BEHIND THE PROTON PUMP INHIBITOR PRESCRIPTION: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY ON PHYSICIAN PRACTICES AND KNOWLEDGE.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely prescribed worldwide, often resulting in their overuse. Consequently, it is essential to identify the likely causes of this overuse to facilitate their appropriate prescription. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess physician prescribing patterns, their knowledge of PPIs, and factors affecting their knowledge. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among Latin American and Spanish physicians, collecting the following data: professional information, patterns of PPI usage, familiarity with published evidence, and the management approach in three hypothetical case-scenarios. Participant knowledge was categorized as sufficient or insufficient based on the results of the case scenarios. Subsequently, subgroup analysis was performed based on physician training level, years in practice, specialty, and time since the last PPI literature review. RESULTS: A total of 371 physicians participated in the survey. Thirty-eight percent frequently prescribe PPIs, primarily for prophylactic purposes (57.9%). Eighty percent were unfamiliar with PPI deprescribing strategies, and 54.4% rarely reviewed the ongoing indication of patients taking a PPI. Sixty-four percent demonstrated sufficient knowledge in the case-scenarios. A significant association was observed between specialty type (medical vs surgical: 69.4% vs 46.8%, P<0.001), the timing of the PPI indication literature review (<5 years vs >5 years: 71.4% vs 58.7%, P=0.010), and sufficient knowledge. CONCLUSION: While most participants prescribed PPIs regularly and for prophylaxis purposes, the majority were unfamiliar with deprescribing strategies and rarely reviewed ongoing indications. Sufficient knowledge is correlated with recent literature reviews and medical specialty affiliation. BACKGROUND: • The study aims to evaluate physician prescribing patterns, assess their knowledge of proton pump inhibitors, and identify factors influencing their knowledge. BACKGROUND: • An online survey of Latin American and Spanish physicians assessed proton pump inhibitor usage patterns and case-scenario responses, categorizing knowledge, and conducting subgroup analysis based on training, experience, specialty, and literature review timing. BACKGROUND: • Thirty-eight percent of surveyed physicians commonly prescribed proton pump inhibitors, and among them, 80% were unfamiliar with deprescribing strategies, with 54.4% rarely reviewing ongoing indications. BACKGROUND: • Sufficient knowledge was correlated with recent literature reviews and medical specialty affiliations.

Bastidores da prescrição de inibidores de bomba de prótons: uma pesquisa internacional sobre práticas e conhecimentos médicos / Behind the proton pump inhibitor prescription: an international survey on physician practices and knowledge

ABSTRACT Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely prescribed worldwide, often resulting in their overuse. Consequently, it is essential to identify the likely causes of this overuse to facilitate their appropriate prescription. Objective: This study aims to assess physician prescribing patterns, their knowledge of PPIs, and factors affecting their knowledge. Methods: An online survey was conducted among Latin American and Spanish physicians, collecting the following data: professional information, patterns of PPI usage, familiarity with published evidence, and the management approach in three hypothetical case-scenarios. Participant knowledge was categorized as sufficient or insufficient based on the results of the case scenarios. Subsequently, subgroup analysis was performed based on physician training level, years in practice, specialty, and time since the last PPI literature review. Results: A total of 371 physicians participated in the survey. Thirty-eight percent frequently prescribe PPIs, primarily for prophylactic purposes (57.9%). Eighty percent were unfamiliar with PPI deprescribing strategies, and 54.4% rarely reviewed the ongoing indication of patients taking a PPI. Sixty-four percent demonstrated sufficient knowledge in the case-scenarios. A significant association was observed between specialty type (medical vs surgical: 69.4% vs 46.8%, P<0.001), the timing of the PPI indication literature review (<5 years vs >5 years: 71.4% vs 58.7%, P=0.010), and sufficient knowledge. Conclusion: While most participants prescribed PPIs regularly and for prophylaxis purposes, the majority were unfamiliar with deprescribing strategies and rarely reviewed ongoing indications. Sufficient knowledge is correlated with recent literature reviews and medical specialty affiliation.

RESUMO Contexto: Os inibidores da bomba de prótons (IBPs) são amplamente prescritos em todo o mundo, muitas vezes resultando em seu uso excessivo. Consequentemente, é essencial identificar as prováveis causas desse uso excessivo para facilitar sua prescrição adequada. Objetivo: Este estudo tem como objetivo avaliar o padrão de prescrição dos médicos, seu conhecimento sobre IBPs e fatores que afetam seu conhecimento. Métodos: Uma pesquisa on-line foi conduzida entre médicos latino-americanos e espanhóis, coletando os seguintes dados: informações profissionais, padrões de uso de IBP, familiaridade com evidências publicadas e abordagem de manejo em três casos-cenários hipotéticos. O conhecimento dos participantes foi categorizado em suficiente ou insuficiente com base nos resultados dos cenários de caso. Posteriormente, a análise de subgrupos foi realizada com base no nível de formação do médico, anos de prática, especialidade e tempo desde a última revisão da literatura dos IBPs. Resultados: Um total de 371 médicos participaram da pesquisa. Trinta e oito por cento prescrevem frequentemente IBP, principalmente para fins profiláticos (57,9%). Oitenta por cento não estavam familiarizados com as estratégias de prescrição de IBP, e 54,4% raramente revisaram a indicação contínua de pacientes em uso de IBP. Sessenta e quatro por cento demonstraram conhecimento suficiente nos cenários-caso. Observou-se associação significativa entre o tipo de especialidade (médica vs cirúrgica: 69,4% vs 46,8%, P<0,001), o momento da revisão da literatura de indicação do IBP (<5 anos vs >5 anos: 71,4% vs 58,7%, P=0,010) e conhecimento suficiente. Conclusão: Embora a maioria dos participantes prescrevesse IBPs regularmente e para fins de profilaxia, no entanto, não estava familiarizada com estratégias de prescrição e raramente revisava as indicações em andamento. O conhecimento suficiente está correlacionado com revisões recentes da literatura e afiliação à especialidade médica.

Recurrent acute pancreatitis is not uncommon in our clinical setting.

Data on recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis (RAP) are scarce. The aim of the study was to evaluate our rate of RAP and risks factors. This is a retrospective, single-center, study of consecutive patients admitted for AP and followed-up. Patients with more than one AP attack (RAP) were compared with patients with only a single AP episode (SAP) Clinical, demographic, outcome measures and severity were studied. 561 patients were included and follow-up over a mean 67.63 months' time. Our rate of RAP was 18,9%. Most patients suffered form only one episode of RAP (93%). Etiology of RAP episodes was mainly biliary (67%). On univariate analysis younger age (p 0.004), absence of high blood pressure (p 0.013) and absent of SIRS (p 0.022) were associated with recurrence of AP. On multivariate analysis only younger age was related to RAP (OR 1.015 95%IC 1.00-1.029). There were no statistical differences in outcome measures between both cohorts. RAP had a milder course in terms of severity (SAP 19% moderately severe/severe versus 9% in SAP). Almost 70% of the biliary RAP patients did not have a cholecystectomy performed. In this subset of patients, age OR 0.964 (95%IC 0.946-0.983), cholecystectomy OR 0.075 (95%IC 0.189-0.030) and cholecystectomy plus ERCP OR 0.190 (95%IC 0.219-0.055) were associated with absent of RAP. The rate of RAP in our series was 18,9%. Younger age was the only risk factor associated. Biliary etiology accounts for a large proportion of our RAP which could have been prevented with cholecystectomy or cholecystectomy plus ERCP.

Recurrent acute pancreatitis is not uncommon in our clinical setting

Data on recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis (RAP) are scarce. The aim of the study was to evaluate our rate of RAP and risks factors. This is a retrospective, single-center, study of consecutive patients admitted for AP and followed-up. Patients with more than one AP attack (RAP) were compared with patients with only a single AP episode (SAP) Clinical, demographic, outcome measures and severity were studied. 561 patients were included and follow-up over a mean 67.63 months' time. Our rate of RAP was 18,9%. Most patients suffered form only one episode of RAP (93%). Etiology of RAP episodes was mainly biliary (67%). On univariate analysis younger age (p 0.004), absence of high blood pressure (p 0.013) and absent of SIRS (p 0.022) were associated with recurrence of AP. On multivariate analysis only younger age was related to RAP (OR 1.015 95%IC 1.00-1.029). There were no statistical differences in outcome measures between both cohorts. RAP had a milder course in terms of severity (SAP 19% moderately severe/severe versus 9% in SAP). Almost 70% of the biliary RAP patients did not have a cholecystectomy performed. In this subset of patients, age OR 0.964 (95%IC 0.946-0.983), cholecystectomy OR 0.075 (95%IC 0.189-0.030) and cholecystectomy plus ERCP OR 0.190 (95%IC 0.219-0.055) were associated with absent of RAP. The rate of RAP in our series was 18,9%. Younger age was the only risk factor associated. Biliary etiology accounts for a large proportion of our RAP which could have been prevented with cholecystectomy or cholecystectomy plus ERCP.

La Pancreatitis Aguda Recurrente (PAR) es una entidad frecuente de la que hay pocos datos publicados. El objetivo del estudio es hallar la tasa y factores de riesgo asociados a PAR en nuestro medio. Es un estudio retrospectivo, unicéntrico, de pacientes ingresados por Pancreatitis Aguda (PA) y seguidos posteriormente. Se dividen en 2 grupos de pacientes: 1.- pacientes con un solo episodio de PA (PAS) y 2.- pacientes con más de un ingreso por PA (PAR). Se comparan variables clínicas, demográficas y de resultado. Resultados: 561 pacientes fueron incluidos y seguidos durante una media de 67,63 meses. 18,9% tuvieron al menos otro ingreso por PA. La mayoría sufrieron un solo episodio de PAR (93%). La etiología más frecuente fue biliar (67%). En el análisis univariado, una menor edad (p 0,004), la ausencia de hipertensión arterial (p 0,013) y de SIRS (p 0,022) se asociaron con PAR. En el análisis multivariado solo una menor edad se relacionó con PAR (OR 1,015, 95%, IC 1,00-1,029). No encontramos diferencias en las variables resultados entre ambos grupos. La PAR cursó de forma más leve (9% de pancreatitis moderada/graves o graves versus 19%). Casi un 70% de los pacientes con PAR biliar no tenían realizada una colecistectomía tras el ingreso índice. En este subgrupo de PAR, la edad OR 0,964 (95% IC 0,946-0,983), la colecistectomía OR 0,075 (95% IC 0,189-0,030) y la colecistectomía más colangiografía retrógrada OR 0,190 (95% IC 0,219-0,055) se asociaban a ausencia de PAR. Conclusión: Nuestra tasa de PAR fue 18,9%, con una menor edad como factor de riesgo. La etiología biliar fue la más frecuente que podría haberse evitado de haber realizado colecistectomía o colecistectomía más colangiografía retrógrada tras el primer ingreso.