Randomised controlled trial of Helicobacter pylori testing and endoscopy for dyspepsia in primary care

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of functional dyspepsia

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common disorder of gut-brain interaction, affecting approximately 7% of individuals in the community, with most patients managed in primary care. The last British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guideline for the management of dyspepsia was published in 1996. In the interim, substantial advances have been made in understanding the complex pathophysiology of FD, and there has been a considerable amount of new evidence published concerning its diagnosis and classification, with the advent of the Rome IV criteria, and management. The primary aim of this guideline, commissioned by the BSG, is to review and summarise the current evidence to inform and guide clinical practice, by providing a practical framework for evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of patients. The approach to investigating the patient presenting with dyspepsia is discussed, and efficacy of drugs in FD summarised based on evidence derived from a comprehensive search of the medical literature, which was used to inform an update of a series of pairwise and network meta-analyses. Specific recommendations have been made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. These provide both the strength of the recommendations and the overall quality of evidence. Finally, in this guideline, we consider novel treatments that are in development, as well as highlighting areas of unmet need and priorities for future research.

Effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Embase Classic, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to September 2019, with no language restrictions. Conference proceedings between 2001 and 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia in adult participants (age ≥18 years). Strategies of interest were prompt endoscopy; test for Helicobacter pylori and perform endoscopy in participants who test positive; test for H pylori and eradication treatment in those who test positive ("test and treat"); empirical acid suppression; or symptom based management. Trials reported dichotomous assessment of symptom status at final follow-up (≥12 months).

RESULTS

The review identified 15 eligible randomised controlled trials that comprised 6162 adult participants. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Strategies were ranked according to P score, which is the mean extent of certainty that one management strategy is better than another, averaged over all competing strategies. "Test and treat" ranked first (relative risk of remaining symptomatic 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.02, P score 0.79) and prompt endoscopy ranked second, but performed similarly (0.90, 0.80 to 1.02, P score 0.71). However, no strategy was significantly less effective than "test and treat." Participants assigned to "test and treat" were significantly less likely to receive endoscopy (relative risk v prompt endoscopy 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.31, P score 0.98) than all other strategies, except symptom based management (relative risk v symptom based management 0.60, 0.30 to 1.18). Dissatisfaction with management was significantly lower with prompt endoscopy (P score 0.95) than with "test and treat" (relative risk v "test and treat" 0.67, 0.46 to 0.98), and empirical acid suppression (relative risk v empirical acid suppression 0.58, 0.37 to 0.91). Upper gastrointestinal cancer rates were low in all trials. Results remained stable in sensitivity analyses, with minimal inconsistencies between direct and indirect results. Risk of bias of individual trials was high; blinding was not possible because of the pragmatic trial design.

CONCLUSIONS

"Test and treat" was ranked first, although it performed similarly to prompt endoscopy and was not superior to any of the other strategies. "Test and treat" led to fewer endoscopies than all other approaches, except symptom based management. However, participants showed a preference for prompt endoscopy as a management strategy for their symptoms.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42019132528.

Performance of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for dyspepsia in Saudi population: Prospective observational study

AIM: To evaluate adherence of primary care physicians (PCPs) to international guidelines when referring patients for upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE), evaluate the importance of alarm symptoms and the performance of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines in a Saudi population.

METHODS: A prospective, observational cross-sectional study on dyspeptic patients undergoing UGE who were referred by PCPs over a 4 mo period. Referrals were classified as appropriate or inappropriate according to adherence to ASGE guidelines.

RESULTS: Total of 221 dyspeptic patients was enrolled; 161 patients met our inclusion criteria. Mean age was 40.3 years (SD ± 18.1). Females comprised 70.1%. Alarm symptoms included low hemoglobin level (39%), weight loss (18%), vomiting (16%), loss of appetite (16%), difficulty swallowing (3%), and gastrointestinal bleeding (3%). Abnormal endoscopy findings included gastritis (52%), duodenitis (10%), hiatus hernia (7.8%), features suggestive of celiac disease (6.5%), ulcers (3.9%), malignancy (2.6%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD: 17%). Among patients who underwent UGE, 63% met ASGE guidelines, and 50% had abnormal endoscopic findings. Endoscopy was not indicated in remaining 37% of patients. Among the latter group, endoscopy was normal in 54% of patients. There was no difference in proportion of abnormal endoscopic findings between two groups (P = 0.639).

CONCLUSION: Dyspeptic patients had a low prevalence of important endoscopic lesions, and none of the alarm symptoms could significantly predict abnormal endoscopic findings.

Functional dyspepsia symptom resolution after Helicobacter pylori eradication with two different regimens

INTRODUCTION

Functional dyspepsia (FD), a common functional gastrointestinal disorder, has a complex underlying pathophysiological mechanism that involves changes in gastric motility, visceral hypersensitivity, genetic susceptibility, psychosocial factors and Helicobacter pylori infection. Although there are several H. pylori eradication treatments, there is not enough data that compare these different eradication treatments for FD symptom resolution. Most previous studies have focused on the eradication rates of H. pylori rather than symptom relief in FD.

AIM

In this regard, we aimed to clarify if there is any difference between standard triple therapy and sequential therapy for symptom resolution of FD patients with H. pylori, using a validated health quality index.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 194 patients were included in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive standard triple therapy (omeprazole, amoxicilline and clarithromycin for 14 days) or sequential therapy (omeprazole plus amoxicilline for 7 days and omeprazole twice daily, metronidazole and clarithromycin for a subsequent 7 days) by a blind physician for H. pylori status. Outcome measures were based on symptomatic improvement at 12 months using a validated measure of subjective well-being (Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale - GSRS).

RESULTS

We observed significant symptom resolution at 12 months in both treatment groups. On the other hand, there was no difference between the sequential or standard triple therapy groups regarding the alleviation of symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference for symptom relief exists between sequential and triple therapy in patients with FD.

Economic Evidence and Point-of-Care Testing

Health economics has been an established feature of the research, policymaking, practice and management in the delivery of healthcare. However its role is increasing as the cost of healthcare begins to drive changes in most healthcare systems. Thus the output from cost effectiveness studies is now being taken into account when making reimbursement decisions, e.g. in Australia and the United Kingdom. Against this background it is also recognised that the health economic tools employed in healthcare, and particularly the output from the use of these tools however, are not always employed in the routine delivery of services. One of the notable consequences of this situation is the poor record of innovation in healthcare with respect to the adoption of new technologies, and the realisation of their benefits. The evidence base for the effectiveness of diagnostic services is well known to be limited, and one consequence of this has been a very limited literature on cost effectiveness. One reason for this situation is undoubtedly the reimbursement strategies employed in laboratory medicine for many years, simplistically based on the complexity of the test procedure, and the delivery as a cost-per-test service. This has proved a disincentive to generate the required evidence, and little effort to generate an integrated investment and disinvestment business case, associated with care pathway changes. Point-of-care testing creates a particularly challenging scenario because, on the one hand, the unit cost-per-test is larger through the loss of the economy of scale offered by automation, whilst it offers the potential of substantial savings through enabling rapid delivery of results, and reduction of facility costs. This is important when many health systems are planning for complete system redesign. We review the literature on economic assessment of point-of-care testing in the context of these developments.

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”.

Indications to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in children with dyspepsia

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to ascertain the appropriateness of indications for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy in children with dyspepsia.

METHODS

We used the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles method to investigate the appropriateness of the opinions of a panel of experts. The panel judged 2304 theoretical patient scenarios defined by a combination of demographic and clinical variables. Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The panel rated UGI endoscopy as appropriate in 27.2% of cases, inappropriate in 14.3%, and dubious in 58.5%. Disagreement emerged for 21% of cases. UGI endoscopy was considered increasingly appropriate in cases with a positive family history of peptic ulcer and/or Helicobacter pylori infection (odds ratio [OR] 8.518, P < 0.0001), when dyspepsia interfered with activities of daily living ("sleep" OR 7.540, P < 0.0001; "normal activities" OR 5.725, P < 0.0001), and when patients were older than 10 years ("<or=10 years" OR 0.310, P < 0.0001) the longer the duration ("0-2 months" OR 0.002, P < 0.0001; "3-5 months" OR 0.059, P < 0.0001; "6-11 months" OR 0.516, P = 0.0005) and the greater the severity ("mild" OR 0.002, P < 0.0001; "moderate" OR 0.013, P < 0.0001) of their dyspeptic symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

UGI endoscopy is not appropriate for all children with dyspeptic symptoms, but only for cases with a family history of peptic ulcer and/or Helicobacter pylori infection, older than 10 years of age, with symptoms persisting for more than 6 months and severe enough to affect activities of daily living.

Clinical practice: diagnosis and evaluation of dyspepsia

The main issue regarding the approach to the patient with uninvestigated dyspepsia is whether the symptoms are the result of an important clinical illness, which then determines the appropriate management strategy for the treatment of the symptoms. An initial trial of empiric antisecretory drugs is recommended for those without Helicobacter pylori infection and no alarm symptoms, whereas H. pylori eradication is recommended for those with an active H. pylori infection. Treatment expectations for H. pylori infections should theoretically be similar to other common infectious diseases. In most regions, clarithromycin resistance has undermined traditional triple therapy so that it is no longer a suitable choice as an empiric therapy. Four drug therapies, such as sequential, concomitant, and bismuth-quadruple therapy are generally still acceptable choices as empiric therapies. Posteradication testing is highly recommended to provide early identification of otherwise unrecognized increasing antimicrobial resistance. However, despite the ability to successfully cure H. pylori infections, a symptomatic response can be expected in only a minority of those with dyspepsia not associated with ulcers (so called nonulcer dyspepsia). Overall, from the patients stand point, symptomatic relief is often difficult to achieve and physicians must rely on reassurance along with empiric and individualized care.

Managing dyspepsia

The prevalence of dyspepsia in the general population is as high as 40%, and its management represents a considerable financial burden to the health care system. Causes of dyspepsia amenable to medical therapy include peptic ulcer and functional dyspepsia, and testing for Helicobacter pylori and treating positive individuals is beneficial in both conditions. Individuals presenting for the first time with uninvestigated dyspepsia, age greater than 50 years, or alarm features require upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy to exclude gastroesophageal malignancy. Upper GI endoscopy for younger individuals without alarm features is not cost-effective compared with the "test and treat" approach. Test and treat and empirical acid-suppression using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) have similar costs and effects. Recent evidence suggests that empirical acid suppression commencing with antacids is as effective as PPI. Screening and treatment of H. pylori in PPI users and the community may reduce the costs of managing dyspepsia.

WITHDRAWN: Initial management strategies for dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia (a) Initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures). (b) Early endoscopy. (c) Testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori )and endoscope only those positive. (d) H. pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources. An individual patient data meta-analysis of health economic data was conducted

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five papers reporting 27 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (three trials) and histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H. pylori test and endoscope versus usual management (three trials), H. pylori test and treat versus endoscopy (six trials), and test and treat versus acid suppression alone in H. pylori positive patients (four trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were; for PPI compared with antacid 0.72 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.80), PPI compared with H2RA 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with H. pylori test and treat (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but was not cost effective (mean additional cost of endoscopy US$401 (95% CI $328 to 474). Test and treat may be more effective than acid suppression alone (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor drugs (PPIs) are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The relative efficacy of histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and PPIs is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H. pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia but is not cost effective as part of an overall management strategy.

Clinical trial: a randomized trial of early endoscopy, Helicobacter pylori testing and empirical therapy for the management of dyspepsia in primary care

BACKGROUND

Early endoscopy, Helicobacter pylori eradication and empirical acid suppression are commonly used dyspepsia management strategies in primary care but have not been directly compared in a single trial.

AIM

To compare endoscopy, H. pylori test and refer, H. pylori test and treat and empirical acid suppression for dyspepsia in primary care.

METHODS

Patients presenting to their general practitioner with dyspepsia were randomized to endoscopy, H. pylori'test and treat', H. pylori test and endoscope positives, or empirical therapy with symptoms, patient satisfaction, healthcare costs and cost effectiveness at 12 months being the outcomes.

RESULTS

At 2 months, the proportion of patients reporting no or minimal dyspeptic symptoms ranged from 74% for those having early endoscopy to 55% for those on empirical therapy (P = 0.009), but at 1 year, there was little difference among the four strategies. Early endoscopy was associated with fewer subsequent consultations for dyspepsia (P = 0.003). 'Test and treat' resulted in fewer endoscopies overall and was most cost-effective over a range of cost assumptions. Empirical therapy resulted in the lowest initial costs, but the highest rate of subsequent endoscopy. Gastro-oesophageal cancers were found in four patients randomized to the H. pylori testing strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

While early endoscopy offered some advantages 'Test and treat' was the most cost-effective strategy. In older patients, early endoscopy may be an appropriate strategy in view of the greater risk of malignant disease.

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.

Symptoms, endoscopic findings and histology predicting symptomatic benefit of Helicobacter pylori eradication

OBJECTIVE

To analyse factors predicting changes in dyspeptic symptoms after Helicobacter pylori eradication.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Of a total of 342 patients referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at 23 centres in various parts of Finland, those tested positive for the rapid urease test were recruited in the study. Clinical and demographic data and data on dyspeptic symptoms (Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale) were collected via a structured questionnaire before and a year after the eradication therapy. Gastric biopsies were analysed according to the updated Sydney system.

RESULTS

A total of 216 H. pylori-positive patients treated successfully with eradication therapy had complete data to be analysed. After the therapy, dyspeptic symptoms decreased by 29-32%. In a univariate analysis, it was found that duodenal ulcer, female gender, gastric antral neutrophilic inflammation, smoking and age from 50 to 59 years enhanced symptom improvement whereas atrophy in the gastric body reduced it. In a multivariate analysis, duodenal ulcer (odds ratio (OR) 3.2, 95% CI 1.3-7.8) and age from 50 to 59 years (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.2-3.9) and antral neutrophilic inflammation (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.3) were better predictors of symptomatic response.

CONCLUSION

The symptomatic benefit from H. pylori eradication therapy was greatest among duodenal ulcer patients.

Current guidelines for dyspepsia management

BACKGROUND

Dyspepsia is a global problem and the management of the condition remains a considerable burden on health care resources. Many countries have adopted evidence-based guidelines for the management of the condition, in an attempt to reduce health care expenditure. This article compares and contrasts dyspepsia management guidelines from several geographical regions.

METHODS

We obtained current guidelines from five regions and examined composition of guideline development groups, methodology involved, definition of dyspepsia utilized, and recommendations in terms of first-line approach, age cutoff for prompt upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, and subsequent role of endoscopy.

RESULTS

All guidelines carried out extensive reviews of the literature to inform their recommendations. The majority used a definition of dyspepsia in line with the Rome criteria. All agreed that alarm symptoms at any age warranted prompt endoscopy, and most recommended an age cutoff of between 50 and 55 years for endoscopy as an initial management strategy. In young patients without alarm symptoms, either 'test and treat' or empirical acid suppression were the initial management strategies of choice in all cases, with only one guideline recommending mandatory endoscopy in those whose symptoms failed to settle after this approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite varying composition of guideline development groups and the different geographical regions, the recommendation of all the guidelines were remarkably similar, reflecting the quality of research conducted by the GI community as a whole.

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.

Implementation of a guideline versus use of individual prognostic factors to prioritize waiting lists for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Studying factors associated with positive gastroscopies in dyspeptic patients can help limit and rationalize waiting lists for endoscopies. Dyspepsia guidelines have a controversial role because their main purpose is to provide specifications on efficient global management of primary care patients.

AIM

To assess and weigh the risk of major endoscopic diagnoses against different age groups, gender, Helicobacter pylori infection, compliance with European Society of Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG) guideline statements, and participation of prescribing general practitioners in a quality improvement programme for dyspepsia management, based on these guidelines.

METHODS

We consecutively studied the outcomes of 752 gastroscopies with respect to two sets of useful results: the first considered diagnoses of carcinoma, gastric and duodenal ulcer; the second excluded duodenal ulcer.

RESULTS

A diagnosis of cancer or gastric/duodenal ulcer was associated with male sex (odds ratio (OR)=1.81, P=0.016), age above 41 years (OR=3.24, P=0.009) and particularly with positivity to H. pylori (OR=4.49, P<0.001), while the risk increased by two and a half times in gastroscopies conforming with ESPCG guidelines (OR=2.47, P=0.003). In the second set of analysis, we noted a statistically significant correlation between cancer or gastric ulcer and compliance with ESPCG guidelines (OR=4.69, P=0.013), but not with H. pylori positivity (OR=1.83, P=0.11); a linear relationship was observed across age groups, with a 60% increase in the risk of disease with every 5-year increase in age (OR=1.59, P=0.002).

CONCLUSION

Participation of general practitioners in the Dyspepsia Management Programme (DMP) was not significantly associated with a positive gastroscopy.

Comparison between empirical prokinetics, Helicobacter test-and-treat and empirical endoscopy in primary-care patients presenting with dyspepsia: A one-year study

AIM: To investigate the optimal strategy to treat dyspeptic patients in primary care.

METHODS: Dyspeptic patients presenting to primary care outpatient clinics were randomly assigned to: (1) empirical endoscopy, (2) H pylori test-and-treat, and (3) empirical prokinetic treatment with cisapride. Early endoscopy was arranged if patients remained symptomatic after 2 wk. Symptom severity, quality-of-life (SF-36) as well as patient preference and satisfaction were assessed. All patients underwent endoscopy by wk 6. Patients were followed up for one year.

RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty four patients were recruited (163 female, mean age 49). 46% were H pylori positive. 26% of H pylori tested and 25% of empirical prokinetic patients showed no improvement at wk 2 follow-up and needed early endoscopy. 15% of patients receiving empirical cisapride responded well to treatment but peptic ulcer was the final diagnosis. Symptom resolution and quality-of-life were similar among the groups. Costs for the three strategies were HK$4343, $1771 and $1750 per patient. 66% of the patients preferred to have early endoscopy.

CONCLUSION: The three strategies are equally effective. Empirical prokinetic treatment was the least expensive but peptic ulcers may be missed with this treatment. The H pylori test-and-treat was the most cost-effective option.

Functional gastroduodenal disorders

A numerically important group of patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders have chronic symptoms that can be attributed to the gastroduodenal region. Based on the consensus opinion of an international panel of clinical investigators who reviewed the available evidence, a classification of the functional gastroduodenal disorders is proposed. Four categories of functional gastroduodenal disorders are distinguished. The first category, functional dyspepsia, groups patients with symptoms thought to originate from the gastroduodenal region, specifically epigastric pain or burning, postprandial fullness, or early satiation. Based on recent evidence and clinical experience, a subgroup classification is proposed for postprandial distress syndrome (early satiation or postprandial fullness) and epigastric pain syndrome (pain or burning in the epigastrium). The second category, belching disorders, comprises aerophagia (troublesome repetitive belching with observed excessive air swallowing) and unspecified belching (no evidence of excessive air swallowing). The third category, nausea and vomiting disorders, comprises chronic idiopathic nausea (frequent bothersome nausea without vomiting), functional vomiting (recurrent vomiting in the absence of self-induced vomiting, or underlying eating disorders, metabolic disorders, drug intake, or psychiatric or central nervous system disorders), and cyclic vomiting syndrome (stereotypical episodes of vomiting with vomiting-free intervals). The rumination syndrome is a fourth category of functional gastroduodenal disorder characterized by effortless regurgitation of recently ingested food into the mouth followed by rechewing and reswallowing or expulsion. The proposed classification requires further research and careful validation but the criteria should be of value for clinical practice; for epidemiological, pathophysiological, and clinical management studies; and for drug development.

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.

Initial management strategies for dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia: (a) Initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures). (b) Early endoscopy. (c) Testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori )and endoscope only those positive. (d) H. pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources. An individual patient data meta-analysis of health economic data was conducted

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five papers reporting 27 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (three trials) and histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H. pylori test and endoscope versus usual management (three trials), H. pylori test and treat versus endoscopy (six trials), and test and treat versus acid suppression alone in H. pylori positive patients (four trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were; for PPI compared with antacid 0.72 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.80), PPI compared with H2RA 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with H. pylori test and treat (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but was not cost effective (mean additional cost of endoscopy US$401 (95% CI $328 to 474). Test and treat may be more effective than acid suppression alone (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor drugs (PPIs) are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The relative efficacy of histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and PPIs is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H. pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia but is not cost effective as part of an overall management strategy.

Dyspepsia management in primary care: a management trial

The aim was to evaluate the outcomes associated with four initial management strategies in new patients presenting to primary care physicians with dyspepsia. Patients with new symptoms (no alarm features) were randomised to empirical therapy (n = 11), Helicobacter pylori (HP) serology (n = 8), HP breath testing (n = 11) or oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (n = 13). Dyspepsia and health-related quality of life were assessed using standardised questionnaires at entry, 6 and 24 weeks post-trial enrollment. Outcomes were assessed by structured telephone interview every 6 weeks. In the initial HP testing arms, 21% were positive; 27% in the oesophagogastroduodenoscopy arm had inflammatory changes without ulcers at baseline. The majority (67%) received over the counter medication after initial management. Symptom-free status was similarly common in all groups (p = 0.49); only 20% pursued further evaluation. Total billed charges were higher in the oesophagogastroduodenoscopy group (US 2077 dollars) vs. empirical therapy (US 512 dollars), despite excluding the charge for initial oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, but overall, no effects on total medical charges were detected (p = 0.10). Regardless of initial management, most patients remained symptomatic, yet did not return for health care visits or undergo endoscopies. The cost of upfront endoscopy may not be the best choice for patients presenting with new dyspepsia.

Helicobacter pylori test and eradicate versus prompt endoscopy for management of dyspeptic patients: 6.7 year follow up of a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Dyspepsia is a chronic disease with significant impact on the use of health care resources. A management strategy based on Helicobacter pylori testing has been recommended but the long term effect is unknown.

AIM

To investigate the long term effect of a test and treat strategy compared with prompt endoscopy for management of dyspeptic patients in primary care.

PATIENTS

A total of 500 patients presenting in primary care with dyspepsia were randomised to management by H pylori testing plus eradication therapy (n = 250) or by endoscopy (n = 250). Results of 12 month follow up have previously been presented.

METHODS

Symptoms, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were recorded during a three month period, a median 6.7 years after randomisation (range 6.1-7.3 years). Number of endoscopies, antisecretory medication, H pylori treatments, and hospital visits were recorded from health care databases for the entire follow up period.

RESULTS

Median age was 45 years; 28% were H pylori infected. Use of resources was registered in all 500 patients (3084 person years) of whom 312 completed diaries. We found no difference in symptoms between the two groups. Median proportion of days without symptoms was 0.52 (interquartile range 0.10-0.88) in the test and eradicate group versus 0.64 (0.14-0.90) in the prompt endoscopy group (p = 0.27) (mean difference 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.14)). Compared with the prompt endoscopy group, the test and eradicate group underwent fewer endoscopies (mean difference 0.62 endoscopies/person (95% CI 0.38-0.86)) and used less antisecretory medication (mean difference 102 defined daily doses/person (95% CI -1 to 205)).

CONCLUSION

On a long term basis, a H pylori test and eradicate strategy is as efficient as prompt endoscopy for management of dyspeptic patients in primary care and reduces the use of endoscopy and antisecretory medication.

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.

A systematic review of the effect of primary care-based service innovations on quality and patterns of referral to specialist secondary care

BACKGROUND

Innovations are proliferating at the primary-secondary care interface, affecting referral to secondary care and resource use. Evidence about the range of effects and implications for the healthcare system of different types of innovation have not previously been summarised.

AIM

To review the available evidence on initiatives affecting primary care referral to specialist secondary care.

SETTING

Studies of primary-secondary care interface.

METHOD

Systematic review of trials, using adapted Cochrane Collaboration (effective practice and organisation of care) criteria. Studies from 1980 to 2001 were identified from a wide range of sources. Strict inclusion criteria were applied, and relevant clinical, service and cost data extracted using an agreed protocol. The main outcome measures were referral rates to specialist secondary care.

RESULTS

Of the 139 studies initially identified. 34 met the review criteria. An updated search added a further 10 studies. Two studies provided economic analysis only. Referral was not the primary outcome of interest in the majority of included studies. Professional interventions generally had an impact on referral rates consistent with the intended change in clinician behaviour. Similarly, specialist 'outreach' or other primary care-based specialist provider schemes had at least a small effect upon referral rates to secondary care with the direction of effect being that intended or rational from a clinical and sociological perspective. Of the financial interventions, one was aimed primarily at changing the numbers or proportion of referrals from primary to specialist secondary care, and the direction of change was as expected in all cases. The quality of the reporting of the economic components of the 14 studies giving economic data was poor in many cases. When grouped by intervention type, no overall pattern of change in referral costs or total costs emerged.

CONCLUSION

The studies identified were extremely diverse in methodology, clinical subject, organisational form, and quality of evidence. The number of good quality evaluations of innovative schemes to enhance the existing capacity of primary care was small, but increasing. Well-evaluated service initiatives in this area should be supported. Organisational innovations in the structure of service provision need not increase total costs to the National Health Service (NHS), even though costs associated with referral may increase. This review provides limited, partial, and conditional support for current primary care-oriented NHS policy developments in the United Kingdom.

Management of dyspepsia

Proper management of uninvestigated dyspepsia is a challenging task for any clinician. Efficient and cost-effective management of such patients requires careful history taking and awareness of the available options.

Cost analysis of breath test versus endoscopy for dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

There is currently much debate on the best way to manage dyspepsia in the community and cost effectiveness is often discussed. We aim to perform a cost analysis of a test and treat strategy for Helicobacter pylori versus endoscopy using data based on the breath test service in Leicester.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of data acquired over the 1-year period from March 1, 1999, to February 29, 2000, in a university teaching hospital. The main outcome measure was the cost of each management strategy.

RESULTS

Referral to the breath test service cost pound 84.67 per person with dyspepsia (including treatment of positive patients and endoscopy cost of patients endoscoped). If the breath test service had not existed, referral for endoscopy would have cost pound 98.35 per person. This equates to a cost saving of pound 8,276 over the year studied for the 605 patients referred. It also resulted in 353 fewer endoscopies being performed.

CONCLUSION

Direct referral to a H. pylori breath test service saves money, avoids an unpleasant test for many people and reduces the endoscopy waiting list.

A double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia

OBJECTIVES

In patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia, a common initial management strategy in primary care is to prescribe a course of empiric antisecretory therapy and to refer those patients who do not respond for endoscopy. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effects of an empiric course of antisecretory therapy on dyspepsia-related health in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia.

METHODS

We conducted a double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia were randomized to a 6-wk course of omeprazole 20 mg p.o. b.id. versus placebo capsules p.o. bi.d. and followed over 1 yr. The patients were at least 18 yr old with at least a 1-wk history of dyspepsia without alarm features. Dyspepsia-related health was measured using the Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (SODA), a valid, reliable, disease-specific outcome measure. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined by a SODA Pain Intensity score > or = 29 (scores, 2-47) during follow-up. Patients who were treatment failures underwent endoscopy.

RESULTS

We enrolled 140 patients. The mean age was 51 yr, and seven (5%) were women. At 2 wk there were fewer treatment failures in the omeprazole group: 12 of 71 patients (17%) in the omeprazole group failed compared with 24 of 69 (35%) in the placebo group (p = 0.037, log rank test). Also, at 6 wk there were fewer failures in the omeprazole group: 21 of 71 patients (30%) in the omeprazole group failed compared with 31 of 69 (45%) in the placebo group in 0.067, log rank test). However, at the 1-yr follow-up, there was no significant difference in treatment failure rates in the two groups: 37 of 71 patients (52%) in the omeprazole group failed compared with 41 of 69 (59%) in the placebo group (p = 0.28, log rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia, as compared with a strategy that would entail prompt endoscopy for all patients, an initial 6-wk course of either placebo or omeprazole reduces the need for endoscopy over a 1-yr follow-up. Compared with placebo, an initial 6-wk course of omeprazole delays, but does not reduce, the need for endoscopy. For proton pump inhibitor therapy to reduce the need for endoscopy, it may need to be given continuously.

Helicobacter pylori and nonmalignant disease

Helicobacter pylori eradication has become the recognized standard and widely adopted therapy to cure peptic ulcer disease. Other H. pylori associated conditions with potential benefit from eradication therapy are still subject to clinical investigations. The current state of evidence for these indications is summarized in this article. For NSAID associated peptic ulcer disease the current evidence needs to be grouped in three subsets of clinical conditions: a) H. pylori eradication for prevention of ulcers before starting NSAIDs therapy is advisable; b) eradication during PPI treatment for NSAID associated active ulcer shows no advantage on healing; and c) eradication alone is not sufficient for secondary prevention of ulcer complications induced by NSAID, however it appears to protect from further episodes of aspirin induced bleeding. In nonulcer dyspepsia the latest Cochrane collaboration review supports a small benefit in favour of H. pylori eradication. New insight in the relationship of H. pylori with GERD is provided from clinical trials which show that H. pylori eradication does not influence the clinical course of patients with reflux esophagitis. Finally important new data are presented regarding the management of dyspepsia at the primary care level with the confirmation that the H. pylori 'test and treat' strategy in the appropriate setting is more cost-effective than endoscopy.

Review article: dyspepsia: how to manage and how to treat?

Recent guidelines for dyspepsia, defined as pain or discomfort centred in the upper abdomen, emphasize that in younger patients with no alarm features and not taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, testing for Helicobacter pylori and treatment of the infection if present is a standard of care. If H. pylori is not present, empirical management (e.g. acid suppression) is often prescribed. It is further recommended that if patients relapse or fail to respond to treatment then upper endoscopy be undertaken. However, these guidelines have become controversial for a number of reasons. Firstly, the prevalence of H. pylori infection is falling as is the incidence of peptic ulcer disease due to the infection. Idiopathic peptic ulcer disease is also being increasingly recognized. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of endoscoping treatment failures has been questioned, as the yield is low and patient management is usually not altered. Finally, it remains controversial whether the treatment of H. pylori infection in functional dyspepsia is of value, and two recent high quality meta-analyses have reached diametrically opposite conclusions. Alternative strategies, such as initially treating with acid suppression and then considering H. pylori infection in those who fail have been suggested, as has in low H. pylori prevalent regions the abandonment of a test-and-treat strategy. However, appropriate management trials of these alternative strategies in primary care are lacking. The management of patients with functional dyspepsia who fail initial antisecretory therapy is now difficult; prokinetics have fallen into some disrepute. Tricyclic antidepressants (at a low dose) may be useful in a subset, but adequate trials are lacking.

Review article: Helicobacter pylori and uninvestigated dyspepsia

Although dyspepsia is a very common disorder, the incidence of Helicobacter pylori infection in Western medical clinics is very low (20-35%). In cases where H. pylori is detected, elimination of it may be cost-effective in the long term, but even eradication is not a guarantee for long-term relief. Further studies to determine the connection between H. pylori and dyspepsia need to be completed before H. pylori eradication becomes the treatment of choice for that minority of patients. The majority of dyspeptic patients are not as simple to diagnose, and may need several empirical trials of therapy, or more specific diagnostic assessment.

Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. Indications and regimens: an update

The management of Helicobacter pylori infection is still surrounded by controversy and uncertainties. Indications and correct application of current regimens for Helicobacter pylori infection are still considered a matter of debate. Regarding indications, only peptic ulcer and mucosa associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma are considered clear indications for treatment. In other conditions, such as atrophic gastritis, post gastric cancer resection, first-degree relatives of gastric cancer patients, dyspeptic patients, patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users, the value of Helicobacter pylori eradication is still controversial. The regimens for first-line and second-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection have been recommended by the Maastricht 2 Consensus Report. Although all the treatments are considered to be effective, physicians still do not agree on what first-line regimen should be used. Furthermore, a consensus on the duration of the antibiotic treatment is still lacking, although Maastricht guidelines for treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection recommend a one-week therapy. Also regimens, as a third-line treatment, and methods to improve compliance and clinical outcome are still a matter of debate. All these points will be considered in the present review