• Clostridioides difficile
• Diarrhea
• Gastric acid suppression
• Proton pump inhibitors

Background: Inappropriate use of acid suppression (AST) therapy may lead to unnecessary harms, especially in the geriatric population. Despite this, AST remains one of the most commonly prescribed medications in the hospital. Therefore, we aimed to assess its prevalence and create educational intervention to improve the appropriateness of inpatient acid suppression therapy.

Methods: Using a time-series design, we established a historical control by performing a retrospective chart. Accepted indications for AST were based on those endorsed by the USA Food and Drug Administration and literature review. Inclusion criteria were: (1) age ≥ 65; (2) acid suppression therapy-initiated in the hospital; and (3) patients admitted to the medicine teaching services. We then created an educational intervention, which consisted of lectures and distribution of information pocket cards to residents. Data was collected for two months after the intervention. We used a two-tail fisher exact test and student’s t-test to analyze our results.

Results: 65% of geriatric patients were inappropriately placed on acid suppression therapy, for which 13% were discharged without further indications. After the educational intervention, the inappropriate use of acid suppression therapy decreased to 45% (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: There is a significant overuse of AST in hospitalized geriatric patients. Educational interventions are one potential method that may help improve the appropriateness of acid suppression therapy for elderly inpatients.

• Acid suppression therapy
• educational intervention
• overuse

• Clostridium difficile infection
• Meta-analysis
• Proton pump inhibitors
• Risk
• Systematic review

• Adult
• Clostridioides difficile/isolation & purification
• Clostridium Infections/epidemiology
• Clostridium Infections/etiology
• Clostridium Infections/microbiology
• Gastrointestinal Diseases/drug therapy
• Gastrointestinal Diseases/microbiology
• Humans
• Incidence
• Prospective Studies
• Proton Pump Inhibitors/adverse effects
• Risk Factors

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) are commonly prescribed for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients. Several studies have suggested that the use of PPIs is a potential risk factor for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). We compared the incidences of CDI in the PPI group and H2RA group for SUP in critically ill patients.

From August 2005 to July 2012, the incidences of CDI were retrospectively analyzed in patients who were admitted directly to intensive care units and stayed for more than 3 days. SUP-related CDI was defined as a CDI diagnosed during the SUP period. Patient clinical data were analyzed to identify potential risk factors for SUP-related CDI.

Of the 1,005 patients enrolled (444 patients received PPI and 561 received H2RA), 38 (3.8%) were diagnosed with SUP-related CDI. The incidence of SUP-related CDI was considerably higher in patients who received PPI than in those who received H2RA (6.7% vs 1.8%). PPI use for SUP (odds ratio [OR], 3.3; confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 7.1; p=0.003) and diabetes mellitus (OR, 2.3; CI, 1.2 to 4.7; p=0.019) were independent risk factors for SUP-related CDI.

PPI therapy is associated with a higher risk of SUP-related CDI than H2RA therapy in critically ill patients.

• Clostridium difficile
• Critical care
• Histamine-2 receptor antagonist
• Proton pump inhibitor

• Antibiotic stewardship
• Bleach
• Clostridium difficile
• Contact precautions
• Environmental decontamination
• Hand washing
• Infection control
• Prevention

An adverse effect of acid-suppression medications on the occurrence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been a common finding of many, but not all studies. We hypothesized that association between acid-suppression medications and CDI is due to the residual confounding in comparison between patients with infection to those without, predominantly from non-tested and less sick subjects. We aimed to evaluate the effect of acid suppression therapy on incidence of CDI by comparing patients with CDI to two control groups: not tested patients and patients suspected of having CDI, but with a negative test.

We conducted a case-control study of adult patients hospitalized in internal medicine department of tertiary teaching hospital between 2005–2010 for at least three days. Controls from each of two groups (negative for CDI and non-tested) were individually matched (1∶1) to cases by primary diagnosis, Charlson comorbidity index, year of hospitalization and gender. Primary outcomes were diagnoses of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9)–coded CDI occurring 72 hours or more after admission.

Patients with CDI were similar to controls with a negative test, while controls without CDI testing had lower clinical severity. In multivariable analysis, treatment by acid suppression medications was associated with CDI compared to those who were not tested (OR = 1.88, p-value = 0.032). Conversely, use of acid suppression medications in those who tested negative for the infection was not associated with CDI risk as compared to the cases (OR = 0.66; p = 0.059).

These findings suggest that the reported epidemiologic associations between use of acid suppression medications and CDI risk may be spurious. The control group choice has an important impact on the results. Clinical differences between the patients with CDI and those not tested and not suspected of having the infection may explain the different conclusions regarding the acid suppression effect on CDI risk.