Does Proton Pump Inhibitor Use Lead to a Higher Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection and Progression to Severe Disease? a Meta-analysis

  1. Cunye Yan
  2. Yue Chen
  3. Chenyu Sun
  4. Mubashir Ayaz Ahmed
  5. Chandur Bhan
  6. Zhichun Guo
  7. Hongru Yang
  8. Yijing Zuo
  9. Yue Yan
  10. Lei Hu
  11. Yiceng Sun
  12. Yao Li
  13. Qin Zhou

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.7883/yoken.jjid.2021.074
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.25.20248860: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    RandomizationStudies included in this meta-analysis must meet all of the following criteria: (1) The type of study must be either a randomized controlled trial or an observational study (including cohort and case-control studies). (2) The research was conducted to investigate COVID-19 outcomes, including infection risk, progression to severe cases, death, and risk of secondary infection. (3) PPI use was the exposure for the experimental group and any feasible intervention without PPI use can be implemented on the control group.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Literature search strategy: The articles were collected until November 2020 from PubMed, Google scholar, Embase, medRxiv, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP database.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Google scholar
    suggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Statistical analysis and publication bias evaluation: RevMan software (version 5.3; Cochrane Library) and STATA statistical Software (version 14.0; StataCorp, College Station, TX) were utilized for statistical analysis.
    RevMan
    suggested: (RevMan, RRID:SCR_003581)
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The inherent limitations of this study are as follows. First, due to insufficient information of original studies, more in-depth analysis on patient’s age, duration of PPI use and dose were not analyzed. Second, only two studies were included for the subgroup of secondary infection. Despite some of these limitations, the strengths of this study must be mentioned: First, no obvious publication bias in our study was detected. Second, compared with the previous meta-analysis, we included more literature and have more comprehensive subgroup analyses on different outcome index[22,26,35]. In summary, although PPI use is not associated with increased risk infection and may not change the mortality risk of COVID-19, it appeared to be associated with increased risk of progression to severe disease, and increased risk of secondary infection. However, original studies included were limited, therefore more original studies to further clarify the relationship between PPI and COVID-19 are still urgently needed.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.25.20248860 on medRxiv