Age, specialty, and practice setting predict gastroesophageal reflux disease prescribing behavior

Assessment of the Current Knowledge and Practice of General Practitioners Towards Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in Saudi Arabia

Background General practitioners (GPs) have a significant role in the diagnosis of patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Some published data revealed a lack of knowledge among GPs about the disease, consequently, this lack of knowledge impacted their performance. This survey aims to assess the current knowledge and practice of general practitioners regarding laryngopharyngeal reflux in Saudi Arabia. Methodology This survey study was conducted to assess the current knowledge and practice of general practitioners regarding laryngopharyngeal reflux in Saudi Arabia using an online questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed and collected from the five regions in Saudi Arabia, which are The Central Region (Riyadh, Qassim), Eastern Region (Dammam, Al-Kharj, Al-Ahasa), Western Region (Makkah, Madinah, Jeddah), Southern Region (Asir, Najran, Jizan), and Northern Region (Tabuk, Jouf, Hail). Results In the current study, we collected data from 387 general practitioners, 61.8% of whom were aged between 21-30 years old, and 57.4% of the participants were males. Moreover, 40.6% of the participants thought that both LPR and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) share pathophysiology, however, they are two different diseases considering their clinical presentation. Moreover, it was found that heartburn was the most known symptom of LPR among the participants (Mean score 2.14 (SD=1.31), where a lower score indicated more relation). Considering the treatment of LPR, 40.6% and 40.3% of the participants reported using proton pump inhibitors once or twice daily respectively. In contrast, antihistamine/H2 blockers, alginate, and magaldrate were used to a lesser extent as reported by 27.1%, 21.7%, and 12.1%. Conclusion The current study showed limited knowledge among general practitioners considering LPR with a higher rate of referring patients to other departments depending on symptoms which may increase the pressure on other departments of mild cases.

Knowledge and practice of family medicine and internal medicine residents toward the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Background

Accurate diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remain a challenge in the primary care setting. The objective was to assess GERD management's knowledge and practice and its association with the family and internal medicine residents.

Methods

A cross-sectional study between January 2019 and September 2020 among the family and internal medicine residents in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Residents answered a self-administrated questionnaire about knowledge and practices of GERD management.

Results

A total of 596 residents were included in the current study. The average age was 26.8 ± 2.1 years, and 54.5% of the residents were males. The median knowledge score was 62.5%. The majority (89.8%) of the residents were using acid suppression drugs empirically, mainly proton-pump inhibitors (75.8%), for <8-week durations (69.7%) being taken before meals (84.7%). Frequent diagnostic testing for GERD included urea breath test (50.7%), 24-hour pH-metry/24-hour pH probe (47.3%), and upper endoscopy with biopsy (40.7%). Frequent causes for referral included gastrointestinal bleeding (82.6%), weight loss/appetite loss (82.2%), and failure of therapy (78.7%). Better knowledge was associated with older age, family medicine training, better referral practices, frequent reporting of atypical symptoms, and reading recent guidelines.

Conclusions

We are reporting a moderate knowledge level among a group of family and internal medicine residents trained in Riyadh hospitals. Practices were generally good with some areas that need improvement, especially diagnostic testing. There is an urgent need for educational programs that target family and internal medicine residents, such as education courses that include lectures and clinical discussions with the senior staff. Also, we suggest health care organizations in Saudi Arabia establish well-structured Saudi National GERD Guidelines.

BRAZILIAN PHYSICIANS' PRACTICES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF SYMPTOMS SUGGESTING GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY SURVEY

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines are available to steer decisions regarding diagnosis, management and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders. Despite this, variations in physician's practices regarding gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms are well described in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To describe practices of physicians from different specialties on the management of patients with typical symptoms of GERD (heartburn and regurgitation) in a Brazilian sample.

METHODS

National online survey enrolling a sample of general practitioners, gastroenterologists, cardiologists and otolaryngologists. The survey was conducted from August 6th to September 12th, 2018. Subjects answered a structured questionnaire addressing variables regarding physicians' profile (age, sex, specialty, practice setting, years in practice, type of medical expense reimbursement), their patients characteristics and prescribing behaviors.

RESULTS

The final weighted sample was comprised of 400 physicians, 64% male, with an average of 15 years of experience. Physicians' estimates of gastroesophageal symptoms prevalence among their pool of patients was 37.6% for the total sample, reaching 70.3% among gastroenterologists. The medical specialty with lower average percentage of patients presenting gastroesophageal symptoms was otolaryngology (24.5%). Physicians reported that they request ancillary tests for 64.5% of patients with GERD typical symptoms. The most common diagnostic test was endoscopy (69.4%), followed by video nasolaryngoscopy (16.6%). The percentage of patient to whom endoscopy is performed was significantly higher among gastroenterologists and general practitioners as compared to otolaryngologists and cardiologists, while video nasolaryngoscopy is markedly more frequent among otolaryngologists. In terms of therapeutic options, the most frequently reported strategy was lifestyle modifications followed by proton pump inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Overall patients' profile and patterns of GERD diagnosis and management seem different between gastroenterologists, general practitioners, otolaryngologists, and cardiologists. Clinical guidelines should address this variability and include other medical specialties besides gastroenterologists in their scope.

Awareness, experience, and practice of physicians regarding adult gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Background and Aims:

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was frequently managed by residents as they are the first physician who encounter the patient. This study was conducted to explore the knowledge and practice of physicians in the treatment of GERD and to compare between residents and consultants regarding their knowledge and practice.

Methodology:

A cross-sectional study, self-administered questionnaire.

Results:

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was the most commonly used method to screen for Barrett's esophagus for symptoms for 5 or more years. The most frequent guideline used was the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guideline. The most commonly used diagnostic tool for evaluating uncomplicated reflux disease was upper endoscopy with biopsy. Empiric trial with acid suppression was the most commonly used and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) was the first-line treatment. The most common combination with PPI was prokinetic drugs, most often domperidone. The preferred maintenance strategy was the 'on demand' maintenance mode. Step-down strategy was commonly recommended. A total of 26% of residents and 37% of consultants could achieve a score of good knowledge. Overall patterns of knowledge and practice of GERD diagnosis and management were comparable between residents and consultants with only minor controversy in their knowledge and practice.

Conclusion:

The overall patterns of knowledge and practice of GERD diagnosis and management are comparable among residents and consultants but still there are areas of controversy and confusion. A good knowledge score was found among only a quarter of residents and 37% of consultants.

Recommendations:

The public health implications of deviations from evidence-based practice should be studied and implementing evidence-based practice should be emphasized.

Attitude and Knowledge of Indian Emergency Care Residents towards Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors

Objective. Several studies carried out in developed countries have reported disproportionately high usage of acid suppressive drugs, especially proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). However, systematic assessment of attitude and practices of health care providers towards the use of these drugs in developing countries is lacking. In this study, we assessed the knowledge, attitude, and preferences of resident doctors posted in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital in North India, towards the use of PPIs. Methods. A questionnaire based survey was carried out. Results. Fifty resident doctors responded to the questionnaire. Thirty-six percent reported prescribing acid suppressive drugs for majority of their patients, while 12% prescribed them to almost all patients they attended. Acute gastritis was the most common indication for prescribing PPI/H₂ blockers (50%). The majority of respondents (92%) regarded PPIs as their first choice in acid suppressive agents and 58% administered it through intravenous route. Knowledge about PPI related adverse effects was low. Conclusions. Emergency care residents in India also tend to overuse PPIs in a manner similar to their counterparts in developed countries. Specific measures may be helpful in preventing such practices.

How often are ineffective interventions still used in clinical practice? A cross-sectional survey of 6,272 clinicians in China

Background

The World Health Organization reported in 2011that irrational use of medicines was a serious global problem that is wasteful and harmful. The worst is use of ineffective or harmful interventions which should not be used at all. However, little is known about the changes that 20 years of evidence-based medicine has made particularly in reducing use of ineffective interventions. We surveyed clinicians in China to show how often ineffective interventions were still used in practice.

Methods

3,246 clinicians from 24 tertiary hospitals were surveyed in person and another 3,063 through an online survey between 2006–2007. The main outcomes are prescription by a clinician, and use in a patient of, an ineffective intervention and of a matched effective intervention in patients with the same disease. 129 ineffective interventions for 68 diseases were identified from the BMJ Clinical Evidence and included in the survey. One effective intervention was identified for each disease and a total of 68 effective interventions were thus also included. The frequency of use of effective interventions was used as a reference for that of ineffective intervention.

Results

The mean prescription rate by clinicians is 59.0% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 58.6% to 59.4%) and 81.0% (95% CI: 80.6% to 81.4%) respectively for ineffective and effective interventions. The mean frequency of use in patients is 31.2% (95% CI: 30.8% to 31.6%) and 56.4% (95% CI: 56.0% to 56.8%) for ineffective and effective interventions respectively. The relative reduction in use of ineffective interventions as compared with that of matched effective interventions is 27.2% (95% CI: 27.0% to 27.4%) and 44.7% (95% CI: 44.3% to 45.1%) for clinician's prescription and use in patients respectively. 8.6% ineffective interventions were still routinely used in practice.

Conclusions

Ineffective interventions were still commonly used. Efforts are necessary to further reduce and eventually eliminate ineffective interventions from practice.

Quality of care for gastrointestinal conditions: a primer for gastroenterologists

The Institute of Medicine's publications To Err Is Human and Crossing the Quality Chasm publicized the widespread deficits in health-care quality. The quality of care for digestive diseases has not been evaluated comprehensively, although emerging literature suggests that the gap between recommended care and actual practice may be quite substantial. This paper reviews the history of, the rationale behind, and current work related to quality of care and quality improvement in the area of digestive diseases, with particular attention to colonoscopy, inflammatory bowel diseases, gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic hepatitis C virus infection, and liver transplantation.

[Study of the clinical profile and management of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care in Spain]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical profile and management of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in primary care.

METHODS

A multinational, multicenter study was performed comprising a 4-month retrospective phase for the screening, selection and assessment of patients who had consulted for any GERD-related cause (index visit), and a cross-sectional phase in which clinical data were recorded and the following questionnaires were administered: the Reflux Disease Questionnaire and the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Impact Scale (GIS).

RESULTS

Among the 24 participating Spanish centers, 2.7% of the patients (95% CI: 2.6-2.9) had consulted at least once because of GERD. Approximately 50% of the patients showed frequent (2 or more days a week) or moderate to severe symptoms of heartburn, acid regurgitation or chest pain. Although the patients received effective pharmacological treatment at the index visit, clinically relevant GERD symptoms persisted in 16% after a median follow-up of 5 months. These symptoms were associated with a strong disease impact as evaluated with the GIS.

CONCLUSION

GERD represents a substantial burden for primary care physicians. Although effective drugs are used for the treatment of this condition, clinically relevant symptoms persist in a substantial proportion of patients.

GERD-related health care utilization, therapy, and reasons for transfer of GERD patients between primary care providers and gastroenterologists in a US managed care setting

PURPOSE

Patient flow between primary care physicians and gastroenterologists in the continuum of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) care is poorly understood. Using administrative claims data from a large US health plan linked with data abstracted from medical records, we examined: health care resource utilization for GERD subjects treated by primary care physicians (PCPs) and gastroenterologists (GEs), determinants of GERD subject transfer between these physician types, and reasons for GERD therapy change.

RESULTS

Within a sample of 169,884 patients, 211,043 PCP-based episodes of care and 40,304 GE-based episodes of care were developed. In unadjusted comparisons, GE episodes were characterized by more endoscopic procedures, on average (50.5/100 episodes), compared with PCP episodes (6.3/100, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients with esophagitis had 57.3% higher odds (P < 0.01) of transfer from PCP to GE compared with patients without esophagitis; patients with esophageal stricture had 98.6% higher odds (P < 0.01) of PCP-GE transfer. Patients with endoscopy during a first GE episode had 32.2% higher odds of transfer to a PCP (P < 0.01). The principal reasons for change in GERD therapy were no change or worsening of symptoms (51.7% of PCP charts; 9.5% of GE charts) and lack of response to therapy (51.7% of PCP charts, 26.2% of GE charts).

CONCLUSION

Resource utilization varies greatly based on the physician's specialty. We infer that timely transfer of GERD patients to gastroenterologists when empiric treatment is insufficient may lead to more efficient clinical management.

Gastroenterologists' prescribing of infliximab for Crohn's disease: a national survey

BACKGROUND

Practice guidelines suggest that immunomodulators (IMs) be given prior to infliximab (IFX) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). The package insert for IFX recommends that maintenance therapy be prescribed for patients who respond to induction therapy. Our aim was to determine the extent to which gastroenterologists (GIs) are utilizing IM prior to IFX and prescribing maintenance IFX when treating patients with CD.

METHODS

An 18-item questionnaire was developed and validated. The survey was sent to 4515 GIs who are members of the American Gastroenterology Association. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In all, 305 GIs responded; 70% use an IM prior to IFX, 86% prescribe maintenance IFX, and 62% reported both use of IM prior to IFX and use of maintenance IFX. Academic GIs, Midwest GIs, and GIs prescribing IFX a few times per year were more likely to report both use of an IM prior to IFX and use of maintenance IFX (odds ratio [OR] = 4.56, 2.18, and 2.25, respectively). GIs demonstrated awareness of the risk of reactivation of tuberculosis when initiating IFX and appropriately manage infusion reactions. GIs were unable to rank serious adverse reactions associated with IFX.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 38% of GIs did not report the use of IM prior to IFX and/or did not use maintenance IFX. GIs practicing outside the Midwest and those in nonacademic settings may need additional training regarding prescribing IFX.

Perceptions and practices on the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: results of a national survey comparing primary care physicians and gastroenterologists

BACKGROUND

Literature comparing generalist and specialist care is accumulating in many disease areas, but very few studies focussed on gastrointestinal diseases and little is known about gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

AIM

To compare the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) by French primary care physicians and gastroenterologists.

METHODS

A postal survey was conducted in a representative sample of French physicians who were asked to complete a questionnaire that consisted of 44 questions relating to their usual medical practice for the diagnostic and therapeutic management of frequent GERD.

RESULTS

136 primary care physicians and 91 gastroenterologists participated in the survey (54%). Alarm symptoms were identified more frequently by primary care physicians than gastroenterologists, but the appraisal of their seriousness was less acute by primary care physicians than gastroenterologists. Upper endoscopy was prescribed more frequently by gastroenterologists (64% vs. 38%, P < 0.01). Physicians in both groups mainly recommended lifestyle modification. For GERD treatment, most respondents declared using a 'step-down' strategy with proton pump inhibitors, and only slight differences in drug prescription were identified between primary care physicians and gastroenterologists. Both groups of physicians also have similar perception of symptom persistence after treatment, but satisfaction with treatments was slightly higher for gastroenterologists than primary care physicians (7.6 vs. 7.1 on a scale from 0 to 10, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall patterns of GERD diagnosis and management are comparable between primary care physicians and gastroenterologists. Both groups perceive that GERD therapy can still be improved.

Physicians' attitudes and practices in the evaluation and treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

OBJECTIVE

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common disorder characterized by abdominal discomfort and disordered bowel habits. Despite the high prevalence of IBS, little is known about how physicians perceive this condition. The aims of our study were to measure physicians' understanding of IBS, to assess their attitudes towards patients with IBS, and to determine whether there are differences in the way Internal Medicine physicians (IM), Family Practice physicians (FP), and Gastroenterology physicians (GI) evaluate and treat IBS patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A survey was sent to 3000 physicians nationwide, 1000 each to IM, FP, and GI. The survey contained 35 questions assessing demographics, the etiology and pathophysiology of IBS, the use of diagnostic tests, and practice patterns and attitudes.

RESULTS

Of the deliverable questionnaires, 501 were returned completed; 472 of the respondents interviewed only adult patients, representing the cohort for this analysis. The mean age of all respondents was 47; most were men (80%). IM and FP made a new diagnosis of IBS 1.3-1.6 times each week, while GI made a new diagnosis 5.4 times each week (p<0.0001). Compared with the perceptions of FP and IM, GI felt that IBS patients were less sick than other patients (p<0.001), although they required more time per visit. More GI compared with FP and IM stated that prior infection and a history of abuse were the causes of IBS (p<0.01), while FP were more likely to believe that diet was a cause of IBS (p<0.01). GI felt a new diagnosis of IBS could be made without further testing 42% of the time. FP and IM felt that one-third of IBS patients needed referral to a GI.

CONCLUSIONS

The attitudes and practice patterns of physicians towards patients with IBS differ depending on practice specialty. This may be due to differences in training, the ability to perform specialized tests, and/or differences in referral patterns. Further training may improve the ability of physicians in all specialties confidently to diagnose and treat patients with IBS.