Do recent reports about the adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors change providers' prescription practice?

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are utilized for a variety of indications, including treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and prevention of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Several studies have documented an increasing prevalence of inappropriate PPI use. Furthermore, recent media reports have highlighted new research data suggesting a possible association between chronic PPI use and several adverse medical outcomes, leading to frequent patient inquiries about these associations. Thus, providers face the challenge of counseling patients about the balance of risks and benefits related to PPI use. We aimed to explore providers' knowledge and attitudes toward reported adverse effects of PPI use and compare providers' prescription practices. A comprehensive, non-incentivized electronic survey was sent to all providers (residents, fellows, advanced practice providers, and consultants across 8 internal medicine specialties) at our tertiary academic medical center. The survey contained 21 questions covering provider demographics and responses to challenging clinical scenarios dealing with PPI use. Chi-square was used to compare responses from providers. The survey was distributed to 254 providers, of which 94 (24 GI and 70 non-GI) completed the survey (37% response rate). Among those 94 providers, 48 were consultants, 17 were advanced practice providers, and 29 were trainees. Non-GI providers included cardiology, pulmonary, endocrinology, family medicine, general internal medicine, hematology/oncology, and nephrology. Over half of the providers (51 [54%]) described their practice as outpatient setting, 29 (31%) providers defined their practice as a mixed setting (inpatient and outpatient), while 14 (15%) designated it as inpatient only. Nineteen (80%) GI providers and 48 (69%) non-GI providers discussed the risks and benefits with patients (P = 0.64). Fifteen (63%) GI providers and 33 (47%) non-GI providers indicated that recent reports changed their practice (P = 0.49). More GI providers (5 [21%]) lowered the dose of PPI compared with non-GI (1[1%]) (P = 0.004); 18 (26%) of non-GI and 3 (13%) of GI providers discontinued PPI and substituted it with a histamine 2 (H2) blocker (P = 0.29). A larger but nonsignificant percentage of trainees (8 [28%]) switched PPI to H2 blockers compared with consultants (8 [17%]; P = 0.39). Six (25%) of GI providers and 14 (20%) of non-GI providers were concerned about Clostridium difficile infection (P = 0.58). Twenty-four (34%) of the non-GI were worried about kidney diseases compared with 3 (13%) of the GI providers (P = 0.1). Ten (21%) consultants were concerned about risk of osteoporosis compared with 3 (10%) trainees (P = 0.38), while 8 (28%) trainees were worried about the risk of C. difficile infection compared with 10 (21%) consultants (P = 0.69). Most providers (85 [90%]) agreed that educational activities would be helpful to address these challenges. More GI providers lowered the dose of PPI compared with non-GI; non-GI providers were more likely to discontinue PPI and substitute it with an H2 blocker. Educating patients and providers about potential adverse effects of PPI is imperative.

The clinical significance of hypercontractile peristalsis: comparison of high-resolution manometric features, demographics, symptom presentation, and response to therapy in patients with Jackhammer esophagus versus Nutcracker esophagus.

The Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CC v 3.0) defines hypercontractile peristalsis as Jackhammer esophagus (JE); Nutcracker esophagus (NE) is no longer recognized. Data regarding patient characteristics and treatment response for JE versus NE are limited. We aimed to compare demographic characteristics, high resolution manometry (HRM) features, clinical presentation, management strategies, and treatment outcomes in patients with JE versus NE. We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients diagnosed with NE (CC v 2.0) or JE (CC v 3.0) by HRM from January 2012 to August 2015. Demographics, symptoms, treatments, and response to therapy (none or partial/complete) were ascertained by chart review, for statistical comparisons. In 45 patients with JE and 29 with NE, there was no significant difference in rate of dysphagia (73% and 59%) or chest pain (44% and 59%). Treatment data were available in 29 JE (smooth muscle relaxants in 4, pain modulators in 3, botulinum toxin injection (BTX) in 10, endoscopic dilation in 5, multimodal treatment in 7), and 20 NE patients (smooth muscle relaxants in 2, pain modulators in 2, (BTX) in 6, endoscopic dilation in 3, multimodal treatment in 7). Follow-up data on 26/29 JE and 20/20 NE patients showed similar treatment response (96.4% vs. 82.1%, p= 0.08) after mean follow-up of 11.2 and 11 months, respectively. There were no major differences for JE versus NE in demographics, symptoms, or type of and response to therapy. Larger prospective, controlled trials are needed to clarify the clinical significance and response to treatment in JE and NE.