Guidance on performance and reporting of high-resolution oesophageal manometry and ambulatory pH monitoring in Singapore

INTRODUCTION@#We aimed to provide a practical and evidence-based guide on the indications, performance and reporting of high-resolution oesophageal manometry (HRM) and ambulatory pH monitoring (PHM) in adult patients in Singapore.@*METHODS@#The guideline committee comprised local gastroenterologists from public and private sectors with particular expertise in aspects of HRM and PHM, and it was tasked to produce evidence-based statements on the indications, performance and reporting of these tests. Each committee member performed literature searches to retrieve relevant articles within the context of domains to which they were assigned.@*RESULTS@#Twelve recommendation statements were created and summarised.@*CONCLUSION@#Standardising key aspects of HRM and PHM is imperative to ensure the delivery of high-quality care. We reported the development of recommendations for the performance and interpretation of HRM and ambulatory reflux monitoring in Singapore.

Inappropriate use of proton pump inhibitors in a local setting

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>There are growing concerns that the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be inappropriate in instances that do not conform to evidence-based indications. This point-prevalence study aimed to investigate the frequency, indications and appropriateness of use of PPIs in hospitalised patients on a randomly chosen day.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>On a randomly chosen day, all inpatients were documented, and those on any form of PPIs on that day were determined. Indications for maintaining these patients on PPIs were obtained from the electronic medical records, which were then recorded and cross-referenced against a list of accepted indications adapted from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved list.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>In all, 1,025 inpatients were documented. Of the 477 (46.5%) inpatients using PPIs, only 219 (45.9%) fulfilled the FDA-approved indications, while the majority (n = 258, 54.1%) did not. Overall, PPIs were not strictly indicated for use in 206 (43.2%) inpatients, according to FDA criteria. Of the 477 inpatients on PPIs, 52 (10.9%) had borderline indications based on expert consensus/guidelines other than FDA criteria.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Although the use of PPIs is prevalent in hospitals, less than half of the hospitalised patients using PPIs in our study had evidence-based indications that supported such use. The overuse of PPIs has a negative impact on healthcare costs and may lead to adverse effects. Steps to curb the inappropriate use of PPIs should address factors such as indications for the initiation of PPIs, and reassessment of the need for ongoing PPI use in inpatients upon discharge and during outpatient reviews.</p>