Skip to main content
Log in

Impact of clinical pharmacists on adherence to stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol in critically ill Egyptian patients: a comparative study

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Therapy Perspectives Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Standardized protocols can aid in appropriate prescribing of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in the intensive care unit (ICU). The study aimed to evaluate the impact of providing a physician’s education (PhyEd) versus a PhyEd + Clinical Pharmacist (PhyEd + CPh) approach on adherence to a SUP protocol and possible cost saving in the ICU.

Methods

This was a quasi-experimental study. An evidence-based SUP protocol was developed by a clinical pharmacy team at an Egyptian ICU. Physicians were provided with educational sessions, information regarding the protocol, and latest SUP guidelines over a 1-month period. All adult patients admitted to one of the two ICU floors during the 6-month study period were eligible for inclusion. Patients admitted with an indication for acid suppressive therapy and those who stayed in the ICU for < 48 h were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups based on their ICU floor: PhyEd (1st floor) and PhyEd + CPh (2nd floor). Clinical pharmacists provided interventions regarding protocol adherence only for patients on the 2nd floor.

Results

A total of 177 patients were included. SUP protocol non-adherence, calculated as the percentage of inappropriate (i.e., did not meet all the criteria in the protocol) patient-days, was significantly lower in the PhyEd + CPh group than in the PhyEd group (64.7% vs 90.9%; p < 0.0001). Bleeding events were comparable in both groups. The total actual cost saved due to protocol adherence was $US149.44 ($US118.95 in the PhyEd + CPh group + $US30.49 in the PhyEd group). The estimated total cost saved due to protocol adherence was $US948.56.

Conclusion

Clinical pharmacists’ daily interventions decreased non-adherence to the SUP protocol, and provided a significant decrease in hospital expenditures with no influence on adverse effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stollmann N, Metz D. Pathophysiology and prophylaxis of stress ulcer in intensive care unit patients. J Crit Care. 2005;20:35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cook DJ, Fuller HD, Guyatt GH, et al. Risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:377–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuper K. Intravenous to oral therapy conversion. In: Competence tools for health-system pharmacies. 4th ed. Bethesda (MD): American Society of Health System Pharmacists; 2008. pp. 347–60.

  4. ASHP Board of Directors, ASHP. Therapeutic guide to stress ulcer prophylaxis. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1999;56:347–79.

  5. Plummer M, Blaser A, Deane A. Stress ulceration: prevalence, pathology and association with adverse outcomes. Crit Care. 2014;18(2):213.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Marik PE, Vasu T, Hirani A, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the new millennium: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:2222–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. MacLaren R, Reynolds PM, Allen RR. Histamine-2 receptor antagonists vs proton pump inhibitors on gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage and infectious complications in the intensive care unit. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:564–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Alhazzani W, Alenezi F, Jaeschke RZ, et al. 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. 2013;41:693–705.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Madsen KR, Lorentzen K, Clausen N, et al; Danish Society of Intensive Care Medicine; Danish Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Guideline for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit. Dan Med J. 2014; 61(3):C4811

  10. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:304–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ye Z, Reintam Blaser A, Lytvyn L, et al. Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6722.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang Y, Ye Z, Ge L, et al. Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;368:l6744.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Eom CS, Jeon CY, Lim JW, et al. Use of acid suppressive drugs and risk of pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2011;183(3):310–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Herzig SJ, Howell MD, Ngo LH, et al. Acid suppressive medication use and the risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia. JAMA. 2009;301:2120–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Howell MD, Novack V, Grgurich P, et al. Iatrogenic gastric acid suppression and the risk of nosocomial Clostridium difficile infection. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:784–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kwok CS, Arthur AK, Anibueze CI, et al. Risk of Clostridium difficile infection with acid suppressing drugs and antibiotics: meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(7):1011–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mohebbi L, Hesch K. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit. Proc Bayl Med Cent. 2009;22:373–6.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Reynolds PM, MacLaren R. Re-evaluating the utility of stress ulcer prophylaxis in the critically ill patient: a clinical scenario-based meta-analysis. Pharmacotherapy. 2019;39(3):408–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Carr KC. Developing an evidence-based practice protocol: implications for midwifery practice. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2000;45(6):544–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cleland JG, Cohen-Solal A, Aguilar JC, et al. Improvement programme in evaluation and management; Study Group on Diagnosis of the Working Group on Heart Failure of The European Society of Cardiology. Management of heart failure in primary care (the IMPROVEMENT of Heart Failure Programme): an international survey. Lancet. 2002; 360:1631–9.

  21. Schneider F, Menke R, Härter M, et al. Are bonus systems applicable to guideline-oriented depression treatment provided by general practitioners and neurologists? [in German]. Nervenarzt. 2005;76(3):308–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Steel N, Bachmann M, Maisey S, et al. Self reported receipt of care consistent with 32 quality indicators: national population survey of adults aged 50 or more in England. BMJ. 2008;337:a957.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Hammond DA, Killingsworth CA, Painter JT, et al. Impact of targeted educational interventions on appropriateness of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Pharm Pract. 2017;15:948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaifer C, Grant M. Impact of a pharmacist-driven stress ulcer prophylaxis discontinuation protocol in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Coursol CJ, Sanzari SE. Impact of stress ulcer prophylaxis algorithm study. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39:810–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mousavi M, Dashti-Khavidaki S, Khalili H, et al. Impact of clinical pharmacy services on stress ulcer prophylaxis prescribing and related cost in patients with renal insufficiency. Int J Pharm Pract. 2013;21:263–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bond CA, Raehl CL. Pharmacist provided anticoagulation management in United States hospitals: death rates, length of stay, Medicare charges, bleeding complications and transfusions. Pharmacotherapy. 2004;24:953–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Andrews LB, Candelario DM, Jensen SM. Optimizing inpatient pharmacotherapy using a single clinical policy streamlining pharmacy protocols. J Clin Outcomes Manag. 2015;22:169–77.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, et al. 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:1082–115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Krag M, Perner A, Møller MH. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2016;22:186–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Marker S, Krag M, Møller MH. What's new with stress ulcer prophylaxis in the ICU? Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:1132–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Stepanski M, Palm N. We no longer need to stress ulcer prophylaxis in the critically ill. J Intensive Crit Care. 2017;3:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Egyptian pound to US dollar spot exchange rates for 2017. 2020. https://www.exchangerates.org.uk/EGP-USD-spot-exchange-rates-history-2017.html. Accessed 16 Aug 2020.

  34. Nates JL, Nunnally M, Kleinpell R, et al. ICU admission, discharge, and triage guidelines: a framework to enhance clinical operations, development of institutional policies, and further research. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(8):1553–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Masood U, Sharma A, Bhatti Z, et al. A successful pharmacist-based quality initiative to reduce inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis use in an academic medical intensive care unit. Inquiry. 2018;55:46958018759116.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Alhazzani W, Alshamsi F, Belley-Cote E, et al. Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wahking RA, Steele RL, Hanners RE, et al. Outcomes from a pharmacist-led proton pump inhibitor stewardship program at a single institution. Hosp Pharm. 2018;53:59–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Santos YAPD, Younes-Ibrahim MS, Crozatti LL, et al. Adherence to a stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol by critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020;32(1):37–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Shahbazi F, Karimpur H, Elham HE. Implementation of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in an intensive care unit (ICU). J Pharm Res Int. 2019;31(6):1–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Rafinazari N, Abbasi S, Farsaei S, et al. Adherence to stress-related mucosal damage prophylaxis guideline in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. J Res Pharm Pract. 2016;5:186–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Alsultan MS, Mayet AY, Malhani AA, et al. Pattern of intravenous proton pump inhibitors use in ICU and non-ICU setting: a prospective observational study. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2010;16:275–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Masoompour SM, Kasaee R, Mahdaviazad H. Evaluation of adherence to American Society of Health-System Pharmacists guidelines: stress ulcer prophylaxis in Shiraz. Iran Gastroenterol Nurs. 2017;40:491–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tasaka CL, Burg C, VanOsdol SJ, et al. An interprofessional approach to reducing the overutilization of stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult medical and surgical intensive care units. Ann Pharmacother. 2014;48:462–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Herzig SJ, Guess JR, Feinbloom DB, et al. Improving appropriateness of acid-suppressive medication use via computerized clinical decision support. J Hosp Med. 2015;10:41–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Meena N, Costner M, Joshi M. Stress ulcer prophylaxis use in the intensive care unit before and after house staff education. J Ark Med Soc. 2015;112:38–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Agee C, Coulter L, Hudson J. Effects of pharmacy resident led education on resident physician prescribing habits associated with stress ulcer prophylaxis in non-intensive care unit patients. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2015;72(11 Suppl 1):S48–S52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Buckley MS, Park AS, Anderson CS, et al. Impact of a clinical pharmacist stress ulcer prophylaxis management program on inappropriate use in hospitalized patients. Am J Med. 2015;128(8):905–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hatch JB, Schulz L, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis: reducing non-indicated prescribing after hospital discharge. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(10):1565–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ogasawara O, Kojima T, Miyazu M, et al. Impact of the stress ulcer prophylactic protocol on reducing the unnecessary administration of stress ulcer medications and gastrointestinal bleeding: a single-center, retrospective pre-post study. J Intensive Care. 2020;8:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Toews I, George AT, Peter JV, et al. Interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;6(6):CD008687.

  51. Lilly CM, Aljawadi M, Badawi O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors vs histamine type 2 receptor blockers for preventing clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding during intensive care: a population-based study. Chest. 2018;154(3):557–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Reeves BC. A framework for classifying study designs to evaluate health care interventions. Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2004;11(Suppl 1):13–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. PEPTIC Investigators for the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group, Alberta Health Services Critical Care Strategic Clinical Network, and the Irish Critical Care Trials Group. Effect of stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors vs histamine-2 receptor blockers on in-hospital mortality among ICU patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation: the PEPTIC Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;323(7):616–26

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the clinical pharmacists Marwa Ali Hussein (PharmD, BCCCP) and Zeinab Bakry Mohamed for their contribution to data collection for this study. We would like also to thank the whole clinical pharmacy team and staff at the Critical Care Medicine Department, Cairo University Hospitals for their contributions in implementing the SUP protocol.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naglaa Samir Bazan.

Ethics declarations

Author contributions

All authors were involved in the concept and design. NS Bazan collected the study data, performed the statistical analysis, interpreted the data, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to, and approved, the subsequent drafts.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on request.

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

Naglaa Samir Bazan, Samar Farghali Farid, and Darrin Lloyd Baines declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Granted by the Research Ethics Committee at Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University, CL (2293).

Consent for participation/publication

Consent was obtained from all participants.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 78 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bazan, N.S., Farid, S.F. & Baines, D.L. Impact of clinical pharmacists on adherence to stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol in critically ill Egyptian patients: a comparative study. Drugs Ther Perspect 37, 35–43 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-020-00786-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-020-00786-y

Navigation