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

Helicobacter pylori management in ASEAN: The Bangkok consensus report

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection remains to be the major cause of important upper gastrointestinal diseases such as chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer, gastric adenocarcinoma, and mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma. H. pylori management in ASEAN: the Bangkok consensus report gathered key opinion leaders for the region to review and evaluate clinical aspects of H. pylori infection and to develop consensus statements, rationales, and grades of recommendation for the management of H. pylori infection in clinical practice in ASEAN countries. This ASEAN Consensus consisted of 34 international experts from 10 ASEAN countries, Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. The meeting mainly focused on four issues: (i) epidemiology and disease association; (ii) diagnostic tests; (iii) management; and (iv) follow-up after eradication. The final results of each workshop were presented for consensus voting by all participants. Statements, rationale, and recommendations were developed from the available current evidence to help clinicians in the diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori and its clinical diseases.

Helicobacter Pylori "Test-and-Treat" Strategy for Management of Dyspepsia: A Comprehensive Review

OBJECTIVES:

Deciding on whether the Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat strategy is an appropriate diagnostic–therapeutic approach for patients with dyspepsia invites a series of questions. The aim present article addresses the test-and-treat strategy and attempts to provide practical conclusions for the clinician who diagnoses and treats patients with dyspepsia.

METHODS:

Bibliographical searches were performed in MEDLINE using the keywords Helicobacter pylori, test-and-treat, and dyspepsia. We focused mainly on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, and decision analyses.

RESULTS:

Several prospective studies and decision analyses support the use of the test-and-treat strategy, although we must be cautious when extrapolating the results from one geographical area to another. Many factors determine whether this strategy is appropriate in each particular area. The test-and-treat strategy will cure most cases of underlying peptic ulcer disease, prevent most potential cases of gastroduodenal disease, and yield symptomatic benefit in a minority of patients with functional dyspepsia. Future studies should be able to stratify dyspeptic patients according to their likelihood of improving after treatment of infection by H. pylori.

CONCLUSIONS:

The test-and-treat strategy will cure most cases of underlying peptic ulcer disease and prevent most potential cases of gastroduodenal disease. In addition, a minority of infected patients with functional dyspepsia will gain symptomatic benefit. Several prospective studies and decision analyses support the use of the test-and-treat strategy. The test-and-treat strategy is being reinforced by the accumulating data that support the increasingly accepted idea that “the only good H. pylori is a dead H. pylori”.

Current management strategies and emerging treatments for functional dyspepsia

Functional dyspepsia refers to painful and nonpainful symptoms that are perceived to arise in the upper digestive tract but are not secondary to organic, systemic or metabolic diseases. The symptoms of this syndrome often overlap with those of GERD and IBS, making its management far from simple. If Helicobacter pylori infection is diagnosed in patients with functional dyspepsia, it should be treated. In patients with mild or intermittent symptoms, reassurance and lifestyle advice might be sufficient; in patients not responding to these measures, or in those with more severe symptoms, drug therapy should be considered. Both PPIs and prokinetics can be used in initial empirical pharmacotherapy based on symptom patterns--a PPI is more likely to be effective in the presence of retrosternal or epigastric burning or epigastric pain, whereas a prokinetic is more effective in dyspepsia with early satiation or postprandial fullness. Although combinations of PPIs and prokinetics might have additive symptomatic effects, single-drug therapy is initially preferable. Antidepressants or referral to a psychiatrist or psychotherapist can be considered in nonresponders and in those whose symptoms have a marked effect on daily functioning. Despite extensive research, functional dyspepsia treatment often remains unsatisfactory. Better characterization of dyspeptic subgroups and understanding of underlying mechanisms will enable treatment advances to be made in the future.

[Clinical practice guideline on the management of patients with dyspepsia. Update 2012]

The aim of the Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) on the Management of Patients with Dyspepsia is to generate recommendations on the optimal approach to dyspepsia in the primary care and specialized outpatient setting. The main objective of this CPG is to help to optimize the diagnostic process, identifying patients with a low risk of a serious organic disease (mainly tumoral), who could be safely managed without the need for invasive diagnostic tests and/or referral to a specialist. The importance of this aim lies in the need to accurately diagnose patients with esophagogastric cancer and correctly treat peptic ulcer while, at the same time, reduce negative endoscopies in order to appropriately use the available healthcare resources. This CPG reviews the initial strategies that can be used in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia and evaluates the possible decision to begin empirical therapy or to investigate the existence of a lesion that could explain the symptoms. This CPG also discusses functional dyspepsia, which encompasses all patients with dyspepsia with no demonstrable cause on endoscopy. Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of peptic ulcer and Helicobacter pylori infection are also made. To classify the scientific evidence and strengthen the recommendations, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) system has been used (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/).

[Clinical practice guideline on the management of patients with dyspepsia. Update 2012]

The aim of the Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) on the Management of Patients with Dyspepsia is to generate recommendations on the optimal approach to dyspepsia in the primary care and specialized outpatient setting. The main objective of this CPG is to help to optimize the diagnostic process, identifying patients with a low risk of a serious organic disease (mainly tumoral), who could be safely managed without the need for invasive diagnostic tests and/or referral to a specialist. The importance of this aim lies in the need to accurately diagnose patients with esophagogastric cancer and correctly treat peptic ulcer while, at the same time, reduce negative endoscopies in order to appropriately use the available healthcare resources.This CPG reviews the initial strategies that can be used in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia and evaluates the possible decision to begin empirical therapy or to investigate the existence of a lesion that could explain the symptoms. This CPG also discusses functional dyspepsia, which encompasses all patients with dyspepsia with no demonstrable cause on endoscopy. Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of peptic ulcer and Helicobacter pylori infection are also made. To classify the scientific evidence and strengthen the recommendations, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) system has been used (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/).

Functional dyspepsia impacts absenteeism and direct and indirect costs

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common morbid condition but data are limited on the direct and indirect costs for employees with FD or on its impact on productivity. Few data on absenteeism and no objective information are available. This study aimed to assess the impact of FD on costs and effects on absenteeism and work output (productivity).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of payroll data and adjudicated health insurance medical and prescription claims collected over a 4-year study period (January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2004) from more than 300,000 employees. Data from employees with and without (controls) FD were compared using 2-part regression techniques. Outcome measures included medical (total and by place of service) and prescription costs, absenteeism, and objectively measured productivity output.

RESULTS

Employees with FD (N = 1669) had greater average annual medical and prescription drug costs and indirect costs (owing to sick leave and short- and long-term disability absences) than controls (N = 274,206). Compared with controls, the FD employees incurred costs that were $5138 greater and had greater costs for each place of service (all P < .0001). The employees with FD had an additional 0.83 absence days per year and produced 12% fewer units per hour than controls (both P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Employees with FD have greater costs at all places of service and lower productivity than employees without FD.

Dyspeptic symptoms and endoscopic findings in the community: the Loiano-Monghidoro study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of endoscopic findings and their association with dyspeptic symptoms in the community.

METHODS

A total of 1,533 inhabitants of two villages were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey, and 1,033 were recruited. Participants underwent a validated dyspepsia questionnaire, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and a (13)C-urea breath test.

RESULTS

Endoscopic findings were present in 17.6% of asymptomatic subjects and in 27.4% of those with dyspeptic symptoms. The prevalence of esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus in subjects with dyspeptic symptoms and without prominent reflux symptoms was 8.1 and 1.5%, respectively, and was similar to that of asymptomatic subjects (8.5 and 0.7%, respectively). Esophagitis was significantly associated with dyspeptic symptoms only in subjects with concomitant prominent reflux symptoms. Peptic ulcer (PU) was present in 8.8% of subjects with dyspeptic symptoms without reflux symptoms and similarly in 9.4% of those with prominent reflux symptoms. Subjects with dyspeptic symptoms and concomitant prominent reflux symptoms had an increased risk of having an underlying PU (odds ratio 2.74, 95% confidence interval 1.30-5.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost three-quarters of subjects with dyspeptic symptoms do not have endoscopic findings and, in addition, esophagitis may not be the cause of dyspeptic symptoms in subjects without prominent reflux symptoms. PU may be the cause of dyspeptic symptoms in a subgroup of subjects with prominent reflux symptoms.

Helicobacter pylori and non-malignant diseases

In recent years, the focus of Helicobacter pylori clinical research has been mainly on gastric malignancy. However, the role of H. pylori in non-malignant diseases, such as peptic ulcer, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and non-ulcer dyspepsia, as well as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug consumption, is still of great interest. A 1- to 2-week course of H. pylori eradication therapy is an effective treatment for H. pylori-positive peptic ulcer disease and a positive CagA status is a predictor for successful eradication of H. pylori. Antral prostaglandin-E2-basal levels appear to be critical for the development of aspirin-induced gastric damage in subjects without H. pylori infection. In clinical practice, among patients treated with proton-pump inhibitors, H. pylori status has no effect on the speed or degree of GERD symptom relief. For the management of dyspepsia in primary care, antisecretory therapy confers a small insignificant benefit compared to strategies based on H. pylori testing while these latter strategies may be cost-effective. H. pylori eradication therapy has a small but statistically significant effect on H. pylori-positive non-ulcer dyspepsia. An economic model suggests that this modest benefit may still be cost-effective but more research is needed.