Flyer

Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Research

  • Journal h-index: 14
  • Journal CiteScore: 2.64
  • Journal Impact Factor: 1.89
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
Indexed In
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)
  • CiteFactor
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • Publons
  • Euro Pub
  • Google Scholar
  • Secret Search Engine Labs
Share This Page

Research Article - (2022) Volume 10, Issue 6

Prescription Pattern and Appropriateness of Stress Induce Ulcer Prophylaxis in Dessie Referral Hospital, North East Ethiopia; Cross-Sectional Study

Mengistie Yirsaw Gobezie2*, Haftom Gebregergs Hailu2, Abdu Tuha1, Sisay Fikru Tadesse2, Kassahun Bogale and Solomon Ahmed Mohammed2
 
1Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia
2Department of Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wollo University, Dessie, Ethiopia
 
*Correspondence: Mengistie Yirsaw Gobezie, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia, Email:

Received: 02-May-2022, Manuscript No. IPACLR-22-11710; Editor assigned: 04-May-2022, Pre QC No. IPACLR-22-11710(PQ); Reviewed: 18-May-2022, QC No. IPACLR-22-11710; Revised: 20-Jun-2022, Manuscript No. IPACLR-22-11710(R); Published: 27-Jun-2022, DOI: 10.36648/2386-5180.22.10.418

Abstract

Background: Stress-related mucosal damage includes the spectrum of pathology attributed to the acute, erosive, inflammatory insult to the upper gastrointestinal tract associated with critical illness. This study assessed prescription pattern and appropriateness of Stress Induce Ulcer Prophylaxis (SIUP) in Dessie Referral Hospital, North East Ethiopia.

Methodology: An institutional-based cross-sectional study design used to assess prescription pattern and appropriateness of SIUP of 107 patients from May 1 to June 22, 2018. Simple random sampling technique was used to select the study participants. Statistical package for social sciences version 20 was used to compute descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results: The response rate of the study was 93.15%. Of 100 patients, 82 had been received SIUP and only 50 (50%) fulfilled the prescription criteria. One-third (33%) of participants had more than three morbidities. The number of morbidities ranged from 1-5 with a mean 2.11 ± 0.99. On average, 4.56 ± 1.54 (1 to 9) number of drugs per patient was prescribed. From 50 patients who fulfill prescription criteria’s, 36 (72%) were based on major and 14 (28%) were based on minor criteria. Eighteen patients didn’t receive SIUP while they fulfilled the criteria. Omeprazole 12 (24%) and cimetidine 38 (76.0%) were the only two drugs used for SIUP. Factors associated with inappropriate use of SIUP was being female (AOR=3.80, 95% CI: 1.65-8.74, P value: 0.002) and patients taking cimetidine (AOR=2.83, 95% CI: 1.54-5.21, P-value: 0.001).

Conclusion: The overall adherence level was found to be half and major criteria’s were used for majority of patient which received SIUP. Strengthening of clinical pharmacist involvement in drug utilization process and adhering to the standard guidelines will reduce the burden of inappropriate SIUP use.

Keywords

Prescription pattern, Stress induce ulcer prophylaxis

Introduction

Stress-Related Mucosal Damage’ (SRMD) is the broad term used to describe the spectrum of pathology attributed to the acute, erosive, inflammatory insult to the upper gastrointestinal tract associated with critical illness [1,2]. Putative mechanisms underlying SRMD include reduced gastric blood flow, mucosal ischemia and reperfusion injury, all of which occur frequently in the critically ill patients with severe physiological stress [3], and ranges from numerous diffuse superficial erosive mucosal lesions to major deep ulceration [4].

An estimated 4.4 million patients are admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) each year. Of these, about 12%, or 500,000 patients, die in the ICU [5]. The frequency of mucosal injury (via endoscopic studies) in critically ill patients ranges from 75% to 100% with occult bleeding occurring in roughly 5-25% [6]. However, the prevalence of Clinically Important Bleeding (CIB) due to stress ulceration in a study published in 2015 reported the frequency of CIB as 2.6% [2].

Critically ill patients are at risk as CIB develops due to stress ulceration because of physiologic stress leading to impaired mucosal defense mechanisms and mucosal ischemia. Studies showed respiratory failure, coagulopathy, greater than or equal to three coexisting diseases, liver disease, use of renal replacement, and higher organ failure as independent risk factors for CIB [7,8].

In addition to the above risk factors the following has also been documented: spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Score, ≤ 10), thermal injury (body surface area, >35%), sepsis, partial hepatectomy, hepatic or renal transplantation, major trauma (Injury Severity Score, ≥ 16), alcohol abuse, Helicobacter pylori colonization, ICU length of stay more than 1 week, occult or overt bleeding for more than or equal to 6 days, and high-dose corticosteroids [9-12].

Recently the utilization of proton pump inhibitors for Stress Induce Ulcer Prophylaxis (SIUP) has become prominent across the globe [13-15]. This may be due to the superiority of proton pump inhibitors for achieving and maintaining a gastric pH of greater than 4, which is a historical target for SIUP due to minimization of gastric acid mediated fibrinolysis [16-18]. This trend may complement with evidences suggesting lower CIB rates with proton pump inhibitors compared with histamine-2 receptor antagonists [19].

Non-adherence to guidelines for prescription of SIUP may stretch to 96.4% [20]. Inappropriate uses of SIUP may result in economic burden to the patient and Concerns have been raised about the association between non-judicious acid suppression and increased risk of bacterial infections, namely Clostridium Defile Infection (CDI) and pneumonia [21,22]. In Ethiopia, no previous studies were attempted to assess practice of of stress induce ulcer prophylaxis in hospitals. Therefore, the aim of the study was to assess prescription pattern and appropriateness of stress induce ulcer prophylaxis in Dessie Referral Hospital, northeast Ethiopia. We present the following article in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology reporting checklist.

Methods

Study area and period: The study was conducted in four unit of Dessie Referral Hospital (internal medicine, surgical unit, and emergency unit), from May 1-June 22, 2018. Dessie is a town in Amhara National Regional State; North East Ethiopia located 401 km from Addis Ababa. The hospital is being serving to the populations of Desire town and the surrounding population.

Study design: Institution-based cross sectional study design was used. Chart review was executed on patient admissions to collect demographics data and clinical variables (indication for stress ulcer prophylaxis and type of drug used).

Study population: All Patients who were in the three department of Dessie Referral Hospital (medicine, emergency and surgery) and took SIUP or have risk factors for stress ulcer during the study period.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria: patients above 18 years old, who had risk factor for stress induce ulcer according to American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), and who were taking SIUP were included. Patients who were less than 18 years old, patients with incomplete medical information and patients who received Acid Suppressive Therapy (AST) for treatment purposes such as gastro intestinal bleeding, gastro esophageal reflex disease, peptic ulcer disease and dyspepsia.

Variables

Dependent variable: The dependent variable was appropriateness of stress induce ulcer prophylaxis.

Independent variables: The independent variables were sociodemographic characteristics and clinical variables.

Sample size determination and sampling procedure: Single population proportion formula (50% prevalence, 95% confidence level, and 5% tolerable sampling error) was used to estimate the sample. Since the source population was less than 10,000 (149 chronic cases), the sample size was an adjustment with a total of 107 participants. A total of 107 patients who satisfies the inclusion criteria in study period were included in study. Simple random sampling technique was used to select the study participants.

Data collection and quality assurance: Structured data extraction format was used and the appropriateness of SUP use was evaluated against the modified ASHP guideline. To be a candidate for SIUP, a patient must have one major risk factor or two and above minor risk factor [11].

The data was collected by one nurse who had no working relation to the hospital with the supervision of the principal investigators. Pretested was done in five percent of the sample size in Dessie health center. During and after data collection, data were checked for completeness, accuracy, and consistency, and confidentiality was maintained. To reduce bias, the validated method was used. Study participants were also selected using rigorous criteria to avoid confounding.

Data analysis: Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20 was used for data entry and analysis. Initially, binary logistic regression was run and variables with a p-value of less than 0.25 were transferred to multivariate logistic regression. In the logistic regression analyses, variables with a p-value of less than 0.05 with 95% confidence intervals were taken as statistically significant. This study did not examine subgroups and interactions. In this study, there was no missing data and sensitivity analysis was not done.

Major risk factor: Head injury with Glasgow Coma Score of ≤ 10 or inability to obey simple commands, thermal injury involving >35% of body surface area, respiratory failure patients requiring mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours, coagulopathies a platelet count of <50,000 mm3, an International Normalized Ratio of 1.5, or a partial thromboplastic time of >2 times the control value, partial hepatectomy, hepatic or renal transplantation, multiple trauma with Injury Severity Score of ≥ 16, spinal cord injury, hepatic failure, and history of gastric ulceration or bleeding during year before admission [9].

Minor risk factor: Sepsis, ICU stay of >1 week, occult or overt bleeding for ≥ 6 days, and corticosteroid therapy (>250 mg of hydrocortisone or equivalent daily) [9].

Appropriate use: A patient is a candidate for SIUP, if he/she has one major risk factor or has two or more minor risk factors [9].

Results

Socio-demographic and clinical data: The response rate of the study was 93.15% due to refusal to participate in the study. A total of 100 patient’s medical profiles were reviewed during the study period. Of 100 patients, 54 (58.7%) were female and the age range of study subjects ranges from 19-81 with mean 46.53 ± 1.67. From all study participants, 82 had been received SIUP. One-third (33%) of participants had more than three morbidities. The number of morbidities ranged from 1-5 with a mean 2.11 ± 0.99. On average, 4.56 ± 1.54 (1 to 9) number of drugs per patient was prescribed (Table 1).

Variable   Frequency Percentage
Sex Male 46 41.3
  Female 54 58.7
Age, years less than 34 26 26
  35-45 30 30
  46-60 24 24
  greater than 60 20 20
Number of morbidities One 32 32
  two 35 35
  >three 33 33
Number of drugs per patient 01-Mar 24 24
  4 30 30
  5 22 22
  >6 24 24
Types of ward Medical 67 67
  ICU 16 16
  Surgical 17 17
Level of prescriber General practitioners 29 29
  Intern 37 37
  Resident 16 16
  Senior 18 18

Table 1: Socio-demographic and clinical data of the study subjects (n=82).

SIUP prescription pattern: From 82 participants who received SIUP, only 50 (50%) fulfilled the prescription criteria. From 50 patients who fulfill prescription criteria’s, 36 (72%) were based on major and the remaining 14 (28%) were based on minor criteria. Eighteen patients didn’t receive SIUP while they fulfilled the criteria. From all patients which received SIUP, 55 (67.07%) were from medical ward (Table 2).

Variables   SIUP
Number
Percentage
Sex Female 39 47.56
  Male 43 52.44
Age Less than 34 20 24.39
  35-45 23 28.05
  46-60 23 28.05
  Greater than 60 16 19.51
Presence of indication Major criteria 36 72
  Minor criteria 14 28
Types of ward Medical 55 67.07
  ICU 16 19.51
  Surgical 11 13.41
Number of morbidities One 29 35.37
  Two 26 31.71
  >Three 27 32.93

Table 2: Patient characteristic and prescription pattern for SIUP (n=82).

Patient conditions, types of SIUP agents used and their indication: Omeprazole and cimetidine were the only two drugs used for SIUP during the period. From 82 patients who received SIUP, only 50 had indications. Cimetidine was prescribed for 38 (76.0%) patients and intravenous route 45 (90.0%) was the most frequent rout of administration (Table 3).

Variables   Indication for SIUP
Number
Percentage
Types of SIUP agent Cimetidine 38 76
  Omeprazole 12 24
Rout of administration Intravenous 45 90
  Oral 5 10
Level of prescriber General practitioners 18 36
  Interns 17 34
  Residents 15 30
Number of morbidities One 23 33.8
  Two 25 36.8
  >three 20 29.4
Ward type Medical 41 60.3
  ICU 15 22.1
  Surgical 12 17.6

Table 3: Patient conditions, types of SIUP agents used and their indication (n=50).

Factors associated with inappropriate uses of SIUP: Bivariate analyses showed that being female and patients taking cimetidine were at higher risk of inappropriate use of SIUP adjusted odds ratio (AOR) (95% CI=3.80) 1.65-8.74 and 2.83 (1.54-5.21) and P=0.002 and 0.001 respectively, but other variables didn’t show significant association with inappropriate use of SIUP (Table 4).

Variable   Appropriateness of SIUP   P value AOR (95% CI)
    Yes No    
Sex Male 31 15    
  Female 19 35 0.002 3.80 (1.65 - 8.74)
Age Less than 34 12 14    
  35-45 17 13 0.433 0.65 (.22 - 1.88)
  46-60 14 10 0.39 0.61 (.20 - 1.87)
  Greater than 60 7 13 0.447 1.59 (.48 - 5.28)
Number of morbidity One 20 12    
  > Two 30 38 0.089 2.11 (.89 - 4.99)
Types of ward Medical 44 39 0.189 2.06 (.70 - 6.11)
  Others 6 11    
Level of prescriber Intern 18 11 0.881 1.07 (.42 - 2.72)
  Physicians 32 21    
Types of prophylaxis Cimetidine 38 28 0.001 2.83 (1.54 - 5.21)
  Omeprazole 12 4    

Table 4: Factors associated with inappropriate use of SIUP.

Discussion

Although the indications of SUP in the ICU setting have been well defined in the medical literature, in recent years the practice of SUP has become increasingly common in general medical wards with little evidence to support this practice. The use of SIUP as an acid suppression therapy decreases mortality and morbidity rate in critically ill patients. But overuse of these medications has considerable cost burden on patients and healthcare systems that should be considered by healthcare providers [23,24]. This study was mainly aimed at assessing prescription pattern and appropriateness of stress induced ulcer prophylaxis in Desire referral hospital. In comparison with other studies, we assessed the appropriateness of SIUP based on an ASHP guideline that addresses SUP administration [8].

We found that there was a very high frequency of unnecessary use of acid-suppressive therapy in hospitalized patients. Overuse of both histamine-2 receptor antagonists (cimetidine) and proton pump inhibitors (omeprazole) was seen. In this study, from 100 study subjects, 82 received SIUP of which only 50 fulfilled the prescription criteria while 18 patients fulfill the criteria but denied SIUP which resulted with 50% overall level of adherence to ASHP guideline. This might be attributed to poor diagnosis and prescribing practice.

Among 32 patients which received SIUP inappropriately, 28 patients were on cimetidine and 30 of them were on intravenous acid suppressant therapy. This might be justified by lower price and easily accessibility of cimetidine in the hospital. Medical intern students were responsible for prescription of 63% of inappropriate SIUP and 81% of these errors were committed in the medical ward. This might be partially explained the contribution of level of the prescriber for injudicious use of SIUP [25].

Our results agreed with previous reports on the overuse of SIUP in hospitalized patients [25-31]. Its lower when compared with a report in study conducted at medical wards of University of Gondar Hospital (63.4%) [32]. But, similar rate (50%) of guideline compliance in academic hospitalists was reported in an institutional based chart review study in USA [33].

Higher rate of inappropriate use of SIUP were reported in: a prospective observational study conducted in three general medicine wards in University Malaya Medical Centre (96.4%) [20]; a hospital based prospective study in Lebanon (83%) [1]; prospective cross-section observational study conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (71%) [34]; in USA community hospital 68.5% of prescriptions were inappropriate. Most were for SUP in low-risk patients [29]. Lower rate of inappropriateness was showed in studies conducted: in Lebanon, no critically.

ill patients in a teaching service hospital received SIUP, among those who received SIUP, one-third were inappropriate [31]; a one day-observational study, reviewing patients’ medical records in Italy reported that 62.9% of patients received a PPI as a SIUP that only 29.1% of these were appropriate [35]. This difference might be due to study methods and settings where the studies conducted which can further depend on practicing academic level and the type of patient which can be served in these health settings.

In this study, being female and patients taking cimetidine are at higher risk of inappropriate use of SIUP (AOR=3.80 and 2.83) and P value=0.002 and 0.001 respectively. Being female in gender and putting patients on cimetidine acid suppressive therapy increased the risk of inappropriate SIUP use. Which correspond with findings elsewhere [25,36,37], but debated from other findings in USA and Lebanon [33,38]. Findings from studies showed significant reduction of inappropriate use of SIUP by encouraging involvement of clinical pharmacists during drug utilization process [39,40]. The limitations of the study should not be overlooked. This study was undertaken at a single teaching hospital so that the results could not be generalized to other centers. Besides, temporal relationship cannot be established. However, the present study was the representative of the whole of the population.

Conclusion

The overall adherence level was found to be half and major criteria’s were used for majority of patient which received SIUP. Statistically significant association was found between female gender and use of cimetidine and inappropriate SIUP use. Strengthening of clinical pharmacist involvement during drug utilization process and physicians should be encouraged to be adherent to the standard guidelines to reduce the burden of inappropriate SIUP use. We recommend future researchers to assess the cost and impact of inappropriate SIUP use.

References

  1. Peura DA (1986) Stress-related mucosal damage. Clinical therapeutics 1: 14-23.
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  3. Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Wise MP, Borthwick M, et al. (2015) Prevalence and outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding and use of acid suppressants in acutely ill adult intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med 41: 833-845.
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Marik PE, Vasu T, Hirani A, Pachinburavan M (2010) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the new millennium: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Crit Care Med 38: 222-283.
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Maynard N, Bihari D, Beale R, Smithies M, Baldock G, et al. (1993) Assessment of splanchnic oxygenation by gastric tonometry in patients with acute circulatory failure. Jama. 270: 1203-1230.
  8. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  9. Young MP, Birkmeyer JD (2000) Potential reduction in mortality rates using an intensivist model to manage intensive care units. Effective Clinical Practice 323.
  10. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  11. Fennerty MB (2002) Pathophysiology of the upper gastrointestinal tract in the critically ill patient: rationale for the therapeutic benefits of acid suppression. Crit Care Med 30: S351-523.
  12. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  13. Cook DJ, Fuller HD, Guyatt GH, Marshall JC, Leasa D, et al. (1994) Risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 330: 377-381.
  14. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  15. MacLaren R (2002) A review of stress ulcer prophylaxis. J Pharm Pract Res 15: 147-157.
  16. Google Scholar

  17. ASHP (1999) Therapeutic Guidelines on Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis. ASHP Commission on Therapeutics and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on November 14, 1998. Am J Health Syst Pharm 56: 347-379.
  18. Indexed at, Cross Ref

  19. Ellison RT, Perez-Perez G, Welsh CH, Blaser MJ, Riester KA, et al. (1996) Risk factors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in intensive care unit patients: Role of Helicobacter pylori. Crit Care Med 24:1974-1981.
  20. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  21. Guillamondegui OD, Gunter OL, Bonadies JA (2021) Practice Management Guidelines for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis, 2008.
  22. Google Scholar

  23. Simons RK, Hoyt DB, Winchell RJ, Holbrook T, Eastman AB, et al. (1995) A risk analysis of stress ulceration after trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 39: 289-293.
  24. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  25. Barletta JF, Kanji S, MacLaren R, Lat I, Erstad BL, et al. (2014) Pharmacoepidemiology of stress ulcer prophylaxis in the United States and Canada. J Crit Care 29: 955-960.
  26. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  27. Daley RJ, Rebuck JA, Welage LS, Rogers FB (2004) Prevention of stress ulceration: current trends in critical care. Crit Care Med 32: 2008-2013.
  28. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  29. Erstad BL, Barletta JF, Jacobi J, Killian AD, Kramer KM, et al. (1999) Survey of stress ulcer prophylaxis. Critical care 3: 145-149.
  30. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  31. Conrad SA, Gabrielli A, Margolis B, Quartin A, Hata JS, et al. (2005) Randomized, double-blind comparison of immediate-release omeprazole oral suspension versus intravenous cimetidine for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 33: 760-765.
  32. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  33. Merki HS, Wilder-Smith CH (1994) Do continuous infusions of omeprazole and ranitidine retain their effect with prolonged dosing? Gastroenterology. 106: 60-64.
  34. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  35. Patchett SE, Enright H, Afdhal N, O'Connell W, O'Donoghue DP, et al. (1989) Clot lysis by gastric juice: an in vitro study. Gut 30: 1704-1707.
  36. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  37. Alhazzani W, Alenezi F, Jaeschke RZ, Moayyedi P, Cook DJ, et al. (2013) Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 41: 693-705.
  38. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  39. Mohamad MS, Shamsuddin N, Tan KM (2015) Appropriateness of stress ulcer prophylaxis among older adults admitted to general medical wards in a university hospital. Eur Geriatr Med 6: 119-123.
  40. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  41. Howden CW, Hunt RH (1987) Relationship between gastric secretion and infection. Gut 28: 96-97.
  42. Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  43. Grube RR, May DB (2007) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in hospitalized patients not in intensive care units. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 64: 1396-1400.
  44. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  45. Nasser SC, Nassif JG, Dimassi HI (2010) Clinical and cost impact of intravenous proton pump inhibitor use in non-ICU patients. World J Gastroenterol: WJG. 16: 982.
  46. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  47. Nardino RJ, Vender RJ, Herbert PN (2000) Overuse of acid- suppressive therapy in hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol Suppl 95: 3118-3122.
  48. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  49. Craig DG, Thimappa R, Anand V, Sebastian S (2010) Inappropriate utilization of intravenous proton pump inhibitors in hospital practice-a prospective study of the extent of the problem and predictive factors. QJM: Int J Med 103: 327-335.
  50. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  51. Ntaios G, Chatzinikolaou A, Kaiafa G, Savopoulos C, Hatzitolios A, et al. (2009) Karamitsos D. Evaluation of use of proton pump inhibitors in Greece. Eur J Intern Med 20: 171-173.
  52. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  53. Oh S (2011) Proton pump inhibitors: uncommon adverse effects. Aust Fam Physician 40: 705-708.
  54. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  55. Parente F, Cucino C, Gallus S, Bargiggia S, Greco S, et al. (2003) Hospital use of acid-suppressive medications and its f all-out on prescribing in general practice: a 1-month survey. Aliment Pharmacol Therapeut 17: 1503-1506.
  56. Google Scholar

  57. Perwaiz MK, Posner G, Hammoudeh F, Schmidt F, Neupane N, et al. (2010) Inappropriate use of intravenous PPI for stress ulcer prophylaxis in an inner city community hospital. J Clin Med Res 2: 215-216.
  58. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  59. Pitimana-Aree S, Forrest D, Brown G, Anis A, Dodek P, et al. (1998) Implementation of a clinical practice guideline for stress ulcer prophylaxis increases appropriateness and decreases cost of care. Intens Care Med 24: 217-223.
  60. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  61. Sheikh-Taha M, Alaeddine S, Nassif J (2012) Use of acid suppressive therapy in hospitalized non-critically ill patients. WJGPT 3: 93-94.
  62. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  63. Horsa BA, Ayele Y, Ayalew MB (2019) Assessment of pharmacologic prophylaxis use against stress ulcer in the medical wards of University of Gondar Hospital. SAGE Open Med 7:2050312119827409.
  64. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  65. Eid SM, Boueiz A, Paranji S, Mativo C, Landis R, et al. (2010) Patterns and predictors of proton pump inhibitor overuse among academic and non-academic hospitalists. Intensive Care Med 49: 2561-2568.
  66. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  67. Alsultan MS, Mayet AY, Malhani AA, Alshaikh MK (2010) Pattern of intravenous proton pump inhibitors use in ICU and Non-ICU setting: a prospective observational study. Saudi. J Gastroenterol 16: 275-276.
  68. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  69. Meli M, Raffa MP, Malta R, Morreale I, Aprea L, et al. (2015) D’Alessandro N. The use of proton pump inhibitors in an Italian hospital: focus on oncologic and critical non-ICU patients. Int J Clin Pharm 37: 1152-1161.
  70. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  71. Farsaei S, Ghorbani S, Adibi P (2017) Variables associated with adherence to stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients admitted to the general hospital wards: a prospective study. Adv Pharm Bull 7: 73.
  72. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  73. Singh A, Wang Y, Lu Y, Hanlon A, Davis M et al. (2014) Identifying Risk Factors Associated With Inappropriate Use of Acid- Suppressive Therapy at a Community Hospital: 983. Am J Gastroenterol Suppl 109: 661-662.
  74. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  75. Issa IA, Soubra O, Nakkash H, Soubra L (2012) Variables associated with stress ulcer prophylaxis misuse: a retrospective analysis. Dig Dis Sci 57: 2633-2641.
  76. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  77. Masood U, Sharma A, Bhatti Z, Carroll J, Bhardwaj A, et al. (2018) A successful pharmacist-based quality initiative to reduce inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis use in an academic medical intensive care unit. INQUIRY. J. Health Care Finance 55:0046958018759116.
  78. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  79. Buckley MS, Park AS, Anderson CS, Barletta JF, Bikin DS, et al. (2015) Impact of a clinical pharmacist stress ulcer prophylaxis management program on inappropriate use in hospitalized patients. Am J Med 128: 905-913.
  80. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Citation: Gobezie MY, Hailu HG, Tuha A, Tadesse SF, Bogale K, et al. (2022) Prescription Pattern and Appropriateness of Stress Induce Ulcer Prophylaxis in Dessie Referral Hospital, North East Ethiopia; Cross-Sectional Study. Ann Clin Lab Res. Vol.10 No.6:418