Gastroenterology 2016;151:11051112

CLINICALALIMENTARY TRACT
Association of Proton Pump Inhibitors With Reduced Risk
of Warfarin-Related Serious Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Wayne A. Ray,1 Cecilia P. Chung,2,3,4 Katherine T. Murray,3,5,6 Walter E. Smalley,1,4,7
James R. Daugherty,1 William D. Dupont,8 and C. Michael Stein2,3
1
Department of Health Policy, 2Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine,

CLINICAL AT
Nashville, Tennessee; 3Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee;
4
Veterans Administration Tennessee Valley Health Care System, Nashville, Tennessee; 5Department of Medicine, Division of
Cardiology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee; 6Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt
University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee; 7Department of Gastroenterology, Vanderbilt University School of
Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee; and 8Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville,
Tennessee

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) might
reduce the risk of serious warfarin-related upper gastrointes-
tinal bleeding, but the evidence of their efcacy for this indica-
tion is limited. A gastroprotective effect of PPIs would be
particularly important for patients who take warfarin with an-
tiplatelet drugs or nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inammatory
drugs (NSAIDs), which further increase the risk of gastrointes-
tinal bleeding. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of
patients beginning warfarin treatment in Tennessee Medicaid
and the 5% National Medicare Sample identied 97,430 new
episodes of warfarin treatment with 75,720 person-years of
follow-up. The study end points were hospitalizations for upper
gastrointestinal bleeding potentially preventable by PPIs and for
bleeding at other sites. RESULTS: Patients who took warfarin
without PPI co-therapy had 119 hospitalizations for upper
gastrointestinal bleeding per 10,000 person-years of treatment.
The risk decreased by 24% among patients who received PPI
co-therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% condence
interval [CI], 0.63
0.91). There was no signicant reduction in
the risk of other gastrointestinal bleeding hospitalizations (HR,
1.07; 95% CI, 0.94
1.22) or non-gastrointestinal bleeding hos-
pitalizations (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84
1.15) in this group. Among
patients concurrently using antiplatelet drugs or NSAIDs, those
without PPI co-therapy had 284 upper gastrointestinal bleeding
hospitalizations per 10,000 person-years of warfarin treatment.
The risk decreased by 45% (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39
0.77) with
PPI co-therapy. PPI co-therapy had no signicant protective
effect for warfarin patients not using antiplatelet drugs or
NSAIDs (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70
1.06). Findings were similar in
both study populations. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of
patients beginning warfarin treatment in Tennessee Medicaid
and the 5% National Medicare Sample, PPI co-therapy was
associated with reduced risk of warfarin-related upper gastro-
intestinal bleeding; the greatest reduction occurred in patients
also taking antiplatelet drugs or NSAIDs.
Keywords: Warfarin; Proton-Pump Inhibitor; Antiplatelet Drugs.
annually.2 However, warfarin use is limited by frequent
major bleeding; in the United States, there are 29,000
warfarin-related bleeding hospitalizations each year.3
Serious warfarin-related bleeding commonly occurs in the
gastrointestinal tract, accounting for 26%
40% of such
bleeds in large atrial brillation trials.47 Of these, many are
upper gastrointestinal,8,9 which are thought to frequently
originate from asymptomatic lesions.10
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastric acid pro-
duction, promote ulcer healing, and prevent ulcer recur-
rence.11 These drugs might prevent warfarin-related upper
gastrointestinal bleeding by decreasing the occurrence of
spontaneous ulcers or promoting ulcer healing before
serious bleeding occurs. However, evidence is limited as to
whether or not PPIs prevent clinically important gastroin-
testinal bleeding during warfarin treatment.12,13 Thus,
current guidelines for oral anticoagulant therapy do not
recommend PPI co-therapy.1418
A gastroprotective effect for PPIs would be particularly
important for warfarin patients taking either antiplatelet
drugs or nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inammatory agents
(NSAIDs), which further increase the risk of serious gastro-
intestinal bleeding.19 Antiplatelet drugs are often indicated
for patients taking oral anticoagulants, who frequently have
coronary artery disease treated with low-dose aspirin, and
who may require a P2Y12 inhibitor for an acute coronary
syndrome or after a percutaneous coronary intervention.20
PPIs might be particularly benecial for warfarin patients
with concurrent antiplatelet drug or NSAID use, given that
they decrease the risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcers and
bleeding induced by low-dose aspirin,21 clopidogrel,2224 and
NSAIDs.21,25 Although guidelines recommend PPIs for most
warfarin patients taking antiplatelet drugs or NSAIDs,19,26,27
there are no controlled studies of the efcacy of PPI
co-therapy in this high-risk group.

Abbreviations used in this paper: HR, hazard ratio; NSAID, nonsteroidal

anti-inammatory drug; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.

W arfarin, an oral anticoagulant that inhibits the

production of vitamin K-dependent clotting fac-
tors,1 is one of the most frequently prescribed medications
Most current article
2016 by the AGA Institute
0016-5085/$36.00
in the United States, with more than 30 million prescriptions http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.08.054
 1106 Ray et al
Thus, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of
patients beginning warfarin treatment to assess whether the
risk of hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal bleeding
was reduced with PPI co-therapy. We also studied the effect
of PPI co-therapy in warfarin patients concurrently
receiving antiplatelet drugs/NSAIDs.
Methods
Sources of Data
The cohort of patients beginning warfarin treatment came
CLINICAL AT
from 2 populations: Tennessee Medicaid enrollees28,29
(1996
2011) and the longitudinal 5% National Medicare
Sample (2011
2013).30 Each population had computerized
les documenting members periods of enrollment and medical
care encounters for pharmacy, hospital, outpatient, and nursing
home providers, an efcient means to identify the cohort and
obtain study data.29 We studied 2 independent populations
both to increase sample size and to examine the consistency of
our ndings.
Study medication use was identied from pharmacy les
that recorded lled prescriptions. These included the
dispensing date, drug, quantity, dose, and days of supply.
Throughout much of the study period, Tennessee Medicaid had
a relatively generous drug benet, which covered over-the-
counter medications, such as low-dose aspirin, when these
were obtained with a prescription. Because Medicare reim-
bursement policies were more restrictive, the pharmacy les
did not include information on low-dose aspirin and over-
the-counter NSAIDs. Although some PPIs are available over-
the-counter, they only are recommended at low doses and for
14 day-courses up to 2 times a year.31
Cohort
The cohort included persons 30 years of age or older in
either population whose rst prescription for warfarin was
lled during the study period. They could not have had any oral
anticoagulant prescription in the preceding year
(Supplementary Table 1). They had to have complete
demographic information, full pharmacy benets and, to assure
regular contact with medical care, at least 1 outpatient visit and
1 lled prescription in the prior year. Patients could not have
end-stage renal disease, serious gastrointestinal illness pre-
disposing to bleeding (eg, esophageal varices or gastrointestinal
cancer), or a bleeding-related hospitalization in the past year
(Supplementary Table 1).
Patients entered the cohort on the day they lled their rst
warfarin prescription. Patients left the cohort on the rst of the
following: last day of the study, 365 days with no lling of a
warfarin prescription, lling of a prescription for a different
oral anticoagulant, loss of enrollment, failure to meet the cohort
eligibility criteria, a bleeding-related hospitalization, or death.
Patients who left the cohort could reenter if they subsequently
met the eligibility criteria.
Medication Exposure
Because the effect of study medications on the risk of
bleeding is thought to be acute, each day of study follow-up was
classied according to probable study medication use, as
identied from lled prescriptions (Supplementary Material).
Gastroenterology Vol. 151, No. 6
The exposure period was based on the dispensed days of
supply. The denitions of the period of use accounted for the
residual effects of some study drugs on the risk of bleeding.
Warfarin treatment during follow-up was dened as the
period during which patients were likely to have increased risk
of warfarin-related bleeding complications. This period began
on the date the prescription was lled and, given the long half-
life of warfarin, ended 3 days after the end of the days of supply
(Supplementary Material). All cohort follow-up and all study
analyses were restricted to periods of warfarin treatment.
There were 3 possible categories of concomitant PPI use
during warfarin treatment (Supplementary Material). PPI
co-therapy consisted of person-days on which the patient was
likely to be taking the PPI and for which a gastroprotective
effect was most plausible. It was dened as the interval
between the lling of a PPI prescription through the end of
days of supply. Former co-therapy consisted of person-days for
patients who had had a PPI prescription but for which there
should be no PPI-related gastroprotection. Analysis of this
person-time permitted assessment of confounding by unmea-
sured factors associated with receiving a PPI prescription.
No co-therapy consisted of person-days with no lled PPI
prescription in the past year.
Concurrent antiplatelet drug or NSAID use indicated
whether or not these drugs were used during warfarin treat-
ment. For aspirin and other antiplatelet drugs, concurrent use
was dened as present for the interval between the prescrip-
tion ll and 7 days after the end of the days of supply, given the
irreversible antiplatelet effects of these medications
(Supplementary Material). For NSAIDs, concurrent use was
present for the interval between the prescription ll and the
end of the days of supply.
End Points
The primary study end point was hospitalization for upper
gastrointestinal bleeding potentially preventable by PPI
co-therapy (Supplementary Material). This included bleeding
related to esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease, and gastritis, but
excluded bleeding unlikely to be affected by PPIs (eg, Mallory
Weiss tear). We also examined hospitalizations for other
gastrointestinal bleeding (predominantly lower gastrointestinal
or gastrointestinal hemorrhages for which upper/lower site not
indicated) and for bleeding at other sites (Supplementary
Material), which should not be affected by PPI co-therapy.
We identied bleeding-related hospitalizations from
hospital admissions with a previously validated algorithm
(Supplementary Material).32 The positive predictive value was
99% for all bleeding-related hospitalizations, 98% for all
gastrointestinal bleeding, and 80% for upper gastrointestinal
bleeding (Supplementary Table 2). The lower positive predic-
tive value for upper gastrointestinal bleeding resulted from
occasional use of diagnosis codes that did not specify the
gastrointestinal bleeding site.
Analysis
We analyzed the occurrence of endpoints during warfarin
treatment according to PPI co-therapy. Adjusted relative risk
was estimated with the hazard ratio (HR), with the reference
category no PPI co-therapy. HRs were calculated from Cox
regression models. Because patients at higher risk of upper
December 2016 PPI Co-Therapy and Warfarin-Related Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeds 1107

gastrointestinal bleeding are more likely to receive PPIs, the Table 1.Characteristics of New Episodes of Warfarin
models included 61 time-dependent covariates plausibly Treatment According to Proton Pump Inhibitor
related to bleeding risk (Supplementary Table 3). These Co-Therapya
included the study population (Medicaid or Medicare),
demographic characteristics, warfarin indication and treatment No PPI PPI
duration, gastrointestinal disease, risk factors for warfarin- Characteristic co-therapy co-therapy
related bleeding, medications thought to affect bleeding risk, Person-years warfarin treatmentb 52,407 14,658
cardiovascular comorbidity, alcohol abuse, liver disease, and Tennesee Medicaid 71.8 63.4
recent medical care utilization. Separate models were t for Age, y, mean 67.7 68.2
bleeding-related hospitalizations at upper gastrointestinal, Female sex 61.7 66.3
non-gastrointestinal, and other sites. Nursing home residence past year 11.7 13.3
The absolute effect of PPI co-therapy on the risk of Warfarin indication

CLINICAL AT
bleeding-related hospitalizations in the study cohort was Atrial brillation 52.7 53.2
described with the adjusted rate difference. These were esti- Deep vein thrombosis 24.7 28.7
Other cardiovascular 14.6 11.2
mated as I0*(HR
1), where I0 was the unadjusted incidence
Other or unknown 7.9 6.9
in patients without PPI co-therapy and HR the hazard ratio for
History of risk factors for upper 35.1 57.4
PPI co-therapy. CIs were calculated analogously. GI bleeding
We analyzed the effect of PPI co-therapy for patients with Peptic ulcer disease 3.9 15.6
concurrent antiplatelet drug or NSAID use (Supplementary Gastritis 3.1 10.6
Material), as well as for those with a history in the past year Blood in stool/GI bleedingc 2.6 6.1
of risk factors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (peptic ulcer Abdominal pain 15.9 29.1
disease, gastritis, blood in stool/gastrointestinal bleeding, Anemiad 19.2 31.2
abdominal pain, or anemia). PPI effect estimates were obtained GERD/dyspepsia 22.7 57.3
from single degree of freedom contrasts. Any antiplatelet drug or NSAID 35.4 41.2
Aspirin 9.9 12.1
The study was powered (a .05, 1
b .80) to detect a
NSAID 23.0 24.7
22% reduction in the PPI co-therapy HR for the entire cohort.
P2Y12 or other antiplatelet druge 9.3 14.7
For warfarin patients with and without concurrent antiplatelet Coxib, current use 3.4 8.2
drugs or NSAIDs, the detectable reductions were 38% and 27%. Smoking 14.0 18.4
All statistical analyses were performed with SAS software, AMI, revascularization, angina 13.7 17.5
version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Stroke or TIA 23.7 25.2
Heart failure 37.5 43.1
Digoxin 27.9 21.8
Loop diuretic 47.6 54.7
Results Insulin 13.9 17.4
The cohort included 97,430 new episodes of warfarin Oral hypoglycemic 23.8 27.3
treatment with 75,720 person-years of active treatment, of Alcohol abuse and related illnesses 1.8 1.9
which 52,442 were from Tennessee Medicaid and 23,278 Hospitalization 54.4 63.9
from the Medicare sample. There were 14,658 person-years ED visit, any, past 90 days 27.3 32.6
of warfarin treatment with PPI co-therapy, 52,407 person-
years with no co-therapy and 8,654 person-years with NOTE. Values are percentages unless otherwise indicated.
non-current co-therapy. The indication was atrial brillation Coxib, cycloxygenase-2 selective NSAID; ED, emergency
for more than one-half of the warfarin treatment and deep department; GI, gastrointestinal; AMI, acute myocardial
vein thrombosis for more than one-fourth (Table 1). infarction; GERD, gastroesophageal reux disease; TIA,
Warfarin patients with PPI co-therapy had greater transient ischemic attack.
a
Weighted according to person-years of warfarin treatment.
prevalence of risk factors for upper gastrointestinal Unless otherwise noted, all values are proportions. Unless
bleeding than did those without PPI co-therapy (57.4% vs otherwise stated, disease/medication variables reect diag-
35.1%, Table 1). These included history of peptic ulcer nosis/prescription ll during the preceding 365 days.
b
disease (15.6% vs 3.9%), abdominal pain (29.1% vs 15.9%), Not shown are 8,654 person-years of follow-up for non-
and anemia (31.2% vs 19.2%). Those with PPI co-therapy current PPI co-therapy.
c
were more likely to have had an antiplatelet drug or Outpatient or inpatient not meeting end-point denition
NSAID prescription in the past year (41.2% vs 35.4%), (admission not related to bleeding with secondary diagnosis,
such as blood in stool, indicating bleeding).
including aspirin, non-selective NSAIDs, and P2Y12 d
Diagnosis or prescription for iron.
inhibitors/other antiplatelet drugs. Findings were similar in e
Dipyridamole, cilostazole.
both the Tennessee Medicaid and Medicare populations
(Supplementary Table 4).
There were 3,848 bleeding-related hospitalizations population had similar incidence of hospitalizations for
during warfarin treatment, or 508 hospitalizations per bleeding at any site (Medicaid: 494 per 10,000, Medicare:
10,000 person-years. Of these, 964 (127 per 10,000 person- 541 per 10,000) or at upper gastrointestinal sites
years) were upper gastrointestinal, 1,619 (214 per 10,000) (Medicaid:130 per 10,000, Medicare 120 per 10,000).
were other gastrointestinal sites, and 1,265 (167 per Warfarin patients without PPI co-therapy had 119 hos-
10,000) were other sites. Warfarin patients from each study pitalizations for upper gastrointestinal bleeding per 10,000
 1108 Ray et al Gastroenterology Vol. 151, No. 6

Table 2.Hospitalizations for Bleeding During Warfarin Treatment According to Site of the Bleeding and Proton Pump Inhibitor
Co-Therapy

Variable No PPI co-therapy Former PPI co-therapy PPI co-therapy

Person-years 52,407 8,654 14,658

Upper gastrointestinal
Bleeding hospitalizations 624 159 181
Rate/10,000 person-years 119.1 183.7 123.5
Adjusted HRa (95% CI) 1.00 (0.82 to 1.21) 0.76 (0.63 to 0.91)
RDa (95% CI)
0.3 (
21.0 to 24.7)
28.7 (
44.0 to
10.3)
P value .9799 .0035
Other gastrointestinal
CLINICAL AT

Bleeding hospitalizations 936 280 403

Rate/10,000 person-years 178.6 323.5 274.9
Adjusted HRa (95% CI) 1 1.10 (0.95 to 1.27) 1.07 (0.94 to 1.22)
RDa (95% CI) 17.1 (
9.5 to 47.9) 13.1 (
10.6 to 40.1)
P value .2195 .2927
Other major bleeds
Bleeding hospitalizations 801 205 259
Rate/10,000 person-years 152.8 236.9 176.7
Adjusted HRa (95% CI) 1.13 (0.95 to 1.33) 0.98 (0.84 to 1.15)
RDa (95% CI) 19.1 (
7.4 to 50.4)
3.0 (
24.8 to 22.4)
P value 0.1676 0.8014

RD adjusted rate difference per 10,000.

a
Both the HR and RD are adjusted for the study population (Medicaid or Medicare), demographic characteristics, warfarin
indication and treatment duration, gastrointestinal disease, risk factors for warfarin-related bleeding, medications thought to
affect bleeding risk, cardiovascular comorbidity, alcohol abuse, liver disease, and recent medical care utilization
(Supplementary Table 3 has detailed list of covariates).

person-years of treatment (Table 2). The risk decreased by

24% (adjusted HR, 0.76, 95% CI, 0.63
0.91) with PPI
co-therapy, a reduction of 29 (10 to 44) hospitalizations per
10,000 person-years. PPI co-therapy was not signicantly
associated with reduced risk of other gastrointestinal
(HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.94
1.22) or non-gastrointestinal
(HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84
1.15) bleeding hospitalizations.
Former PPI co-therapy was not associated with reduced risk
of hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal bleeding
(HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.82
1.21). Findings were similar in
each of the study populations (Supplementary Table 5).
Warfarin patients without PPI co-therapy who also had
concurrent antiplatelet drug or NSAID use had 283 hospi-
talizations for upper gastrointestinal bleeding per 10,000
person-years of warfarin treatment (Figure 1). The risk
decreased by 45% (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39
0.77) with PPI
co-therapy, a reduction of 128 (66 to 173) hospitalizations Figure 1. Incidence of warfarin-related upper gastrointestinal
per 10,000 person-years. The gastroprotective effect of PPI bleeding according to PPI co-therapy. Vertical bars indicate
co-therapy did not differ signicantly according to specic 95% CIs. Stratied by concurrent use of antiplatelet drugs or
antiplatelet drug or NSAID (Table 3). In contrast, for NSAIDs. Incidence for patients with no PPI co-therapy (I0) is
unadjusted (CIs calculated assuming Poisson distribution);
warfarin patients without concurrent antiplatelet drug or
that for patients with PPI co-therapy calculated as I0*HR,
NSAID use, the HR for PPI co-therapy was 0.86 (95% CI, where HR is the adjusted hazard ratio for PPI co-therapy (CIs
0.70
1.06), which differed signicantly from that for calculated analogously). HRs adjusted for the study popula-
patients with concurrent antiplatelet drug or NSAID use tion (Medicaid or Medicare), demographic characteristics,
(P .0109). warfarin indication and treatment duration, gastrointestinal
In the absence of PPI co-therapy, the incidence of upper disease, risk factors for warfarin-related bleeding, medica-
gastrointestinal bleeding hospitalizations during warfarin tions thought to affect bleeding risk, cardiovascular comor-
bidity, alcohol abuse, liver disease, and recent medical care
treatment increased with both a history of risk factors for utilization (see Supplementary Table 3 for detailed list of
upper gastrointestinal bleeding and concurrent antiplatelet covariates). Numbers below the x-axis are the number of
drug or NSAID use (Figure 2). For patients with no history hospitalizations for upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the
of risk factors, hospitalizations for upper gastrointestinal person-years of warfarin treatment.
December 2016 PPI Co-Therapy and Warfarin-Related Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeds 1109

bleeding during warfarin treatment increased from 68 to

Table 3.Hospitalizations for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding During Warfarin Treatment According to Proton Pump Inhibitor Co-Therapy and Concurrent Use of Specic

128.2 (
172.4 to
66.4)

testinal disease, risk factors for warfarin-related bleeding, medications thought to affect bleeding risk, cardiovascular comorbidity, alcohol abuse, liver disease, and recent
Both the HR and RD are adjusted for the study population (Medicaid or Medicare), demographic characteristics, warfarin indication and treatment duration, gastroin-
197.6)

9.0)

6.1)
2.5)
224 per 10,000 person-years with concurrent antiplatelet

13.5 (
29.3 to 6.0)

RDa (95% CI)
drugs or NSAIDs, 156 (109 to 204) additional hospitaliza-

to
to
to
to
tions per 10,000 person-years. For patients with a history of

(
193.0
(
206.9
(
183.9
(
271.5
risk factors, hospitalizations for upper gastrointestinal
bleeding increased from 152 to 392 per 10,000 person-

129.5

134.1

119.0

136.1
years with concurrent antiplatelet drug or NSAID use,
240 (155 to 325) additional hospitalizations per 10,000
person-years.
P value

The gastroprotective effect of PPI co-therapy for

.1608

.0004

.0388
.0423
.0536
.3089
warfarin patients was only signicant for those with con-

CLINICAL AT
current antiplatelet drug or NSAID use, irrespective of the
history of risk factors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding
0.86 (0.70 to 1.06)

0.55 (0.39 to 0.77)

0.97)
0.98)
1.01)
1.54)
HRa (95% CI)

(Figure 2). For patients with concurrent antiplatelet drug or

to
to
to
to

NSAID use, but with no history of risk factors, the HR was

(0.27
(0.32
(0.29
(0.25

0.43 (95% CI, 0.22
0.83), whereas for those with a history

of risk factors, the HR was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.43
0.94). In
0.51
0.56
0.54
0.63

contrast, absent concurrent antiplatelet drug or NSAID use,

the gastroprotective effect of PPI co-therapy was smaller
Person-years UGI bleeds Rate/10,000 Person-years UGI bleeds Rate/10,000

and not statistically signicant for those either with or

109.2

196.7

185.3
201.2
173.5
282.8

without a history of risk factors for upper gastrointestinal

bleeding.
We analyzed the effects of PPI co-therapy in warfarin
patients according to concurrent antiplatelet drug or NSAID
PPI co-therapy

use and history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk

47

12
15
13
134

factors for the individual study populations. Findings in

each population were similar to those from the primary
analyses (Supplementary Tables 6 and 7).
In the primary analysis, all covariates could change
during warfarin treatment, since PPI co-therapy could be
2,390
12,269

648
745
749
248

initiated for gastrointestinal conditions that developed after

cohort entry. However, some covariates could be on the
medical care utilization (Supplementary Table 3 has detailed list of covariates).

causal pathway between PPI co-therapy and reduced risk

of upper gastrointestinal bleeding hospitalization. We per-
formed a sensitivity analysis in which the only time-
RD, adjusted rate difference per 10,000; UGI, upper gastrointestinal.
283.8

263.5
302.7
258.4
363.9
97.1
Antiplatelet Drugs or Nonsteroidal Anti-Inammatory Drugs

dependent covariates were PPI co-therapy, concurrent

antiplatelet drug or NSAID use, and other drugs associated
with gastrointestinal bleeding and change in clinical status
No PPI co-therapy

from baseline was limited by restricting follow-up to 1 year.

The HR for PPI co-therapy was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.61
0.96) for
449

175

47
71
42
15

all warfarin patients and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.36
0.84) for those
with concurrent antiplatelet drug or NSAID use.
We also performed an analysis in which patients could
not re-enter the cohort. The HR for PPI co-therapy was 0.75
(95% CI, 0.62
0.91) for all warfarin patients and 0.53 (95%
6,167

1,783
2,346
1,626
46,240

412

CI, 0.37
0.75) for those with concurrent antiplatelet drug

or NSAID use.
Any concurrent antiplatelet drug

Discussion
No concurrent antiplatelet drug

P2Y12/other antiplatelet only

We sought to determine whether PPI co-therapy could

reduce the risk of serious upper gastrointestinal bleeding in
patients treated with warfarin, given the frequency of this
Variable

life-threatening complication and the absence of specic

recommendations in current guidelines.1418 In this retro-
Multiple drugs
or NSAID

or NSAID
Aspirin only

spective cohort study in 2 populations of patients initiating

NSAID only

warfarin treatment, PPI co-therapy was associated with a

statistically signicant 24% reduction in the incidence of
hospitalizations for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, or 29
a
 1110 Ray et al Gastroenterology Vol. 151, No. 6
CLINICAL AT

Figure 2. Incidence of warfarin-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding according to PPI co-therapy. Vertical bars indicate 95%
CIs. Stratied by concurrent use of antiplatelet drugs or NSAIDs and history of risk factors for upper gastrointestinal (GI)
bleeding (peptic ulcer, gastritis, abdominal pain, blood in stool/GI bleeding, anemia in past year). Incidence for patients with no
PPI co-therapy (I0) is unadjusted (CIs calculated assuming Poisson distribution); that for patients with PPI co-therapy
calculated as I0*HR, where HR is the adjusted hazard ratio for PPI co-therapy (CIs calculated analogously). HRs adjusted
for the study population (Medicaid or Medicare), demographic characteristics, warfarin indication and treatment duration, GI
disease, risk factors for warfarin-related bleeding, medications thought to affect bleeding risk, cardiovascular comorbidity,
alcohol abuse, liver disease, and recent medical care utilization (see Supplementary Table 3 for detailed list of covariates).
Numbers below the x-axis are the number of hospitalizations for upper GI bleeding and the person-years of warfarin treatment.

fewer hospitalizations per 10,000 person-years of warfarin
treatment. In contrast, the protective effect was not present
for hospitalizations for bleeding at other sites, nor was it
present for patients who had stopped PPI co-therapy.
Findings were similar in both the Tennessee Medicaid and
Medicare 5% sample populations.
Our ndings were generally consistent with those of
previous smaller investigations of oral anticoagulants. Three
case-control studies of the effects of gastroprotective
co-therapy during treatment with a variety of medications
that increase bleeding risk, including oral anticoagulants,
have reported a nonsignicant protective effect for
PPIs.12,33,34 A recent study by Chan and colleagues13
reported that PPI co-therapy during dabigatran treatment
was associated with a 47% (9%
69%) reduction in
gastrointestinal bleeding. However, these previous studies
did not present data for the high-risk group of patients for
whom the incidence of warfarin-related bleeding is elevated
because they also take antiplatelet drugs or NSAIDs.19
Antiplatelet drugs often are indicated for warfarin
patients with coronary artery disease, acute coronary
syndrome, or percutaneous coronary intervention.20 We
found that in the absence of PPI co-therapy, the incidence of
hospitalizations for upper gastrointestinal bleeding
increased nearly 3-fold with concurrent antiplatelet drug
or NSAID use. However, for these high-risk patients, PPI
co-therapy was associated with a 45% decreased risk, or
128 fewer hospitalizations per 10,000 person-years of
warfarin treatment. Even for patients without a history of
risk factors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, concurrent
antiplatelet drug or NSAID use more than tripled the inci-
dence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding hospitalizations,
but PPI co-therapy in this group was associated with a 57%
decreased risk.
We did not nd a signicant protective effect of PPI
co-therapy for warfarin patients without concurrent anti-
platelet drug or NSAID use. The benets of PPIs may be
limited to patients who also take antiplatelet drugs or
NSAIDs, for whom they promote healing of or prevent
bleeding in otherwise asymptomatic lesions. However, the
magnitude of the gastroprotective effect of PPI co-therapy in
other patients may be lower than that which our study was
powered to detect. The point estimate of a 14% protective
effect, with an upper 95% CI bound of 30%, indicate that
our data cannot rule out clinically important gastro-
protection for these patients. Further studies are needed to
clarify the role of PPI co-therapy for warfarin patients
without concurrent antiplatelet drug or NSAID use.
There is a theoretical concern that PPI co-therapy could
increase warfarin concentration, given that, in vitro, some
PPIs inhibit metabolism by hepatic cytochrome P450 2C19
(CYP2C19),35 a minor pathway for warfarin metabolism.
December 2016 PPI Co-Therapy and Warfarin-Related Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeds 1111
However, there are conicting data on the clinical impor-
tance of this nding. A study of 82 Japanese patients
prescribed either lansoprazole (n 41) or rabeprazole
(n 41) at the initiation of warfarin treatment after cardiac
surgery found greater risk of bleeding in the group receiving
lansoprazole, the more potent CYP2C19 inhibitor.36 How-
ever, a subsequent study of 305 warfarin patients in
Denmark reported that initiation of a PPI was not associated
with a change in the international normalized ratio.37 Our
ndings suggest that, in practice, any adverse effect of PPI
co-therapy on warfarin metabolism is outweighed by
gastroprotective effects.
The limitations of this observational study generally
should lead to underestimation of a PPI gastroprotective
effect. Information on over-the-counter medications was
likely to be incomplete, particularly for the Medicare pop-
ulation. This would result in misclassication of both aspirin
and NSAID use, which should cause underestimation of PPI
effects, given that both medications are strong risk factors
for gastrointestinal bleeding and were positively correlated
with PPI co-therapy in the study cohort. There also will be
some misclassication of PPI co-therapy, which if non-
differential, would bias to the null. Although we measured
an extensive set of covariates, patients starting warfarin
treatment could have had unrecorded risk factors for upper
gastrointestinal bleeding, including Helicobacter pylori
infection. Given the strong correlation we observed between
the recorded risk factors and increased likelihood of PPI
co-therapy, confounding by unmeasured risk factors should
also lead to underestimation of the PPI effect. The concor-
dance of the ndings in the 2 study populations and the
absence of an effect of PPI co-therapy on the risk of bleeding
at either other gastrointestinal or non-gastrointestinal sites
suggest that the inuence of these factors was limited.
The study cohort came from 2 distinct populations:
Tennessee Medicaid, a low-income population with a high
proportion of patients enrolled because of illness; and the
5% National Medicare Sample, a national sample of Medi-
care enrollees restricted to those with fee-for-service plans
and part D coverage. The incidence of bleeding hospitali-
zations for all sites and for upper gastrointestinal sites was
very similar in the 2 populations. The magnitudes of PPI
protective effect were comparable for both the entire
population and for subgroups dened according to anti-
platelet drug or NSAID use or history of risk factors for
upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This suggests that our
ndings were not due to the specic characteristics of either
the study populations or sources of data.
In summary, for patients initiating warfarin treatment in
Tennessee Medicaid and the 5% National Medicare Sample,
PPI co-therapy was associated with a statistically signicant
24% reduction in the incidence of hospitalizations for upper
gastrointestinal bleeding during warfarin treatment. A sig-
nicant reduction in risk was found only among warfarin
patients with concurrent antiplatelet drug or NSAID use.
Although we cannot rule out a small gastroprotective effect
among other warfarin patients, no signicant associations
were found for this group.
Supplementary Material
Note: To access the supplementary material accompanying
this article, visit the online version of Gastroenterology at
www.gastrojournal.org, and at http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/
j.gastro.2016.08.054.
References
1. Hankey GJ, Eikelboom JW. Dabigatran etexilate: a new
oral thrombin inhibitor. Circulation 2011;123:14361450.
2. Kantor ED, Rehm CD, Haas JS, Chan AT,
CLINICAL AT
Giovannucci EL. Trends in prescription drug use among
adults in the United States from 1999
2012. JAMA
2015;314:18181831.
3. Wysowsky DK, Nourjah P, Swartz L. Bleeding compli-
cations with warfarin use. Arch Intern Med 2007;
167:14141419.
4. Olsson SB. Executive Steering Committee of the
SPORTIF III Investigators. Stroke prevention with the oral
direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran compared with
warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial brillation
(SPORTIF III): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;
362(9397):16911698.
5. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran
versus warfarin in patients with atrial brillation. N Engl J
Med 2009;361:11391151.
6. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJV, et al. Apix-
aban versus warfarin in patients with atrial brillation.
N Engl J Med 2011;365:981992.
7. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban
versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial brillation. N Engl J
Med 2011;365:883891.
8. Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, et al. Edoxaban
versus warfarin in patients with atrial brillation. N Engl J
Med 2013;369:20932104.
9. Sherwood MW, Nessel CC, Hellkamp AS, et al. Gastro-
intestinal bleeding in patients with atrial brillation treated
with rivaroxaban or warfarin: rocket af trial. J Am Coll
Cardiol 2015;66:22712281.
10. Cryer B. Reducing the risks of gastrointestinal bleeding
with antiplatelet therapies. N Engl J Med 2005;352:
287289.
11. Brunner G, Creutfeldt W. Omeprazole in the long-term
treatment of patients with acid-related disease resistant
to ranitidine. Scand J Gastroenterol 1989;24(Suppl 166):
101105.
12. Lin KJ, Hernandez-Diaz S, Garcia Rodriguez LA. Acid
suppressants reduce risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in
patients on antithrombotic or anti-inammatory therapy.
Gastroenterology 2011;141:7179.
13. Chan EW, Lau WC, Leung WK, et al. Prevention of
dabigatran-related gastrointestinal bleeding with gastro-
protective agents: a population-based study. Gastroen-
terology 2015;149:586595.
14. Ansell J, Hirsh J, Hylek E, et al. Pharmacology and
management of the vitamin K antagonists: American
College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical
Practice Guidelines (8th edition). Chest 2008;133(Suppl):
160S198S.
 1112 Ray et al
15. Cairns JA, Connolly S, McMurtry S, et al. Canadian
Cardiovascular Society Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines 2010:
prevention of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in
atrial brillation and utter. Can J Cardiol 2011;27:7490.
16. Schulman S, Beyth RJ, Kearon C, Levine MN. Hemor-
rhagic complications of anticoagulant and thrombolytic
treatment: American College of Chest Physicians
Evidence-Based Clinicial Practice Guidelines (8th Edi-
tion). Chest 2008;133(Suppl):257S298S.
17. Garcia DA, Witt DM, Hylek E, et al. Delivery of optimized
anticoagulant therapy: consensus statement from the
anticoagulation forum. Ann Pharmacother 2008;42:
CLINICAL AT
979988.
18. January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/
HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial
brillation: a report of the american college of cardiology/
american heart association task force on practice
guidelines and the heart rhythm society. J Am Coll Car-
diol 2014;64(21):e1e76.
19. Bhatt DL, Scheiman J, Abraham NS, et al. ACCF/ACG/
AHA 2008 Expert consensus document on reducing the
gastrointestinal risks of antiplatelet therapy and NSAID
use. A report of the American College of Cardiology
Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus
Documents. Circulation 2008;52:15021517.
20. Faxon DP, Eikelboom JW, Berger PB, et al. Antith-
rombotic therapy in patients with atrial brillation un-
dergoing coronary stenting: a North American
perspective: executive summary. Circ Cardiovasc Interv
2011;4:522534.
21. Rostom A, Wells G, Tugwell P, et al. Prevention of
NSAID-induced gastroduodenal ulcers. Cochrane Data-
base Syst Rev 2000;(4):CD002296.
22. Ray WA, Murray KT, Grifn MR, et al. Outcomes with
concurrent use of clopidogrel and proton-pump in-
hibitors: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2010;152:
337345.
23. Bhatt DL, Cryer BL, Contant CF, et al. Clopidogrel with or
without omeprazole in coronary artery disease. N Engl J
Med 2010;363:19091917.
24. Vaduganathan M, Bhatt DL, Cryer BL, et al. Proton-pump
inhibitors reduce gastrointestinal events regardless of
aspirin dose in patients requiring dual antiplatelet ther-
apy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67:16611671.
25. Ray WA, Chung CP, Stein CM, et al. Risk of peptic ulcer
hospitalizations in users of NSAIDs with gastroprotective
cotherapy versus coxibs. Gastroenterology 2007;133:
790798.
26. Abraham NS, El-Serag HB, Johnson ML, et al. National
adherence to evidence-based guidelines for the pre-
scription of nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs.
Gastroenterology 2005;129:11711178.
27. Abraham NS, Hlatky M, Antman E, et al. ACCF/ACG/AHA
2010 expert consensus document on the concomitant
use of proton pump inhibitors and thienopyridines: A
focused update of the ACCF/ACG/AHA 2008 expert
consensus document on reducing the gastrointestinal
risks of antiplatelet therapy and NSAID use. Am J Gas-
troenterol 2010;105:25332549.
Gastroenterology Vol. 151, No. 6
28. Ray WA, Grifn MR. Use of Medicaid data for pharma-
coepidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:837849.
29. Ray WA. Population-based studies of adverse drug
effects. N Engl J Med 2003;349:15921594.
30. Baillargeon J, Holmes HM, Lin YL, et al. Concurrent use
of warfarin and antibiotics and the risk of bleeding in
older adults. The Am J Med 2012;125:183189.
31. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA drug safety
communication: low magnesium levels can be associated
with long-term use of Proton Pump Inhibitor drugs (PPIs).
Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/
ucm245011.htm. Accessed October 21, 2016.
32. Cunningham A, Stein CM, Chung CP, et al. An auto-
mated database case denition for serious bleeding
related to oral anticoagulant use. Pharmacol Drug Safety
2011;20:560566.
33. Lanas A, Garcia-Rodriguez LA, Arroyo MT, et al. Effect of
antisecretory drugs and nitrates on the risk of ulcer
bleeding associated with nonsteroidal anti-inammatory
drugs, antiplatelet agents, and anticoagulants. Am J
Gastroenterol 2007;102:507515.
34. Masso-Gonzalez EL, Garcia-Rodriguez LA. Proton pump
inhibitors reduce the long-term risk of recurrent upper
gastrointestinal bleeding: an observational study. Aliment
Pharmacol Ther 2008;28:629637.
35. Li Z, Andersson TB, Ahlstrom M, Weidolf L. 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;32:821827.
36. Hata M, Shiono M, Akiyama K, et al. Incidence of drug
interaction when using proton pump inhibitor and
warfarin according to cytochrome P450 2C19 genotype
in Japanese. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;63:4550.
37. Henriksen DP, Stage TB, Hansen MR, et al. The potential
drug-drug interaction between proton pump inhibitors
and warfarin. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2015;24:
13371340.
Author names in bold designate shared co-rst authorship.
Received May 23, 2016. Accepted August 31, 2016.
Reprint requests
Address requests for reprints to: Wayne A. Ray, PhD, Department of Health
Policy, Village at Vanderbilt, Suite 2600, 1501 21st Avenue South, Nashville,
Tennessee 37212. e-mail: wayne.ray@vanderbilt.edu.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Tennessee Bureau of TennCare and
the Department of Health, which provided study data. The Vanderbilt and
Tennessee Department of Health Institutional Review Boards approved the
study.
Conicts of interest
The authors disclose no conicts.
Funding
This study was supported in part by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute (HL114518). Dr Chung was funded by grants from the National
Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K23AR064768)
and the Rheumatology Research Foundation Career Development K
Supplement. Funding agencies had no role in study conduct or reporting.
The listed authors were entirely responsible for study design, data analysis,
manuscript preparation, and publication decisions. The rst manuscript draft
was written by the primary author, who vouches for the data and the analysis.
December 2016 PPI Co-Therapy and Warfarin-Related Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeds 1112.e1

Supplementary Material
Cohort
Tennessee Medicaid. The study Medicaid database
included enrollment, pharmacy, hospital, outpatient, and
nursing home les, and was augmented with linkage to death
certicates1,2 and a statewide hospital discharge database.1,3
Files for the period 1995 through 2011 were used.
5% National Medicare Sample. The longitudinal 5%
national sample of Medicare enrollees is selected on the
basis of the 8th and 9th digits of the health insurance
number.4 Study les included the beneciary summary le
(enrollment/demographics), Part D events le (lled pre-
scriptions), MEDPAR le (inpatient/skilled nursing facility),
outpatient standard analytic le (institutional outpatient),
Medicare Carrier le (non-institutional outpatient), and
hospice le. Files for the period 2010 through 2013 were
used.
Qualifying episodes of warfarin use. The cohort
included patients beginning warfarin treatment during the
period from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 2011
for Tennessee Medicaid and from January 1, 2011 through
December 31, 2013 for the 5% National Medicare Sample.
To enter the cohort, patients had to meet study inclusion/
exclusion criteria (Supplementary Table 1) on the day the
prescription was lled (t0). Supplementary Table 1 shows
the numbers of potential cohort members who successively
met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Because a person who
left the cohort could subsequently re-enter, we also show
the number of new episodes of warfarin treatment.
Overlap. From 2006 on, Tennessee Medicaid did not
provide pharmacy benets to persons eligible for Medicare,
as these could be obtained through Medicare part D. Such
enrollees were excluded from the Medicaid cohort because
they did not meet criterion 1. Thus, the 2 cohorts should not
overlap.
Patients entered the cohort on the date of the warfarin
ll. Patients left the cohort on the rst of the following dates:
1. End of warfarin use: 1 year with no lled warfarin
prescription.
2. The last day of the study, December 31, 2011 for
Medicaid and December 31, 2013 for Medicare.
3. Day before lling of a prescription for a non-study
oral anticoagulant.
4. Last day of enrollment, including either loss of
enrollment or transition to a category without full
pharmacy benets. For Medicare, transfer to Medi-
care Part C was considered loss of enrollment.
5. Day before failure to meet inclusion/exclusion
criteria.
6. Day of a study end point.
7. Date of death.
Patients who left the cohort could re-enter if they sub-
sequently met the study criteria. This included patients with
an end point if they subsequently had at least 1 year with no

Supplementary Table 1.Qualifying Episodes of Warfarin Use

No. of Medicaid No. of Medicare

episodes episodes
Criterion (no. of persons) (no. of persons)

Filled prescription for warfarin during study period for a patient 30 years of age or older. 92,856 (83,807) 118,832 (116,016)
For Tennessee Medicaid, the patient must be enrolled for the prior year in a category
with full pharmacy benets. For the 5% National Medicare Sample, the patient must be
enrolled in Medicare parts A, B, and D but not in part C (Medicare Advantage) in the
month the warfarin prescription was lled and in the preceding 12 calendar months.
New treatment episode. No other lled prescription for any oral anticoagulant in the 64,015 (58,503) 46,868 (46,021)
past year.
At least 1 outpatient visit (excluding laboratory claims) and 1 lled prescription 61,618 (56,471) 46,096 (45,273)
(excluding the warfarin prescription) in the past year to assure that patients have
had regular contact with medical care.
No end-stage renal disease in the past year, in order to exclude patients with use of 59,157 (54,297) 44,108 (43,335)
warfarin for dialysis.
No serious upper GI illness in the past year predisposing to frequent GI bleeding or altering 57,178 (52,516) 41,963 (41,243)
the pathology of peptic ulcer disease. This excludes persons who may have frequent care
for bleeding from other causes, such as esophageal varices or GI cancer.
No prior bleeding-related hospitalization in the past year, dened as a hospital stay meeting 56,114 (51,584) 41,316 (40,618)
the study end-point denition. We excluded these patients because it would be difcult to
determine whether subsequent bleeding hospitalizations represented a new event or
continued care for bleeding that began before warfarin treatment. The numbers of
exclusions for each type of bleeding hospitalization are shown.
Upper GI 336 (301) 164 (161)
Other GI 417 (362) 313 (300)
Other bleed 311 (269) 170 (164)
1112.e2 Ray et al
end point. Because a single person could have multiple end
points, which could violate statistical independence
assumptions, we performed a sensitivity analysis that
excluded such patients.
Study Medication Use During Follow-Up
The study analysis required identifying periods of
exposure to warfarin, PPIs, and antiplatelet drugs/NSAIDs.
Because these medications are thought to alter the risk of
bleeding only while the patients are taking the drugs, we
tracked study medication exposure during follow-up on a
day-by-day basis.
Filled prescriptions provided a surrogate measure for
drug use during follow-up. Periods of drug exposure were
dened according to the date the prescription was lled and
the dispensed days of supply. The maximum days of supply
per prescription was 31 days for Tennessee Medicaid and
90 days for Medicare. Because medication regimens often
change during a hospital stay, we ended the prescription
days of supply when the patient was admitted to the hos-
pital. Study medication use would resume if and when the
patient relled the medication after hospital discharge.
Some of the study drugs can affect the risk of bleeding
for a few days after cessation of use. The denitions of the
exposure periods varied slightly according to drug, as
described here.
Warfarin treatment. The risk of warfarin-related
bleeding should only be present while patients are taking
the drug. Thus, all study analyses were restricted to periods
of warfarin treatment during follow-up, dened as the
interval from the date the prescription was lled through 3
days after the end of the days of supply. Although some
warfarin effects can persist for up to 5 days (eg, surgery is
not recommended within 5 days of use), our assessment of
the literature is that much of the risk for increased bleeding
is gone by day 3.
Proton pump inhibitor co-therapy. All warfarin
treatment was classied into 3 categories according to
concomitant use of PPIs (dexlansoprazole, esomeprazole,
lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole):
 PPI co-therapy was the period during which gastro-
protective effects were most plausible, dened as the
interval from the lling of the prescription through the
end of the dispensed days of supply.
 No co-therapy indicated person-time for which no PPI
prescription had been lled in the past 365 days.
 Former PPI co-therapy indicated person-time for per-
sons who had received a PPI prescription but should
not have gastroprotection. This category permits
assessment of confounding by unmeasured factors
associated with being prescribed a PPI. It was dened
as the period between the end of current co-therapy
and the beginning of no co-therapy; or the rst day
for a new course of therapy (none past 365 days), given
the implausibility of a gastroprotective effect on that
day and the possibility that the PPI was started to treat
a gastrointestinal (GI) bleed. Non-current use also
Gastroenterology Vol. 151, No. 6
includes person-time during which PPI exposure may
be misclassied because patients were taking the drug
on an as-needed schedule.
Concurrent antiplatelet drug/nonsteroidal anti-
inammatory drug use. The study antiplatelet drugs
were aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors, and other antiplatelet drugs
(dipyridamole and cilostazole). NSAIDs comprised the
nonselective NSAIDs other than aspirin. Concurrent anti-
platelet drug/NSAID use during follow-up was dichoto-
mized as either present or absent. For aspirin and other
antiplatelet drugs, concurrent use was present for the
interval from the lling of the prescription through 7 days
after the end of the days of supply, given that these medi-
cations irreversibly inhibit platelets. The period of concur-
rent use for non-aspirin NSAIDs was the interval from the
lling of the prescription through the end of the days of
supply.
Medication use examples. Supplementary Figure 1
provides examples of the medication use denitions. For
convenience, the examples only depict the rst 180 days of
cohort follow-up. There are 7 hypothetical patients with
warfarin treatment, each illustrating a common pattern of
warfarin use.
1. Patient starts warfarin therapy and has no other
study medications. The entire follow-up period is
included in the analysis as warfarin treatment.
2. Patient receives two 60-day courses of warfarin
therapy separated by 60 days. The interval between
the warfarin courses is not considered warfarin
treatment and is excluded from the analysis. Thus,
patient 2 would contribute 63 63 126 person-
days of warfarin treatment to study analyses. The
remaining 54 days of person-time for that patient
would not be considered.
3. Patient is started on warfarin and a PPI. The entire
180 days of follow-up will be classied as warfarin
treatment with PPI co-therapy.
4. A patient begins warfarin, a PPI, and a P2Y12 inhibi-
tor. The entire 180 days of follow-up will be classied
as warfarin treatment with concurrent antiplatelet
drug/NSAID use and PPI co-therapy.
5. A patient begins warfarin and a P2Y12 inhibitor, but
there is no PPI prescription within the past year. The
entire 180 days of follow-up will be classied as
warfarin treatment with concurrent antiplatelet
drug/NSAID use. A PPI is started at day 61. Days
1
60 will be classied as no PPI co-therapy and days
62
180 as PPI co-therapy. Day 61 is classied as
former PPI co-therapy
6. Patient receives 90 days of warfarin therapy with no
history of PPI use in the past year. Shortly after
therapy begins, an NSAID is started. Subsequent to
the NSAID, a PPI prescription is lled. The rst
30 days of follow-up is classied as warfarin treat-
ment with neither PPI co-therapy nor concurrent
December 2016 PPI Co-Therapy and Warfarin-Related Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeds 1112.e3

antiplatelet drug/NSAID use. The next 30 days is
warfarin treatment with concurrent antiplatelet
drug/NSAID use, but with no PPI co-therapy. The
remaining person-time is warfarin treatment with
both concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID use and PPI
co-therapy.
7. Patient has intermittent warfarin and PPI therapy.
The gaps in warfarin therapy are not included in the
study analysis. The periods where warfarin and PPI
use overlap are warfarin treatment with PPI
co-therapy, the other periods of warfarin therapy are
warfarin treatment with former PPI co-therapy.

Supplementary Figure 1. Medication use patterns for 7 hypothetical warfarin patients: (1) Long-term warfarin use, no other
study medications; (2) two 60-day warfarin courses separated by 60 days; (3) warfarin with PPI; (4) warfarin PPI P2Y12;
(5) warfarin P2Y12, PPI starts after warfarin; (6) 90-day warfarin course, NSAID after warfarin start and subsequently PPI; and
(7) intermittent warfarin and PPI therapy.
1112.e4 Ray et al Gastroenterology Vol. 151, No. 6

Serious Bleeding End Points algorithm5 with minor modications. The primary modi-
Serious bleeding end points were hospitalizations with cation was of the method for distinguishing upper and
diagnoses and procedures indicating that the hospitaliza- lower GI bleeding when the hospital discharge diagnosis
tion was primarily related to a major bleed. These hospi- was 578.1 or 578.9, which can indicate either an upper or
talizations were classied according to the probable site of lower site. Previously, we relied upon procedure codes: for
the bleeding: example, if there was a procedure code for upper GI
endoscopy, but no diagnosis compatible with upper GI
1. gastroduodenal;
bleeding, we would assign an upper site. We modied this
2. esophageal, other than gastroesophageal reux denition because an endoscopy coupled with discharge
disease; diagnoses not indicating upper GI bleeding may reect a
negative diagnostic evaluation. The revised algorithm is
3. upper GI, unspecied as to esophageal or
available from the authors on request.
gastroduodenal;
We assessed the performance of the modied algorithm
4. upper GI, angiodysplasia; for the primary study end point of upper GI bleeding. This
utilized the 239 completed chart adjudications for bleeding
5. lower GI; hospitalizations from our previous validation study.5 The
6. unspecied GI, possibly esophageal, upper, or lower; performance of algorithms for identifying any GI bleeding
did not change: positive predictive value 102/103
7. multiple GI; (99.0%); sensitivity 102/103 (99.0%). Upper GI bleeding
8. genitourinary; performance was based on 103 cases of GI bleeding
identied by both algorithms and with completed chart
9. cerebral; adjudication (Supplementary Table 2).
10. other specied site; For the published algorithm, the positive predictive
value was 77.3% and the sensitivity 87.1%. For the revised
11. unspecied site; algorithm, the positive predictive value was 80.5% and the
sensitivity was 84.6%.
12. multiple sites.
We also assigned a date of the bleeding onset. For 92%
The upper GI sites were classied as those that should of the cases of the primary end point, this was the date of
(1 and 3) or should not (2 and 4) be affected by PPI the hospital admission. When there was evidence that the
co-therapy. The primary study endpoint, upper GI bleeding, bleeding began earlier (eg, hospitalization for bleeding
was the composite of sites 1 and 3. The other GI site end peptic ulcer with preceding day emergency department
point was the composite of sites 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. visit with hematemesis diagnosis) the date was reset: 6% to
We identied bleeding-related hospitalizations and the day before hospital admission, 1% 2
7 days prior, and
assigned a bleeding site using a previously validated 1% 8
30 days prior.

Supplementary Table 2.Performance of Modied Algorithm for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeds

Variable Upper GI bleed, n No Upper GI bleed, n All, n

Published algorithm
Computer UGIB 34 10 44
No computer UGIB 5 54 59
All 39 64 103
Revised algorithm
Computer UGIB 33 8 41
No Computer UGIB 6 56 62
All 39 64 103

UGIB, upper GI bleed.

December 2016 PPI Co-Therapy and Warfarin-Related Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeds 1112.e5

Study covariates Supplementary Table 3. Continued

Supplementary Table 3 shows all of the study covariates,
No PPI PPI
according to PPI co-therapy status.
Covariate co-therapy co-therapy

Supplementary Table 3.Study Covariates According to AMI, revascularization, angina 13.7 17.5
Proton Pump Inhibitor Co-Therapy Stroke or TIA 23.7 25.2
Heart failure 37.5 43.1
No PPI PPI Diabetes 34.9 40.7
Covariate co-therapy co-therapy Peripheral vascular disease 11.4 13.3
Renal failure 7.6 12.4
Person-years warfarin treatment 52,407 14,658 Smoking 14.0 18.4
Demographic characteristics Hypovolemia 7.1 12.0
Age, y 67.7 68.2 Alcohol abuse and related illnesses 1.8 1.9
Female sex 61.7 66.3 Liver disease 3.0 5.2
Year Medical care utilization
1996
1999 20.4 2.2 GI hospitalization past 90 d 0.9 1.7
2000
2002 24.4 17.1 GI hospitalization past 91
365 d 2.3 4.8
2003
2005 19.7 41.0 Other hospitalization past 90 d 22.9 25.3
2006
2011 12.1 8.8 Other hospitalization past 91
365 d 30.5 36.8
2012
2013 23.4 30.9 Hospital days: GI 10 0.7 1.7
Medicaid, disability enrollment 51.1 49.2 ED visit, GI, past year 5.1 9.4
Medicaid, other enrollment 20.7 14.2 ED visit, any, past 90 d 27.3 32.6
Medicare 28.2 36.6
Nursing home residence past year 11.7 13.3
Warfarin rst 30 d of treatment 10.3 8.8 NOTE. Values are percentages unless otherwise noted.
Warfarin indication AMI, acute myocardial infarction; Coxib, cycloxygenase-2
Atrial brillation 52.7 53.2 selective NSAID; ED, emergency department; GERD,
Deep vein thrombosis 24.7 28.7 gastroesophageal reux disease; SSRI, selective serotonin
Other cardiovascular 14.6 11.2 re-uptake inhibitor; TIA, transient ischemic attack.
Other or unknown 7.9 6.9
GI disease
Peptic ulcer disease past 365 d 3.9 15.6
Gastritis 3.1 10.6
Other upper GI 3.0 12.8
Lower GI disease 15.2 26.9
Blood stool/GI bleeding past 90 d 0.8 1.9
Blood stool/GI bleeding past 91
365 d 1.8 4.2
Abdomen pain past 30 d 2.2 4.4
Epigastric/abdominal pain past 90 d 3.7 7.2
Epigastric/abdominal pain 12.2 21.9
past 91
365 d
GERD/dyspepsia past 365 d 22.7 57.3
Lower GI symptoms 5.0 10.5
Risk factors for warfarin-related bleeding
Non-GI warfarin-related bleeding 9.2 12.0
Anemia past 30 d 3.5 5.4
Anemia past 90 d 8.0 13.8
Anemia past 91
365 d 9.4 15.5
Abnormal coagulation prole 5.9 7.9
past 365 d
Transfusion 7.1 11.0
Medications affecting GI bleeding
H2RA, any 25.7 19.5
Aspirin, current use 4.0 5.8
NSAID, current use, not new start 4.7 5.6
NSAID, current use, new start 0.3 0.3
Coxib, current use 3.4 8.2
Clopidogrel, current use 2.8 5.2
Other antiplatelet drug, current use 0.9 1.3
Other anticoagulant, current use 0.6 0.9
Corticosteroid (systemic), current use 3.6 6.8
SSRI, current use 14.6 27.7
Antibiotic, current use 8.6 12.5
Cardiovascular comorbidity
1112.e6 Ray et al Gastroenterology Vol. 151, No. 6

Additional Findings Supplementary Table 4. Continued

No PPI PPI
Characteristic co-therapy co-therapy
Supplementary Table 4.Characteristics of New Episodes of
Warfarin Treatmenta According to GERD/dyspepsia 24.8 60.9
Study Population and Proton Pump Any antiplatelet drug/NSAID 22.8 29.7
Inhibitor Co-Therapya Aspirin 0.0 0.0
Nonselective NSAID 12.9 17.9
No PPI PPI P2Y12 or other antiplatelet druge 11.6 14.3
Characteristic co-therapy co-therapy Coxib, current use 1.1 1.8
Smoking 16.7 21.2
Tennessee Medicaid AMI, revascularization, angina 10.5 14.6
Person-years warfarin treatmentb 37,626 9,289 Stroke or TIA 24.5 29.0
Tennessee Medicaid 100.0 100.0 Heart failure 36.2 43.8
Age, y 64.1 63.8 Digoxin 15.0 13.1
Female sex 62.4 66.2 Loop diuretic 39.3 48.6
Nursing home residence past year 12.6 12.6 Insulin 9.3 14.6
Warfarin indication Oral hypoglycemic 21.4 23.9
Atrial brillation 46.6 46.4 Alcohol abuse and related illnesses 0.5 0.9
Deep vein thrombosis 26.2 30.7 Hospitalization 51.7 62.7
Other cardiovascular 18.7 15.3 ED visit, any, past 90 d 25.0 30.6
Other or unknown 8.4 7.7
History risk factors for upper 34.0 56.6
GI bleeding NOTE. Values are percentages unless otherwise noted.
Peptic ulcer disease 4.3 16.6 AMI, acute myocardial infarction; Coxib, cycloxygenase-2
Gastritis 3.4 11.1 selective NSAID; ED, emergency department; GERD,
Blood in stool/GI bleedingc 2.7 6.3 gastroesophageal reux disease; TIA, transient ischemic
Abdominal pain 16.5 30.7 attack.
a
Anemiad 16.7 26.7 Weighted according to person-years of warfarin treatment.
GERD/dyspepsia 21.8 55.3 Unless otherwise noted, all values are proportions. Unless
Any antiplatelet drug/NSAID 40.4 47.9 otherwise stated, disease/medication variables reect diag-
Aspirin 13.7 19.1 nosis/prescription ll during the preceding 365 days.
b
Nonselective NSAID 27.0 28.6 Not shown are 8,654 person-years of follow-up for non-
P2Y12 or other antiplatelet druge 8.4 14.9 current PPI co-therapy.
c
Coxib, current use 4.3 11.8 Outpatient or inpatient not meeting end-point denition
Smoking 13.0 16.8 (admission not related to bleeding with secondary diagnosis,
AMI, revascularization, angina 14.9 19.2 such as blood in stool, indicating bleeding).
d
Stroke or TIA 23.4 23.0 Diagnosis or prescription for iron.
e
Heart failure 38.0 42.6 Dipyridamole, cilostazole.
Digoxin 33.0 26.9
Loop diuretic 50.9 58.2
Insulin 15.7 19.1
Oral hypoglycemic 24.8 29.3
Alcohol abuse and related illnesses 2.3 2.5
Hospitalization 55.5 64.6
ED visit, any, past 90 d 28.2 33.8
5% National Medicare Sample
Person-years warfarin treatmentb 14,781 5,369
Tennessee Medicaid 0.0 0.0
Age, y 77.0 75.9
Female sex 60.1 66.6
Nursing home residence past year 9.2 14.5
Warfarin indication
Atrial brillation 68.3 65.1
Deep vein thrombosis 20.8 25.4
Other cardiovascular 4.2 4.1
Other or unknown 6.7 5.4
History risk factors for upper 37.9 58.7
GI bleeding
Peptic ulcer disease 3.1 13.8
Gastritis 2.2 9.6
Blood in stool/GI bleedingc 2.3 5.7
Abdominal pain 14.5 26.4
Anemiad 25.7 39.0
December 2016 PPI Co-Therapy and Warfarin-Related Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeds 1112.e7

Supplementary Table 5.Hospitalizations for Bleeding During Warfarin Treatment According to Study Population, Site of the
Bleeding and Proton Pump Inhibitor Co-Therapy

Variable No PPI Co-therapy Former PPI Co-therapy PPI Co-therapy

Tennessee Medicaid
Person-years 37,626 5527 9289
Upper GI
Bleeding hospitalizations 452 107 125
Rate/10,000 120.1 193.6 134.6
HRa (95% CI) 1.05 (0.83 to 1.33) 0.78 (0.63 to 0.98)
RDa (95% CI) 6.1 (
20.2 to 39.2)
25.9 (
45.0 to
2.1)
P value .6779 .0349
Other GI
Bleeding hospitalizations 607 158 234
Rate/10,000 161.3 285.9 251.9
HRa (95% CI) 1.10 (0.91 to 1.34) 1.06 (0.89 to 1.26)
RDa (95% CI) 16.6 (
14.6 to 54.5) 9.5 (
17.9 to 42.1)
P value .3201 .5224
Other major bleeds
Bleeding hospitalizations 601 128 176
Rate/10,000 159.7 231.6 189.5
HRa (95% CI) 1.06 (0.86 to 1.31) 1.00 (0.82 to 1.21)
RDa (95% CI) 9.7 (
22.1 to 48.9)
0.4 (
28.2 to 33.3)
P value .5785 .9791
5% National Medicare Sample
Person-years 14,781 3127 5369
Upper GI
Bleeding hospitalizations 172 52 56
Rate/10,000 116.4 166.3 104.3
HRa (95% CI) 0.90 (0.64 to 1.26) 0.72 (0.52 to 0.99)
RDa (95% CI)
11.7 (
41.5 to 30.0)
33.1 (
56.2 to
1.2)
P value .5361 .0429
Other GI
Bleeding hospitalizations 329 122 169
Rate/10,000 222.6 390.1 314.7
HRa (95% CI) 1.10 (0.88 to 1.38) 1.10 (0.90 to 1.34)
RDa (95% CI) 22.6 (
26.6 to 84.2) 21.2 (
23.2 to 75.5)
P value .3965 .3743
Other major bleeds
Bleeding hospitalizations 200 77 83
Rate/10,000 135.3 246.2 154.6
HRa (95% CI) 1.28 (0.96 to 1.70) 0.95 (0.72 to 1.25)
RDa (95% CI) 37.4 (
5.4 to 94.4)
7.2 (
38.0 to 33.4)
P value .0928 .6986

RD, adjusted rate difference per 10,000.

a
Both the HR and RD are adjusted for the covariates shown in Supplementary Table 3.
Supplementary Table 6.Hospitalizations for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding During Warfarin Treatment According to Study Population, Proton Pump Inhibitor

1112.e8 Ray et al
Co-Therapy and Concurrent Use of Antiplatelet Drugs/Nonsteroidal Anti-Inammatory Drugs

No PPI co-therapy PPI co-therapy

Person-years Hospitalizations Rate/10,000 Person-years Hospitalizations Rate/10,000 HR (95% CI) RD (95% CI)

Tennessee Medicaid
No concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 32,519 310 95.3 7430 87 117.1 0.92 (0.71 to 1.19)
7.6 (
27.7 to 18.6)
Any concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 5107 142 278.0 1859 38 204.4 0.56 (0.39 to 0.82)
121.3 (
170.4 to
49.8)
Aspirin only 1783 47 263.5 648 12 185.3 0.51 (0.27 to 0.97)
129.5 (
193.0 to
9.0)
NSAID only 1989 58 291.6 540 11 203.5 0.57 (0.30 to 1.10)
124.5 (
204.9 to 30.2)
P2Y12/other antiplatelet only 941 23 244.3 437 8 183.0 0.57 (0.25 to 1.29)
104.5 (
182.2 to 70.5)
Multiple drugs 393 14 355.8 233 7 299.9 0.69 (0.27 to 1.71)
111.9 (
258.0 to 252.5)
5% National Medicare Sample
No concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 13,722 139 101.3 4838 47 97.1 0.78 (0.55 to 1.11)
22.4 (
45.8 to 10.9)
Any concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 1060 33 311.4 531 9 169.4 0.49 (0.23 to 1.03)
160.0 (
239.7 to 8.2)
Aspirin only
NSAID only 357 13 364.4 205 4 195.1 0.50 (0.16 to 1.55)
181.8 (
305.3 to 199.4)
P2Y12/other antiplatelet only 684 19 277.7 312 5 160.2 0.49 (0.18 to 1.33)
140.7 (
227.0 to 92.2)
Multiple drugs 19 1 532.5 14 0 0

Gastroenterology Vol. 151, No. 6

Supplementary Table 7.Hospitalizations for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding During Warfarin Treatment According to Study Population, Proton Pump Inhibitor

December 2016
Co-Therapy, History of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk Factors,a and Concurrent Use of Antiplatelet Drugs/Nonsteroidal
Anti-Inammatory Drugs

No PPI co-therapy PPI co-therapy

Variable Person-years Hospitalizations Rate/10,000 Person-years Hospitalizations Rate/10,000 HR (95% CI) RD (95% CI)

Tennessee Medicaid
No history risk factors
No concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 21,468 141 65.7 3211 22 68.5 1.02 (0.64 to 1.61) 1.1 (
23.4to39.9)
Concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 3375 78 231.1 823 8 97.2 0.42 (0.20 to 0.87)
134.4 (
184.7 to
29.5)
History risk factors
No concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 11,050 169 152.9 4219 65 154.1 0.87 (0.64 to 1.19)
19.3 (
54.6 to 28.6)
Concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 1733 64 369.4 1036 30 289.6 0.69 (0.44 to 1.08)
115.4 (
207.3 to 28.5)
5% National Medicare Sample
No history risk factors
No concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 8581 62 72.2 1999 10 50.0 0.71 (0.36 to 1.39)
21.3 (
46.2 to 27.8)
Concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 599 11 183.7 218 2 91.8 0.50 (0.11 to 2.24)
92.7 (
163.6 to 228.2)
History risk factors
No concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 5140 77 149.8 2840 37 130.3 0.81 (0.54 to 1.22)
28.5 (
69.4 to 33.2)
Concurrent antiplatelet drug/NSAID 461 22 477.4 313 7 223.3 0.48 (0.20 to 1.13)
250.6 (
381.6 to 59.7)

PPI Co-Therapy and Warfarin-Related Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeds 1112.e9

RD adjusted rate difference per 10,000.
a
Risk factors: Peptic ulcer, gastritis, abdominal pain, blood in stool/GI bleeding, anemia.
1112.e10 Ray et al
References
1. Ray WA, Grifn MR. Use of Medicaid data for
pharmacoepidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:
837849.
2. Piper JM, Ray WA, Grifn MR, et al. Methodolog-
ical issues in evaluating expanded Medicaid
coverage for pregnant women. Am J Epidemiol 1990;
132:561571.
Gastroenterology Vol. 151, No. 6
3. Ray WA. Population-based studies of adverse drug
effects. N Engl J Med 2003;349:15921594.
4. Baillargeon J, Holmes HM, Lin YL, et al. Concurrent use
of warfarin and antibiotics and the risk of bleeding in
older adults. Am J Med 2012;125:183189.
5. Cunningham A, Stein CM, Chung CP, et al. An auto-
mated database case denition for serious bleeding
related to oral anticoagulant use. Pharmacol Drug Safety
2011;20:560566.