Inappropriate Prescription of Proton Pump Inhibitors in a Community Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTBackground: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely prescribed for gastrointestinal conditions, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia, and for prevention of gastric ulcer. Although previous reportshave described inappropriate prescription of PPIs in the hospital setting, data from the community are lacking.Objective: To assess PPI prescriptions in the ambulatory setting.Methods: Patients presenting to the emergency department of a teaching hospital between June 2016 and March 2017 were prospectively assessed for use of a PPI at home. The appropriateness of PPI prescription wasevaluated on the basis of an interview with the patient and review of the medical record. The indication for PPI therapy was verified against current guidelines for the province of Quebec.Results: Over the 9-month study period, 2417 patients were screened, of whom 871 were included in the study. In relation to the Quebec guidelines, PPI prescription was inappropriate for 267 (30.7%) of the patients. When prescription of PPI for ulcer prevention in certain groups of patients (age ≥ 65 years and using acetylsalicylic acid or platelet aggregation inhibitors; age ≥ 75 years and using celecoxib) was re-classified as appropriate, the proportion of inappropriate PPI prescriptions declined to 20.3% (177/871).Conclusions: These findings suggest that inappropriate prescribing of PPIs remains problematic in the community setting in the province of Quebec.RÉSUMÉContexte : Les inhibiteurs de la pompe à protons (IPP) sont largement prescrits pour traiter les troubles gastro-intestinaux, comme le reflux gastro-oesophagien et la dyspepsie, et pour prévenir l’ulcère gastrique. Bienque des rapports antérieurs aient parlé de la prescription inadéquate des IPP dans les établissements de santé, il n’y a pas de données provenant de la communauté.Objectif : Évaluer la pertinence des prescriptions d’IPP dans un milieu ambulatoire.Méthodes : Les patients se présentant au service des urgences d’un hôpital universitaire entre juin 2016 et mars 2017 ont été évalués de façon prospective relativement à l’utilisation d’un IPP à la maison. La pertinence de la prescription d’un IPP a été jugée d’après une entrevue avec le patient et l’analyse du dossier médical. On a vérifié si l’indication pour un traitement par IPP respectait les lignes directrices actuelles du Québec.Résultats : Sur une période de neuf mois, 2 417 patients ont été évalués et 871 d’entre eux ont été admis à l’étude. Par rapport aux lignes directrices du Québec, la prescription d’IPP était inadéquate pour 267 (30,7 %) des patients. Or, si la prescription d’IPP pour prévenir l’ ulcère gastrique chez certains groupes de patients (âgés de 65 ans ou plus et prenant de l’acide acétylsalicylique ou un antiagrégant plaquettaire; âgés de 75 ans ou plus et prenant du célécoxib) était reclassée comme adéquate, la proportion de prescriptions d’IPP inadéquates reculait à 20,3 % (177/871).Conclusions : Ces résultats laissent croire que les prescriptions inadéquates d’IPP demeurent un problème dans le contexte communautaire au Québec.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".