Inappropriate Use of Proton Pump Inhibitor Among Elderly Patients inBritish Columbia: What are the Long-term Adverse Events?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most used classes of drugs. For most indications, PPIs are only recommended up to 8 weeks duration. However, PPI use continues to expand. Regular and prolonged use of PPIs should be avoided because of the risk of adverse events. Objectives: The main objective of this study was to (1) investigate the extent of PPI usage in people aged 65 or older in the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada, (2) provide an overview of the harms associated with the long-term use of PPIs. Methods: We examined utilization trends of the PPIs in BC since the year 2009 using PharmaNet, BC’s medication dispensing database where the information is accessible to community pharmacists. We performed a comprehensive literature search for relevant reviews reporting harms associated with long-term use of PPIs. A search was conducted from January 2014 to June 2022. Results: Between 2000 and 2018 BC’s population grew by 20%, but the use of PPIs escalated to 257%. Of these older British Columbians, 62% had a cumulative exposure exceeding 2 years and 42% exceeded 5 years. This is alarming because the recommended treatment duration is 4-12 weeks for common indications including reflux esophagitis, and duodenal and gastric ulcers. Only 13.5% were dispensed PPIs for 90 days or less. Patients on long-term PPI therapy should be reassessed. Adverse events of PPI use are common among older adults. We identified over 217 systematic reviews published during the last 8 years of specific harms associated with long-term daily usage of PPIs. These harms include increased risks of death, cardiovascular disease, acute renal injury, chronic kidney disease, dementia, fractures, hypomagnesemia, iron deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency, enteric infection (including C. difficile), pneumonia, and neoplasia (gastric cancer, carcinoids, and colon cancer), and drug interactions. Conclusion: This study revealed a high prevalence of PPI use among elderly populations in BC, Canada. The overutilization of PPIs is often a result of failure to re-evaluate the need for continuation of therapy. Published studies identified signals of serious harm from long-term PPI exposure. Healthcare providers with patients can reverse the relentless expansion of long-term PPI exposure by discussing the expected benefits and potential harms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".