Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Orelio CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8298652 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProton pump inhibitors (PPI) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been widely used as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients, however, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the effect of SUP on clinical outcomes in critically ill adults.MethodsLiterature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database of clinical trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated SUP, with PPI or H2RA, versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients from database inception through 1 June 2019. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. The primary outcomes were clinically important gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and overt GI bleeding. Conventional meta-analysis with random-effects model and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.ResultsTwenty-nine RCTs were identified, of which four RCTs were judged as low risk of bias. Overall, SUP could reduce the incident of clinically important GI bleeding [relative risk (RR)?=?0.58; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.42-0.81] and overt GI bleeding (RR?=?0.48; 95% CI: 0.36-0.63), these results were confirmed by the sub-analysis of trials with low risk of bias, TSA indicated a firm evidence on its beneficial effects on the overt GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.31-0.75), but lack of sufficient evidence on the clinically important GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.23-1.51). Among patients who received enteral nutrition (EN), SUP was associated with a decreased risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR?=?0.61; 95% CI: 0.44-0.85; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.16-2.38) and overt GI bleeding (RR?=?0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.96; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.12-3.35), but these benefits disappeared after adjustment with TSA. Among patients who did not receive EN, SUP had only benefits in reducing the risk of overt GI bleeding (RR?=?0.37; 95% CI: 0.25-0.55; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.22-0.63), but not the clinically important GI bleeding (RR?=?0.27; 95% CI: 0.04-2.09).ConclusionsSUP has benefits on the overt GI bleeding in critically ill patients who did not receive EN, however, its benefits on clinically important GI bleeding still needs more evidence to confirm.

Project description:Background. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are currently the most effective agents for acid-related disorders. However, studies show that 25-75% of patients receiving intravenous PPIs had no appropriate justification, indicating high rates of inappropriate prescribing. Objective. To examine the appropriate use of intravenous PPIs in accordance with guidelines and the efficacy of a prescribing awareness intervention at an Asian teaching institution. Setting. Prospective audit in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Method. Every 4th intravenous PPI prescription received in the pharmacy was screened against hospital guidelines. Interventions for incorrect indication/dose/duration were performed. Patients' demographic data, medical history and the use of intravenous PPI were collected. Included were all adult inpatients prescribed intravenous PPI. Main Outcome Measure. Proportion of appropriate IV PPI prescriptions. Results. Data for 106 patients were collected. Most patients were male [65(61.3%)], Chinese [50(47.2%)], with mean age ± SD = 60.3 ± 18.0 years. Most intravenous PPI prescriptions were initiated by junior doctors from the surgical [47(44.3%)] and medical [42(39.6%)] departments. Only 50/106(47.2%) patients had upper gastrointestinal endoscopy/surgery performed to verify the source of bleeding. Unexplained abdominal pain [81(76.4%)] was the main driver for prescribing intravenous PPIs empirically, out of which 73(68.9%) were for suspected upper gastrointestinal bleed. Overall, intravenous PPI was found to be inappropriately prescribed in 56(52.8%) patients for indication, dose or duration. Interventions on the use of intravenous PPI were most effective when performed by senior doctors (100%), followed by clinical pharmacists (50%), and inpatient pharmacists (37.5%, p = 0.027). Conclusion. Inappropriate intravenous PPI usage is still prevalent despite the enforcement of hospital guidelines. The promotion of prescribing awareness and evidence-based prescribing through education of medical staff could result in more judicious use of intravenous PPI and dose-optimization.