These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Do recent reports about the adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors change providers' prescription practice?
    Author: Al-Qaisi MT, Kahn A, Crowell MD, Burdick GE, Vela MF, Ramirez FC.
    Journal: Dis Esophagus; 2018 Dec 01; 31(12):. PubMed ID: 29873678.
    Abstract:
    Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are utilized for a variety of indications, including treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and prevention of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Several studies have documented an increasing prevalence of inappropriate PPI use. Furthermore, recent media reports have highlighted new research data suggesting a possible association between chronic PPI use and several adverse medical outcomes, leading to frequent patient inquiries about these associations. Thus, providers face the challenge of counseling patients about the balance of risks and benefits related to PPI use. We aimed to explore providers' knowledge and attitudes toward reported adverse effects of PPI use and compare providers' prescription practices. A comprehensive, non-incentivized electronic survey was sent to all providers (residents, fellows, advanced practice providers, and consultants across 8 internal medicine specialties) at our tertiary academic medical center. The survey contained 21 questions covering provider demographics and responses to challenging clinical scenarios dealing with PPI use. Chi-square was used to compare responses from providers. The survey was distributed to 254 providers, of which 94 (24 GI and 70 non-GI) completed the survey (37% response rate). Among those 94 providers, 48 were consultants, 17 were advanced practice providers, and 29 were trainees. Non-GI providers included cardiology, pulmonary, endocrinology, family medicine, general internal medicine, hematology/oncology, and nephrology. Over half of the providers (51 [54%]) described their practice as outpatient setting, 29 (31%) providers defined their practice as a mixed setting (inpatient and outpatient), while 14 (15%) designated it as inpatient only. Nineteen (80%) GI providers and 48 (69%) non-GI providers discussed the risks and benefits with patients (P = 0.64). Fifteen (63%) GI providers and 33 (47%) non-GI providers indicated that recent reports changed their practice (P = 0.49). More GI providers (5 [21%]) lowered the dose of PPI compared with non-GI (1[1%]) (P = 0.004); 18 (26%) of non-GI and 3 (13%) of GI providers discontinued PPI and substituted it with a histamine 2 (H2) blocker (P = 0.29). A larger but nonsignificant percentage of trainees (8 [28%]) switched PPI to H2 blockers compared with consultants (8 [17%]; P = 0.39). Six (25%) of GI providers and 14 (20%) of non-GI providers were concerned about Clostridium difficile infection (P = 0.58). Twenty-four (34%) of the non-GI were worried about kidney diseases compared with 3 (13%) of the GI providers (P = 0.1). Ten (21%) consultants were concerned about risk of osteoporosis compared with 3 (10%) trainees (P = 0.38), while 8 (28%) trainees were worried about the risk of C. difficile infection compared with 10 (21%) consultants (P = 0.69). Most providers (85 [90%]) agreed that educational activities would be helpful to address these challenges. More GI providers lowered the dose of PPI compared with non-GI; non-GI providers were more likely to discontinue PPI and substitute it with an H2 blocker. Educating patients and providers about potential adverse effects of PPI is imperative.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]