Reduction of the long-term use of proton pump inhibitors by a patient-oriented electronic decision support tool (arriba-PPI): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Impact of pharmacist-evaluated clinical decision support system alerts on potentially missing or inappropriately prescribed proton pump inhibitors at hospital discharge: a retrospective cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most prescribed drugs. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) could improve their rational use.

AIM

The impact of an electronic algorithm (e-algorithm) implemented in a CDSS on potentially missing or inappropriately prescribed PPIs at hospital discharge, its specificity and sensitivity, and the outcome of the alerts issued were analysed.

METHOD

An e-algorithm continuously monitored patients of a tertiary care hospital for missing or inappropriate PPIs. Following relevance assessment by a pharmacist, the alerts raised were either displayed in the patients' electronic record or dismissed. After a three-month period, all adult patients' records were retrospectively reviewed for missing or inappropriate PPIs at discharge. The results were compared with a corresponding period before CDSS introduction. Sensitivity, specificity and outcome of alerts were quantified.

RESULTS

In a 3-month period with 5018 patients, the CDSS created 158 alerts for missing PPIs and 464 alerts for inappropriate PPIs. PPI prescribing was proposed 81 times and PPI termination 122 times, with acceptance rates of 73% and 34%, respectively. A specificity of 99.4% and sensitivity of 92.0% for missing PPIs and a specificity of 97.1% and a sensitivity of 69.7% for inappropriate PPIs were calculated. The algorithm reduced incidents of missing PPIs by 63.4% (p < 0.001) and of inappropriate PPIs by 16.2% (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

The algorithm identified patients without necessary gastroprotection or inappropriate PPIs with high specificity and acceptable sensitivity. It positively impacted the rational use of PPIs by reducing incidents of missing and inappropriate PPIs.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Efficacy of a computer based discontinuation strategy to reduce PPI prescriptions: a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial

Deprescribing of inappropriate long-term proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is challenging and there is a lack of useful methods for general practitioners to tackle this. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of the electronic decision aid tool arriba-PPI on reduction of long-term PPI intake. Participants (64.5 ± 12.9 years; 54.4% women) with a PPI intake of at least 6 months were randomized to receive either consultation with arriba-PPI from their general practitioner (n = 1256) or treatment as usual (n = 1131). PPI prescriptions were monitored 6 months before, 6 and 12 months after study initiation. In 49.2% of the consultations with arriba-PPI, the general practitioners and their patients made the decision to reduce or discontinue PPI intake. At 6 months, there was a significant reduction by 22.3% (95% CI 18.55 to 25.98; p < 0.0001) of defined daily doses (DDD) of PPI. A reduction of 3.3% (95% CI - 7.18 to + 0.62) was observed in the control group. At 12 months, the reduction of DDD-PPI remained stable in intervention patients (+ 3.5%, 95% CI - 0.99 to + 8.03), whereas control patients showed a reduction of DDD-PPI (- 10.2%, 95% CI - 6.01 to - 14.33). Consultation with arriba-PPI led to reduced prescription rates of PPI in primary care practices. Arriba-PPI can be a helpful tool for general practitioners to start a conversation with their patients about risks of long-term PPI intake, reduction or deprescribing unnecessary PPI medication.

Patients' perspectives on a patient-oriented electronic decision support tool to reduce overuse of proton pump inhibitors (arriba-PPI): a qualitative study in primary care

BACKGROUND

To evaluate patients' perspectives and their experiences with a consultation involving a computer-assisted and patient-centered discontinuation strategy (arriba-PPI tool) as part of a German multicenter study on reducing the prescription of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

METHODS

Qualitative in-depth telephone interviews on proton pump inhibitors with patients who had received an arriba-PPI tool-based counseling by their general practitioner (GP). A random sample of 30 patients was taken from study participants. Interviews were conducted in 2020 and analyzed using a thematic qualitative text analysis.

RESULTS

Although this was meant to be the key to shared decision making with regard to PPI reduction, study participants mostly did not recall the visual features of the tool. However, a few patients remembered them very clearly. Above all, patients appreciated a trustful relationship with the GP as well as comprehensive, individualized counseling.

CONCLUSION

Application of the arriba-PPI tool can support the decision process but can also hinder the consultation process if the tool is not properly embedded in the consultation. GPs using the arriba-PPI tool to support the shared decision-making process should consider the patients' and their own expectations on the benefit of the visual representation of the tool.

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.

Who gets prescriptions for proton pump inhibitors and why? A drug-utilization study with claims data in Bavaria, Germany, 2010-2018

PURPOSE

The German annual drug prescription-report has indicated overuse of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for many years; however, little was known about the characteristics of people using PPIs. This study aimed to provide comprehensive utilization data and describe frequencies of potential on- and off-label PPI-indications in Bavaria, Germany.

METHODS

Claims data of statutorily insured people from 2010 to 2018 were used. Defined daily doses (DDDs) of PPIs by type of drug, prevalence of PPI-use and DDDs prescribed per 1000 insured people/day were analyzed. For 2018, proportions of users and DDDs per 1000 insured people were calculated by age and sex. To elucidate changes in prescribing practices due to a suspected drug-drug interaction, we examined co-prescribing of clopidogrel and PPIs between 2010 and 2018. For PPI new users, sums of DDDs and frequencies of potential indications were examined.

RESULTS

PPI prescribing increased linearly from 2010 to 2016 and gradually decreased from 2016 to 2018. In 2018, 14.7% of women and 12.2% of men received at least one prescription, and 64.8 DDDs (WHO-def.) per 1000 insured people/day were prescribed. Overall, omeprazole use decreased over the observation period and was steadily replaced by pantoprazole, especially when co-prescibed with clopidogrel. An on-label PPI-indication was not reported at first intake in 52.0% of new users.

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of prescribed PPIs has decreased since 2016. However, a large proportion of new PPI-users had no documentation of a potential indication, and the sums of DDDs prescribed often seemed not to comply with guidelines.

Proton pump inhibitors long term use-trends and patterns over 15 years of a large health maintenance organization

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are used for a variety of indications. Despite reported associations with undesirable effects, their long-term use is on the rise, while appropriate indications, dose, and treatment duration may deviate from guideline recommendations.

OBJECTIVES

Primary to examine the annual patterns of PPI use. Secondary- to assess indications for initiating PPI treatment, long-term use, and factors associated with long-term use in a large Israeli health maintenance organization.

METHODS

A historical cohort study of 528 420 eligible PPI users during 2000-2015, analyzed PPI use using defined daily doses and the proportion of patients covered method. Data on indications for treatment initiation, clinical and socio-demographic parameters were captured as well. A multivariable logistic-regression model was used to identify factors associated with long-term use of PPI.

RESULTS

The annual incidence rates of patients initiating PPI treatment were relatively constant, ranging between 2.4% and 3.1% of the adult population, with a monotonic increase in annual consumption and prevalence (reaching 12.7% in 2015). Reflux, functional symptoms, and Helicobacter pylori eradication were the most common indications for initiating PPI therapy. However, 27% of patients had no recorded indication for treatment. Fifteen percent of patients used PPI for over 6 months, especially in older age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of PPI increases steadily, mainly due to chronic use. Prolonged consumption is associated with specific clinical indications and older age. Health organizations should encourage awareness of appropriate use among physicians, specifically in the elderly, patients with reflux, and those with functional disorders.