Use Of Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors Research Articles

Overuse of Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors in General Medicine and Surgery Wards.

Overuse of stress ulcer prophylaxis is prevalent globally despite guidelines leading to the added cost, especially the intravenous proton pump inhibitor (IVPPI). This study aims to analyze the prevalence of such overuse and be aware of rational use which may help develop local guidelines. This study analyzed the prospectively collected data on IVPPI use in adult patients in general wards of medicine and surgery at Patan Hospital, Patan Academy of Health Sciences, Nepal, from April-Jun 2022. Ethical approval was obtained. Variables analyzed were the patient's age, gender, history of peptic ulcer disease, risk for stress ulcer and gastrointestinal bleeding, the status of nil per os (NPO ≥12 hours), appropriate use of IVPPI, and cost. Prevalence of IVPPI use was 36.24% (274/756 admissions), surgery 39.45(189/479), medicine ward 30.68% (85/277). The mean age was 43.1 ±18.6 years, males 113(41.2%), surgery 189 (69%). Inappropriate overuse in 253(92.3%, significantly more in surgery-182 than medicine-7, p=0.001. Appropriate use was in 21 (7.7%, i.e., NPO-15, NPO + gastrointestinal bleed, and NPO + non steroid anti-inflammatory drugs each 3). Prevalence of IVPPI use was 36.24%. Inappropriate overuse of IVPPI was high (92.2%, 253/274), more in surgery. The nil per os status was the main reason for appropriate use of IVPPI.

Impact of proton pump inhibitors on the in-hospital outcome of COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study.

Background:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has triggered a global public health crisis. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs. However, the effect of PPIs on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients remains unclear.Methods:All COVID-19 patients admitted to the Wuhan Huoshenshan Hospital from February 2020 to April 2020 were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into PPIs and non-PPIs groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the effects of PPIs on the outcomes of COVID-19 patients, including transfer to intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, and death. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the presence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms potentially associated with acid and the routes, types, median total dosage, and duration of PPIs. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.Results:Of the 3024 COVID-19 patients included, 694 and 2330 were in PPIs and non-PPIs groups, respectively. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that PPIs significantly increased the risk of reaching the composite endpoint in COVID-19 patients (OR = 10.23, 95% CI = 6.90–15.16, p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications, and severe/critical COVID-19, PPIs were independently associated with an increased risk of reaching the composite endpoint (OR = 7.00, 95% CI = 4.57–10.71, p < 0.001). This association remained significant in patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms and those who received an intravenous omeprazole alone, but not those who received oral lansoprazole or rabeprazole alone. It was not influenced by dosage or duration of PPIs.Conclusion:The use of intravenous PPIs alone during hospitalization may be associated with worse clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients.

The Pattern of Intravenous Proton-Pump Inhibitor Utilization at an Academic Medical Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Objective:This study was designed to evaluate the extent of inappropriate utilization of intravenous proton-pump inhibitors (IV-PPIs) and its financial burden in a Middle Eastern tertiary care university hospital.Methods:This was an observational, retrospective, cross-sectional study carried out in King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. During a study period of 6 consecutive weeks, all hospitalized adult patients (age ≥18) who received IV-PPI selected and mapped with their indications. The patient indications analyzed in comparison with the appropriate indications developed based on the evidence from published literature and guidelines.Findings:A total of 347 patients were identified, with a mean age of 51.5 years, of which 51.9% were male. Of all the patients who received IV-PPIs, 251 (72.3%), 66 (19%), and 30 (8.7%) received for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), peptic ulcer disease (PUD) or gastroesophageal reflux diseases (GERDs), and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, respectively. Overall, only 110 (31.7%) of the 347 patients received IV-PPIs appropriately. The patients with SUP showed the highest percentage of inappropriate use of IV-PPI (80.59%) compared to PUD/GERD (19%). The total cost of inappropriate prescription of IV-PPI was 585,167 Saudi Riyal (SAR) (156,044 USD).Conclusion:There is a high tendency of IV-PPI's inappropriate prescription in our hospital setting. This large-scale inappropriate prescription of IV-PPI in the hospital setting not only may lead to increased financial burden but also expose patients to number of undesired effects.

Unexplained abdominal pain as a driver for inappropriate therapeutics: an audit on the use of intravenous proton pump inhibitors.

Background. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are currently the most effective agents for acid-related disorders. However, studies show that 25–75% of patients receiving intravenous PPIs had no appropriate justification, indicating high rates of inappropriate prescribing.Objective. To examine the appropriate use of intravenous PPIs in accordance with guidelines and the efficacy of a prescribing awareness intervention at an Asian teaching institution.Setting. Prospective audit in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia.Method. Every 4th intravenous PPI prescription received in the pharmacy was screened against hospital guidelines. Interventions for incorrect indication/dose/duration were performed. Patients’ demographic data, medical history and the use of intravenous PPI were collected. Included were all adult inpatients prescribed intravenous PPI.Main Outcome Measure. Proportion of appropriate IV PPI prescriptions.Results. Data for 106 patients were collected. Most patients were male [65(61.3%)], Chinese [50(47.2%)], with mean age ± SD = 60.3 ± 18.0 years. Most intravenous PPI prescriptions were initiated by junior doctors from the surgical [47(44.3%)] and medical [42(39.6%)] departments. Only 50/106(47.2%) patients had upper gastrointestinal endoscopy/surgery performed to verify the source of bleeding. Unexplained abdominal pain [81(76.4%)] was the main driver for prescribing intravenous PPIs empirically, out of which 73(68.9%) were for suspected upper gastrointestinal bleed. Overall, intravenous PPI was found to be inappropriately prescribed in 56(52.8%) patients for indication, dose or duration. Interventions on the use of intravenous PPI were most effective when performed by senior doctors (100%), followed by clinical pharmacists (50%), and inpatient pharmacists (37.5%, p = 0.027).Conclusion. Inappropriate intravenous PPI usage is still prevalent despite the enforcement of hospital guidelines. The promotion of prescribing awareness and evidence-based prescribing through education of medical staff could result in more judicious use of intravenous PPI and dose-optimization.

Effects of intravenous and oral esomeprazole in the prevention of recurrent bleeding from peptic ulcers after endoscopic therapy.

The use of intravenous proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) has shown to reduce recurrent bleeding and improve patient outcome after endoscopic hemostasis on patients with peptic ulcer. However, the efficacy of oral PPI is uncertain. Studies from Asia indicated that even oral PPI can achieve the same therapeutic effect. This study is designed to compare the efficacy of high-dose intravenous PPI to oral PPI in preventing recurrent bleeding after endoscopic hemostasis. This is a single-center, randomized-controlled, double-blind, and double-dummy study. Patients had Forrest IA/IB or IIA/IIB peptic ulcer bleeding and received endoscopic hemostasis before recruitment into the study. They were randomized to receive either (i) esomeprazole IV bolus at a dose of 80 mg plus infusion at 8 mg/h for 72 h and oral placebo every 12 h (IVP group), or (ii) IV placebo bolus plus infusion for 72 h and high-dose oral esomeprazole at a dose of 40 mg every 12 h (ORP group). Patients were followed up for 30 days after index bleeding. The primary end point was defined as the 30-day recurrent bleeding after successful endoscopic hemostasis. A total of 118 patients were randomized to the IVP group and 126 to the ORP group in this study. In all, 39.8% in the IVP and 42.9% in the ORP group used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and/or aspirin before bleeding. In the IVP group (vs. ORP), Forrest IA represented 1.7% (5.6%), IB 41.5% (38.1%), IIA 52.5% (50.8%), and IIB 4.2% (5.6%). Recurrent bleeding in 30 days was reported in 7.7% of patients in the IVP group and 6.4% of patients in the ORP group, and the difference of recurrent bleeding was -1.3% (95% CI: -7.7%, 5.1%). There was no difference in blood transfusion, repeated endoscopic therapy, and hospital stay between the two groups. High-dose oral esomeprazole at 40 mg BID may be considered as a useful alternative to IV bolus plus infusion of esomeprazole in the management of ulcer bleeding in patients who are not candidates for high-dose IV infusion. However, as this study was stopped prematurely and was not designed as an equivalency trial, a much larger study would be necessary to document whether there is equivalency or non-inferiority of the two treatments in a heterogeneous patient population.

Etiology and Adverse Outcome Predictors of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in 589 Patients in Nepal

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common clinical condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to determine the etiology of UGIB and predict the adverse outcome of variceal and non-variceal UGIB by using the parameters of validated scores. This is a prospective observational study in which 589 UGIB patients underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy from May 2010 to April 2013 in Nepal. The variables of Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and Rockall score (RS) were used to predict adverse outcomes, which were defined as transfusion, rebleeding, readmission, surgery and death within 30 days. Among UGIB patients, 33.1 % were variceal and 66.9 % were non-variceal bleeding (peptic ulcers 23.9 %, gastric erosion 16.5 % and others). The adverse outcomes of variceal and non-variceal UGIB were 77.9 % and 72.6 %, respectively. The significant predictors of adverse outcome were hemoglobin and systolic blood pressure in overall UGIB (p < 0.001), blood urea (p = 0.002), melena (p < 0.001) and syncope (p < 0.001) in variceal UGIB, and heart rate, melena, syncope and malignancy in non-variceal UGIB (p < 0.001). The area under receiver operating curve for adverse outcome in overall UGIB was 0.76, 0.80 and 0.94 using clinical RS, complete RS and GBS, respectively (p < 0.001). Variceal bleeding was the leading cause of UGIB in Nepal followed by peptic ulcers and gastric erosion. Those variables of GBS and RS, which were significant predictors of adverse outcome for UGIB, can be utilized in determining more aggressive endoscopic management during endoscopy, or more prolonged intravenous proton pump inhibitor use, or an additional day or two of hospitalization.

Clinical and cost impact of intravenous proton pump inhibitor use in non-ICU patients

To assess the appropriateness of the indication and route of administration of proton-pump-inhibitors (PPIs) and their associated cost impact. Data collection was performed prospectively during a 6-mo period on 340 patients who received omeprazole intravenously during their hospital stay in non-intensive care floors. Updated guidelines were used to assess the appropriateness of the indication and route of administration. Complete data collection was available for 286 patients which were used to assess intravenous (IV) PPIs utilization. Around 88% of patients were receiving PPIs for claimed stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) indication; of which, only 17% met the guideline criteria for SUP indication, 14% met the criteria for non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory drugs-induced ulcer prophylaxis, while the remaining 69% were identified as having an unjustified indication for PPI use. The initiation of IV PPIs was appropriate in 55% of patients. Half of these patients were candidates for switching to the oral dosage form during their hospitalization, while only 36.7% of these patients were actually switched. The inappropriate initiation of PPIs via the IV route was more likely to take place on the medical floor than the surgical floor (53% vs 36%, P = 0.003). The cost analysis associated with the appropriateness of the indication for PPI use as well as the route of administration of PPI revealed a possible saving of up to $17,732.5 and $14,571, respectively. This study highlights the over-utilization of IV PPIs in non-intensive care unit patients. Restriction of IV PPI use for justified indications and route of administration is recommended.

Inappropriate Use of Intravenous PPI for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in an Inner City Community Hospital

BackgroundProton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are used for the treatment and prophylaxis of variety of acid peptic conditions including stress ulcers. There has been a persistent practice of their inappropriate use for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Purpose of our study was to measure the inappropriate use of Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis and to estimate the financial burden.MethodsWe carried out a retrospective, analytic study from July 2008 to June 2009 in internal medicine department. Hospital pharmacy records were used to identify all patients who received IV PPI during hospital stay. Seventy-five percent of records were randomly chosen (n=1104). PPI application was defined as indicated according to AGA guidelines.ResultsIntravenous proton pump inhibitor (IV PPI) was prescribed for 68.5% of patients without any proper indication. The estimated cost of medication for inappropriate IV PPIS use during the study year was 18337 USD.ConclusionsA more rational use of PPI will have better impact on health care cost and is likely to add to patient safety.KeywordsInappropriate use of PPI; Stress ulcer prophylaxis; Healthcare cost

Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors

Conditions requiring inhibition of acid secretion, such as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or peptic ulcers, are very common and their prevalence is expected to rise as they are seen predominantly in the elderly. The general basis of treatment with antisecretory agents is to maintain gastric pH >4 for a substantial proportion of the 24-hour cycle. Among the drugs available to inhibit acid secretion, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been shown to have the best benefit-risk ratio and have been used widely. Intravenous administration of a PPI provides gastric acid suppression faster than oral administration does. Whereas some indications for the use of intravenous PPIs are widely known, mostly for acute management of peptic ulcer bleeding, there are some controversies surrounding their use in other conditions such as stress-induced mucosal damage. There is still a need to define the best schedule for intravenous PPI administration (i.e. bolus infusion or constant infusion), the optimal time to switch from intravenous to oral administration and the choice of which agent is best. In most of the clinical scenarios where PPIs are recommended, they can be administered via either oral or enteral routes, unless the patient is nil by mouth. Since there are no head-to-head comparisons of the different intravenous PPIs available worldwide (omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole and esomeprazole), the rule might be to choose the drug with the best proven efficacy in each specific condition. Indeed, the key difference between them, the ability to reach and to maintain a threshold gastric pH, might not necessarily translate into clinically significant differences.

Use of Intravenous Proton-Pump Inhibitors in a Teaching Hospital Practice

To evaluate intravenous proton-pump inhibitor (IV PPI) prescribing in a single academic teaching hospital. A retrospective pilot study of 107 patients in a single United States military teaching hospital was conducted over a 1-month period. Clinical data were collected and analyzed for demographic features, prior medication use, admission hemoglobin level, service prescribing the IV PPI, indication for IV PPI, IV PPI treatment duration, gastroenterology consultant use, endoscopic findings, and blood products given. Indications for use were compared with current established guidelines to determine appropriate usage. A total of 683 doses of IV pantoprazole were prescribed over a 1-month period. Seventy-six patients (71%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 62-79%) who received IV PPIs did not meet the criteria for an appropriate indication for use. Ninety-nine patients in the study (93%; 95% CI, 86-96%) met criteria for an acceptable dosage given. The most common appropriate indication given was stress ulcer prophylaxis in a high-risk setting (13%; 95% CI, 8-21%) with appropriate use of this indication 45% of the time (95% CI, 29-62%). IV PPIs were appropriately prescribed most often by the medical intensive care unit (66.7%; 95% CI, 43-84%) and least often by the surgical wards services (16%; 95% CI, 7-33%). No discernable indication was given in 52% of cases (95% CI, 43-62%), and patients were not actually nil per os in 46% of these instances (95% CI, 34-59%). Intravenous PPI prescribing habits in this military hospital facility are poor. A multifaceted approach including physician/pharmacist education, IV PPI ordering templates, and a consensus medical position statement from a major gastroenterological or prominent medical association may lead to more appropriate use.

Intravenous proton pump inhibitor use in hospital practice

North American studies suggest that intravenous proton pump inhibitors are used inappropriately in hospital practice, but little is known of prescribing patterns in Europe. Our aim was to examine intravenous proton pump inhibitors prescribing in a single university teaching hospital. Observational study of 101 consecutive hospital patients administered intravenous proton pump inhibitors over a 3-month period in a single hospital in Dublin, Ireland. Demographic, clinical, biochemical, haematological, endoscopic and follow-up data were collected and analysed. Sixty-five percent (65 of 101) of the patients had no objective evidence of gastrointestinal blood loss and 85 were haemodynamically stable before treatment. Two patients underwent endoscopic haemostasis before IV administration. The remaining 99 were treated for ulcer prophylaxis, presumed gastrointestinal haemorrhage, unrelated gastrointestinal conditions or for unknown reasons. Relatively senior nonconsultant staff prescribed intravenous therapy in most cases. Only six patients in the study were deemed to have received intravenous therapy for an appropriate indication. Intravenous proton pump inhibitors use in hospital practice is usually inappropriate. It may be that other valid indications exist within hospital practice, but these might reasonably be evaluated in randomized trials that would assess the risks and costs of intravenous treatments as well as their benefits.

Predictors of inappropriate utilization of intravenous proton pump inhibitors

Inappropriate use of intravenous proton pump inhibitors is prevalent. To assess appropriateness of intravenous proton pump inhibitor prescribing. Retrospective review of in-patient prescribing of intravenous pantoprazole over a 2-month period in 2004, in an academic centre. Prescribing was deemed appropriate before and after endoscopic haemostasis, and in fasting individuals requiring a proton pump inhibitor. Amongst 107 patients, 49 (46%) had upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Overall, 33 (31%, 95% CI: 22-41%) received appropriate therapy (indication, dose and duration), 61 (57%, 95% CI: 47-67%) had an inappropriate indication, and 13 (12%, 95% CI: 7-20%) had an incorrect treatment dose or duration. Therapy was appropriate in 20 (41%, 95% CI: 27-55%) with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and 13 (22%, 95% CI: 12-33%) in the non-upper gastrointestinal bleeding group. Appropriate prescribing rates decreased (from 41% to 16%, 95% on difference CI: 14-38%) when considering intravenous proton pump inhibitor use while awaiting endoscopy as inappropriate. Significant predictors of inappropriate use were increasing age and decreasing mean daily dose, with a trend for prescriptions written during evening shifts. Inappropriate intravenous proton pump inhibitor utilization was most frequent in the non-upper gastrointestinal bleeding group, mostly for unrecognized indications. Educational interventions to optimize utilization should target prescribing in older patients, those receiving lower mean daily doses, and, perhaps, prescribing outside regular hours.

Cost and characteristics of intravenous proton pump inhibitor use and misuse in a tertiary care hospital

Cost and characteristics of intravenous proton pump inhibitor use and misuse in a tertiary care hospital

Intravenous proton-pump inhibitors versus H2-antagonists for treatment of GI bleeding.

To evaluate the evidence supporting the use of intravenous proton-pump inhibitors in the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage in comparison with histamine(2) (H(2))-receptor antagonists. Clinical literature was accessed through a MEDLINE search (1966-October 2002). Data from abstracts and fully published articles were retrieved for analysis. Key search terms included pantoprazole, omeprazole, proton-pump inhibitors, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, histamine(2)-receptor antagonists, ranitidine, and cimetidine. There are limited published clinical outcome data evaluating the use of intravenous pantoprazole in patients with upper GI hemorrhage. However, there are several gastric pH studies suggesting that intravenous pantoprazole is effective in quickly obtaining and maintaining a pH >6. When considering the results from studies of high-dose intravenous omeprazole, in addition to the pantoprazole data, the relative efficacy of intravenous proton-pump inhibitors appears to be superior to that of intravenous H(2)-receptor antagonists in providing a more predictable and sustained pH control. Intravenous proton-pump inhibitors are suitable, possibly superior, alternatives to intravenous H(2)-receptor antagonists in treatment of upper GI bleeding.