Mo1113 the Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in US Veterans with Barrett's Esophagus; A Retrospective National Cohort Study

Mohammad H. Shakhatreh,Zhigang Duan,Jennifer R. Kramer,Aanand Naik,Ashley Helm,Marilyn Hinojosa-Lindsey,Guoqing Chen,Hashem El-Serag
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5085(14)62028-x
IF: 29.4
2014-01-01
Gastroenterology
Abstract:instrument.The finalized survey was distributed electronically via the American College of Physicians (ACP) Research Center's Internal Medicine Insider panel.This panel is a representative group of approximately 1,000 ACP members who have voluntarily agreed to participate in periodic physician surveys.914 panel members were invited to complete the survey (members spending < 25% of their time in direct patient care were excluded).Three reminder emails were sent during the survey period.Each participant was given $10 for completing the survey.Results: 487 of 914 respondents completed the survey (response rate 53%).78% (381/487) were attending physicians, and 22% (106/487) were trainees.Of attending physicians, 74% (282/381) were general internists, 3% (11/381) were GI specialists, and almost all were board certified.Most (70%, or 266/380) had been in practice for > 10 years, and 49% (185/380) reported an academic affiliation.68% (333/487) reported familiarity with published data on PPI harms, and nearly all (98%, or 479/487) were aware of at least one potential PPI harm.51% (277/479) felt that bone loss was the most important harm.73% (357/487) reported that they "often" (23%) or "sometimes" (50%) made changes in PPI prescriptions due to concerns about long-term harms.When presented with a hypothetical scenario about a patient with prior peptic ulcer disease, taking low-dose aspirin, with a new diagnosis of osteopenia, 81% reported that they would stop the patient's PPI or switch to an H2-blocker, mostly due to concerns about PPI harms.In multivariable regression analysis controlling for provider demographic and practice characteristics, GI specialists were significantly less concerned about PPI harms than general internists (OR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02-0.48).Both self-reported familiarity with PPI harms (OR 1.61,) and concern about PPI harms (OR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.79-2.92)were predictive of making changes in PPI prescriptions.Conclusions: Many practicing physicians are concerned about long-term harms of PPI use and report that they have changed their prescribing patterns accordingly.Efforts to increase appropriate use of PPIs will need to consider provider resistance due to concerns about potential harms.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?