Assessing Frequency and Appropriateness of Proton Pump Inhibitor Deprescription in Patients Requiring Endoscopic Therapy for Esophageal Strictures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective There have been concerns about the widespread usage of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), leading to recommendations to deprescribe PPIs in certain patients. This study aims to determine if PPI deprescription in patients with symptomatic esophageal strictures was consistent with published guidelines and to compare the rate of PPI deprescription between two-time points. Methods All patients from two gastroenterology practices who received endoscopic dilation to treat symptomatic strictures between the years of 2015–2017 and 2019–2021 were identified using physician billing codes. We defined inappropriate PPI deprescription as: a patient who was deprescribed their PPI with a past medical history of esophageal stricture, Barrett’s esophagus, grade C/D esophagitis, or who had experienced symptom recurrence after PPI deprescription. Furthermore, we analyzed the rate of PPI deprescription between two time periods 2015–2017 (group 1) and 2019–2021 (group 2). Results Two hundred twenty-three esophageal dilations were analyzed. Twenty-six patients in the sample were deprescribed their PPI, with the majority (57 percent) meeting the criteria for inappropriate PPI deprescription. There was a trend towards more inappropriate deprescription in the second time period. (71 percent vs. 33 percent; P = 0.06). Patients in group 2 had a higher rate of PPI deprescription (23.9 percent) than group 1 (6.0 percent; P < 0.001). Conclusions PPI deprescription in patients treated for symptomatic esophageal strictures appears to be more common in the second time period. Most patients were defined as inappropriate deprescription. Physicians must apply guidelines carefully when considering deprescribing PPIs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".