Here is an interesting reaction from the annual conference ---
Dr David Johnson, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia. who just got back from Washington, DC, and another somewhat overwhelming Digestive Disease Week stated .........
This next study is near and dear to my heart, because I get these questions all the time.
This is Targownick's study from Canada. Targownick has been a leader in the evaluation of bone density changes as they relate to PPI use, which is something that continues to plague us. There are actually lawsuits out there because of PPIs and fractures.
This is a 5-year study that was a little different, but very good. The investigators looked at it in an interesting way: Rather than standard bone density, they looked at three-dimensional CT, which provides volumetric bone density as well as differentiation between the cortical and trabecular compartments. It is a very significant, highly advanced way to evaluate patients. They looked at 104 participants: 52 PPI users and 52 controls. The bottom line is that there was no difference.
Please, don't dismiss this in your conversations with patients. I always tell them that this is what the latest information is. The data continue to resound that the retrospective databases are not correct as they relate to PPI use and bone density loss in hip, cervical spine, and radial fractures. If patients need a PPI, they should take it. If they need calcium and vitamin D, they should take them, but not because they are on a PPI.
Here is the reference (18) paper referred to above -
Targownik L, Luo Y, Goertzen A, Slotboom A, Leslie WD. Comparing bone structure and bone metabolism between long-term proton pump inhibitor users and non-users. Program and abstracts of Digestive Disease Week; May 16-19, 2015; Washington, DC. Abstract 781.