Management in general practice of patients with persistent dyspepsia. A decision analysis

A second-order simulation model of the cost-effectiveness of managing dyspepsia in the United States

BACKGROUND

The "gold-standard'' evidence of effectiveness for a clinical practice guideline is the randomized controlled trial (RCT), although RCTs have a limited ability to explore potential management strategies for a chronic disease where these interact over time. Modeling can be used to fill this gap, and models have become increasingly complex, with both dynamic sampling and representation of second-order uncertainty to provide more precise estimates. However, both simulation modeling and probabilistic sensitivity analysis are rarely used together. The objective of this study was to explore uncertainty in controversial areas of the 2005 American Gastroenterology Association position statement on the management of dyspepsia.

METHODS

Individual sampling model, incorporating a second-order probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

POPULATION

US adult patients presenting in primary care with dyspepsia. Interventions compared: empirical acid suppression, test and treat for Helicobacter pylori, initial endoscopy, acid suppression then endoscopy, test and treat then proton pump inhibitor (PPI) then endoscopy.

OUTCOMES

Cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life years, and costs in US dollars from a societal perspective, measured over a 5-year period.

DATA SOURCES

mainly Cochrane meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Endoscopy was dominated at all ages by other strategies. PPI therapy was the most cost-effective strategy in 30-year-olds with a low prevalence of H. pylori. In 60-year-olds, H. pylori test and treat was the most cost-effective option.

CONCLUSIONS

Acid suppression alone was more cost-effective than either endoscopy or H. pylori test and treat in younger dyspepsia patients with a low prevalence of infection.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of two management strategies for dyspepsia

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness of endoscopy and empirical proton pump inhibition (PPI) therapy for management of dyspepsia in primary care.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial, including prospective collection of economic resource data, was conducted in general practice from June 2000 to August 2002, Aarhus County, Denmark. We randomly assigned 368 dyspeptic patients from thirty-two general practices to treatment with omeprazol 40 mg for 2 weeks (n=184) or endoscopy (n=184). The study adopted a societal perspective, and the year of costing was 2006.

OUTCOME MEASURES

days free of dyspeptic symptoms and proportion of patients with dyspepsia after 1 year based on patients' and general practitioners' (GPs) assessment. Costs were estimated from patient and GP questionnaires and from medical records.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness (CE) ratio for 1 day free of dyspeptic symptoms using the endoscopy strategy was euro/day 154 compared with the PPI strategy. The incremental CE ratio for one person free of dyspeptic symptoms after 1 year using the endoscopy strategy was euro13,905 based on the patients' evaluation, and the incremental CE ratio for one person free of predominant symptoms after 1 year was euro5,990 according to the GPs' evaluation. The PPI strategy was both cheaper and more effective than the endoscopy strategy when reflux was the predominant symptom.

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy using empirical antisecretory PPI therapy should be recommended if the alternative is an endoscopy strategy for managing dyspeptic patients in general practice, especially if reflux was the predominant symptom.

An economic model of long-term use of celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis

Background

Previous evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of the cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex, Pfizer Inc, USA) have produced conflicting results. The recent controversy over the cardiovascular (CV) risks of rofecoxib and other coxibs has renewed interest in the economic profile of celecoxib, the only coxib now available in the United States. The objective of our study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of celecoxib compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) in a population of 60-year-old osteoarthritis (OA) patients with average risks of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) complications who require chronic daily NSAID therapy.

Methods

We used decision analysis based on data from the literature to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a modified societal perspective over patients' lifetimes, with outcomes expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the impacts of advancing age, CV thromboembolic event risk, different analytic horizons and alternate treatment strategies after UGI adverse events.

Results

Our main findings were: 1) the base model incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for celecoxib versus nsNSAIDs was $31,097 per QALY; 2) the ICER per QALY was $19,309 for a model in which UGI ulcer and ulcer complication event risks increased with advancing age; 3) the ICER per QALY was $17,120 in sensitivity analyses combining serious CV thromboembolic event (myocardial infarction, stroke, CV death) risks with base model assumptions.

Conclusion

Our model suggests that chronic celecoxib is cost-effective versus nsNSAIDs in a population of 60-year-old OA patients with average risks of UGI events.

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.

Economic evaluation of a randomized trial comparing Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat and prompt endoscopy strategies for managing dyspepsia in a primary-care setting

BACKGROUND

In western European countries, most dyspeptic patients are initially managed by their general practitioners (GPs), who use a range of strategies to manage dyspepsia. We performed an economic analysis of a Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat strategy versus a prompt endoscopy approach in a primary care setting.

METHODS

Data were used from the Strategy: Endoscopy versus Serology (SENSE) study, performed in The Netherlands from 1998 to 2001. Patients were randomized to a prompt endoscopy (n = 105) or test-and-treat (n = 118) group. Follow-up lasted 1 year. Adverse events were not recorded in the SENSE study. Health care costs were based on the total amount of dyspepsia-related drugs used, the number of dyspepsia-related GP visits, the number of diagnostic tests, and the number of dyspepsia-related referrals to specialists. The use of medical resources was calculated as standardized costs for 1999, recorded as euros. (On December 31, 1999, 1.00 Euro = 1.00 US dollar.) Quality of life was measured at inclusion and 1 year later, using the RAND-36 questionnaire. To calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), we transformed the individual scores of the RAND-36 into 1 overall score, the Health Utilities Index Mark 2, which introduced a limitation to the study. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. The 95% confidence limits were calculated using a parametric bootstrap method with angular transformation. All cost data were analyzed from a third-party payer perspective.

RESULTS

The total costs per patient were 511 Euros, with 0.037 QALY gained per patient, in the test-and-treat group, and 748 Euros, with 0.032 QALY gained per patient, in the endoscopy group (between groups, P < 0.001 and P = NS, respectively). The point estimate of the ICER indicated that the test-and-treat strategy yielded cost savings and QALYs gained. Parametric bootstrap confidence limits indicated cost savings per QALY gained in 75.7% of the bootstrap simulations.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of data from the SENSE1026 study suggests that the H pylori test-and-treat strategy was more cost-effective than prompt endoscopy in the initial management of dyspepsia in general practice, from the perspective of a third-party payer.

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.

Diagnostic approach to dyspepsia

The optimal diagnostic approach to the dyspeptic patient in primary care is still debated. Early endoscopy continues to be the diagnostic gold standard but competing non-invasive strategies challenge this. The most important approaches are empiric antisecretory treatment reserving endoscopy for unresponsive patients and patients with an early symptomatic relapse and helicobacter-based strategies reserving endoscopy for infected patients (test-and-scope) or for failures after eradication therapy (test-and-treat). Early endoscopy is recommended in patients with alarm features and should be considered in patients with new onset dyspepsia after age 50. In the remaining patients, early investigation can only be recommended in areas providing endoscopy at a low cost and with a short waiting list. The test-and-scope strategy may lead to a rise in the referral rates for endoscopy and cannot be recommended. The test-and-treat strategy is well documented in clinical trials as a safe and cost-effective approach. Helicobacter-based strategies are challenged by a decreasing prevalence of peptic ulcer disease and of the infection. In the near future, the empirical acid inhibition strategy will probably be cost-effective as gastro-oesophageal reflux becomes the predominant disorder in dyspeptic patients.

Predominant symptom behavior in patients with persistent dyspepsia during treatment

BACKGROUND

Grouping of patients based on a predominant dyspeptic symptom is frequently employed in management strategies for dyspepsia. Such subdivision, however, suggests that dyspeptic symptom patterns are constant over time.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the behavior of symptoms over time and to study the effects of diagnostic procedures and treatment on the pattern and severity of dyspeptic symptoms.

METHODS

Patients with persistent dyspeptic symptoms completed a validated questionnaire at regular time intervals as part of a clinical trial in primary care. Based on predominant symptoms, patients were classified into ulcer-like dyspepsia, reflux-like dyspepsia, dysmotility-like dyspepsia, and unspecific dyspepsia according to the Rome II criteria.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months by 185, 172, 169, and 170 patients, respectively. At baseline, 35% of patients reported predominantly reflux-like dyspepsia, 34% had ulcer-like dyspepsia, 16% had dysmotility-like dyspepsia, and in 15% symptoms were not specific. During the 6-month follow-up period, only 35% of patients kept the same predominant symptom. Symptom (in)stability was not dependent on diagnostic procedures or on therapy with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists, prokinetics, or antacids.

CONCLUSION

In the majority of dyspeptic patients, symptoms change continuously as time goes on. Symptom instability is not influenced by diagnostic procedures or therapy. Thus, there is little sense in symptom-based management of dyspepsia in primary care.

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.

A rational approach to uninvestigated dyspepsia in primary care: review of the literature

In this paper the rationale and limitations of the four most important approach strategies to dyspepsia in primary care (empiric treatment, prompt endoscopy, "test-and-scope", and "test-and-treat") are analysed. It is concluded that in the absence of alarm symptoms, a "test-and-treat" approach is currently the most rational approach provided that three conditions are met: (1) a highly accurate test should be used, (2) the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori in the population should not be too low, and (3) an effective anti-H pylori regimen should be prescribed taking sufficient time to instruct and motivate the patient.

Testing for Helicobacter pylori in dyspeptic patients suspected of peptic ulcer disease in primary care: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To develop an easily applicable diagnostic scoring method to determine the presence of peptic ulcers in dyspeptic patients in a primary care setting; to evaluate whether Helicobacter pylori testing adds value to history taking.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

General practitioners' offices in the Utrecht area of the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

565 patients consulting a general practitioner about dyspeptic symptoms of at least two weeks' duration.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The presence or absence of peptic ulcer; independent predictors of the presence of peptic ulcer as obtained from history taking and the added value of H pylori testing were quantified by using multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A history of peptic ulcer, pain on an empty stomach, and smoking were strong and independent diagnostic determinants of peptic ulcer disease, with odds ratios of 5.5 (95% confidence interval 2.6 to 11.8), 2.8 (1.0 to 4.0), and 2.0 (1.4 to 6.0) respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC area) of these determinants together was 0.71. Adding the H pylori test increased the ROC area only to 0.75. However, in a group of patients at high risk, identified by means of a simple scoring rule based on history taking, the predictive value for the presence of peptic ulcer increased from 16% to 26% after a positive H pylori test.

CONCLUSIONS

In the total group of dyspeptic patients in primary care, H pylori testing has no value in addition to history taking for diagnosing peptic ulcer disease. In a subgroup of patients at high risk of having peptic ulcer disease, however, it might be useful to test for and treat H pylori infections.

Review article: the initial management of uninvestigated dyspepsia in younger patients-the value of symptom-guided strategies should be reconsidered

Several major management guidelines on dyspepsia (upper abdominal pain or discomfort) recommend an initial 'test-and-treat' policy (non-invasive Helicobacter pylori testing with eradication therapy if positive) in uninvestigated patients less than about 45 years old. However, the evidence that this is the optimal strategy is limited. Data from the few available randomized controlled trials provide evidence that this policy improves symptomatology more than a 'test-and-endoscope' approach (in which only H. pylori-positive patients undergo early endoscopy) in those with upper abdominal pain. The balance of cost-effectiveness data from clinical studies and decision analyses indicates that both 'test-and-treat' and empirical anti-secretory therapy approaches are more cost-effective than the 'test-and-endoscope' strategy. Therefore, given concerns about the safety of widespread H. pylori eradication, initial empirical anti-secretory therapy may be a cost-effective alternative to the 'test-and-treat' policy in some younger dyspeptic patients. The effectiveness of such an empirical approach might well be improved by symptom-guided therapy and there is growing evidence that the predominant dyspeptic symptom may provide this guide. The diagnostic, therapeutic and economic utility of this approach merits further clinical investigation.

Randomized controlled trial of omeprazole or endoscopy in patients with persistent dyspepsia: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis, Helicobacter pylori research and the development of proton pump inhibitors are having an increasing impact on the management of dyspepsia. However, clinical trials have not always included both H. pylori diagnosis and proton pump inhibitors in their protocols.

METHODS

Patients who were referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy by their general practitioner were randomized to either prompt endoscopy followed by directed medical treatment (conventional group, n=38), or to empirical treatment with omeprazole and, in the case of symptom relapse, serological screening for H. pylori infection followed by eradication therapy in seropositive patients (empirical group, n=42). The study lasted for up to 1 year.

RESULTS

In the empirical group, only 13 patients (31%) underwent endoscopy. The average number of days for which the patients kept records of their dyspeptic symptoms was 266 (95% CI: 226-307) in the empirical group, of which 166 (95% CI: 128-204) were symptom-free. In the conventional group, 159 (95% CI: 119-198) out of 255 days (95% CI: 209-302) were recorded as symptom-free. The average medical cost in the empirical group was $284 (95% CI: 218-350) and in the conventional group $491 (95% CI: 383-600). In the empirical group, two malignancies were found, whereas in the conventional group one malignancy was found.

CONCLUSIONS

The empirical drug treatment strategy in patients with persistent dyspeptic symptoms resulted in 69% fewer diagnostic endoscopies with lower medical costs and equal effectiveness in the first year, compared to prompt endoscopy followed by directed medical treatment.