Reappraisal of non-invasive management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia: a cost-minimization analysis

Value of the "Test & Treat" Strategy for Uninvestigated Dyspepsia at Low Prevalence Rates of Helicobacter pylori in the Population

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In populations with a low prevalence rate of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection from Western countries, guidelines for the management of uninvestigated dyspepsia generally recommend that the "test and treat" strategy should be avoided in favor of empiric proton-pump inhibitor therapy in younger patients (on average < 50 years of age) without alarm symptoms and signs. The prevalence of H. pylori infection has fallen from about 30% to about 10% in Sweden and other countries. We aimed to explore whether the rationale for test and treat is relevant in contemporary clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In settings with an infection rate in the adult population of 30% and 10%, we modeled the positive and negative predictive values for indirect (nonendoscopy) tests on current H. pylori infection with a presumed sensitivity and specificity of 95%. We then calculated the difference in false-negative and false-positive test outcome, and eradication prescription rates in the two scenarios.

RESULTS

While the positive predictive value for the test decreased from 0.89 to 0.68 when the prevalence of H. pylori fell from 30% to 10%, there were only 1% more false-negative tests and 1% less false-positive tests. The eradication prescription rate would decrease by 18% with a 10% prevalence rate.

CONCLUSION

The recommendation to stop applying "test and treat" at lower prevalence rates of H. pylori should be reconsidered. The test and treat strategy is the preferred approach for most patients who present with dyspepsia.

Vaccinating against Helicobacter pylori in the developing world

Helicobacter pylori infects more than half the world's population and in developing nations the incidence can be over 90%. The morbidity and mortality associated with H. pylori-associated diseases including ulcers and gastric cancer therefore, disproportionately impact the developing world. Mice have been used extensively to demonstrate the feasibility of developing a vaccine for H. pylori infection, and for testing antigens, routes of immunization, dose, and adjuvants. These successes however, have not translated well in clinical trials. Although there are examples where immune responses have been activated, there are few instances of achieving a reduced bacterial load. In vivo and in vitro analyses in both mice and humans demonstrates that the host responds to H. pylori infection through the activation of immunoregulatory mechanisms designed to suppress the anti-H. pylori response. Improved vaccine efficacy therefore, will require the inclusion of factors that over-ride or re-program these immunoregulatory rersponse mechanisms.

Evidence-based approach to dyspepsia: from Helicobacter pylori to functional disease

Patients with dyspepsia may present with associated complaints of abdominal pain, bloating, fullness, acid reflux, and epigastric tenderness on examination. The evaluation of patients with dyspepsia includes taking a comprehensive history and performing a physical examination. Although taking a patient history has its limitations in making an accurate diagnosis, it is useful in guiding the selection of subsequent diagnostic tests. Differential diagnoses of dyspepsia are best addressed using an anatomical approach. Patients with chronic dyspepsia lasting > 1 month should be evaluated for the presence of alarm features. Alarm features mandate an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy examination, as these may be suggestive of a malignancy. In patients without alarm features, a Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat strategy is cost-effective if the prevalence of H. pylori infection is high. Tests for H. pylori infection can be divided into non-invasive and minimally invasive tests. Many different antibiotic combination therapies (eg, triple therapy, quadruple therapy, levofloxacin-based therapy, sequential therapy, concomitant therapy, and probiotics with eradication therapy) are now available for the eradication of H. pylori infection. In patients who are symptomatic without an organic pathology, functional dyspepsia and other causes of abdominal pain need to be considered. Functional dyspepsia is best managed using a multifaceted approach by establishing a good physician-patient relationship, dietary and lifestyle interventions, medical therapy, psychotherapy, and the use of psychotropic medications. This review rationalizes the current-day recommendations for the evaluation and management of patients with dyspepsia in a clinical setting.

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.

Association between Helicobacter pylori infection and pancreatic cancer development: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most troublesome malignancies with dismal prognosis. H. pylori has been recognized as a type I carcinogen. Several studies have evaluated the association between H. pylori infection and pancreatic cancer development, however, the conclusions are inconsistent.

METHODS

Literature search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CNKI databases to identify eligible researches. We performed overall meta-analysis of all studies included and subgroup analysis based on regional distribution. Quality of the studies (assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for case-control studies) and CagA+ strains of H. pylori were taken into consideration, and we conducted additional analyses including high-quality researches and those concerning CagA+ H. pylori respectively.

RESULTS

9 studies involving 3033 subjects (1083 pancreatic cancer cases, 1950 controls) were included. Summary OR and 95%CI of the overall meta-analysis of all included studies were 1.47 and 1.22-1.77, pooled data of the 4 high-quality studies were OR 1.28, 95%CI 1.01-1.63. OR of the 5 studies examined CagA+ strains was 1.42, corresponding 95%CI was 0.79 to 2.57. Summary estimates of subgroup analysis based on regional distribution are as follows, Europe group: OR 1.56, 95%CI 1.15-2.10; East Asia group: OR 2.01, 95%CI 1.33-3.02; North America group: OR 1.17, 95%CI 0.87-1.58. There was not obvious heterogeneity across the 9 studies. No publication bias was detected.

CONCLUSION

H. pylori infection is significantly, albeit weakly, associated with pancreatic cancer development. The association is prominent in Europe and East Asia, but not in North America. CagA+ H. pylori strains appear not to be associated with pancreatic cancer. However, more studies, especially prospective studies, are needed to validate our results.

[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/).

Dyspepsia: organic versus functional

Dyspepsia is the medical term for difficult digestion. It consists of various symptoms in the upper abdomen, such as fullness, discomfort, early satiation, bloating, heartburn, belching, nausea, vomiting, or pain. The prevalence of dyspepsia in the western world is approximately 20% to 25%. Dyspepsia can be divided into 2 main categories: "organic" and "functional dyspepsia" (FD). Organic causes of dyspepsia are peptic ulcer, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric or esophageal cancer, pancreatic or biliary disorders, intolerance to food or drugs, and other infectious or systemic diseases. Pathophysiological mechanisms underlying FD are delayed gastric emptying, impaired gastric accommodation to a meal, hypersensitivity to gastric distension, altered duodenal sensitivity to lipids or acids, altered antroduodenojenunal motility and gastric electrical rhythm, unsuppressed postprandial phasic contractility in the proximal stomach, and autonomic nervous system-central nervous system dysregulation. Pathogenetic factors in FD are genetic predisposition, infection from Helicobacter pylori or other organisms, inflammation, and psychosocial factors. Diagnostic evaluation of dyspepsia includes upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, abdominal ultrasonography, gastric emptying testing (scintigraphy, breath test, ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging), and gastric accommodation evaluation (magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, single-photon emission computed tomography, and barostat). Antroduodenal manometry can be used for the assessment of the myoelectrical activity of the stomach, whereas sensory function can be evaluated with the barostat, tensostat, and satiety test. Management of FD includes general measures, acid-suppressive drugs, eradication of H. pylori, prokinetic agents, fundus-relaxing drugs, antidepressants, and psychological interventions. This review presents an update on the diagnosis of patients presenting with dyspepsia, with an emphasis on the pathophysiological and pathogenetic mechanisms of FD and the differential diagnosis with organic causes of dyspepsia. The management of uninvestigated and FD, as well as the established and new pharmaceutical agents, is also discussed.

Changes of upper gastrointestinal symptoms and endoscopic findings in Japan over 25 years

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In Japan, the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection has decreased recently, but there has been little longitudinal research on the changes of symptoms and endoscopic findings over many years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in endoscopic findings and symptoms over time in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for assessment of upper abdominal symptoms.

METHODS

Over a period of 25 years, between 1981 and 2005, we performed three investigations (1981-2, 1990-1 and 2004-5) on the symptoms and endoscopic findings of patients undergoing endoscopy at Kawasaki Medical School Hospital for the assessment of upper abdominal symptoms.

RESULTS

The most common complaint for all ages was "discomfort and/or pain". Over time, the percentage of patients complaining of "heartburn" increased almost 5-fold. With respect to endoscopic findings, the prevalence of peptic ulcers decreased, whereas the detection of no abnormalities and the detection of erosive esophagitis increased.

CONCLUSION

In the future in Japan, there will be fewer patients with peptic ulcers and more patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease or dyspeptic patients who display no endoscopic abnormal findings.

Current medical treatments of dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome

Dyspepsia is a highly prevalent condition characterized by symptoms originating in the gastroduodenal region without underlying organic disorder. Treatment modalities include acid-suppressive drugs, gastroprokinetic drugs, Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy, tricyclic antidepressants, and psychological therapies. Irritable bowel syndrome is a multifactorial, lower functional gastrointestinal disorder involving disturbances of the brain-gut axis. The pathophysiology provides the basis for pharmacotherapy: abnormal gastrointestinal motor functions, visceral hypersensitivity, psychosocial factors, intraluminal changes, and mucosal immune activation. Medications targeting chronic constipation or diarrhea may also relieve irritable bowel syndrome. Novel approaches to treatment require approval, and promising agents are guanylate cyclase cagonists, atypical benzodiazepines, antibiotics, immune modulators, and probiotics.

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.

Evaluation and management of dyspepsia

Dyspepsia is a common clinical problem seen by both primary care physicians and gastroenterologists. Initial evaluation should focus on the identification and treatment of potential causes of symptoms such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcer disease, and medication side effects but also on recognizing those at risk for more serious conditions such as gastric cancer. This manuscript discusses the evaluation and management of dyspepsia including the role of proton-pump inhibitors, treatment of Helicobacter pylori, and endoscopy. Finally, treatment of refractory functional dyspepsia is addressed.

Helicobacter pylori infection in developing countries: the burden for how long?

Approximately 50% (over 3 billion) of the world populations are known to be infected with Helicobacter pylori , mainly in the developing countries . Among those, hundreds of millions of people develop peptic ulceration during their lifetime and still tens of millions might progress to gastric cancer. Possible modes of H. pylori transmission generally described are through direct contact between family members and also through contaminated water and food. Because the high prevalence of infection occurs mainly in developing countries and because the test-and-treat strategy puts a huge economic burden on many of these countries, it is time to take an immediate action toward this bacterial infection and adopt a strategy to prevent it. To address this issue, an updated prevalence of infection, modes of transmission, economics of infection and preventative measures to block the infection process have been discussed.

Meta-analysis: Helicobacter pylori'test and treat' compared with empirical acid suppression for managing dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

Which of Helicobacter pylori'test and treat' or empirical acid suppression should be preferred for the initial management of uncomplicated dyspepsia is controversial. Aim To conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 'test and treat' vs. empirical acid suppression in adults with uncomplicated dyspepsia in primary care.

METHODS

Investigators provided original data sets for analysis. Effect of management strategy on symptom status and dyspepsia-related resource use at 12-month follow-up was examined by pooling symptom and cost data to obtain relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic at 12 months and weighted mean difference (WMD) in costs between the two strategies with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

We identified three eligible RCTs containing 1547 patients, 791 (51%) of whom were assigned to 'test and treat'. There was no difference detected in symptom-cure at 12 months (RR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.95-1.03). There was a nonsignificant trend towards cost-savings with 'test and treat' (WMD in costs = - 28.91 pound; 95% CI: - 68.48 pound to 10.65 pound).

CONCLUSIONS

There was little difference in symptom-resolution or costs between the two strategies. A combination of patient and physician preference should determine the initial approach to the management of uncomplicated dyspepsia.

Changes in indications for upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy and endoscopic findings during the last fifteen years in south-western Greece

BACKGROUND

During the past years, major advances in the management of upper gastrointestinal diseases have been achieved. The aim of this study was to determine if changes in indications for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and endoscopic findings have occurred during the last 15 years in our area.

METHODS

Indications for upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy and endoscopy findings of patients who underwent upper endoscopy in years 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 in our department were compared.

RESULTS

Over the 15-year period, the number of diagnostic endoscopies performed in our department in years 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 increased (953, 1245, 2350, and 2528, respectively). Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding had become less frequent (40%, 42.8%, 19.7%, 14.3%, P<0.001), but dyspepsia (24.4%, 33.6%, 54.3%, 51.3%, P=0.002) and reflux (1.8%, 1.3%, 5.1%, 10.8%, P=0.005) more frequent indications for upper endoscopy. The endoscopic findings of duodenal ulcer (39.1%, 22.5%, 20.5%, 9.3%, P<0.001), gastric ulcer (15.9%, 8.3%, 5.7%, 4.6%, P=0.036) as well as erosive gastroduodenitis (35.6%, 22.2%, 15.3%, 4.7%, P<0.001) decreased, whereas that of reflux esophagitis (3.1%, 10.1%, 12%, 16%, P=0.034) increased. Moreover, the percentage of patients with negative endoscopy or minimal endoscopic findings (eg, nonerosive gastritis) increased (12.8%, 33.7%, 54.1%, 64.4%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In south-western Greece, dyspepsia and reflux as an indication for upper endoscopy have been increasing, whereas acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding has been decreasing. The finding of peptic ulcers at the upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy has become significantly less frequent, while the percentage of patients with negative results of endoscopy seems to have been increasing rapidly.

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.

Role of Helicobacter pylori in functional dyspepsia

The aetiology of dyspepsia is unknown in the majority of patients. Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) is the cause in a subset of patients. A non invasive test to assess the presence of H pylori is recommended in the management of patients under the age of 50 presenting to a family practitioner with dyspepsia. A urea breath test or a stool antigen test are the most reliable non invasive tests. Eradication of H pylori will reduce the risk to the patient with dyspepsia of developing a peptic ulcer, reduce the complication rate if prescribed non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs and later reduce the risk of gastric cancer. The recommended treatment for non ulcer dyspepsia associated with a H pylori infection should be a 10-d course of treatment with a PPI and two antibiotics. Treatment efficacy should be assessed four weeks after completing treatment with a urea breath test or a stool antigen test.

Cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori "test and treat" for patients with typical reflux symptoms in a population with a high prevalence of H. pylori infection: a Markov model analysis

OBJECTIVE

Patients with typical reflux symptoms may have underlying peptic ulcer disease (PUD) in a population with a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection. In the present study we sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of the H. pylori "test and treat" strategy with that of empirical proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and endoscopy in patients with typical reflux and a high prevalence of H. pylori infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Markov model was designed to compare the outcomes of three treatment strategies over 12 months among a hypothetical cohort of patients presenting with typical reflux symptoms. There were four exclusive underlying H. pylori- and PUD-related comorbidities in the hypothetical cohort: (1) H. pylori-related PUD, (2) H. pylori infection without PUD, (3) PUD without H. pylori infection and (4) absence of both PUD and H. pylori infection. The transition probabilities and resource utilization were derived from the literature. Percentage of PUD patients treated, total number of symptom-free patient-years gained and total direct medical cost were estimated.

RESULTS

By comparing each strategy individually with the no therapy strategy, it was found that the incremental costs per ulcer treated for H. pylori "test and treat", endoscopy and empirical PPI therapy were USD 1778, USD 1797 and USD 2158, respectively. The results of the model were sensitive to the prevalence of H. pylori infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the H. pylori "test and treat" and initial endoscopic strategies were shown to be more cost-effective than empirical PPI therapy for treating undiagnosed PUD among patients presenting with typical reflux symptoms. The H. pylori "test and treat" strategy appeared to be only slightly more cost-effective than initial endoscopy in a population with a high prevalence of H. pylori infection.

Guidelines for the management of dyspepsia

Dyspepsia is a chronic or recurrent pain or discomfort centered in the upper abdomen; patients with predominant or frequent (more than once a week) heartburn or acid regurgitation, should be considered to have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) until proven otherwise. Dyspeptic patients over 55 yr of age, or those with alarm features should undergo prompt esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). In all other patients, there are two approximately equivalent options: (i) test and treat for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) using a validated noninvasive test and a trial of acid suppression if eradication is successful but symptoms do not resolve or (ii) an empiric trial of acid suppression with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for 4-8 wk. The test-and-treat option is preferable in populations with a moderate to high prevalence of H. pylori infection (> or =10%); empirical PPI is an initial option in low prevalence situations. If initial acid suppression fails after 2-4 wk, it is reasonable to consider changing drug class or dosing. If the patient fails to respond or relapses rapidly on stopping antisecretory therapy, then the test-and-treat strategy is best applied before consideration of referral for EGD. Prokinetics are not currently recommended as first-line therapy for uninvestigated dyspepsia. EGD is not mandatory in those who remain symptomatic as the yield is low; the decision to endoscope or not must be based on clinical judgement. In patients who do respond to initial therapy, stop treatment after 4-8 wk; if symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified. The management of functional dyspepsia is challenging when initial antisecretory therapy and H. pylori eradication fails. There are very limited data to support the use of low-dose tricyclic antidepressants or psychological treatments in functional dyspepsia.

Helicobacter pylori "test-and-treat" strategy is not suitable for the management of patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia in Shanghai

OBJECTIVE

The safety of Helicobacter pylori "test-and-treat" and "test-and-endoscopy" strategies for the management of young patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia has not been evaluated in Shanghai.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 14,101 consecutive patients with dyspepsia receiving endoscopy in our hospital from October 2002 to December 2003 were retrospectively studied. The detection rates of esophageal or gastroduodenal malignancies and alarm symptoms were investigated, and H. pylori status was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 202 (1.4%) gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies were found, including 162 cases (1.15%) of gastric cancer, 4 of gastric lymphoma, 35 (0.25%) of esophageal cancer and 1 case of duodenal cancer. Among those patients with GI malignancies, 99 (49.0%) were infected with H. pylori and 108 (53.5%) presented with alarm symptoms. Eighteen patients (0.46%, 18/3952) under 45 years of age were diagnosed as having gastric cancer. Of these patients, 5 (27.8%) presented with alarm symptoms and 13 (72.2%) were infected with H. pylori. If the H. pylori "test-and-treat" strategy were used in dyspeptic patients under the age of 45 years without alarm symptoms in the Shanghai region, then 13 cases (72.2%) of gastric cancer would be missed. If the H. pylori "test-and-endoscopy" strategy were applied, then 3 cases (16.7%) of gastric cancer would be missed.

CONCLUSIONS

H. pylori "test-and-treat" and "test-and-endoscopy" strategies are both not suitable for the management of patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia in Shanghai. For most Shanghai dyspeptic patients, prompt endoscopy should be recommended as the first-line initial management option.

Cost-effectiveness of a 'score and scope' strategy for the management of dyspepsia

OBJECTIVE

It is important to identify the best initial work-up in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia because of its epidemiological and economical relevance. The objective of the study was to assess systematically the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of invasive and non-invasive strategies for the management of dyspepsia.

METHODS

A decision analysis was performed to compare prompt endoscopy, score and scope, test and scope, test and treat, and empirical antisecretory treatment. Published and local data on the prevalence of different diagnoses, rates of Helicobacter pylori infection, accuracy values of diagnostic tests, and effectiveness of drug treatments were used. The perspective of analysis was that of the public healthcare payer, and only direct costs were included, with a one-year post-therapy time horizon. The main outcome measure was cost per asymptomatic patient, valued in 2003 Euros.

RESULTS

Endoscopy was found to be the most effective strategy for the management of dyspepsia (38.4% asymptomatic patients), followed by test and scope (35.5%), test and treat (35.3%), score and scope (34.7%), and empirical treatment (28.5%). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that score and scope was the most cost-effective alternative (483.17 Euros per asymptomatic patient), followed by prompt endoscopy (1396.85 Euros). Sensitivity analyses showed variations when varying the values of prevalence of duodenal ulcer, and the values of healing of functional dyspepsia with antisecretory and eradication drugs. There were no changes when varying the prevalence of H. pylori in dyspepsia.

CONCLUSIONS

We would recommend stratifying patients by a score system, referring first to endoscopy those patients at higher risk of organic dyspepsia.

Review article: uninvestigated dyspepsia and non-ulcer dyspepsia-the use of endoscopy and the roles of Helicobacter pylori eradication and antisecretory therapy

Due to its prevalence, impact on quality-of-life and the associated significant health resource utilization, dyspepsia is a major healthcare concern. The available management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia include prompt endoscopy, the 'test-and-treat' strategy for Helicobacter pylori, and empiric antisecretory therapy. There is consensus that endoscopy should be reserved for patients with alarm features (e.g. symptom onset after 45 years of age, recurrent vomiting, weight loss, dysphagia, evidence of bleeding, anaemia), H. pylori-positive individuals who fail test-and-treat, and those with an inadequate response to empiric antisecretory therapy. Factors influencing the decision between test-and-treat and empiric antisecretory therapy in uninvestigated dyspepsia include the local prevalence of H. pylori and peptic ulcer disease and the proportion of ulcers attributable to H. pylori. For uninvestigated dyspepsia in patients without alarm features, test-and-treat is the preferred initial management method in Europe based on the relatively high prevalence of H. pylori/peptic ulcer disease whereas empiric antisecretory therapy is preferred in many parts of the United States, where the prevalence of H. pylori/peptic ulcer disease is relatively low. In patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia, H. pylori eradication and empiric antisecretory therapy result in comparable and small, but statistically significant, improvements in dyspepsia. Empiric antisecretory therapy is the preferred initial method of managing non-ulcer dyspepsia in Europe and the US. The test-and-treat approach would receive increased enthusiasm if H. pylori cure is shown to prevent development of gastric cancer in non-ulcer dyspepsia patients in a large Western trial.

Economic evaluation of Helicobacter pylori eradication in the CADET-Hp randomized controlled trial of H. pylori-positive primary care patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

Adult Helicobacter pylori-positive patients by 13C-urea breath test with uninvestigated dyspepsia symptoms were randomized to 1-week eradication treatment with omeprazole, metronidazole and clarithromycin (OMC) vs. omeprazole and placebo antimicrobials (OPP) in the Canadian Adult Dyspepsia Empiric Treatment-H. pylori-positive (CADET-Hp) study.

AIM

To perform an economic evaluation of this 1-year study.

METHODS

Following blind eradication treatment, family practitioners managed patients according to their usual practices. Health resource utilization information was collected prospectively. From the mean costs of the health resources consumed and the treatment outcomes, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net benefits of eradication treatment vs. OPP were determined.

RESULTS

Eradication therapy significantly improved dyspepsia symptoms (treatment success: OMC, 50%; OPP, 36%; P = 0.02). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of OMC vs. OPP was - 387 Canadian dollars (CAD$) per treatment success (90% CI, - CAD$1707, CAD$607), indicating a lower cost with treatment success. The incremental net benefit analysis showed that H. pylori eradication was cost-effective if the willingness-to-pay value exceeded a nominal figure of CAD$100 from a health service perspective or CAD$607 from the societal perspective.

CONCLUSION

In uninvestigated patients presenting with dyspepsia at the primary care level, eradication of H. pylori in those who are H. pylori positive leads to a cost-effective improvement in dyspepsia symptoms compared with a strategy of not eradicating H. pylori in these patients.

Cost-effectiveness of routine endoscopic biopsies for Helicobacter pylori detection in patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

The role of endoscopic biopsies in the detection of Helicobacter pylori in patients with nonulcer dyspepsia is poorly defined. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of performing routine biopsies for the detection of H pylori at upper endoscopy in these patients.

METHODS

Clinical decision-making was modeled based on outcomes data from published articles and expert opinion. The target group was adults, less than 45 years of age, with nonulcer dyspepsia as defined by a normal endoscopy. Costs, expressed in Canadian dollars, were tabulated over a 1-year time horizon. The main outcome was relief of symptoms, defined as the absence of symptom persistence or recurrence over the 12 months. A strategy of performing a biopsy for the detection of H pylori with a rapid urease test during gastroscopy was compared with that of not performing a biopsy. In addition, as a secondary analysis, the cost-effectiveness of obtaining a biopsy specimen for histopathologic evaluation in patients after a negative rapid urease test was evaluated.

RESULTS

A strategy of endoscopy with biopsy and rapid urease testing costs 3940 dollars per additional symptom-free patient as compared with endoscopy without biopsy. This result was sensitive to the difference in symptomatic recurrence rate at 1 year between patients in whom H pylori was successfully and unsuccessfully eradicated, which in this analysis, was set at 9.9%. Only when the difference in symptomatic recurrence in patients with successful versus unsuccessful eradication fell to less than 4% was endoscopy with biopsy over 10,000 dollars per cured patient greater than endoscopy without biopsy. The conclusions were otherwise robust when varying the values of other variables across clinically relevant ranges. There was little additional benefit associated with histopathologic assessment of biopsy specimens in patients with a negative rapid urease test and the cost per additional cure was 25,529 dollars.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with nonulcer dyspepsia under age 45 years undergoing endoscopy, routine procurement of a biopsy specimen for detection of H pylori was more costly yet more effective compared with not obtaining a specimen. The cost-effectiveness of a biopsy is dependent on the benefits of H pylori eradication in this patient population. The less likely a patient with nonulcer dyspepsia is to become asymptomatic after successful H pylori eradication, the more costly a strategy of routinely obtaining a specimen at endoscopy. The additional cost of sending a specimen for histopathologic analysis if the rapid urease test is negative does not appear warranted based on cost-effectiveness considerations.

Empirical prescribing for dyspepsia: randomised controlled trial of test and treat versus omeprazole treatment

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of a "Helicobacter pylori test and treat" strategy with that of an empirical trial of omeprazole in the non-endoscopic management by empirical prescribing of young patients with dyspepsia.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Hospital gastroenterology unit.

PARTICIPANTS

219 patients under 45 years old presenting with dyspepsia without alarm symptoms.

INTERVENTION

Patients received treatment with omeprazole 20 mg (group A) or with a urea breath test followed by an eradication treatment in case of H pylori infection or omeprazole alone in non-infected patients (group B). Lack of improvement or recurrence of symptoms prompted endoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Improvement in symptoms assessed by a dyspepsia severity score every two months; use of medical resources (endoscopic workload and medical consultation); clinical outcome.

RESULTS

96/109 (88%) patients in group A and 61/110 (55%) in group B (P < 0.0001) had endoscopy: in 19 patients in group A and 32 in group B (20/67 infected and 12/43 non-infected) because of no improvement; in 77 further patients in group A and 29 in group B (7 infected and 22 non-infected) because of recurrence of symptoms during follow up. Endoscopy showed peptic ulcers only in group A; oesophagitis occurred significantly more often in group B than in group A. About 80% of examinations were normal in both groups, but nine duodenal scars occurred in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Eradication treatment allows resolution of symptoms in a large number of patients with dyspepsia and reduces the endoscopic workload. After a trial of omeprazole, symptoms recur in nearly every patient. Such treatment is also likely to mask an appreciable number of peptic ulcers and cases of oesophagitis.