Stress ulcer prophylaxis for non-critically ill patients on a teaching service

Appropriateness of proton pump inhibitors use in noncritically ill hospitalized children in a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia

Background

Studies assessing the appropriate use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for hospitalized noncritically ill pediatric patients are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the suitability of PPI prescriptions in noncritically ill pediatric patients.

Methods

This cross sectional retrospective study was conducted at a maternity hospital in Qassim, Saudi Arabia from November 2020 to January 2021. All noncritically ill hospitalized children aged 14 years and below who received PPIs were included. The endpoints included the number and percentage of patients who appropriately received PPIs in general and in each age category. The collected data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel (version 2208, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA).

Results

In total, 332 medical records were screened, of which 246 were included. Of all patients, 49.2% were children and 50.8% were infants, with the average age at admission being 5.39 ± 5.4 years years. More than half of the patients were female, and the average weight of patients was 19.8 kg. Omeprazole was appropriately used in 95 (38.5%) patients. Based on age groups, omeprazole was appropriately used in 66.3% of children and 38.4% of infants.

Conclusion

The use of omeprazole in noncritically ill pediatrics was only deemed appropriate in 38.6% of the study population. This result indicates that this medication was overused in the institution. Additional research is required to confirm this on a nationwide scale.

Changes in proton pump inhibitor prescribing trend over the past decade and pharmacists' effect on prescribing practice at a tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain one of the world's most frequently prescribed medications and there is a growing number of publications on correct versus incorrect use of PPIs worldwide. The objective of this observational retrospective study was to assess changes in PPI prescribing trends over the past decade and pharmacists' effect on optimizing PPI prescribing practice at a tertiary hospital in China.

METHODS

We collected the prescriptions of PPIs in our hospital from January 2007 to December 2016. Then the rate of PPI prescribing, the defined daily doses (DDDs) and expenditures were calculated and plotted to show the change in utilization of and expenditure on PPIs. Reasons behind this change and effect of pharmacists' intervention were evaluated by investigating the rationality of PPI use through sample surveys of patients of pre-intervention (Jul.-Dec. 2015) and post-intervention (Jul.-Dec. 2016).

RESULTS

In outpatient settings, the rate of PPI prescribing remained almost constant, utilization (from 135,808 DDDs to 722,943 DDDs) and expenditure (from 1.85 million CNY to 7.96 million CNY) increased for the past ten years, dominated by oral formulations and rabeprazole. In contrast, in inpatient settings, the rate of PPI prescribing (from 20.41 to 37.21%), utilization (from 132,329 DDDs to 827,747 DDDs) and expenditure (from 3.15 million CNY to 25.29 million CNY) increased from 2007 to 2015 and then decreased, dominated by injection formulations and omeprazole. Pharmacist interventions could significantly promote the rational use of PPIs (44.00% versus 26.67%), decrease PPI use and reduce patients' charges (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of and expenditure on PPIs grew due to the increase of patients and irrational use of PPI. Pharmacist interventions help to reduce PPI utilization and expenditure and enhance rationality for inpatients, but much work should be done to regulate injection and originator formulas, and improve the rationality in the future.

Identifying Risk Factors Associated with Inappropriate Use of Acid Suppressive Therapy at a Community Hospital

Purpose. By examining the prescribing patterns and inappropriate use of acid suppressive therapy (AST) during hospitalization and at discharge we sought to identify the risk factors associated with such practices. Methods. In this retrospective observational study, inpatient records were reviewed from January 2011 to December 2013. Treatment with AST was considered appropriate if the patient had a known specific indication or met criteria for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Results. In 2011, out of 58 patients who were on AST on admission, 32 were newly started on it and 23 (72%) were inappropriate cases. In 2012, out of 97 patients on AST, 61 were newly started on it and 51 (84%) were inappropriate cases. In 2013, 99 patients were on AST, of which 48 were newly started on it and 36 (75%) were inappropriate cases. 19% of the patients inappropriately started on AST were discharged on it in three years. Younger age, female sex, and 1 or more handoffs between services were significantly associated with increased risk of inappropriate AST. Conclusion. Our findings reflect inappropriate prescription of AST which leads to increase in costs of care and unnecessarily puts the patient at risk for potential adverse events. The results of this study emphasize the importance of examining the patient's need for AST at each level of care especially when the identified risk factors are present.

Appropriateness of Acid Suppression Therapy

Background: The inappropriate startup of long-term acid suppressive therapy (AST) can have clinical and pharmacoeconomic impacts on ambulatory care. Objective: To assess the proportion of patients with appropriate initiation of long-term AST in non–critically ill patients. To describe possible risk factors for nonappropriate AST. To calculate the potential savings when eliminating the nonappropriate startup of AST. Method: This observational, retrospective study evaluated the appropriateness of startup of long-term AST in medical records using a broad variety of international criteria and guidelines and using a validated screening instrument. Results: A sample of 597 patients was included in the analysis. In 57% of them, AST was appropriately initiated. No specific risk profile could be defined. There was some indication that the availability of a clinical pharmacist and the use of standing orders were correlated to the outcome. Extrapolation to the total population (ie, 2836 patients) led to a total cost of €8880 during hospital stay plus an extra €40 391 per month after discharge. Avoiding inappropriate initiation of AST could lead to a saving of €3805 plus €17 441 per month. Conclusion: In all, 43% of initiation of long-term AST in the hospital was inappropriate. The potential savings from avoiding this could be substantial from a health care payer perspective. No patient characteristics that could predict for inappropriate initiation of AST were identified. A correlation between inappropriate initiation and medical disciplines using standing orders that include AST was seen.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in non-critically ill patients: a prospective evaluation of current practice in a general surgery department

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

There is little evidence regarding the benefit of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) outside a critical care setting. Overprescription of SUP is not devoid of risks. This prospective study aimed to evaluate the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for SUP in a general surgery department.

METHOD

Data collection was performed prospectively during an 8-week period on patients hospitalized in a general surgery department (58 beds) by pharmacists. Patients with a PPI prescription for the treatment of ulcers, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, oesophagitis or epigastric pain were excluded. Patients admitted twice during the study period were not reincluded. The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists guidelines on SUP were used to assess the appropriateness of de novo PPI prescriptions.

RESULTS

Among 255 patients in the study, 138 (54%) received a prophylaxis with PPI, of which 86 (62%) were de novo PPI prescriptions. A total of 129 patients (94%) received esomeprazole (according to the hospital drug policy). The most frequent dosage was at 40 mg once daily. Use of PPI for SUP was evaluated in 67 patients. A total of 53 patients (79%) had no risk factors for SUP. Twelve and two patients had one or two risk factors, respectively. At discharge, PPI prophylaxis was continued in 33% of patients with a de novo PPI prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the overuse of PPIs in non-intensive care unit patients and the inappropriate continuation of PPI prescriptions at discharge. Treatment recommendations for SUP are needed to restrict PPI use for justified indications.

Physicians' opinions of stress ulcer prophylaxis: survey results from a large urban medical center

BACKGROUND

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) has been increasingly prescribed for patients admitted to medical wards. The knowledge, attitudes, and practices of those in the healthcare profession regarding use of SUP in medical wards are understudied.

METHODS

A survey consisting of closed-ended questions and multiple-choice queries was handed out during grand rounds.

RESULTS

One hundred people (39 attending physicians, 61 residents) completed the survey. More attending physicians (41 vs. 30 %) believed SUP was indicated for patients treated in a non-intensive-care medical ward (P = 0.2357). All residents preferred a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) for SUP compared with 85 % of attending physicians (P < 0.05). Despite equal agreement that PPIs were not harmless, more attending physicians than residents agreed that using PPIs increased the risk of community-acquired pneumonia (P < 0.05). More residents than attending physicians agreed on the use of SUP for patients suffering from major burns and for those with liver failure. In situations of respiratory distress not requiring intubation and in cases of steroid treatment for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, more attending physicians than residents felt SUP was required. Approaching a statistically significant difference, more attending physicians than residents felt that being too busy to question SUP indication and the perception of PPIs as harmless affected decision making.

CONCLUSION

Despite the publication of guidelines, misuse of gastric acid suppressants continues to occur, even by attending physicians. More complete understanding of the need and occasion for SUP use should result in more cautious use.

Use of acid suppressive therapy in hospitalized non-critically ill patients

AIM

To assess the appropriateness of prescribing acid suppressive therapy (AST) in a general medicine service in a tertiary care hospital.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, we reviewed the inpatient records of all patients admitted to the general medical service in a tertiary care hospital in Beirut, Lebanon, from April 1 to May 31, 2011. Treatment with AST was considered appropriate if the patient had a specific indication or appropriate treatment purpose [e.g., gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcer disease, dyspepsia, acute or suspected gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding]. Appropriate administration of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) was derived from an internal guideline that is based on the American Society of Health System Pharmacists guidelines. Prophylaxis was considered appropriate if a patient had 1 absolute indication (coagulopathy or requiring mechanical ventilation), or 2 or more relative indications (sepsis, occult bleeding, use of high dose corticosteroids, recent use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for more than 3 mo, renal or liver failure, enteral feeding and anticoagulant use).

RESULTS

Of the 153 patient admissions during the study period, 130 patients (85%) were started on AST, out of which 11 (8.5%) had a diagnosis that supports the use of this therapy (GI bleed, gastritis and GERD), 16 (12.3%) had an absolute indication for SUP, 59 (45.4%) had 2 or more relative indications for SUP, and 44 (33.8%) received AST without an appropriate indication. In addition, one patient with an absolute indication for SUP and four with two or more relative indications did not receive AST. Rabeprazole was the most frequently used AST (59.2%), followed by omeprazole (24.6%), esomeprazole (11.6%) and ranitidine (4.6%). The dose of AST was appropriate in 126 patients (96.9%) and the route of administration was appropriate in 123 patients (94.6%). Fifteen of the admitted patients (10%) were discharged on AST, 7 of which (47%) did not have an appropriate indication.

CONCLUSION

AST is overused in hospitalized non-critically ill patients and many patients are discharged on unnecessary AST which can increase cost, drug interactions and adverse events. Potential interventions include implementation of institutional protocols and prescriber education.

Use of acid suppressive therapy in hospitalized non-critically ill patients

AIM: To assess the appropriateness of prescribing acid suppressive therapy (AST) in a general medicine service in a tertiary care hospital.

METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we reviewed the inpatient records of all patients admitted to the general medical service in a tertiary care hospital in Beirut, Lebanon, from April 1 to May 31, 2011. Treatment with AST was considered appropriate if the patient had a specific indication or appropriate treatment purpose [e.g., gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcer disease, dyspepsia, acute or suspected gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding]. Appropriate administration of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) was derived from an internal guideline that is based on the American Society of Health System Pharmacists guidelines. Prophylaxis was considered appropriate if a patient had 1 absolute indication (coagulopathy or requiring mechanical ventilation), or 2 or more relative indications (sepsis, occult bleeding, use of high dose corticosteroids, recent use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for more than 3 mo, renal or liver failure, enteral feeding and anticoagulant use).

RESULTS: Of the 153 patient admissions during the study period, 130 patients (85%) were started on AST, out of which 11 (8.5%) had a diagnosis that supports the use of this therapy (GI bleed, gastritis and GERD), 16 (12.3%) had an absolute indication for SUP, 59 (45.4%) had 2 or more relative indications for SUP, and 44 (33.8%) received AST without an appropriate indication. In addition, one patient with an absolute indication for SUP and four with two or more relative indications did not receive AST. Rabeprazole was the most frequently used AST (59.2%), followed by omeprazole (24.6%), esomeprazole (11.6%) and ranitidine (4.6%). The dose of AST was appropriate in 126 patients (96.9%) and the route of administration was appropriate in 123 patients (94.6%). Fifteen of the admitted patients (10%) were discharged on AST, 7 of which (47%) did not have an appropriate indication.

CONCLUSION: AST is overused in hospitalized non-critically ill patients and many patients are discharged on unnecessary AST which can increase cost, drug interactions and adverse events. Potential interventions include implementation of institutional protocols and prescriber education.

Proton Pump Inhibitor use in Hospitalized Patients: Is Overutilization Becoming a Problem?

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most common classes of medications prescribed. Though they were previously thought of as safe, recent literature has shown risks associated with their use including increased risk for Clostridium difficile infection, pneumonia, and fractures. Due to these risks, it is important to determine if PPIs are being used appropriately. This review evaluates seven studies in hospitalized patients. Additionally, this review evaluates literature pertaining to recently discovered adverse reactions; all studies found PPIs are being overutilized. Findings highlight the importance of evaluating appropriate therapy with these agents and recommending discontinuation if a proper indication does not exist.

Inappropriate Use of Intravenous PPI for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in an Inner City Community Hospital

Background

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are used for the treatment and prophylaxis of variety of acid peptic conditions including stress ulcers. There has been a persistent practice of their inappropriate use for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Purpose of our study was to measure the inappropriate use of Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis and to estimate the financial burden.

Methods

We carried out a retrospective, analytic study from July 2008 to June 2009 in internal medicine department. Hospital pharmacy records were used to identify all patients who received IV PPI during hospital stay. Seventy-five percent of records were randomly chosen (n=1104). PPI application was defined as indicated according to AGA guidelines.

Results

Intravenous proton pump inhibitor (IV PPI) was prescribed for 68.5% of patients without any proper indication. The estimated cost of medication for inappropriate IV PPIS use during the study year was 18337 USD.

Conclusions

A more rational use of PPI will have better impact on health care cost and is likely to add to patient safety.

Keywords

Inappropriate use of PPI; Stress ulcer prophylaxis; Healthcare cost

Pattern of intravenous proton pump inhibitors use in ICU and Non-ICU setting: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND/AIM

The use of intravenous acid-suppressive therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients with specific risk factors has been recommended for over a decade. However, there is a lack of supporting data regarding the extension of such therapy to non-critically ill patients (non-ICU). The aim of this study was to compare appropriate indications with current practicing patterns in adult non-ICU and ICU patients, contributing factors and financial impact of inappropriate use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out at a tertiary teaching Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. For a period of 4 consecutive months, all hospitalized patients on IV PPI, aged 18 and above, were identified. A concise listing of indications considered appropriate for the use of IV PPI was pre-defined based on material from available literature and guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 255 patients received IV PPI. Inappropriate use of IV PPI was significantly higher in non-ICU (71.7%) than in ICU (19.8%) patients (P=0.01). The most common cause for inappropriate use in non-ICU patients was stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). In ICU patients, appropriate indicators for IV PPI were SUP (47.9%), PUD (11.5%), and the UGIB (20.8%). There was a high association between appropriate uses of IV PPI with respect to endoscopic procedure and also between appropriate uses of IV PPI to subsequent discharge with oral PPI in non-ICU patients. The total estimated direct cost (drug acquisition cost) for inappropriate use of IV PPI during the study period was 11,000 US dollars.

CONCLUSION

Inappropriate IV PPI utilization was predominant in non-ICU patients, mostly for stress ulcer prophylaxis that leads to a waste of resources. Applying appropriate policies, procedures and evidence-based guidelines, educated physicians and surgeons can clearly limit inappropriate IV PPI use.

Proton pump inhibitors increase significantly the risk of Clostridium difficile infection in a low-endemicity, non-outbreak hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) have been linked to higher risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). The relevance of this association in hospitals with low disease activity, where an outbreak strain is nondominant, has been assessed in relatively few studies.

AIM

To assess the association of PPI and CDI in a setting of low disease activity.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at two hospitals. Patients admitted for > or = 7 days receiving antibiotics were included. Demographics, exposure to PPI, antibiotics and other drugs in relation to diagnosis of CDI were assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Of 14 719 patients, 149 (1%) first episode CDI were documented; PPI co-exposure increased CDI [1.44 cases/100 patients vs. 0.74 cases/100 non-exposed (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.42-2.72)]. By logistic regression, PPI days (adjusted OR: 1.01 per day, 95% CI: 1.00-1.02), histamine-2 blockers, antidepressants, antibiotic days, exposure to medications, age, admission service and length of admission were significant predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

A statistically significant increase in CDI was observed in antibiotic recipients who received PPI, but the absolute risk increase is modest. In settings of with low rates of CDI, the benefit of PPI therapy outweighs the risk of developing CDI. These data support programmes to decrease inappropriate use of PPI in hospitalized patients.