Uninvestigated Dyspepsia

Economic evaluation of empirical antisecretory therapy versus Helicobacter pylori test for management of dyspepsia: a randomized trial in primary care

OBJECTIVES

An economic evaluation was performed of empirical antisecretory therapy versus test for Helicobacter pylori in the management of dyspepsia patients presenting in primary care.

METHODS

A randomized trial in 106 general practices in the County of Funen, Denmark, was designed to include prospective collection of clinical outcome measures and resource utilization data. Dyspepsia patients (n = 722) presenting in general practice with more than 2 weeks of epigastric pain or discomfort were managed according to one of three initial management strategies: (i) empirical antisecretory therapy, (ii) testing for Helicobacter pylori, or (iii) empirical antisecretory therapy, followed by Helicobacter pylori testing if symptoms improved. Cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the strategies were determined.

RESULTS

The mean proportion of days without dyspeptic symptoms during the 1-year follow-up was 0.59 in the group treated with empirical antisecretory therapy, 0.57 in the H. pylori test-and-eradicate group, and 0.53 in the combination group. After 1 year, 23 percent, 26 percent, and 22 percent, respectively, were symptom-free. Applying the proportion of days without dyspeptic symptoms, the cost-effectiveness for empirical treatment, H. pylori test and the combination were 12,131 Danish kroner (DKK), 9,576 DKK, and 7,301 DKK, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness going from the combination strategy to empirical antisecretory treatment or H. pylori test alone was 54,783 DKK and 39,700 DKK per additional proportion of days without dyspeptic symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Empirical antisecretory therapy confers a small insignificant benefit but costs more than strategies based on test for H. pylori and is probably not a cost-effective strategy for the management of dyspepsia in primary care.