Decision-making in dyspepsia: controversies in primary and secondary care

Criteria for Referring Patients With Outpatient Gastroenterological Disease for Specialist Consultation: A Review of the Literature

Background

Demands on gastroenterology are growing, as a result of the high prevalence of digestive diseases, the impact of colon cancer screening programs and an aging population. Prioritizing referrals to gastroenterology would assist in managing wait times. Our objectives were (1) to assess whether there were consistent criteria to guide referrals from family physicians for gastroenterological outpatient consultation and (2) to determine if there were different levels of urgency or priority in referral criteria.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review, searching Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases from 1997 to 2009, using the terms referral, triage, consultation and at least one from a list of gastroenterology-specific search terms. Of 2978 initial results, 51 papers were retrieved, and 20 were retained after review by two reviewers. Additional publications were identified through hand searches of retained papers, website searches and nomination by a panel of specialists.

Results

Thirty-four papers, reports or websites were retained. No referral criteria covered the spectrum of disorders that might be referred by family physicians to gastroenterologists. Criteria for referral were most commonly listed for suspected colorectal cancer, followed by suspected upper GI cancer, hepatitis, and functional disorders.

Conclusions

A clinical panel comprised of gastroenterologists and primary care providers, informed by this literature review, are completing the work of formulating a Gastroenterology Priority Referral Score, and plan to test the reliability and validity of the tool for determining the relative urgency for referral from primary care to gastroenterology.

Therapeutic strategies for the treatment of dyspepsia

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Dyspeptic symptoms are highly prevalent in the population and represent a major burden for healthcare systems. The ROME III criteria address and define two separate entities of functional dyspepsia: epigastric pain syndrome and postprandial distress syndrome. The etiology of dyspeptic symptoms is heterogeneous, underlying mechanisms are poorly understood and symptomatic improvement after drug therapy is often incomplete.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This review of the literature included Medline data being published in the field of functional dyspepsia and different therapies.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will gain a current, unbiased understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying functional dyspepsia and of the therapeutic regimens based on randomized, controlled trials and on the meta-analyses that have been published on different therapeutic agents.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Before starting medical treatment, a careful physical examination should exclude 'alarm symptoms'. Laboratory data, ultrasound and endoscopy are recommended in patients older than 45 - 55 years (depending on the guidelines being used). In areas with a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori, the initial strategy includes 'test and treat' for H. pylori in addition to empiric acid suppressive therapy. Many studies have focused on the role of gastrointestinal dysmotility and hypersensitivity for dyspepsia with inconclusive results. Further therapeutic medical strategies include prokinetics, herbal preparations and psycho-/neurotopic drugs as well as additional psycho- or hypnotherapy.

Dyspepsia and Helicobacter pylori

Dyspepsia is defined as a chronic or recurrent pain centered in the upper abdomen. Dyspeptic symptoms have a high prevalence in the population and represent a common reason for patients to see a primary care physician. Therefore, dyspepsia displays a major health care burden and produces high socioeconomic costs. The etiology of dyspeptic symptoms is various and complex and has opened a wide spectrum of putative mechanisms. In a subset of patients dyspeptic symptoms are likely to originate from Helicobacter pylori infection. Population-based studies have demonstrated that H. pylori is detected more frequently in dyspeptic patients compared to controls. H. pylori eradication therapy gives modest but significant benefit in non-ulcer dyspepsia and leads to long-term symptom improvement. It also reduces the risk of developing peptic ulcer disease and other H. pylori-related gastric pathologies (i.e. atrophic gastritis, gastric cancer). The main therapeutic strategy for managing dyspepsia in patients under the age of 45 years is 'test and treat'. H. pylori eradication is recommended in patients with dyspepsia and no other gastroduodenal abnormalities than H. pylori induced gastritis. In patients presenting with alarm features a prompt upper endoscopy should be performed to exclude peptic ulcer disease, esophageal and gastric malignancies or other more rare upper gastrointestinal diseases.

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.