A prospective study of the management of the young Helicobacter pylori negative dyspeptic patient--can gastroscopies be saved in clinical practice?

[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/).

Sensitivity of ultrasonography for gastric cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients

Endoscopy with biopsy sampling is the gold standard used in gastric cancer diagnosis. However, the positive predictive value of signs and symptoms for the diagnosis of carcinomas is quite limited, and, therefore, many patients are subjected to non-diagnostic endoscopies, especially when symptoms are not so specific. This study shows that ultrasonography is sensitive enough for the diagnosis of gastric cancer, and, therefore, use of this technique would further ensure a better selection of patients for endoscopy. The study included 143 patients (86 men and 57 women, with an average age of 68.6 years) who were suspected of having gastric cancer. The diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography was evaluated in a blind study. The conventional technique was used in all cases. Demographic parameters and a series of other clinical-analytical variables were studied to look for possible gastric cancer predictive factors, which when present would make ultrasonographic results irrelevant. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 12.0, wherein a value of P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Of the 143 patients studied, 40 were diagnosed to have gastric cancer. Sonography was able to diagnose 37 cases correctly, while there were three false negative findings and eight false positive findings. This results in 92.5% sensitivity, 92.2% specificity, 82.2% positive predictive value, 96.9% negative predictive value, and a global accuracy of 92.3%. Univariate analysis showed that persistent vomiting (P = 0.021), hemoglobin level of less than 8 g/dl (P = 0.045) and a positive ultrasonography result (P < 0.0001) were associated with a higher frequency of gastric cancer. Multivariate analysis showed that persistent vomiting, with an odds ratio for gastric cancer of 3.68 (95% confidence interval 1.15-11.79; P = 0.039), and a positive ultrasonography result, with an odds ratio for gastric cancer of 117.78 (95% confidence interval 32.45-427.49; P < 0.0001), could be considered as independent predictive factors for gastric cancer. It was concluded that ultrasonography is a very sensitive and specific technique for diagnosing gastric cancer. Gastric cancer was found to be present in just 28% of the patients studied, and their condition was suspect because of the clinical manifestations. Only vomiting and a positive ultrasonography result can be considered as independent predictive factors of gastric cancer.

Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat intervention compared to usual care in primary care patients with suspected peptic ulcer disease in the United States

OBJECTIVES

[corrected] The Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) "test-and-treat" strategy in uninvestigated dyspepsia is an effective alternative to prompt endoscopy. Our aims were to determine whether the combination of an educational session and availability of office-based H. pylori testing (test-and-treat intervention [TTI]) increases use of the test-and-treat strategy by primary care practitioners and whether it improves patient outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a 1-yr prospective trial of patients with suspected peptic ulcer disease in six primary care centers, three with TTI and three designated as usual care controls (UCC).

RESULTS

H. pylori testing was performed in 81% of 54 TTI patients and in 49% of 39 UCC patients (p = 0.004). TTI and UCC patients had similar gastroenterology referral rates (24% vs 33%, p = 0.33), endoscopy or upper GI radiography rates (30% vs 31%, p = 0.91), and primary care visits per patient (3.1 +/- 2.8 vs 3.1 +/- 2.6, p = 0.92). TTI patients were less likely than UCC patients to receive repeated antisecretory medication prescriptions (35% vs 66%, p = 0.003). Symptomatic status at 1 yr and satisfaction with medical care did not differ between groups. Median (and interquartile range) annualized disease-related expenditures per patient were $454 ($162-932) for TTI and $576 ($327-1,435) for UCC patients (p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of an educational session and availability of office-based H. pylori testing may increase acceptance of the test-and-treat strategy by primary care providers. It remains to be determined whether increased use of the test-and-treat strategy yields significant improvements in clinical and economic outcomes compared to usual care.

A test-and-treat policy does not save endoscopy workload in a non-referral hospital

AIM

To assess the impact that a test-and-treat policy with open-access urea breath testing (UBT) has had on the referral rates for endoscopy in a district hospital. Additionally, we examined for any change in the proportion of serious pathology detected endoscopically after adopting the policy.

METHODS

Analysis of data on all open-access endoscopy referrals in a 12-month period before (October 1994 to September 1995) and 2 years after (October 1997 to September 1998) the introduction of the UBT service. This was compared with the same service in our sister hospital, which had not provided a UBT service. Results of patients attending the UBT service during the period of study were also examined.

RESULTS

A total of 798 patients attended for endoscopy (18% aged < 40 years, 82% aged > 40 years) in the pre-UBT year compared with 1905 patients (16% aged < 40 years, 84% aged > 40 years) in the post-UBT year. The standardized referral ratios were significantly higher for both age groups in the post-UBT year: 210 in the < 40 years group (95% CI 187 to 235) and 244 in the > 40 years group (95% CI 233 to 257). Six per cent of the < 40 years group in the post-UBT year had serious pathology compared with 7% pre-UBT (P < 0.1). However, the proportion of serious pathology decreased from 37 to 27% in the > 40 years group (P < 0.01). The total number of open-access endoscopies had increased steadily over the 3 years, despite the introduction of the UBT service. This trend was mirrored in our sister hospital. A total of 457 patients attended the UBT service during the 12 months. Of these, 24.5% were Helicobacter pylori positive, with a 66.3% eradication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

A test-and-treat policy has not saved endoscopy workload in this non-referral hospital. We feel that results from centres with an H. pylori interest cannot be generalized for the vast majority.

Helicobacter pylori "test-and-scope" strategy for dyspeptic patients. Is it useful and safe?

AIM

To evaluate outcome of test-and-scope strategy using 13C-urea breath test, Helicobacter pylori IgG serology, and CagA serology.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A series of 100 dyspeptic patients were studied. Biopsies were obtained for histology and rapid urease test (gold standard). Serum samples were obtained for Helicobacter pylori IgG and CagA serology, and 13C-urea breath test was carried out.

RESULTS

If endoscopy had not been performed in Helicobacter pylori patients based on 13C-urea breath test, <45 years, without alarm symptoms, and without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, 15% of endoscopies would have been saved, and one gastric ulcer and two oesophagitis would have been missed. Based on Helicobacter pylori IgG serology, 21% of endoscopies would have been saved. Finally, if endoscopy had been performed only in CagA+ patients, 31% of endoscopies would have been saved, missing one gastric ulcer and two cases of oesophagitis.

CONCLUSIONS

In our geographical area, the test-and-scope strategy based on 13C-urea breath test or Helicobacter pylori IgG serology would have saved only 15-20% of endoscopies. Although some relevant pathology would have been missed, it is not of a malignant type. 13C-urea breath test is the preferred non-invasive method to be used in this strategy, while Helicobacter pylori IgG serology is of limited value due to its low accuracy. With the use of CagA serology a larger number of unnecessary endoscopic examinations can be avoided.

Outcomes of initial noninvasive Helicobacter pylori testing in U.S. primary care patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia

OBJECTIVE

Recent European trials demonstrate that testing and treatment for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is an effective alternative to prompt endoscopy in uninvestigated dyspepsia. The eventual endoscopy rate after H. pylori testing, which is a key determinant of cost-effectiveness, is unknown in the United States. Our aim was to determine the endoscopy rate after H. pylori testing in primary care practice in the United States and to compare outcomes among seropositive and seronegative patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review with mean 13 month follow-up of primary care patients with dyspeptic symptoms tested with office-based H. pylori serology.

RESULTS

Of 268 adults tested (37+/-11 yr, 58% women), 57 (21%) were seropositive and 49/57 (86%) received eradication therapy. Endoscopy or contrast radiography was performed on 19% of seropositive and 19% of seronegative patients (p = 0.97). Annualized median disease-related expenditures were similar among seropositive and seronegative patients ($228 [$93-$654] vs $366 [$107-$1268], p = 0.19). However, aggregate expenditures were substantially lower than the cost of endoscopy alone ($816 [$296-$970]). On follow-up, seropositive and seronegative patients had similar numbers of primary care visits (2.9+/-3.2 vs 3.5+/-3.6, p = 0.23), prolonged antisecretory medication use (25 vs 33%, p = 0.27), and specialist referrals (23 vs 24%, p = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

In a United States center, 81% of primary care patients tested for H. pylori did not undergo endoscopy, and patients incurred significantly lower median expenditures after noninvasive H. pylori testing than the cost of endoscopy alone. Seropositive and seronegative patients experienced comparable outcomes after H. pylori testing.

What have we learned from recent dyspepsia trials?

Dyspepsia is a common disorder and a frequent complaint of patients presenting for primary care. Understanding of the role of Helicobacter pylori has led to re-evaluation of management strategies for these patients. This article highlights results from clinical trials that have helped to clarify the role of empiric therapy, endoscopy, radiography, and H. pylori eradication in patients with nonulcer dyspepsia.