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

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.

ACG and CAG Clinical Guideline: Management of Dyspepsia

We have updated both the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) guidelines on dyspepsia in a joint ACG/CAG dyspepsia guideline. We suggest that patients ≥60 years of age presenting with dyspepsia are investigated with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to exclude organic pathology. This is a conditional recommendation and patients at higher risk of malignancy (such as spending their childhood in a high risk gastric cancer country or having a positive family history) could be offered an endoscopy at a younger age. Alarm features should not automatically precipitate endoscopy in younger patients but this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. We recommend patients <60 years of age have a non-invasive test Helicobacter pylori and treatment if positive. Those that are negative or do not respond to this approach should be given a trial of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. If these are ineffective tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) or prokinetic therapies can be tried. Patients that have an endoscopy where no pathology is found are defined as having functional dyspepsia (FD). H. pylori eradication should be offered in these patients if they are infected. We recommend PPI, TCA and prokinetic therapy (in that order) in those that fail therapy or are H. pylori negative. We do not recommend routine upper gastrointestinal (GI) motility testing but it may be useful in selected patients.

Review article: the global emergence of Helicobacter pylori antibiotic resistance

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori is one of the most prevalent global pathogens and can lead to gastrointestinal disease including peptic ulcers, gastric marginal zone lymphoma and gastric carcinoma.

AIM

To review recent trends in H. pylori antibiotic resistance rates, and to discuss diagnostics and treatment paradigms.

METHODS

A PubMed literature search using the following keywords: Helicobacter pylori, antibiotic resistance, clarithromycin, levofloxacin, metronidazole, prevalence, susceptibility testing.

RESULTS

The prevalence of bacterial antibiotic resistance is regionally variable and appears to be markedly increasing with time in many countries. Concordantly, the antimicrobial eradication rate of H. pylori has been declining globally. In particular, clarithromycin resistance has been rapidly increasing in many countries over the past decade, with rates as high as approximately 30% in Japan and Italy, 50% in China and 40% in Turkey; whereas resistance rates are much lower in Sweden and Taiwan, at approximately 15%; there are limited data in the USA. Other antibiotics show similar trends, although less pronounced.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the choice of empiric therapies should be predicated on accurate information regarding antibiotic resistance rates, there is a critical need for determination of current rates at a local scale, and perhaps in individual patients. Such information would not only guide selection of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy but also inform the development of better methods to identify H. pylori antibiotic resistance at diagnosis. Patient-specific tailoring of effective antibiotic treatment strategies may lead to reduced treatment failures and less antibiotic resistance.

Helicobacter pylori and functional dyspepsia: an unsolved issue?

Patients with Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection may complain of dyspeptic symptoms without presence of macroscopic lesions on gastroduodenal mucosa. Such a condition is usually recognized as functional dyspepsia, and different pathogenetic mechanisms are involved. The role of H. pylori in these patients is controversial. Several trials assessed the potential role of H. pylori eradication in improving dyspeptic symptoms, and data of some meta-analyses demonstrated that cure of infection is associated with a small (10%), but significant therapeutic gain as compared to placebo. The reason for which dyspeptic symptoms regress in some patients following bacterial eradication, but persist in others remains unclear. Regrettably, trials included in the meta-analyses are somewhat different for study design, definition of symptoms, assessment of symptoms changes, and some may be flawed by potential pitfalls. Consequently, the information could be not consistent. We critically reviewed the main available trials, attempting to address future research in this field.

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”.

[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/).

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.

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.

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.

NSAIDs and the gastrointestinal tract

NSAIDs incur significant gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. The complication risk increases with history of peptic ulcer or older age. Helicobacter pylori infection and cardioprotective aspirin have independent and additive risks in the presence of NSAID use. NSAID enteropathy is increasingly recognized. Cardiovascular and GI risk stratification and H. pylori infection testing should be done before initiating NSAIDs. An NSAID combined with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is comparable to cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors for gastroprotection, but for high-risk patients, COX-2 plus PPI should be considered. Aspirin and COX-2 inhibitors are associated with reduced colon adenoma risk, but higher dose and longer duration of treatment with aspirin appears effective. Hence, patients at high risk of colorectal cancer (with significant family or personal history of premalignant adenoma) must be identified, and cardiovascular and GI risk must be assessed before using these agents as chemopreventive drugs.

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.

An international comparison of the burden of illness in patients with dyspepsia

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study investigates the symptoms and the impact of symptoms on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients consulting with dyspepsia.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a diagnosis of dyspepsia were recruited from primary and secondary care in Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, South Africa and Spain. Investigators assessed symptom frequency and severity, and subjects completed the following questionnaires: the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale and the Short Form 36 (SF-36).

RESULTS

853 dyspepsia patients were included. Mean GSRS scores showed that patients were most troubled by abdominal pain and indigestion. QOLRAD scores indicated that symptoms caused emotional distress, food/drink problems and reduced vitality, with a lesser effect on sleep and physical functioning. Mean SF-36 scores were lower than mean normative values for all domains, indicating that patients had a worse HRQL than the normal population, particularly for Bodily Pain, Role Physical and Role Emotional. Of patients in each country, 18-43% were anxious and 11-21% were depressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with dyspepsia have reduced HRQL because their symptoms - particularly abdominal pain and indigestion - cause emotional distress, problems with food and drink, and impaired vitality.

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.

Helicobacter pylori test and treat versus proton pump inhibitor in initial management of dyspepsia in primary care: multicentre randomised controlled trial (MRC-CUBE trial)

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori "test and treat" compared with empirical acid suppression in the initial management of patients with dyspepsia in primary care.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

80 general practices in the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

699 patients aged 18-65 who presented to their general practitioner with epigastric pain, heartburn, or both without "alarm symptoms" for malignancy.

INTERVENTION

H pylori 13C urea breath test plus one week of eradication treatment if positive or proton pump inhibitor alone; subsequent management at general practitioner's discretion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost effectiveness in cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) (EQ-5D) and effect on dyspeptic symptoms at one year measured with short form Leeds dyspepsia questionnaire.

RESULTS

343 patients were randomised to testing for H pylori, and 100 were positive. The successful eradication rate was 78%. 356 patients received proton pump inhibitor for 28 days. At 12 months no significant differences existed between the two groups in QALYs, costs, or dyspeptic symptoms. Minor reductions in costly resource use over the year in the test and treat group "paid back" the initial cost of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Test and treat and acid suppression are equally cost effective in the initial management of dyspepsia. Empirical acid suppression is an appropriate initial strategy. As costs are similar overall, general practitioners should discuss with patients at which point to consider H pylori testing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN87644265.

The health economics of Helicobacter pylori infection

Economic considerations are becoming increasingly important as health care becomes more expensive. Evidence for effectiveness is usually gained from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) but often there is insufficient evidence of the costs of alternative strategies in trials. Often, therefore, economic models are needed to extrapolate data from a variety of sources to give an indication of which strategy is cost effective. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) testing and treating in a wide variety of upper gastrointestinal diseases is a good example of the application of economic analyses to health care interventions. H. pylori eradication in peptic ulcer disease is very effective with systematic reviews giving a number needed to treat of around two compared to no therapy. RCTs have also suggested that treating H. pylori is also more effective and less expensive than continuous H(2) receptor antagonist therapy and is therefore the dominant strategy in treating peptic ulcer disease. The impact of H. pylori eradication in infected patients with functional dyspepsia is less dramatic, with systematic reviews suggesting a number needed to treat of 14. Economic models suggest that in Europe H. pylori eradication is cost-effective compared to offering no treatment (e.g. in the UK we can be 95% certain this approach is cost effective if you are willing to pay $51/month free from dyspepsia). In the USA it is less certain that this is a cost-effective approach due to the higher cost of eradication therapy. H. pylori test and treat has been proposed as an alternative to early endoscopy in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia. We have conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis of five RCTs that has addressed the cost effectiveness of this approach. Endoscopy was slightly more effective than H. pylori test and treat at relieving dyspepsia at one year but was not cost-effective as it cost $9000/dyspepsia cure at one year. Population H. pylori test and treat has been proposed as a strategy to prevent noncardia gastric cancer. RCTs have suggested this approach may be cost saving but more data are needed on whether H. pylori eradication will reduce gastric cancer mortality before this strategy can be recommended.

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.

Evaluation of four different fecal tests for determination of cure after Helicobacter pylori treatment

BACKGROUND

Data evaluating the monoclonal tests for determination of cure after Helicobacter pylori treatment are scarce.

GOALS

This study was aimed to evaluate the usefulness of 4 stool tests-2 new RAPID monoclonal immunochromatographic tests (RAPID Hp StAR, DakoCytomation, Cambridge, UK and ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA, Meridian Diagnostics, Cincinnati, OH) a monoclonal EIA test (Amplified IDEIA Hp StAR, DakoCytomation, Cambridge, UK), and a polyclonal EIA test (Premier Platinum HpSA, Meridian Diagnostics, Cincinnati, OH)-to confirm cure of H. pylori infection after eradication treatment.

STUDY

Ninety-seven patients who underwent eradication treatment were included. Cure of H. pylori infection was determined using 2 consecutive reference tests. Fecal tests were performed according to the specifications of the manufacturer. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

After H. pylori eradication, the RAPID Hp StAR test has a sensitivity of 73% for detecting persistent infection, a specificity of 96% to 98%, a positive predictive value of 73% to 80% and a negative predictive value of 96%. For ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA the corresponding values were 91%, 97%, 77%, and 99%, for Amplified IDEIA Hp StAR 73%, 97%, 73%, and 97%, and for Premier Platinum HpSA 91%, 79%, 35%, and 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

All tests except Premier Platinum HpSA were highly accurate confirming eradication after treatment.

Impact of Helicobacter pylori on the management of dyspepsia in primary care

BACKGROUND

It is unclear what impact Helicobacter pylori infection has had on the management of dyspepsia in primary care and to what extent published guidelines on H. pylori are implemented in routine clinical practice.

AIM

To assess the impact of H. pylori infection on the management of dyspepsia in primary care.

METHODS

Patients referred by primary care doctors to an open-access 13-carbon urea breath test service over a 2-year period for their first urea breath test were included in the study. Individual breath results were linked with data on prescribing obtained from the General Medical Services prescription database.

RESULTS

Of 805 patients, 374 (47%) had a positive urea breath test and 431 (54%) a negative urea breath test. Of positive urea breath test patients, only 245 (64%) were prescribed eradication therapy in the 3 months after the breath test and only 43% were referred back for re-testing. In the year after the urea breath test, there was a significant fall in prescribing of antisecretory therapy which was greatest in the patients who received H. pylori therapy (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be under and inappropriate treatment of H. pylori infection in primary care, and a low rate of re-testing after eradication, indicating that current guidelines are not well implemented in practice.

Proton pump inhibitor or testing for Helicobacter pylori as the first step for patients presenting with dyspepsia? A cluster-randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

The optimal approach for management of patients with dyspepsia has not been determined. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three strategies for management of dyspepsia: empirical antisecretory therapy, testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), or a combination of the two.

METHODS

Cluster-randomized trial in general practices. Initial treatment with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was performed in 222 patients, H. pylori test-and-eradicate in 250 patients, and PPI followed by H. pylori-testing if symptoms improved in 250 patients. Symptoms, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and use of resources were recorded during a 1-yr follow-up.

RESULTS

The prevalence of H. pylori infection was 24%. We found no difference among the three strategies (p=0.16) in terms of the proportion of days without dyspeptic symptoms. After 1 yr gastrointestinal symptom scores and quality-of-life scores had improved significantly and equally in the three groups (p<0.001), but no statistically significant differences were found among the groups. The mean use of endoscopies per patient after 1 yr was higher in the PPI group (0.36 [95% CI 0.30-0.43]) than in the test-and-eradicate group (0.28 [95% CI 0.23-0.34]) and the combination group (0.22 [95% CI 0.17-0.27]), p=0.02. H. pylori-positive patients given eradication therapy had more days without dyspeptic symptoms (p<0.001), used less antisecretory therapy (p<0.01), and were more satisfied (p<0.001) than H. pylori-negative patients.

CONCLUSION

The strategies based on H. pylori test enjoyed similar symptom resolution, but reduced endoscopic workload and lower 1-yr total costs compared with empirical antisecretory therapy.

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.

"Test, score and scope": a selection strategy for safe reduction of upper gastrointestinal endoscopies in young dyspeptic patients referred from primary care

OBJECTIVE

To test the ability of pre-endoscopic clinical evaluation to predict clinically relevant findings of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients (341) who had been referred to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for further evaluation of dyspeptic symptoms were included in this prospective, single-blinded study. Prior to endoscopy, the patients underwent a standardized clinical evaluation consisting of 1) a symptom questionnaire, 2) serological testing for Helicobacter pylori antibody and 3) determination of blood hemoglobin. Based upon this evaluation, patients were assigned to one of three defined risk groups. Group A comprised patients with known risk factors for diseases that would require further therapeutic or diagnostic management. Patients in groups B and C had no such risk factors. Patients in group C had heartburn or regurgitation as a predominant symptom, whereas patients in group B did not. The prevalence of clinically relevant findings upon upper endoscopy was then compared for these three groups.

RESULTS

The prevalence of clinically relevant endoscopic findings in risk groups A, B and C were 20.1, 2.4 and 1.6%, respectively (p<0.01 for both A versus B and A versus C). Furthermore, 89% of those with clinically relevant endoscopic findings belonged to group A, which comprised a total of 45% of the patients studied. In groups B and C, the prevalence of disease was similar to the area-specific prevalence in the general population without dyspeptic symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

By using a simple standardized questionnaire, H. pylori serology and a hemoglobin reading in the evaluation of dyspeptic patients under 45 years of age, the need for endoscopy can be reduced by 55%.

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.

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.

Seven versus ten days of rabeprazole triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Ten-day triple therapy is somewhat more effective than 7-day treatment for curing Helicobacter pylori infection. Recent studies have suggested that rabeprazole-a proton pump inhibitor with fast onset of acid inhibition-could raise the efficacy of 7-day therapies to the levels obtained with 10-day treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of 7- and 10-day rabeprazole-based triple therapy for H. pylori eradication.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Four hundred and fifty-eight patients were randomized to 7 or 10 days of triple therapy, including rabeprazole 20 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and amoxicillin 1 g, all twice a day. Cure rates were evaluated by urea breath test.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-seven patients received 7-day and 221 received 10-day therapy. Groups were comparable in terms of demographic variables. Intention to treat cure rates were 73.8% (95% CI: 67-79%) for 7-day and 79.6% (95%: CI:74-85%) for 10-day therapy (p= 0.09). Per-protocol cure rates were 81.8% (95% CI:76-86%) and 89.3% (95% CI: 84-93%), p= 0.02, respectively. Cure rates were similar in peptic ulcer patients but in subjects without ulcer they were clearly lower for 7-day therapy: 66%versus 77% by intention to treat (p= 0.08) and 73%versus 91% in the per-protocol analysis (p= 0.004). Side effects and compliance in the two groups were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven- and 10-day triple therapies seem equally efficient in peptic ulcer patients. In contrast, 7-day therapy is significantly less effective in nonulcer dyspepsia patients. Ten-day therapy, therefore, seems preferable when treating nonulcer patients.

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.

Controlled trial of interventions to increase testing and treatment for Helicobacter pylori and reduce medication use in patients with chronic acid-related symptoms

BACKGROUND

Many symptomatic patients take proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 blockers for years and those without gastro-oesophageal reflux disease might benefit from Helicobacter pylori eradication.

AIM

To increase testing and treatment of H. pylori and reduce chronic use of proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 blockers.

METHODS

We conducted a three-armed controlled trial in 14 managed care practices. We included adults who used proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 blockers for >1 year and excluded those with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or previous endoscopy. We compared usual care (n = 312 patients from 6 practices) to low-intensity (n = 147 from 3 practices) and high-intensity (n = 122 from 5 practices) interventions. Low-intensity intervention consisted of guidelines, patient-lists, and a "toolkit"; high-intensity intervention added academic group detailing by a gastroenterologist with reinforcement by pharmacists.

RESULTS

Compared with usual care, the high-intensity intervention increased H. pylori test-ordering (29% versus 9% at 12 months, P = 0.02). About half (23 of 58) of patients tested positive and 22 received eradication treatments. The high-intensity intervention decreased proton pump inhibitor use by 9% per year (P = 0.028), but did not alter histamine-2 blocker use. The low intensity intervention was ineffective.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing guidelines, patient-lists, and toolkits was no better than usual care. Adding group detailing and pharmacist reinforcements led to improvements in H. pylori management and decreases in proton pump inhibitor use.

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.

Meta-analysis: the diagnostic value of alarm symptoms for upper gastrointestinal malignancy

BACKGROUND

With the advent of empirical treatment strategies for patients with dyspeptic symptoms, it becomes increasingly important to select patients with a high risk of having cancer for immediate endoscopy. Usually alarming symptoms are used for this matter, but their diagnostic value is by no means clear.

AIM

To investigate the diagnostic value of alarm symptoms for upper gastrointestinal malignancy.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of studies describing prevalence of alarm symptoms in patients with and without endoscopically verified upper gastrointestinal malignancy were identified through a Medline search. The prevalence, pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

About 17 case studies and nine cohort studies were selected. The mean prevalence of gastrointestinal malignancies in the cohort studies was 2.8% of 16,161 patients. Five cohort studies indicated that 25% of the patients diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal malignancy had no alarm symptoms. The pooled sensitivities of individual alarm symptoms varied from 9 to 41%, the pooled positive predictive value ranged from 4.6 to 7.9%, and was 5.9% for 'having any alarm symptom'. The pooled negative predictive value was 99.4% for 'having any alarm symptom'.

CONCLUSION

The risk of upper gastrointestinal malignancy in any individual without alarm symptoms is very low, but approximately one in four patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer have no alarm symptoms at the time of diagnosis.

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.

What the physician needs to know for correct management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia

Upper gastrointestinal symptoms are highly prevalent; usually those consulting have multiple symptoms, confounding management. Here, common clinically relevant management issues are considered based on the best available evidence. Regardless of the presenting symptoms, determine if there are any alarm features; these have a low positive predictive value for malignancy but all patients with them should be referred for prompt upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Ask about medications; of most importance are the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), both non-selective and COX-2 selective. Try to ascertain if the symptom pattern suggests gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or not. Dominant heartburn, however, may be of limited value; if the background prevalence of GERD is 25% and the patient complains of dominant heartburn, then the likelihood that such a patient has GERD as identified by 24-h oesophageal pH testing is only just over 50%. If reflux disease is strongly suspected and there are no alarm features, give an empirical trial of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI). Symptoms cannot separate adequately functional from organic dyspepsia. Endoscopy in dyspepsia with no alarm features is more costly than an empirical management approach. H. pylori testing and treatment remains in most settings the preferable initial choice for managing dyspepsia without obvious GERD. However, a PPI trial may offer a similar outcome and may be preferable in low H. pylori prevalence areas; head-to-head management trials in primary care are lacking.

The TETRA study: a prospective evaluation of Helicobacter pylori 'test-and-treat' strategy on 736 patients in clinical practice

AIMS

To prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of the test-and-treat strategy in a large group of dyspeptic patients in clinical practice.

METHODS

Patients with ulcer-like dyspepsia, < 45 years, without alarm symptoms, were prospectively studied. Helicobacter pylori infection was diagnosed with the 13C-urea-breath-test, and eradication or symptomatic treatment was prescribed accordingly. 'Symptomatic improvement' was defined as the percentage of patients with a decrease of > or = 2 levels in the dyspepsia-severity-score or with no symptoms after treatment. Health status and use of health resources were also assessed. Endoscopy was performed in therapeutic failures.

RESULTS

Out of 736 patients initially included, 422 received eradication, and 314 symptomatic therapy; 87% returned at 6 weeks and 67% at 6 months. At 6 months, 'symptomatic improvement' was achieved in 73% and 54% of the patients, in eradication and symptomatic groups, respectively (p < .001), and overall in 66%. A reduction of 78% in mean self-assessment visual analogical score was observed at 6 months. More than 50% of patients were 'much better' at control visits. Endoscopy (18%) and physician's visits (13%) were the main health resources used. No gastric or oesophageal cancer was diagnosed.

CONCLUSION

This large prospective study shows that the test-and-treat strategy is effective and safe for management of dyspeptic patients in clinical practice.

Helicobacter pylori and nonmalignant diseases

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori has lead to a significant decrease in the prevalence of peptic ulcer disease world-wide. Despite the fact that H. pylori eradication is the only way to cure peptic ulcer disease, a substantial number of patients still need antisecretory agents to be symptoms-free after eradication. During the past year several randomized controlled trials on H. pylori eradication in patients taking NSAIDs have been published but contradictory results have been obtained. In certain parts of the world, NSAIDs are becoming the main cause of peptic ulcer disease complications such as bleeding or perforation. Some patients with nonulcer dyspepsia do benefit from eradication of H. pylori as was shown in several studies. Long-term trials with cost/efficacy analysis are still needed to demonstrate the benefit of H. pylori eradication over acid inhibition in this group of patients. H. pylori prevalence is lower in patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease, but according to recent systematic reviews it varies geographically. There are more data now to show that eradication of H. pylori in duodenal ulcer patients does not increase the incidence of GERD. The 'test and treat' strategy for patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia was strongly supported by both meta-analysis and the results of recent randomized controlled trials. Even in developed countries where the prevalence of H. pylori decreases, this strategy allows resolution of symptoms in a larger number of patients with dyspepsia compared to empirical treatment with proton pump inhibitors and reduces the endoscopic workload.