Deprescribing Intervention and Reduction of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial
Mailing education to patients plus guidance to clinicians roughly doubled meaningful dose reduction of long-term proton pump inhibitor use without worsening reflux symptoms.
*Pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial; Level 1b (OCEBM).
*Pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial; Level 1b (OCEBM).
Citation
Fournier J-P, Gaultier A, Riche V-P, Tessier P, Rat C, Nguyen-Soenen J. Deprescribing intervention and reduction of proton pump inhibitor use in primary care: a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2026;186(6):668-676. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2026.0584
Background
Long-term proton pump inhibitor use is often unnecessary and may cause harm and higher costs. This study tested a health system–scale approach to encourage safe reduction in primary care.
Patients
Adults (≥18 years) in western France with at least 1 year of high proton pump inhibitor use (>300 defined daily doses in the prior year). Excluded: patients at higher ulcer-bleeding risk (older than 65 years using anti-inflammatory pain medicines) and those using steroids, blood thinners, or antiplatelet medicines.
Intervention
Mailing to patients: educational brochure plus motivational letter; mailing to clinicians: deprescribing letter plus step-by-step dose-reduction algorithm.
Control
Clinician-only mailing (letter + algorithm) or usual care.
Outcome
Primary: ≥50% reduction in annual proton pump inhibitor use (from reimbursement claims). Secondary: reflux symptom scores in a 10% sample using a 1-to-4 scale (1=never, 4=daily); a change ≥0.5 is clinically meaningful.
Follow-up Period
1 year
Results
| Comparison | Patients with ≥50% annual dose reduction | Adjusted absolute difference | NNT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient+clinician mailings vs usual care | 14.9% vs 7.0% | +6.9% | 15 |
| Patient+clinician mailings vs clinician-only mailing | 14.9% vs 7.7% | +6.7% | 15 |
Reflux symptom scores did not differ between groups and changes were not clinically meaningful. Analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach.
Limitations
Medication use was inferred from reimbursements, not confirmed swallowing of pills. Reflux symptoms were measured only in a small sample with incomplete responses and only at 1 year, which may miss short-term rebound symptoms. Claims data could not fully rule out appropriate long-term use (such as severe esophagus disease).
Funding
French Ministry of Health grant (PREPS-19-0040); no funder role.
Clinical Application
For long-term users without high bleeding risk, consider mailing patient education plus clinician guidance; expect modest but meaningful reductions without worsening reflux symptoms.
Journal Club
Discussion questions and an EBM quiz for this paper. How to run a journal club →
Discussion question (1)
In this pragmatic, open-label cluster-randomized clinical trial, a mailed patient brochure plus a GP deprescribing algorithm increased ≥50% annual PPI dose reduction at 1 year (14.9% vs 7.0%; adjusted absolute difference 6.9%). What threats to validity or implementation barriers would stop you from adopting this system-wide in your practice?
EBM quiz (1 question)
1. This study randomized entire GP practices (clusters) to receive a patient-and-GP-facing deprescribing intervention vs GP-only vs usual care. What is the primary methodological reason to use cluster randomization in this context?
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.