Proton Pump Inhibitor Deprescription Prospective Study in Patients Without Indication: Are There Differences in Proportion of Restarts According to Withdrawal Strategy?

IF 1.1 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of Pharmacy Technology Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-29 DOI:10.1177/87551225231195216
Anna Barraquer Comes, Pedro Roy Millán
{"title":"Proton Pump Inhibitor Deprescription Prospective Study in Patients Without Indication: Are There Differences in Proportion of Restarts According to Withdrawal Strategy?","authors":"Anna Barraquer Comes, Pedro Roy Millán","doi":"10.1177/87551225231195216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The increasing utilization of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients without clear medical indications has raised concerns regarding potential risks, highlighting the importance of deprescription. However, comparative analyses of withdrawal strategies (abrupt vs gradual) in this context remain scarce or of low quality. <b>Aim:</b> This study aimed to evaluate the success rate of deprescribing PPIs in hospitalized patients without a documented indication and compare the proportion of treatment restarts based on withdrawal strategy. <b>Method:</b> An uncontrolled, open-label prospective observational study was conducted on patients receiving PPI treatment during hospital admission between May 2017 and July 2018. Deprescription was recommended for patients without a clear indication. Follow-up continued until discharge, with monitoring for rebound symptoms. The percentage of restarts based on the withdrawal strategy was compared using the chi-square test. <b>Results:</b> A total of 402 patients were reviewed, among whom 27% lacked a medical indication (mean age > 60 years, polymedicated), while 70% were prescribed PPIs electronically. Deprescription was performed in 49% of patients, with 64% undergoing abrupt withdrawal. Rebound symptoms led to treatment restart in 15% of cases. However, the chi-square test revealed no significant differences in restart proportions between the abrupt and gradual withdrawal groups (<i>P</i> = 0.365). <b>Conclusion:</b> Deprescribing PPIs is deemed safe, particularly for polymedicated geriatric patients, as it leads to a low percentage of restarts regardless of the chosen withdrawal strategy. However, the high percentage of PPI prescription without a clear indication underlines the need for periodic reassessment to avoid unnecessary risks and overuse.</p>","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10515970/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/87551225231195216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The increasing utilization of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients without clear medical indications has raised concerns regarding potential risks, highlighting the importance of deprescription. However, comparative analyses of withdrawal strategies (abrupt vs gradual) in this context remain scarce or of low quality. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the success rate of deprescribing PPIs in hospitalized patients without a documented indication and compare the proportion of treatment restarts based on withdrawal strategy. Method: An uncontrolled, open-label prospective observational study was conducted on patients receiving PPI treatment during hospital admission between May 2017 and July 2018. Deprescription was recommended for patients without a clear indication. Follow-up continued until discharge, with monitoring for rebound symptoms. The percentage of restarts based on the withdrawal strategy was compared using the chi-square test. Results: A total of 402 patients were reviewed, among whom 27% lacked a medical indication (mean age > 60 years, polymedicated), while 70% were prescribed PPIs electronically. Deprescription was performed in 49% of patients, with 64% undergoing abrupt withdrawal. Rebound symptoms led to treatment restart in 15% of cases. However, the chi-square test revealed no significant differences in restart proportions between the abrupt and gradual withdrawal groups (P = 0.365). Conclusion: Deprescribing PPIs is deemed safe, particularly for polymedicated geriatric patients, as it leads to a low percentage of restarts regardless of the chosen withdrawal strategy. However, the high percentage of PPI prescription without a clear indication underlines the need for periodic reassessment to avoid unnecessary risks and overuse.

无适应症患者质子泵抑制剂停用前瞻性研究:根据停用策略重启的比例是否存在差异?
背景:在没有明确医学指征的患者中,质子泵抑制剂(PPIs)的使用越来越多,这引发了人们对潜在风险的担忧,突显了取消描述的重要性。然而,在这种情况下,对退出策略(突然与渐进)的比较分析仍然很少或质量较低。目的:本研究旨在评估在没有记录适应症的住院患者中取消PPI的成功率,并比较基于停药策略的重新开始治疗的比例。方法:对2017年5月至2018年7月住院期间接受PPI治疗的患者进行了一项非对照、开放标签的前瞻性观察性研究。对于没有明确指征的患者,建议取消描述。随访持续到出院,并监测反弹症状。使用卡方检验比较了基于退出策略的重启百分比。结果:共有402名患者接受了审查,其中27%缺乏医学指征(平均年龄 > 60 年,聚合),而70%是电子处方PPI。49%的患者进行了剥夺描述,其中64%的患者突然停药。15%的病例因反弹症状而重新开始治疗。卡方检验显示,突然退出组和逐渐退出组的重启比例没有显著差异(P = 0.365)。结论:停用PPIs被认为是安全的,尤其是对多药治疗的老年患者,因为无论选择何种停药策略,它都会导致低百分比的重新启动。然而,在没有明确指示的情况下,PPI处方的高比例强调了定期重新评估的必要性,以避免不必要的风险和过度使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmacy Technology
Journal of Pharmacy Technology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: For both pharmacists and technicians, jPT provides valuable information for those interested in the entire body of pharmacy practice. jPT covers new drugs, products, and equipment; therapeutic trends; organizational, legal, and educational activities; drug distribution and administration; and includes continuing education articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信