.12.021
  3. Association Between Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Risk of Progression of Chronic Kidney Disease.. Klatte DCF et al.. Gastroenterology 2017 · PMID 28583827 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.046
  4. Estimates of all cause mortality and cause specific mortality associated with proton pump inhibitors among US veterans: cohort study.. Xie Y et al.. BMJ 2019 · PMID 31147311 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.l1580
  5. Risk of death among users of Proton Pump Inhibitors: a longitudinal observational cohort study of United States veterans.. Xie Y et al.. BMJ Open 2017 · PMID 28676480 · DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015735
  6. Association between Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Risk of Incident Chronic Kidney Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Ang SP et al.. Biomedicines 2024 · PMID 39061988 · DOI 10.3390/biomedicines12071414
  7. Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors Based on a Large, Multi-Year, Randomized Trial of Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban or Aspirin.. Moayyedi P et al.. Gastroenterology 2019 · PMID 31152740 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.05.056
  8. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A cohort study.. Brown JP et al.. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2021 · PMID 33393677 · DOI 10.1111/bcp.14728
  9. AGA Clinical Practice Update on De-Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review.. Targownik LE et al.. Gastroenterology 2022 · PMID 35183361 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.12.247
  10. Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality.. Lo CH et al.. Gastroenterology 2022 · PMID 35788344 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.067
  11. Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Worsening Kidney Function: A Retrospective Cohort Study Including 122,606 Acid-Suppressing Users.. González-Pérez A et al.. J Gen Intern Med 2025 · PMID 39627545 · DOI 10.1007/s11606-024-09213-8
  12. The Risks and Benefits of Long-term Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review and Best Practice Advice From the American Gastroenterological Association.. Freedberg DE et al.. Gastroenterology 2017 · PMID 28257716 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.01.031

← Back to overview