Skip to main content
Download PDF

Proton pump inhibitors and acute kidney injury: a nested case–control study

BMC Nephrology volume 14, Article number: 150 (2013) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are a widely-used class of drugs for the treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease and other acid-related disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. As a class, PPIs have demonstrated a favorable safety profile. However, case reports have suggested that this class of drugs may be linked to acute kidney injury, which may in turn lead to chronic injury or failure. The objective of this study was to determine if an association between PPIs and kidney failure exists and to estimate an effect size for the relationship between PPI use and renal disease.

Methods

A nested case–control study was conducted in a privately insured population in a single Midwestern state including a total of 184,480 patients aged 18 years or older who were continuously enrolled with the insurer for at least 24 months between September 2002 and November 2005.

Of the patients eligible for the study, 854 cases were identified as having at least two claims for an acute renal disease diagnosis. Cases were randomly matched with up to four controls (n = 3,289) based on age, gender, county of residence, and date of entry into the cohort. Patient demographic data, PPI use, illnesses, and medications associated with renal disease and a proxy for health status using pre-existing patient comorbidities were collected from inpatient, professional, and prescription claims data. Conditional logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between renal disease and PPI use.

Results

Renal disease was positively associated with PPI use (odds ratio [OR] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27, 2.32, p < 0.001) even after controlling for potential confounding conditions. After removing patients with potential confounding disease states from the study population, the number of cases (195 of the 854) and controls (607) was lower, but the relationship between renal disease and PPI use remained consistent (OR 2.25, CI 1.09-4.62, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Patients with a renal disease diagnosis were twice as likely to have used a previous prescription for a PPI. Therefore, it is necessary for physicians to increase recognition of patient complaints or clinical manifestations of this potentially harmful event in order to prevent further injury.

Peer Review reports

Background

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are a widely-used class of drugs for the treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease and other acid-related disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. In 2009, more than 119 million PPI prescriptions were filled in the United States, accounting for nearly $14 billion dollars in prescription PPI sales, in addition to billions more in over-the-counter (OTC) sales [1]. The PPI class includes several different agents, such as esomeprazole, omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, deslansoprazole, rabeprazole, etc., all of which possess a common mechanism of action for reducing parietal cell acid production by blocking H+/K + adenosine triphosphatase [2, 3].

As a class, PPIs have demonstrated a favorable safety profile [4–6]. Overall, complications have been infrequent and minor. The most common unwanted effects reported have been headaches, abdominal pain, and diarrhea [2]. In fact, the favorable adverse effect profile has led to movement of some of these agents to non-prescription status. However, as the use of PPIs has grown more widespread so have safety concerns. A growing body of literature suggests that this class of drugs may be linked to acute kidney injury, which can potentially lead to chronic injury or kidney failure. In 1992, a sentinel case-report identified the PPI omeprazole as a possible cause of acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) in an elderly woman [7]. Since that time, numerous biopsy-confirmed case reports and retrospective descriptive reports have been published suggesting a connection between PPI use and AIN [8–10]. Detailed summaries of these case reports have been published [9, 11, 12]. However, research in this area has been limited and consisted of small sample sizes without comparator groups. As a result, no estimate of the effect size is currently available. In turn, determining if an association between PPI use and AIN exists requires studies using larger sample sizes and control groups.

Drug-induced AIN is a form of acute kidney injury thought to result from an idiosyncratic, cell-mediated immunologic reaction [13, 14]. Drugs are the most commonly cited cause of AIN, but infectious and immune etiologies are also possible [15]. Recognition of AIN is elusive as the clinical manifestations are subtle. Classically, AIN has been described to present the following triad of events: fever, rash, and arthralgias [16–18]. Unfortunately, in case-reports of PPI-induced AIN, the triad of symptoms was present in a minority of subjects. Most complaints were nonspecific, including fever, fatigue/lethargy, weight loss, and nausea/vomiting [9, 11, 12]. Laboratory abnormalities were more consistently present in PPI-induced AIN cases, with elevated serum creatinine, pyuria, proteinuria, and hematuria observed in over 60% of the cases [9, 11, 19]. Because of varied clinical presentation and lack of accurate non-invasive tests, AIN can only be definitively diagnosed through a renal biopsy [13, 18].

In practice, PPI-induced AIN is likely under- or mis-diagnosed due to low suspicion (infrequent occurrence, limited information dissemination) and inconsistent clinical presentation [12]. Rather, AIN is more likely to be classified as some other form of acute or chronic renal injury. Recognizing this mis-classification, studies using claims data to investigate a link between PPI use and AIN require broadening ICD-9 codes beyond the single heading “AIN”. The objective of this study was to determine if an association exists between renal injury and PPI use and in turn estimate an effect size for this association using claims data.

Methods

This retrospective nested case–control study used claims data from a private insurer in a single Midwestern state to examine the relationship between renal disease and prescription PPI use. The nested case–control design has been employed in pharmacoepidemiologic studies, and its strengths and limitations have been previously described [20–22]. The insurer’s databases included 39 months (September 2002 through November 2005) of inpatient, outpatient, and prescription claims for a cohort of 184,480 patients. The database has been used in a number of studies and is a generally complete claims record for covered patients [23–25]. Patient identifiers were encrypted but could be linked across medical and prescription claims databases and years as long as the patient had coverage during these years. The study was approved by the University of Nebraska Medical Center Institutional Review Board.

Study cohort

Using demographic data and dates of coverage provided by the insurer, patients under the age of 18 and with less than two years of continuous coverage during the study period were excluded from the study. Patients diagnosed with renal disease (Table 1) within their first 12 months of entry into the cohort (i.e., the beginning of the study period or start of their continuous coverage) were also excluded from the study. Patients included in the study were 18 years or older, diagnosed with renal disease for at least 12 months, and continuously enrolled with the insurer for at least 24 months between September 2002 and November 2005. These inclusion and exclusion criteria assured that all patients had at least twelve months of claims data prior to the onset of renal disease.

Table 1 ICD-9 a codes used to identify cases and pre-existing renal disease
Full size table

Case and control definition

Given that the true nature of PPI-induce renal injury (i.e., AIN) is frequently misdiagnosed, multiple ICD-9 codes for acute or chronic renal disease were used to capture un-recognized cases. A practicing nephrologist was asked to identify renal disease diagnoses (Table 1) within the universe of ICD-9 codes that could be used to bill for AIN. Cases were defined as patients with at least two renal disease claims following 12 months of coverage within the study period. At least two claims were required to ensure that the first claim was not merely a diagnostic test used to rule out a renal disease.

Each case was then matched, using incident density sampling based on age, gender, county, and initial date of coverage with up to four randomly selected controls. Cases and controls were matched with the initial date of insurance coverage to account for changes in treatment patterns over the course of the study and to allow for the assignment of a common index date for each case and its controls. The index date was the service date of each case’s first renal disease claim and was assigned to both the cases and matched controls to determine the timing of PPI use and the presence of potential confounders at the time of diagnosis.

Covariates

PPI exposure status was obtained through prescription claims. Exposure was defined as having a PPI claim in the 90 days prior to the index date. Recognizing that our definition of renal injury includes cases not related to PPI use, we used a multi-variable regression to control for the effect of these confounding causes of renal injury. Potential confounders in this study were illnesses and the use of prescription medications that have been previously shown to be associated with renal disease [26]. These potential cofounders include diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and antibiotic, diuretic, or use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Use of OTC medications is not captured in a claims data base. Confounding by health status is an important consideration because patients with a lower health status are more likely to 1) have a renal disease diagnosis and 2) use PPIs [27]. As a proxy for patient health status, we included comorbidities from the Deyo modification of the Charlson comorbidity index as potential cofounding variables that were not previously included (i.e., myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, hemiplegia or paraplegia, dementia, chronic pulmonary disease, rheumatologic disease, mild liver disease, moderate or severe liver disease, AIDS, malignancy, and metastatic solid tumor) [28]. All variables were extracted from inpatient, outpatient, and prescription claims data using appropriate ICD-9 and NDC codes. Claims were not generated for OTC PPI or NSAID purchases and therefore this utilization was not captured. The presence of a confounding variable was concluded if a claim was identified in the period (minimum 12 months) prior to the index date.

Data analysis

We elected to explore the association between PPI-use and renal injury using two models. The first model attempts to control for potential confounding variables associated with renal disease, as listed above in the Covariates section. Conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs). All potential predictors were first evaluated in univariable conditional logistic regression models. Those covariates reaching a univariable significance level of p ≤ 0.1 were included in the final multivariable model. The p values corresponding to regression models are based on the Wald test.

Recognizing that some residual confounding variables could remain in the first model, a second conditional logistic regression model excluded cases and controls with pre-existing diagnoses for the comorbidities included in the primary model. As an additional sensitivity analysis, a conditional logistic regression model was used that included propensity scores. The propensity score and predicted probabilities of using a PPI were computed using all remaining independent variables. Finally, the authors conducted an analyses using Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonists (H2 Blockers), which have not been linked to acute kidney injury. All analyses were generated using SAS/STAT software, Version 9.2 of the SAS System for Windows (Copyright SAS Institute Inc.). SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.

Results

In the primary model, 854 cases of renal disease were matched to 3,289 controls. Of the 854 cases, 727 (85.1%) were matched to four controls, while the remaining 127 (14.9%) were matched to three controls. As Table 2 shows, most of the identified renal disease diagnoses were for acute renal insufficiency and acute renal failure. Cases were more likely to use a PPI and were considerably sicker, higher prevalence chronic diseases, (Table 3) than controls. Renal disease was positively associated with PPI use (OR = 2.04; CI 1.53, 2.71) even after controlling for potential confounding conditions (Table 4). Given the incidence in this population (0.0046), the number needed to harm equals 303 patients.

Table 2 Cases by diagnosis frequency
Full size table
Table 3 Characteristics of cases and controls
Full size table
Table 4 Odds ratios of renal disease from a multiple regression model
Full size table

After removing patients with potential confounding disease states from the study population, the number of cases (195) and controls (607) decreased (Table 5). Despite the smaller population, the relationship between renal disease and PPI use remained consistent (OR = 2.25; CI 1.09, 4.62).

Table 5 Seondary analysis
Full size table

The inclusion of a propensity score in the model did not change the relationship between PPI use and renal disease (OR 2.05, CI 1.52, 2.72). Analyses of H2 Blockers showed that there was not a statistically significant relationship between H2 Blocker use and renal disease (OR 1.37, CI 0.46, 4.13).

To account for the potential that a 90 day exposure status may include patients not currently using PPIs, sensitivity analyses using a 15 and 30 exposure window were also conducted. The results, not presented, were consistent with and confirmed the base case analyses. Similarly, inclusion of just incident users (first PPI prescription within 90 days) confirmed the results of the base case analyses.

Discussion

Previous publications have suggested an association between the use of PPIs and acute interstitial nephritis [7–12]. Our study is the first to use a quasi-experimental design to support an association between renal disease and PPI exposure even after controlling for other known causes of renal disease. Additionally, our study provides the first estimate of an effect size for this relationship. We found that patients with an incident of renal disease diagnosis were nearly twice as likely to have been exposed to PPIs compared to those without renal disease.

Presently, AIN is not preventable due to its idiosyncratic nature. Therefore it is important that emphasis be placed on timely recognition. Early detection and treatment (i.e., removal of the offending agent and possible use of oral corticosteroids) have been shown to reduce the morbidity of AIN [29]. Healthcare professionals are recommended to have a heightened awareness of patient complaints or clinical manifestations associated with AIN and an understanding of their possible association with PPIs. Pharmacists in particular are in a strategic position to link changes in a patient’s health status with recent PPI utilization.

Like all case–control studies, this analysis has limitations. Misclassification bias can occur if subjects are inaccurately classified regarding the outcome of interest (i.e., renal disease) or the exposure being investigated (i.e., PPI use). By more broadly defining PPI-associated renal disease, we were able to capture more cases, but we were also likely to have included instances of renal injury not associated with PPI exposure. This misclassification of cases could overestimate or underestimate the true relationship between PPI use and renal disease, depending on their distribution between exposure categories. Because our primary and secondary analysis controlled for or removed potential confounders from the analysis, we believe that the misclassified cases are not likely to be associated with PPI use, which is expected to make our estimate conservative.

Lack of OTC PPI utilization can lead to misclassification of exposure. Because OTC use was not captured in a claims database, it is possible that some subjects who used OTC PPIs were misclassified as non-users. Table 3 shows that cases, patients with a renal disease diagnosis, were more likely to be prescribed PPIs than controls. It is likely, given the differences in underlying comorbidities, that cases also used more OTC PPIs. This misclassification of cases would underestimate the effect of PPI injury and make a positive finding more difficult, leading to a more conservative estimate of association.

Surveillance bias could overestimate the impact of PPI exposure. Surveillance bias can occur, as Gordis described, “[i]f a population is monitored over a period of time, disease ascertainment may be better in the monitored population than in the general population…which leads to an erroneous estimate of the relative risk or odds ratio” [30]. In our study, individuals with renal disease were more likely to have an underlying chronic disease (Table 3). If subjects with chronic disease were more likely to see a physician, it is also more likely that a diagnosis of renal disease would have been made for those subjects. In an effort to control for the effect of surveillance bias, we created a second model where all persons with chronic diseases were removed. Evidence of an association between renal disease and PPI exposure remained (OR = 2.25) in the sample population without chronic diseases (Table 5).

Appropriate control of confounding variables is always important in the analysis of observational studies. In order to produce groups with similar important baseline characteristics, we matched cases to multiple controls based on age, gender, county of residence, and initial date of coverage. Additionally, we controlled for other causes of renal disease and health status, both directly and with propensity scores. It is possible that even after controlling for these known confounders, some residual confounding variables remain. It is also possible that additional confounding variables exist, such as OTC NSAID use, which could not be controlled for in the model, which is a limitation inherent to all observational studies.

Conclusions

The results of this nested case-controlled study affirm an association between renal disease and PPI use. Our study revealed that patients with a renal disease diagnosis were twice as likely to have a previous prescription for a PPI. Therefore, it is necessary that pharmacist and physician awareness and recognition of patient complaints or clinical manifestations of this potentially harmful event are increased. Furthermore, it is important that future research seek to establish a definitive causal relationship.

Authors’ information

This paper was presented as a poster presentation at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Americal College of Clinical Pharmacy, St. Louis, MO, October 26–29, 2006. GLC holds a Pharm.D. and Master of Science in Epidemiology and is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. DSC is a Pharm.D. with additional credentials as a Board Certified Pharmacotherapy Specialist (BCPS) who is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. DGK is a Ph.D. and M.B.A. who is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

Abbreviations

AIDS:

(Acquired immune deficiency syndrome)

AIN:

(Acute interstitial nephritis)

CI:

(Confidence intervals)

H2 Blocker:

(Histamine-2 receptor antagonists)

ICD-9:

(International classification of diseases, 9th revision)

NSAID:

(Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs)

OR:

(Odds ratios)

OTC:

(Over-the-counter)

PPI:

(Proton pump inhibitors).

References

  1. 1.

    IMS health Top-line market data:. 2009, : , http://www.imshealth.com/portal/site/ims/menuitem.d248e29c86589c9c30e81c033208c22a/?vgnextoid=9c61ba440c900310VgnVCM10000071812ca2RCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1, U.S. Sales and prescription information,

  2. 2.

    Wickersham RM, Novak KK: Drug facts and comparisons. 2005, St. Louis, MO: Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Robinson M, Horn J: Clinical pharmacology of proton pump inhibitors: what the practising physician needs to know. Drugs. 2003, 63: 2739-2754. 10.2165/00003495-200363240-00004.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bateman DN, Colin-Jones D, Hartz S, Langman M, Logan RF, Mant J, Murphy M, Paterson KR, Rowsell R, Thomas S, Vessey M: SURVEIL (study of undetected reactions, vigilance enquiry into links) group: mortality study of 18 000 patients treated with omeprazole. Gut. 2003, 52: 942-946. 10.1136/gut.52.7.942.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Boparai V, Rajagopalan J, Triadafilopoulos G: Guide to the use of proton pump inhibitors in adult patients. Drugs. 2008, 68: 925-947. 10.2165/00003495-200868070-00004.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Devlin JW, Welage LS, Olsen KM: Proton pump inhibitor formulary considerations in the acutely ill. Part 2: clinical efficacy, safety, and economics. Ann Pharmacother. 2005, 39: 1844-1851. 10.1345/aph.1G176.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ruffenach SJ, Siskind MS, Lien YH: Acute interstitial nephritis due to omeprazole. Am J Med. 1992, 93: 472-473. 10.1016/0002-9343(92)90181-A.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Torpey N, Barker T, Ross C: Drug-induced tubulo-interstitial nephritis secondary to proton pump inhibitors: experience from a single UK renal unit. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2004, 19: 1441-1446. 10.1093/ndt/gfh137.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Geevasinga N, Coleman PL, Webster AC, Roger SD: Proton pump inhibitors and acute interstitial nephritis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006, 4: 597-604. 10.1016/j.cgh.2005.11.004.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Simpson IJ, Marshall MR, Pilmore H, Manley P, Williams L, Thein H, Voss D: Proton pump inhibitors and acute interstitial nephritis: report and analysis of 15 cases. Nephrology (Carlton). 2006, 11: 381-385. 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2006.00651.x.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sierra F, Suarez M, Rey M, Vela MF: Systematic review: proton pump inhibitor-associated acute interstitial nephritis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007, 26: 545-553. 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03407.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Brewster UC, Perazella MA: Proton pump inhibitors and the kidney: critical review. Clin Nephrol. 2007, 68: 65-72.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Rossert J: Drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis. Kidney Int. 2001, 60: 804-817. 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.060002804.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ten RM, Torres VE, Milliner DS, Schwab TR, Holley KE, Gleich GJ: Acute interstitial nephritis: immunologic and clinical aspects. Mayo Clin Proc. 1988, 63: 921-930. 10.1016/S0025-6196(12)62697-4.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Schwarz A, Krause PH, Kunzendorf U, Keller F, Distler A: The outcome of acute interstitial nephritis: risk factors for the transition from acute to chronic interstitial nephritis. Clin Nephrol. 2000, 54: 179-190.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Markowitz GS, Perazella MA: Drug-induced renal failure: a focus on tubulointerstitial disease. Clin Chim Acta. 2005, 351: 31-47. 10.1016/j.cccn.2004.09.005.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Murray KM, Keane WR: Review of drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis. Pharmacotherapy. 1992, 12: 462-467.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kodner CM, Kudrimoti A: Diagnosis and management of acute interstitial nephritis. Am Fam Physician. 2003, 67: 2527-2534.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Brewster UC, Perazella MA: Acute kidney injury following proton pump inhibitor therapy. Kidney Int. 2007, 71: 589-593. 10.1038/sj.ki.5002038.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hingorani SR, Guthrie K, Batchelder A, Schoch G, Aboulhosn N, Manchion J, McDonald GB: Acute renal failure after myeloablative hematopoietic cell transplant: incidence and risk factors. Kidney Int. 2005, 67: 272-277. 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.00078.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Etminan M: Pharmacoepidemiology II: the nested case–control study–a novel approach in pharmacoepidemiologic research. Pharmacotherapy. 2004, 24: 1105-1109. 10.1592/phco.24.13.1105.38083.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Souverein PC, Webb DJ, Weil JG, Van Staa TP, Egberts AC: Use of antiepileptic drugs and risk of fractures: case–control study among patients with epilepsy. Neurology. 2006, 66: 1318-1324. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000210503.89488.88.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Klepser D, Pantelogianis A, Huether JR, Williams CE: Impact of decreasing patient cost share on medication switching: results from a zero-dollar generic copayment program. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009, 15: 202-203.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Klepser DG, Huether JR, Handke LJ, Williams CE: Effect of a cost-sharing change from copayment to coinsurance on drug expenditures and utilization. J Manag Care Pharm. 2007, 13: 765-777.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Klepser DG, Champ A, Huether JR, Williams C: Use of propensity scores to control for baseline characteristics in a comparison of health care utilization. J Manag Care Pharm. 2012, 18: 202-

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Fox CS, Larson MG, Leip EP, Culleton B, Wilson PW, Levy D: Predictors of new-onset kidney disease in a community-based population. JAMA. 2004, 291: 844-850. 10.1001/jama.291.7.844.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Van Boxel OS, Hagenaars MP, Smout AJ, Siersema PD: Socio-demographic factors influence use of proton pump inhibitors among users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009, 7: 855-861. 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.05.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA: Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992, 45: 613-619. 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Gonzalez E, Gutierrez E, Galeano C, Chevia C, De Seqera P, Bernis C, Parra EG, Delgado R, Sanz M, Ortiz M, Goicoechea M, Quereda C, Olea T, Bouarich H, Hernandez Y, Segovia B, Praga M, Grupo Madrileno De Nefritis Intersticiales: Early steroid treatment improves the recovery of renal function in patients with drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis. Kidney Int. 2008, 73: 940-946. 10.1038/sj.ki.5002776.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Gordis L: Epidemiology. 1996, Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 277-

    Google Scholar 

Pre-publication history

  1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2369/14/150/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Gerald C. Groggel for his contributions to this manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

    Affiliations

    1. Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 986045 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6045, USA

      Donald G Klepser, Dean S Collier & Gary L Cochran

    Authors
    1. Donald G Klepser
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Dean S Collier
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Gary L Cochran
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Donald G Klepser.

    Additional information

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Authors’ contributions

    DSC conceived the study, participated in the design of the study and helped draft the manuscript. GLC participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the finding and helped draft the manuscript. DGK participated in the conception and design of the study, performed data collection and analysis, and helped draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    Dean S Collier and Gary L Cochran contributed equally to this work.

    Rights and permissions

    This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Reprints and Permissions

    About this article

    Cite this article

    Klepser, D.G., Collier, D.S. & Cochran, G.L. Proton pump inhibitors and acute kidney injury: a nested case–control study. BMC Nephrol 14, 150 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-14-150

    Download citation

    Keywords

    • Proton pump inhibitors
    • Kidney failure
    • Renal disease
    • Nephritis

    BMC Nephrology

    ISSN: 1471-2369

    Contact us