SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.29 número2Protocolo de Orientação Clínica: Abordagem da Hipocalcemia Pós-CirúrgicaGolpe De Calor Clássico: Via Verde Hipertermia índice de autoresíndice de assuntosPesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO

Compartilhar


Medicina Interna

versão impressa ISSN 0872-671X

Medicina Interna vol.29 no.2 Lisboa jun. 2022  Epub 01-Set-2022

https://doi.org/10.24950/rspmi.595 

Cartas ao Editor

Prescrição de Inibidores da Bomba de Protões na Admissão e Alta numa Enfermaria de Medicina Interna

Proton Pump lnhibitors Prescription at Admission and Discharge in an Internai Medicine Ward of a Portuguese Tertiary Hospital

1Serviço de Medicina III, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Lisboa Norte, Hospital Pulido Valente, Lisboa, Portugal

2Anesthesiology Resident, Department of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and lntensive Gare Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburgo, Alemanha


The article published by Jorge et al1 presented the indications for the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in a medical ward within a period of 5 months in an internai medicine department of a university district hospital. The authors con­cluded that 76.4% of patients (305 out of 567 patients) were on PPI and of the 305 PPI consumers, only 23.4% (n = 72) presented a formal criterion for the use of this medication (according to methodology used by the authors).

We performed a similar analysis in our inpatient unit, in a central university hospital, during a 12-month period. We analyzed medication at admission and at discharge from the medical ward.

The data gathered from the medical records included: demographic data, whether the patient was on PPI prior to the admission and at discharge; whether there was an explicit formal indication for such prescription and which, according to the Portuguese Directorate General of Health Recommendations.2

A total of 542 patients were included, with a total of 58.1 % women and 41,9% men and the mean age was 78,7 years.

Forty seven percent (47.2%) of patients were on PPI at the admission date and increased to 55.4% at discharge. ln our data, only 8.6% patients at admission and 10,7% at discharge presented a formal disease indication to be on PPI - Fig. 1.

Comparing our results with Jorge et al. we found that in our sample less patients were on PPI (76% vs 55%), but more of them presented a formal disease indication to be on PPI (23% VS 11 %).

This difference could be related to heterogeneous methodology used. Jorge et al defined a broader list of indication/risk factors to use PPI, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease or kidney disease. We followed a stricter indication according to Portuguese Directorate General of Health Recommendations.2

We believe that this lack of justification to prescribe PPI may reside on physicians1misperceptions on PPI safety, an idea supported by the launched campaign by INFARMED in 2017, alerting to the increased expense due to PPI prescription and to the pathologies and periods of treatment already studied and established for this drug-class.3

However, besides the different magnitude of the results both studies point out to the importance of improving pre­scription of PPI in internai medicine wards as inappropriate use of PPI continues to be a reality in clinical practice.

lntervention and education of healthcare professionals is efficient in addressing inappropriate PPI prescription.4 ln a 2006 study by Liberman et al5 a fali in inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis with PPI was confirmed after a practice­based educational intervention, from 59% to 33% after a 6-month follow-up, with the inappropriate prescription at discharge falling from 25% to 7%. Thus, and bearing in mind the INFARMED campaign, we suggest that educational interventions among physicians in Internai Medicine wards and implementing hospital internai guidelines on PPI prescription should greatly reduce the over prescription of these drug-class, providing high-value and cost-conscious care.

ln conclusion, PPls are commonly overprescribed in our tertiary teaching hospital. Almost a third of our sample had no explicit justification for PPI prescription. This should raise awareness to physicians to re-think prescription benefit of PPI and/or clarify the reasons why they should be continued after discharge.

REFERENCES

1. Jorge C, Tuna C, Carlos P, Ferreira S, Gonçalves R, Louro M. Indicações Terapêuticas e Profiláticas de Uso de Inibidores da Bomba de Protões e Prescrição Inadequada. Rev Port Med lnterna;29:8-12. [ Links ]

2. Direção Geral de Saúde. Norma da Direção Geral de Saúde sobre Supres­são Ácida [Internet]. [cited 2022 Apr 4]. Available from: https://www.dgs.pt/directrizes-da-dgs/normas-e-circulares-normativas/norma-n-0362011-de-30092011-jpg.aspxLinks ]

3. INFARMED. Campanha IBP - Visa alertar para os riscos dos medica­mentos para a acidez do estômago [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Mar 26]. Available from: https://www.infarmed.pt/documents/15786/1879176/ Comunicado%2b-%2bCampanha%2blBP/bb11fdf6-cb41-408a-a186-99bca397fc46Links ]

4. Scagliarini R, Magnani E, Pratico A, Bocchini R, Sambo P, Pazzi P. lnade­quate use of acid-suppressive therapy in hospitalized patients and its impli­cations for general practice. Dig Dis Sei. 2005;50:2307-11. doi: 10.1007/s10620-005-3052-4. [ Links ]

5. Liberman JD, Whelan CT. Brief report: Reducing inappropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis among internai medicine residents. A practice­-based educational intervention. J Gen lntern Med. 2006;21 :498-500. [ Links ]

2Responsabilidades Éticas Conflitos de Interesse: Os autores declaram a inexistência de conflitos de interesse na realização do presente trabalho Fontes de Financiamento: Não existiram fontes externas de financiamento para a realização deste artigo Proveniência e Revisão por Pares: Não comissionado: revisão externa por pares. Ethical Disclosures Confiicts of lnterest: The authors have no confiicts of interest to declare. Financing Support: This work has not received any contribution, grant or scholarship Provenance and Peer Review: Not cornmissioned; extemally peer re­viewed.

3© Autor (es) (ou seu (s) empregador (es)) e Revista SPMI 2022. Reutiliza­ção permitida de acordo com CC BY-NC. Nenhuma reutilização comercial. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) and SPMI Journal 2022. Re-use perrnit­ted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use.

Recebido: 14 de Abril de 2022; Aceito: 02 de Maio de 2022

Correspondence / Correspondência: Francisca Torres Sarmento - sarmento.francisca@outlook.com Serviço de Medicina Ili, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Lisboa Norte, Hospital Pulido Valente, Lisboa, Portugal Alameda das Linhas de Torres, 117 1769-001 Lisboa

Declaração de Contribuição / Contributorship Statement: Francisca Torres Sarmento - Ideia, Escrita do manuscrito, Revisão crítica do conteúdo, Aprovação de manuscrito final. José AJmeida Correia - Ideia, Recolha de dados, Análise e Interpretação de dados, Escrita e aprovação final do manuscrito. Mariana Alves - Ideia, Participação na escrita, Revisão crítica do conteúdo, Aprovação final do manuscrito. Teresa Fonseca - Ideia, Análise e Interpretação de dados, Participação na escrita, Revisão crítica do conteúdo, Aprovação final.

Creative Commons License Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto sob uma licença Creative Commons