Reassessment of inappropriate prescriptions of proton pump inhibitors in elderly in-patients: It's time to take action

Determinants of and interventions for Proton Pump Inhibitor prescription behavior: A systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI) are frequently prescribed. Long-term use is associated with side-effects and patients often lack a valid indication. Inappropriate PPI prescribing thus needs to be addressed. This review aims to scope 1) what determinants are studied as reasons for PPI prescribing, 2) what strategies are used for changing PPI (de)prescribing, and 3) whether important determinants are addressed in these interventions.

METHODS

We searched eight databases for papers on determinants of physician PPI prescribing. Studies were included if they were conducted in a Western country and focused on oral PPIs for an adult population. By following the Behaviour Change Wheel, we extracted information regarding PPI prescribing behavior, behavioral determinants and intervention strategies.

FINDINGS

We included 74 papers. Most focused on the determinants knowledge and beliefs about consequences. The latter was consistently related to PPI prescribing. Results for knowledge were mixed. Most interventions used education or enablement (e.g., algorithms, quality check improvements, involvement of pharmacists) as strategies. Enablement consistently improved PPI prescribing, while results for education were mixed.

INTERPRETATION

There is an overemphasis on reflective processes in studies on PPI prescribing. Future research should comprehensively identify behavioral determinants, focusing on reflective and impulsive processes, such that interventions can address the most important determinants.

How could proton pump inhibitors de-prescription be managed in geriatric long-term care?

BACKGROUND

Evaluate the misuse of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in geriatric long-term care (LTC) patients and improve caregiving by de-prescribing non-relevant PPIs in this population.

AIM

This study was conducted in the long-term care department of the geriatric hospital Pierre-Garraud in Lyon. All patients receiving PPI for more than 8 weeks were included. A reassessment form was filled to evaluate the treatment benefit/risk ratio during a collegial consultation between the patient's referring physicians and pharmacists. During these consultations, the following possible decisions were taken: continuation, dose adjustment or gradual discontinuation of treatment. Patients' monitoring were performed one month and three months after discontinuation to detect any relapses and causes.

RESULTS

Among the 113 patients included, 97 patients had their treatment re-evaluated by collegial consultation. Forty-four (45.4%) patients were treated in accordance with recommendations. For 24 of them, the indication was symptomatic recurrent gastroesophageal reflux disease. The treatment of more than half of the re-evaluated patients (54.6%) was gradually stopped. After the 3-month follow-up post-discontinuation, excluding patients who died during this period, 80.9% of the discontinuations were well-tolerated and only nine were resumed (19.1%).

CONCLUSION

This study allowed a re-evaluation of PPI treatments in a high-risk population and offered a decision support tool focused on the benefit/risk balance of PPIs; 55% of treatments were considered irrelevant and could be stopped with 80% of good tolerance.

Inappropriate proton-pump inhibitor prescribing in primary care - an observational study with quality circles

INTRODUCTION

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) should be deprescribed when an indication is lacking or the dose is too high. Academic and media reports have tried to raise awareness and thereby reduce the inappropriate prescribing of PPIs. However, pharmacoepidemiologic studies have shown an unchanged frequency of such inappropriate prescribing over time. Little is known about whether or how general practitioners (GPs) adapt their prescribing practices once their awareness of inappropriate PPI prescribing has been raised.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing (too high dose or no indication) in a consecutive sample of patients in Swiss primary care settings. Our goal was then to evaluate how GPs managed the patients with potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing over 12 months after flagging these patients.

METHODS

In this observational study, 11 GPs from the canton of Bern in Switzerland used their medical records to identify 20 patients who had been prescribed a PPI for ≥8 weeks and flagged potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing in their records. After 12 months, we asked the same GPs whether the PPI prescriptions of those patients had changed and, if so, how.

RESULTS

Of 1,376 patients consecutively screened, 206 (15%) had been prescribed a PPI for ≥8 weeks. Of these 206 patients, 85 (41%) had a potentially inappropriate PPI prescription. Of these 85 patients, 55 (65%) had no indication for PPI, and 30 (35%) had a too-high dose. After one year, only 29 (35%) of the 84 flagged potentially inappropriate PPIs were stopped or reduced. The most frequently mentioned reasons that deprescribing was not possible were a lack of discussion with the patient (no contact or no time), the presence of symptoms requiring the PPI, or the unwillingness of the patient to deprescribe.

CONCLUSION

In the Swiss primary care setting, the rate of potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing is high. Having GPs flag potentially inappropriate PPI prescribing did not result in PPI deprescribing in most patients over 12 months. Our findings suggest that more personalised and targeted interventions are necessary to successfully implement the deprescribing of potentially inappropriate PPIs. We see the need to co-design interventions with patients and providers and test behavioural change techniques to enable the deprescribing of inappropriate PPIs.

Analysis of clinical pharmacist interventions in the COVID-19 units of a French university hospital

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to compare clinical pharmacist interventions between two care groups: COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients, and to identify drugs that require particular attention, especially those involved in COVID-19 management.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted on patients with positive and negative COVID-19 statuses admitted to Lille University Hospital over 1 month. Pharmaceutical analysis instigated interventions to rectify drug-related errors. For each pharmaceutical intervention (PI), the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification of the drug and the outcome of such an intervention were specified.

RESULTS

The study included 438 patients. Prescription analysis led to 188 PIs performed on 118 patients (64 COVID-19-positive patients and 54 COVID-19-negative patients). Most drug-related problems were incorrect dosage representing 36.7% (69/188) of all interventions: 27.9% (29/104) for the COVID-19-positive group and 47.6% (40/84) for the COVID-19-negative group. The most frequent PI in 34% (64/188) of cases was terminating a drug: 27.9% (29/104) for the COVID-19-positive group and 47.6% (40/84) for the COVID-19-negative group. The main drug classes involved were antithrombotic agents (20.7%, 39/188), antibacterials for systemic use (13.8%, 26/188) and drugs for gastric acid-related disorders (6.4%, 12/188). Study population was limited to a single centre over 1 month.

CONCLUSION

No difference in PI was noted between the two groups. The presence of pharmacists led to a reduction in drug-related prescription problems, especially for antithrombotic and antibacterial drugs for both groups. Clinical pharmacy commitment in such a pandemic is therefore important.

Effectiveness and sustainability of deprescribing for hospitalized older patients near end of life: a systematic review

Introduction: Polypharmacy is prevalent in hospitals and deprescribing strategies for older people are strongly promoted. However, evidence of their feasibility and sustainability among patients receiving end of life care is lacking. The objective of this review was to ascertain effectiveness and post-discharge sustainability of hospital-initiated deprescribing strategies in older people near the end of life. Areas covered: The authors searched for controlled trials, with low risk of bias and measures of effectiveness post-discharge. Intervention description, duration, and healthcare provider engagement were investigated for their impact on reduction of number of medications, proportions of patients prescribed inappropriate medications, returns to emergency, hospital admission and adverse events. Expert opinion: Limited evidence suggests hospital-initiated deprescribing interventions may reduce prescribing inappropriateness among older terminal patients in the short term, but evidence beyond 3 months is lacking for significant prevention of adverse events or health service utilization. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, and short follow-up periods precluded quantitative assessment of sustainability. Trials of older people with terminal conditions with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm the effectiveness and sustainability of deprescribing at the end of life. Objective tools to reliably identify near end-of-life status would be useful in selecting target groups for these interventions.