Continuation or deprescribing of proton pump inhibitors: A consult patient decision aid

Categorization of deprescribing communication tools: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing can be beneficial to a wide variety of patients but is often not done due to barriers including lack of time and challenges starting conversations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify and broadly categorize existing deprescribing communication tools for clinicians and patients.

METHODS

Our scoping review protocol was based on the Arksey and O'Malley methods and incorporated the Levac and Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations. EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and grey literature were searched, with two independent reviewers assessing eligibility. A backwards search of the texts chosen for full text screen was completed. Two reviewers independently completed data extraction using a pre-specified data collection form.

FINDINGS

Databases identified 1121 results, searching of grey literature identified 49 results, and backwards searching identified 1323 results. After screening, 32 resources were included which contained 40 unique tools. Most tools were Canadian and targeted adults over 65 years old living in the community. Most tools had not been tested in the intended patient audience or evaluated for effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

Deprescribing tools have been developed to facilitate conversations by providing structure, education, and decision-making approaches. More research is needed to test the effectiveness of existing tools.

Harm and Medication-Type Impact Agreement with Hypothetical Deprescribing Recommendations: a Vignette-Based Experiment with Older Adults Across Four Countries

BACKGROUND

Little is known about what factors are important to older adults when deciding whether to agree with a recommendation to deprescribe.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the extent to which medication type and rationale for potential discontinuation influence older adults' acceptance of deprescribing.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional 2 (drug: lansoprazole - treat indigestion; simvastatin - prevent cardiovascular disease) by 3 (deprescribing rationale: lack of benefit; potential for harm; both) experimental design.

PARTICIPANTS

Online panelists aged ≥65 years from Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States INTERVENTIONS: Participants were presented with a hypothetical patient experiencing polypharmacy whose PCP discussed stopping a medication. We randomized participants to receive one of six vignettes.

MAIN MEASURES

We measured agreement with deprescribing (6-point Likert scale, "Strongly disagree (1)" and "Strongly agree (6)") for the hypothetical patient as the primary outcome. We also measured participants' personality traits, perceptions of risk and uncertainty, and attitudes towards polypharmacy and deprescribing.

KEY RESULTS

Among 5311 participants (93.3% completion rate), the mean (M) agreement with deprescribing for the hypothetical patient was 4.71 (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.67, 4.75). Participants reported higher agreement with stopping lansoprazole (n=2656) (M=4.90, 95% CI: 4.85, 4.95) compared to simvastatin (n=2655) (M=4.53, 95% CI: 4.47, 4.58), P<.001. Participants who received the combination rationale (n=1786) reported higher agreement with deprescribing (M=4.83, 95% CI: 4.76, 4.89) compared to those who received the rationales on lack of benefit (n=1755) (M=4.66, 95% CI: 4.60, 4.73) or potential for harm (n=1770) (M=4.65, 95% CI 4.58, 4.72). In adjusted regression analyses (n=5062), participants with a higher desire to engage in health promotion behaviors (b=0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.13) or need for certainty (b=0.12, 95% CI 0.04, 0.20) reported higher agreement with deprescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults across four countries were accepting of deprescribing in the setting of polypharmacy. The medication type and rationale for discontinuation were important factors in the decision-making process.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04676282, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04676282?term=vordenberg&draw=2&rank=1.

Analysis of deprescription strategies of proton pump inhibitors in primary care: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of omeprazole in 1989, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have become the mainstream of treatment for acid-related pathologies, but nowadays, it is estimated that between 20% and 80% of people worldwide who are using PPIs are doing so without an approved indication. Overusing PPIs is known to involve a tremendous cost in financial terms, and many western countries have reported high spending on these medicines.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a narrative review to evaluate PPI deprescription strategies carried out entirely or in collaboration with primary care and to identify factors that could influence the success of these strategies.

METHOD

This review was conducted in November 2022, following PRISMA guidelines. Four databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL Complete, using the MeSH terms 'proton pump inhibitors' AND 'deprescriptions'.

RESULTS

The search with the established criteria found eight studies. The different success rates obtained by the various studies analysed in this review may be due to the different methodologies used when establishing the protocols, sample selection and monitoring of the results.

CONCLUSION

We can conclude that the two factors related to the most successful strategies were a) the clarity and simplicity of the de-escalation protocols, in which patients were instructed on the measures to follow in the event of the reappearance of symptoms, and b) the training of the physicians responsible for deprescribing. Long-term conclusions cannot be drawn about the effectiveness of these protocols, given that the studies are limited in time. Other barriers to generalizing the results are the small sample size and the absence of control groups.

Prescribing Patterns of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Germany: A Retrospective Study Including 472 146 Patients

The aims of this study were to analyze proton pump inhibitor (PPI) users in Germany, defining and classifying them in terms of treatment appropriateness, and to analyze the PPI prescription practices of healthcare providers. The updated DGVS (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie, Verdauungs-und Stoffwechselkrankheiten) gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) treatment guideline (published March 2023) for mild heartburn symptoms recommends carrying out a probatory treatment of mild symptoms via other medication such as antacids, alginates, and H2 blockers before escalating to PPI treatments, if the patient profile allows. This retrospective cross-sectional study was based on data from the IQVIA™ Disease Analyzer database (DA) and included adult patients (18 years or older) in 1006 general and 39 gastroenterological practices in Germany who received at least 1 PPI prescription or alginate between September 2019 and September 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the index period). Analyses included indications associated with PPI prescription, co-diagnoses, co-therapies of PPI patients, duration of PPI therapy, dosages of PPI prescriptions, and proportions of practices prescribing PPIs and alginates. A total of 472 146 patients taking PPIs and 9101 patients taking alginates were available for analysis. Very few patients (4.5%) of the total cohort were treated in complete adherence to treatment guidelines. Conditions such as gastritis and duodenitis (47.2%) and reflux diseases (38.4%) were more frequently associated with PPI prescriptions. The average PPI treatment period lasted 141 days, and 36.6% of patients were treated for >6 months. High doses were prescribed relatively often (ie, 42.8% of esomeprazole prescriptions were 40 mg, 59.1% of lansoprazole prescriptions 30 mg, 28.6% of omeprazole prescriptions 40 mg). With each practice prescribing PPIs to at least 10% of their patients; 72% of general practitioners (GPs) and 8% of GENTS (Gastroenterologists) prescribed alginates. This study highlights that discrepancies exist between clinical guidelines and real-life prescribing practices of PPIs in Germany. Particular attention should be given to the incidence of patients being prescribed high-dose or long-duration PPI with mild indications. These findings are particularly apt considering the publication (March 2023) of new guidelines on the "management of gastroesophageal reflux disease and eosinophilic esophagitis," by the DGVS.

Deprescribing practices in Canada: A scoping review

Background

Excessive and inappropriate use of medications, defined as polypharmacy, can increase the risk of adverse drug reactions while affecting patient adherence and quality of life. Therefore, optimizing pharmacotherapies through deprescribing practices plays a crucial role in managing chronic conditions, avoiding adverse effects and improving patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore research initiatives surrounding deprescribing in Canada.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted that involved a search of 6 databases. Studies that highlighted deprescribing interventions, experiences and other effects on Canadian populations were included.

Results

Searches yielded 2327 citations, of which 31 were included in this review. Five major themes and ideas were identified: deprescribing targeted medications, financial effects of deprescribing, deprescribing in special populations, insight from health care providers and deprescribing frameworks.

Conclusion

Deprescribing practices in Canada have shown a wide range of beneficial results across various health care settings, populations and medication classes and have the potential to reduce medication-related harm in all Canadian health care settings.

Characteristics of Pharmacists' Interventions Related to Proton-Pump Inhibitors in French Hospitals: An Observational Study

METHODS

The study was based on a retrospective analysis of pharmacist interventions for DRPs detected during the medication order review and documented into the French Act-IP© database over a 12-year period. DRPs and PIs were analyzed, and independent factors of physician acceptance were assessed via multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Out of the 620,620 PIs registered, 29,694 targeted a PPI (4.8%). PPI's DRPs were mostly related to the prescription of a "drug not available at the hospital" (26.1%) and a "drug use without indication" (18.3%); PIs were mostly "drug switch" (35.9%) and "drug discontinuation" (26.1%). In all, 18,919 PIs were accepted by physicians (63.7%). Acceptance was significantly associated with patient age: less accepted for the 18-75 years group (OR = 0.59, 95 CI [0.46-0.76]), and the >75 years group (OR = 0.57, 95 CI [0.44-0.73]) vs. <18 years group; for the type of DRP, "drug use without indication" was the less accepted (OR = 0.73, 95 CI [0.63-0.85]); for the type of PI, "dose adjustment" was the less accepted (OR = 0.32, 95 CI [0.23-0.45]).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists contribute to preventing DRPs associated with PPI prescriptions during the medication order review process. Moreover, they often detect PPIs used without indication and they propose drug discontinuation, which contributes to the PPI deprescribing process. PIs should be further developed in the future to reduce PPI overprescription.

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in the Elderly

It is estimated that approximately half of adults, older than 65 years of age, have been prescribed potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). This study's objective was to determine the prevalence of PIM use among older patients. Two retrospective chart reviews were performed on 200 and 164 older patients who underwent comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) at outpatient geriatrics clinics at the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital (Glenrose) in 2012-13 and at the Misericordia Community Hospital (Misericordia) in 2016-17, respectively. Outcome measures included demographics; prevalence of PIM use; common PIMs used; whether PIM use was addressed, and if so, how; and total number of oral medications. At the Glenrose, the prevalence of PIM use was 45 per cent (90/200). Of the 90 patients who had used PIMs, 46.7 per cent (42/90) had at least one of their medications stopped or modified. At the Misericordia, the prevalence of PIM use was 57.3 per cent (94/164). Of the 94 patients who used PIMs, 47.9 per cent (45/94) had at least one of their medications stopped or modified. These results suggest that an increased awareness of PIM among physicians is needed to further decrease PIM use.

Reducing Inappropriate Proton Pump Inhibitors Use for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients: Systematic Review of De-Implementation Studies

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescriptions, including those for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), are inappropriate. Our study purpose was to systematically review the effectiveness of de-implementation strategies aimed at reducing inappropriate PPI use for SUP in hospitalized, non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases (from inception to January 2020). Two authors independently screened references, performed data extraction, and critical appraisal. Randomized trials and comparative observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Criteria developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group were used for critical appraisal. Besides the primary outcome (inappropriate PPI prescription or use), secondary outcomes included (adverse) pharmaceutical effects and healthcare use.

RESULTS

We included ten studies in this review. Most de-implementation strategies contained an educational component (meetings and/or materials), combined with either clinical guideline implementation (n = 5), audit feedback (n = 3), organizational culture (n = 4), or reminders (n = 1). One study evaluating the de-implementation strategy effectiveness showed a significant reduction (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.55) of new inappropriate PPI prescriptions. Out of five studies evaluating the effectiveness of de-implementing inappropriate PPI use, four found a significant reduction (RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.18-0.26 to RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.68-0.86). No significant differences in the occurrence of pharmaceutical effects (n = 1) and in length of stay (n = 3) were observed. Adverse pharmaceutical effects were reported in two studies and five studies reported on PPI or total drug costs. No pooled effect estimates were calculated because of large statistical heterogeneity between studies.

DISCUSSION

All identified studies reported mainly educational interventions in combination with one or multiple other intervention strategies and all interventions were targeted at providers. Most studies found a small to moderate reduction of (inappropriate) PPI prescriptions or use.

Exploring implementation processes in general practice in a feedback intervention aiming to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing: a qualitative study among general practitioners

Background

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) has been linked with adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Feedback interventions targeting PIP have shown promising results. However, translation from research to everyday practice remains a challenge. With the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as overarching framework, we aimed to explore the implementation processes performed by general practices in a real-life, quality improvement intervention using feedback on practice-level prescribing.

Methods

All 376 general practices in the Central Denmark Region received a prescribing feedback intervention targeting selected types of PIP. Six months later, they received an evaluation questionnaire, to which 45% responded. Among 102 practices reporting to have made changes in response to the intervention, we conducted individual, semi-structured interviews with ten GPs. Maximum variation was sought in terms of baseline prescribing status, implementation activities, practice type and geographical location. The interviews were analysed thematically using NPT.

Results

The implementation processes in general practice reflected the four NPT constructs. Key motivators for implementation included the GPs’ professional values and interests, but pragmatic considerations were also of importance (coherence). A collective versus an individual approach to the engagement and planning of the implementation process (cognitive participation) was observed. Similarly, a distinction was evident between practice-level actions involving the entire practice team as opposed to individual-level actions performed by the individual GP (collective action). Several challenges to the implementation processes were identified, including patient influences and competing priorities at multiple levels (reflexive monitoring). Additionally, internal evaluation and normalisation of new practices occurred in varying degrees.

Conclusion

NPT provided a useful framework for understanding implementation processes in general practice. Our results emphasise that clear professional aims and feasible content of interventions are key for GP motivation. This may be ensured through cooperation with GPs’ professional organisation, which may strengthen intervention legitimacy and uptake. Two main implementation strategies were identified: practice-level and GP-level strategies. Intervention developers need to recognise both strategies to deliver intervention content and implementation support that promote sustainable improvements in prescribing practice. Competing demands and patient influences remain important challenges that need to be addressed in future studies to further facilitate the reduction of PIPs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-020-00106-5.

Discussing proton pump inhibitor deprescribing: the views of Danish GPs and older patients

Background

Deprescribing of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can be considered in situations where the drug may no longer be necessary; however, this requires a careful discussion between patients and healthcare providers, often general practitioners (GPs). The aim of our study was to explore how GPs discuss PPI deprescribing with patients and compare that to how older patients would like to discuss this decision.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with GPs (n = 11) and patients aged ≥65 years who were taking PPIs (n = 4). Analysis of interviews was based on systematic text condensation.

Results

We identified four main themes: (1) Reasons PPI deprescribing comes up, (2) Considering PPI deprescribing, (3) Discussion topics, and (4) Incorporating patient preferences into PPI deprescribing decisions. We found that PPI deprescribing often comes up during consultations for other problems or due to concern about medication burden in general. GPs discussed topics related to symptom control, such as the possibility of rebound symptoms, the need to taper PPIs, and what to do if symptoms returned. This aligned with what patients felt was important to discuss. Some GPs routinely incorporated patient preferences into decisions, whereas others did not.

Conclusion

When discussing PPI deprescribing, the GPs in our study generally focused on topics related to symptom control. There was variability in how and if patient preferences were discussed. Greater focus may be needed on developing mechanisms to elicit and incorporate patient preferences into PPI deprescribing decisions. Future research could also explore more systematic approaches to reassess ongoing PPI use in an effort to curb unnecessary long-term use of PPIs.

Patient-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Deprescribing Cardiovascular Medications

BACKGROUND

Medications endorsed by clinical practice guidelines, such as cardiovascular medications, could still have risks that outweigh potential benefits, and could thus warrant deprescribing.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to develop a framework of facilitators and barriers specific to deprescribing cardiovascular medications in the setting of uncertain benefit. Given the frequent use of β-blockers in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and its uncertain benefits with potential for harm, we used this scenario as an example case for a cardiovascular medication that may be reasonable to deprescribe.

METHODS

We conducted one-on-one, semi-structured interviews of older adults until we reached thematic saturation. Two coders independently reviewed each interview, and developed codes using deductive thematic analysis based on a prior conceptual framework for deprescribing. Subthemes and themes were finalized with a third coder.

RESULTS

Ten participants were interviewed. We identified three key previously described patient-reported facilitators to deprescribing: (1) appropriateness of cessation; (2) process of cessation; and (3) dislike of medications; and identified three key previously described patient-reported barriers: (1) appropriateness of cessation; (2) process of cessation; and (3) fear. We found that these facilitators and barriers often co-occurred within the same individual. This observation, coupled with subthemes from our patient interviews, yielded two barriers to deprescribing specific to cardiovascular medications-uncertainty and conflicting attitudes.

CONCLUSION

We adapted a new framework of patient-reported barriers and facilitators specific to deprescribing cardiovascular medications. In addition to addressing barriers previously described, future deprescribing interventions targeting cardiovascular medications must also address uncertainty and conflicting attitudes.

Suitability of patient education materials on proton-pump inhibitors deprescribing: a focused review

PURPOSE

Engaging patients in the process of deprescribing is a necessity. Several patient education materials have been developed for this purpose. The aim of this study was to assess the suitability of the existing patient education materials for proton-pump inhibitors deprescribing.

METHODS

We conducted a targeted inventory of the available materials on scientific literature and known repositories. We evaluated their suitability with the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument. Materials were rated independently by two researchers and then discussed until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

Seven patient education materials were identified. Three materials (42.9%) were deemed "superior" and 4 (57.1%) were deemed "adequate". Ratings were generally good in the categories of content, learning stimulation, motivation, typography and layout. The major weaknesses included the use of inappropriate graphics and the too demanding required reading grade level. These may decrease patient attention and comprehension and therefore the effectiveness of education materials.

CONCLUSIONS

Suitability of the patient education materials on proton-pump inhibitors deprescribing is overall satisfactory. Greater attention on readability, graphics and inclusion of summaries will be needed for development of future materials.

Proton Pump Inhibitors and the Kidney: Implications of Current Evidence for Clinical Practice and When and How to Deprescribe

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), long thought to be safe, are associated with a number of nonkidney adverse health outcomes and several untoward kidney outcomes, including hypomagnesemia, acute kidney injury, acute interstitial nephritis, incident chronic kidney disease, kidney disease progression, kidney failure, and increased risk for all-cause mortality and mortality due to chronic kidney disease. PPIs are abundantly prescribed, rarely deprescribed, and frequently purchased over the counter. They are frequently used without medical indication, and when medically indicated, they are often used for much longer than needed. In this In Practice review, we summarize evidence linking PPI use with adverse events in general and adverse kidney outcomes in particular. We review the literature on the association of PPI use and risk for hypomagnesemia, acute kidney injury, acute interstitial nephritis, incident chronic kidney disease, kidney disease progression, end-stage kidney disease, and death. We provide an assessment of how this evidence should inform clinical practice. We review the impact of this evidence on patients' perception of risk, synthesize PPI deprescription literature, and provide our recommendations on how to approach PPI use and deprescription.