Proton Pump Inhibitors in the Elderly Hospitalized Patient: Evaluating Appropriate Use and Deprescribing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are often prescribed for elderly patients without appropriate indication, or for longer durations than recommended. Objective: To review appropriateness of PPI use prior to and in hospital, and deprescribing rates across different hospital units. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients ≥65 years admitted to 5 acute care units: intensive care unit, acute care for elderly, orthopedics, surgery, and medicine. Patients who were “non-naive” (prehospital PPI use) or “naive” (new PPI initiated in hospital) users were included. For both groups, demographics, reason for admission, length of stay, comorbidities, name and number of home medications, PPI name, dose and indication, and PPI discharge instructions were collected. For naive patients, duration of in-hospital use and prescriber specialty was recorded. Results: Among non-naive patients (n = 377), for 37 patients (10%), the indication for a PPI was not appropriate, and for 92 patients (24%), the indication was unclear. Most patients had their home PPI continued while in hospital (87%) and at discharge (90%). Among naive (n = 93) patients, for 8 patients (9%), the indication for a PPI was not appropriate, and for 25 (27%) patients, the indication was unclear. PPI was prescribed to only 16 (18%) by the gastrointestinal consult service. Most patients had their new PPI continued at discharge (74%); only 7 (9%) were discharged with a plan to reassess PPI indication. Conclusion: PPIs are infrequently deprescribed during hospital admission, despite inappropriate or unclear indications for use. Thorough medication reconciliation, documentation of PPI indication and duration, and institutional focus on deprescribing are encouraged.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".