The Initial Management and Endoscopic Outcomes of Dyspepsia in a Low-Risk Patient Population

Up-Front Endoscopy Maximizes Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Satisfaction in Uninvestigated Dyspepsia

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Practice guidelines promote a routine noninvasive, non-endoscopic initial approach to investigating dyspepsia without alarm features in young patients, yet many patients undergo prompt upper endoscopy. We aimed to assess tradeoffs among costs, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes to inform discrepancy between guidelines and practice.

METHODS

We constructed a decision-analytic model and performed cost-effectiveness/cost-satisfaction analysis over a 1-year time horizon on patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia without alarm features referred to gastroenterology. A RAND/UCLA expert panel informed model design. Four competing diagnostic/management strategies were evaluated: prompt endoscopy, testing for Helicobacter pylori and eradicating if present (test-and-treat), testing for H pylori and performing endoscopy if present (test-and-scope), and empiric acid suppression. Outcomes were derived from systematic reviews of clinical trials. Costs were informed by prospective observational cohort studies and national commercial/federal cost databases. Health gains were represented using quality-adjusted life years.

RESULTS

From the patient perspective, costs and outcomes were similar for all strategies (maximum out-of-pocket difference of $30 and <0.01 quality-adjusted life years gained/year regardless of strategy). Prompt endoscopy maximized cost-satisfaction and health system reimbursement. Test-and-scope maximized cost-effectiveness from insurer and patient perspectives. Results remained robust on multiple one-way sensitivity analyses on model inputs and across most willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Noninvasive management strategies appear to result in inferior cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction outcomes compared with strategies promoting up-front endoscopy. Therefore, additional studies are needed to evaluate the drivers of patient satisfaction to facilitate inclusion in value-based healthcare transformation efforts.

Guideline Adherence in Dyspepsia Investigation and Treatment

Introduction

The impact of dyspepsia guidelines on clinical practice may be poor. Provider adherence with dyspepsia guidelines was examined to determine their impact on clinical practice.

Methods

Provider adherence with the 2005 American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines for the Management of Dyspepsia and the 2017 American College of Gastroenterology and Canadian Association of Gastroenterology joint Dyspepsia Management Guidelines was assessed on a national level using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). Patient visit data, including reason for visit of dyspepsia, diagnosis of dyspepsia, or diagnosis of H. pylori infection from NAMCS years 2012 through 2015, were used. Provider adherence with dyspepsia management guidelines was determined based upon provision of at least one recommended test or treatment for dyspepsia.

Results

Providers appeared to adhere to the 2005 ACG guidelines for 49.7% of patient visits. Providers appeared to adhere to the 2017 ACG/CAG guidelines for 51.0% of patient visits.

Conclusion

Provider adherence with the 2005 ACG and the 2017 ACG/CAG Dyspepsia Management Guidelines was determined to be low in this study, highlighting the need to increase evidence-based medical treatment and efficient resource use for dyspepsia.

Overtesting and undertesting in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Health systems are currently subject to unprecedented financial strains. Inappropriate test use wastes finite health resources (overuse) and delays diagnoses and treatment (underuse). As most patient care is provided in primary care, it represents an ideal setting to mitigate waste.

OBJECTIVE

To identify overuse and underuse of diagnostic tests in primary care.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 1999 to October 2017 for studies that measured the inappropriateness of any diagnostic test (measured against a national or international guideline) ordered for adult patients in primary care.

RESULTS

We included 357 171 patients from 63 studies in 15 countries. We extracted 103 measures of inappropriateness (41 underuse and 62 overuse) from included studies for 47 different diagnostic tests.The overall rate of inappropriate diagnostic test ordering varied substantially (0.2%-100%)%).17 tests were underused >50% of the time. Of these, echocardiography (n=4 measures) was consistently underused (between 54% and 89%, n=4). There was large variation in the rate of inappropriate underuse of pulmonary function tests (38%-78%, n=8).Eleven tests were inappropriately overused >50% of the time. Echocardiography was consistently overused (77%-92%), whereas inappropriate overuse of urinary cultures, upper endoscopy and colonoscopy varied widely, from 36% to 77% (n=3), 10%-54% (n=10) and 8%-52% (n=2), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is marked variation in the appropriate use of diagnostic tests in primary care. Specifically, the use of echocardiography (both underuse and overuse) is consistently poor. There is substantial variation in the rate of inappropriate underuse of pulmonary function tests and the overuse of upper endoscopy, urinary cultures and colonoscopy.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016048832.

Low yield for non-targeted biopsies of the stomach and esophagus during elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Biopsies of non-specific mucosal findings are often performed during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). We sought to determine the prevalence and clinical utility of non-targeted biopsies of the stomach and esophagus.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 We conducted a retrospective review of 949 outpatient EGDs performed at a US tertiary referral center. Non-targeted biopsies of the stomach were defined as either "normal" or "mild" to "moderate" "erythema" or "inflammation" without other endoscopic features. Non-targeted biopsies of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) were defined as endoscopically "normal" mucosa. The primary outcome was the proportion of non-targeted biopsies resulting in "definite management change." Secondary outcomes included histopathologic diagnoses of Helicobacter pylori, intestinal metaplasia and esophageal eosinophilia.

RESULTS

 Of 949 EGDs, 332 (35.0 %, 95 % CI 31.9 - 38.1 %) had a non-targeted biopsy taken at any site. Erythema in the gastric body and antrum was biopsied at a rate of 83 - 86 %, while biopsies of "normal"-appearing mucosa occurred at rates from 3 % (GEJ) to 15 % (body and antrum). The percentage of non-targeted biopsies that led to definite management change ranged from 5 % in the GEJ and esophagus to 9 % in the antrum, but did not significantly differ by mucosal appearance. Multivariable regression analyses suggested associations of language and age > 50 with management change from non-targeted gastric biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

 Non-targeted biopsies of the stomach and esophagus led to definite management change in a small proportion of patients. Further studies are needed to identify patient and/or endoscopic characteristics and techniques to improve the yield of this practice.

Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with Dyspepsia

Background. The value of endoscopy in dyspeptic patients is questionable. Aims. To examine the prevalence of significant endoscopic findings (SEFs) and the utility of alarm features and age in predicting SEFs in outpatients with dyspepsia. Methods. A retrospective analysis of outpatient adults who had endoscopy for dyspepsia. Demographic variables, alarm features, and endoscopic findings were recorded. We defined SEFs as peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis, malignancy, stricture, or findings requiring specific therapy. Results. Of 650 patients included in the analysis, 51% had a normal endoscopy. The most common endoscopic abnormality was nonerosive gastritis (29.7%) followed by nonerosive duodenitis (7.2%) and LA-class A esophagitis (5.4%). Only 10.2% had a SEF. Five patients (0.8%) had malignancy. SEFs were more likely present in patients with alarm features (12.6% versus 5.4%, p = 0.004). Age ≥ 55 and presence of any alarm feature were associated with SEFs (aOR 1.8 and 2.3, resp.). Conclusion. Dyspeptic patients have low prevalence of SEF. The presence of any alarm feature and age ≥ 55 are associated with higher risk of SEF. Endoscopy in young patients with no alarm features has a low yield; these patients can be considered for nonendoscopic approach for diagnosis and management.