Ethical issues in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection

Helicobacter pylori public health implications

Population Helicobacter pylori screening and treatment has the potential to dramatically reduce global gastric cancer mortality. There is overwhelming evidence that the infection is a major cause of distal gastric adenocarcinoma. There is also randomized controlled trial evidence that H. pylori eradication reverses or ameliorates histological changes in the gastric mucosa that are important in carcinogenesis. Preliminary randomized controlled trial data suggest that screening and treatment may reduce the risk of gastric cancer although the number of cancer cases was small. Population H. pylori screening and treatment will also reduce mortality from peptic ulcer complications and reduce the burden of dyspepsia in the community. The reduction in health service dyspepsia costs means that this could be the first programme to pay for itself. From a scientific perspective, we still have insufficient evidence to conclude the benefits of population H. pylori screening are greater than the possible harms and we need more randomized controlled trial data. From a public health perspective however, sometimes screening programmes are developed with imperfect information. The medical community should be consistent and if we are instituting other population screening programmes without randomized controlled trial evidence then H. pylori testing and treatment should also be considered.

Review article: impact of Helicobacter pylori on society-role for a strategy of 'search and eradicate'

Helicobacter pylori infection is causally related to gastric cancer, a malignancy associated with high morbidity and poor prognosis, and to peptic ulcer disease, a disease with high morbidity and modest mortality. Theoretically, H. pylori eradication is the most practical means of preventing gastric cancer and peptic ulcer disease. From a public policy perspective, the current evidence is insufficient to assess accurately the magnitude of the benefits of a universal 'search and treat' approach. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify high-risk patients for whom testing for the presence of H. pylori infection, with the intention-to-treat infected individuals is currently indicated. This list includes patients with ulcers or dyspepsia, first-degree relatives of patients with peptic ulcer or gastric cancer, gastric cancer patients after potentially curative resection of their gastric cancer, patients in whom long-term acid antisecretory therapy or long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy (including low-dose aspirin) is planned, and finally those who desire testing. Population screening among asymptomatic individuals with a high risk of gastric cancer, such as Korean- and Japanese-Americans, appears logical, but from a public health perspective should be done as a component of controlled intervention studies. There are no known H. pylori infections without risk of a symptomatic outcome, therefore screening represents a rational strategy for cancer prevention. Adoption of such a policy will require carefully balancing the costs of the programme with its benefits.