Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs)—An Evidence-Based Review of Indications, Efficacy, Harms, and Deprescribing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most prescribed drugs worldwide owing to their proven efficacy in symptom control and mucosal healing for acid-related disorders including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD), peptic ulcer disease, Helicobacter pylori eradication, functional dyspepsia, and gastroprotection in high-risk patients. However, long-term use beyond approved indications is increasingly common and has raised safety concerns. Observational studies link chronic PPI use to a myriad of adverse outcomes such as enteric infections (e.g., Clostridioides difficile), nutrient deficiencies (magnesium, vitamin B12), osteoporotic fractures, chronic kidney disease, dementia, and gastric and colorectal cancer. While causality is not always established, these associations warrant cautious risk-benefit assessment in patients receiving prolonged therapy. Current guidelines advocate periodic review of ongoing PPI use and emphasise deprescribing where appropriate. Strategies include dose reduction, on-demand or intermittent use, and switching to H2-receptor antagonists, particularly in patients with non-erosive reflux disease or functional dyspepsia. Tools from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, American College of Gastroenterology, and the Canadian Deprescribing Network assist clinicians in identifying candidates for tapering or discontinuation. This narrative review focuses on the concept of "PPI stewardship" by providing an evidence-based overview of PPI indications, risks, and deprescribing strategies to promote appropriate, safer, and patient-centred use of acid-suppressive therapy.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".