Effect of population screening and treatment for Helicobacter pylori on dyspepsia and quality of life in the community: a randomised controlled trial. Leeds HELP Study Group

Helicobacter pylori: when is treatment now indicated?

The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori in Western societies has rapidly declined, as reflected by the consistent decline in peptic ulcer disease. Nevertheless, there remains a cohort of the elderly population with a high prevalence of H. pylori infection. While the benefits of H. pylori eradication for H. pylori-associated duodenal ulcer disease is beyond dispute, a number of contentious areas remains. The aim of the present paper is to review the benefits of H. pylori eradication in clinical situations that may confront the non-gastroenterologist.

Review article: gastro-oesophageal reflux disease--pathophysiological issues of clinical relevance

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is a multifactorial disorder in which the pathophysiological mechanisms are variably combined in different patients. Motor dysfunction of the lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) and, possibly, the proximal stomach is a major cause of the increase in the number of reflux episodes. Transient LOS relaxation is the main mechanism of reflux in many patients with endoscopically negative disease, whereas a hypotensive LOS becomes relevant only in patients with oesophagitis. Alterations in primary and secondary peristalsis contribute to the increased oesophageal acid exposure by delaying clearance. The presence of a hiatus hernia, especially when voluminous and/or non-reducible, increases the number of reflux episodes by mechanically weakening the oesophago-gastric junction, and impairs oesophageal clearance. Hypersensitivity to acid is often present and contributes to the clinical manifestations of the disease, whereas oesophageal hypersensitivity, both to chemical and mechanical stimuli, plays a predominant role in a subset of patients. Increased concentrations of noxious compounds in the oesophageal refluxate may contribute to the development of anatomical lesions, but this is still a matter for debate. The clinical relevance of Helicobacter pylori infection and of mucosal defensive factors still needs to be fully elucidated.

Symposium: Helicobacter pylori and clinical risks--focus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Helicobacter pylori is a gastric pathogen that is a major cause of peptic ulcer disease, has a role in mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma and is associated with gastric cancer. Yet, in a large proportion of the human population, H. pylori infection has no apparent adverse clinical consequences. Furthermore, recent research suggests that H. pylori may even confer protection against gastroesophageal reflux disease. The conflicting evidence surrounding H. pylori infection was discussed at a sponsored symposium in Helsinki, introduced by Professor P. Malfertheiner, with papers presented by Dr H. J. O'Connor, Professor R. M. Genta, Dr P. Unge and Professor A. T. R. Axon. Emerging epidemiological and retrospective evidence suggests that the presence of H. pylori infection may provide some protection against gastroesophageal reflux disease, but there is other evidence that shows no benefit of H. pylori for the protection of the oesophagus. It was felt that prospective, multicentre studies are needed to explore the H. pylori-gastroesophageal disease relationship further, to avoid confusing potential benefits with known risks. Following the symposium, a discussion on the relative risks and benefits for H. pylori eradication was provided by Professor Axon and Professor Blaser. Eradication of H. pylori has been recommended in a series of management guidelines issued by consensus groups. However, accurate estimates of the relative risks and benefits of H. pylori infection in the general population, as well as in specific patient groups, is essential in order to develop a management strategy.

A placebo-controlled randomized trial of eradication of Helicobacter pylori in the general population: study design and response rates of the Bristol Helicobacter Project

The Bristol Helicobacter Project is an ongoing, pragmatic, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of the effect of Helicobacter pylori eradication on symptoms of dyspepsia, health utilization and costs, and quality of life in the adult population. Commencing in 1996, 27,536 individuals ages 20-59 years who were registered with seven primary care centers in Bristol and the surrounding areas in southwest England were invited to undergo a 13C urea breath test. There was no selection on the basis of symptoms and 23.5% had dyspepsia on entry to the study. A total of 10,537 people were tested (38.3% of those invited), 1636 tested positive (15.5% of those tested), and 1558 (95.2% of those who tested positive) were randomized to H. pylori eradication therapy or placebo. The rate of participation in the screening phase increased with age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.42 per decade, 95% CI: 1.31 to 1.54) and female gender (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.27 to 1.43) but decreased with lower socioeconomic status (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.86 comparing lowest with highest category). H. pylori prevalence increased with age (OR: 1.69 per decade, 95% CI: 1.51 to 1.89) and lower socioeconomic status (OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.69) but was lower in women (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.00). Population-based trials of H. pylori eradication are feasible but necessitate screening large numbers of people to identify those who are infected and who may benefit from eradication. In the Bristol Helicobacter Project the rate of participation varied inversely with both social deprivation and the prevalence of the infection.

Helicobacter pylori susceptibility testing by disc diffusion

The bacterium Helicobacter pylori is found in c. 40% of the population and is responsible for the development of duodenal disease. Triple treatment with a proton-pump inhibitor or bismuth salt plus two antibiotics is now commonplace in all patients diagnosed. As antibiotic resistance reduces treatment efficacy, it is time to consider routine susceptibility testing to guide individual patient treatment and surveillance of antibiotic resistance. There are no published nationally agreed standards for disc diffusion testing of H. pylori. After reviewing the literature, we recommend the following method for disc diffusion tests. A suspension of cultures < or = 4 days old equivalent to McFarland Standard no. 4 (10(8) cfu/mL) should be used on Mueller-Hinton or Columbia agar base with 5-10% blood, using a metronidazole disc strength of 5 Ig and a clarithromycin disc strength of 2 microg. Anaerobic pre-incubation of plates is unnecessary. A H. pylori control susceptible to metronidazole (e.g. NCTC 12822) should be used. Zone sizes with the Mueller-Hinton agar base for metronidazole testing are <16 mm resistant, 16-21 mm intermediate and >21 mm susceptible. We suggest that isolates in the intermediate zone should be re-tested by Etest. Zone sizes with the Columbia agar base for metronidazole testing are <10 mm resistant and > or = 10 mm susceptible. Co-infection with two strains, which may be a mixture of isolates susceptible and resistant to metronidazole leading to conflicting susceptibility results, occurs in 5-10% of patients. Zone sizes with Mueller-Hinton agar and Columbia blood agar for clarithromycin testing are resistant no zone and susceptible any zone.

Uninvestigated Dyspepsia

Dyspepsia, which is defined as pain or discomfort centered in the upper abdomen, is encountered frequently in primary care and subspecialty practice. Dyspepsia is a symptom complex caused by a heterogeneous group of disorders and diseases. A large fraction of patients with dyspepsia suffer from functional dyspepsia, in which no evidence of organic disease (typically on the basis of upper endoscopy) is found to explain persistent or recurrent symptoms. Initial management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia include empiric antisecretory therapy, the "test-and-treat" strategy for Helicobacter pylori, or prompt upper endoscopy. The cost-effectiveness of empiric therapy versus the test-and-treat strategy is dependent upon a number of variables including the prevalence of H. pylori infection, ulcer prevalence, and likelihood that an ulcer is due to H. pylori infection. As the prevalence of H. pylori infection falls and the likelihood of H. pylori negative ulcer increases, empiric antisecretory therapy will become more cost-effective. Upper endoscopy should be reserved for patients older than 45 to 50 years with symptom presentation and those with warning signs. Endoscopy also should be considered in those for whom empiric therapy or an attempt at the test-and-treat strategy fails. Common-sense dietary counseling can be helpful in patients with meal-related symptoms. Highly restrictive diets rarely improve symptoms and may be counterproductive if nutrition is compromised.

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.

The cost-effectiveness of population Helicobacter pylori screening and treatment: a Markov model using economic data from a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Economic models have suggested that population Helicobacter pylori screening and treatment may be a cost-effective method of reducing mortality from gastric cancer. These models are conservative as they do not consider that the programme may reduce health service peptic ulcer and other dyspepsia costs. We have evaluated the economic impact of population H. pylori screening and treatment over 2 years in a randomized controlled trial and have incorporated the results into an economic model exploring the impact of H. pylori eradication on peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer.

METHODS

Subjects between the ages of 40 and 49 years were randomly invited to attend their local primary care centre. H. pylori status was evaluated by (13)C-urea breath test and infected individuals were randomized to receive omeprazole, 20 mg b.d., clarithromycin, 250 mg b.d., and tinidazole, 500 mg b.d., for 7 days or identical placebos. Economic data on health service costs for dyspepsia were obtained from a primary care note review for the 2 years following randomization. These data were incorporated into a Markov model comparing population H. pylori screening and treatment with no intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 2329 of 8407 subjects were H. pylori positive: 1161 were randomized to receive eradication therapy and 1163 to receive placebo. The cost difference favoured the intervention group 2 years after randomization, but this did not reach statistical significance (11.42 ponds sterling per subject cost saving; 95% confidence interval, 30.04 ponds sterling to -7.19 pounds sterling; P=0.23). Analysis by gender suggested a statistically significant dyspepsia cost saving in men (27.17 ponds sterling per subject; 95% confidence interval, 50.01 pounds sterling to 4.32 pounds sterling; P=0.02), with no benefit in women (-4.46 per subject; 95% confidence interval, -33.85 pounds sterling to 24.93 pounds sterling). Modelling of these data suggested that population H. pylori screening and treatment for 1,000,000 45-year-olds would save over 6,000,000 pounds sterling and 1300 years of life. The programme would cost 14, 200 pounds sterling per life year saved if the health service dyspepsia cost savings were the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals and H. pylori eradication had only a 10% efficacy in reducing mortality from distal gastric cancer and peptic ulcer disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Modelling suggests that population H. pylori screening and treatment are likely to be cost-effective and could be the first cost-neutral screening programme. This provides a further mandate for clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of population H. pylori screening and treatment in preventing mortality from gastric cancer and peptic ulcer disease.

Current concepts in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection--the Maastricht 2-2000 Consensus Report

Significant progress and new insights have been gained in the 4 years since the first Maastricht Consensus Report, necessitating an update of the original guidelines. To achieve this, the European Helicobacter Pylori Study Group organized a meeting of specialists and experts from around the world, representatives from National Gastroenterology Societies and general practitioners from Europe to establish updated guidelines on the current management of Helicobacter pylori infection. The meeting took place on 21-22 September 2000. A "test and treat" approach is recommended in adult patients under the age of 45 years (the age cut-off may vary locally) presenting in primary care with persistent dyspepsia, having excluded those with predominantly gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users and those with alarm symptoms. Diagnosis of infection should be by urea breath test or stool antigen test. As in the previous guidelines, the eradication of H. pylori is strongly recommended in all patients with peptic ulcer, including those with complications, in those with low-grade gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, in those with atrophic gastritis and following gastric cancer resection. It is also strongly recommended in patients who are first-degree relatives of gastric cancer patients and according to patients' wishes after full consultation. It is advised that H. pylori eradication is considered to be an appropriate option in infected patients with functional dyspepsia, as it leads to long-term symptom improvement in a subset of patients. There was consensus that the eradication of H. pylori is not associated with the development of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in most cases, and does not exacerbate existing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. It was agreed that the eradication of H. pylori prior to the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduces the incidence of peptic ulcer, but does not enhance the healing of gastric or duodenal ulcer in patients receiving antisecretory therapy who continue to take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Treatment should be thought of as a package which considers first- and second-line eradication therapies together. First-line therapy should be with triple therapy using a proton pump inhibitor or ranitidine bismuth citrate, combined with clarithromycin and amoxicillin or metronidazole. Second-line therapy should use quadruple therapy with a proton pump inhibitor, bismuth, metronidazole and tetracycline. Where bismuth is not available, second-line therapy should be with proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy. If second-line quadruple therapy fails in primary care, patients should be referred to a specialist. Subsequent failures should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the specialist. In patients with uncomplicated duodenal ulcer, eradication therapy does not need to be followed by further antisecretory treatment. Successful eradication should always be confirmed by urea breath test or an endoscopy-based test if endoscopy is clinically indicated. Stool antigen test is the alternative if urea breath test is not available.

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

Lack of symptom benefit following presumptive Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy in primary care

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens have failure rates under 10%, however little information is available on the effect of treatment success in reducing the subsequent prescription of anti-ulcer medications in primary care.

AIMS

To determine, using a large prescription database in eastern Ireland, the success of presumptive eradication therapy in improving symptoms of dyspepsia in primary care, as judged by a reduction in the subsequent prescription of anti-ulcer medications.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, we identified 3847 patients who received a prescription for eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori, including 826 who were followed for 9-11 months. Those who subsequently received anti-ulcer medications were deemed failures to obtain symptom relief.

RESULTS

For 3847 patients with a median follow-up of 8 months, the failure rate was 49%. Of 826 patients, followed for a longer period (9-11 months), the overall failure rate was 56% (range 44-62% depending on the eradication regimen used). Age over 65 years (hazard ratio=1.57, 95% confidence interval= 1.29-1.91, P < 0.001), prior use of anti-ulcer medications (hazard ratio=1.97, 95% confidence interval=1.63-2.37, P < 0.001) and prior use of aspirin/NSAIDs (hazard ratio=1.43, 95% confidence interval=1.18-1.73, P < 0.001) all predicted failure to obtain relief of symptoms of dyspepsia from eradication therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Such high failure rates of eradication therapy in reducing the subsequent consumption of anti-ulcer medications have both clinical and economic implications for the use of eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori in primary care.

Helicobacter pylori eradication does not exacerbate reflux symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Observational studies have suggested that Helicobacter pylori may protect against gastrointestinal reflux disease (GERD), but these results could be due to bias or confounding factors. We addressed this in a prospective, double blind, randomized, controlled trial.

METHODS

H. pylori-positive patients with at least a 1-year history of heartburn with a normal endoscopy or grade A esophagitis were recruited. Patients were randomized to 20 mg omeprazole, 250 mg clarithromycin, and 500 mg tinidazole twice a day for 1 week or 20 mg omeprazole twice a day and identical placebos. A second concurrently recruited control group of H. pylori-negative patients were given open label 20 mg omeprazole twice a day for 1 week. All patients received 20 mg omeprazole twice a day for the following 3 weeks and 20 mg omeprazole once daily for a further 4 weeks. Omeprazole was discontinued at 8 weeks and patients were followed up for a further 10 months. A relapse was defined as moderate or severe reflux symptoms. H. pylori eradication was determined by 13C-urea breath test.

RESULTS

The H. pylori-positive cases were randomized to antibiotics (n = 93) or placebo (n = 97). Relapse of GERD occurred in 83% of each of the antibiotic, placebo, and H. pylori-negative groups during the 12-month study period. Life tables revealed no statistical difference between the 2 H. pylori-positive groups (log rank test, P = 0.84) or between the 3 groups (log rank test, P = 0.94) in the time to first relapse. Two patients in each group developed grade B esophagitis at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

H. pylori eradication therapy does not seem to influence relapse rates in GERD patients.

Helicobacter pylori testing in the primary care setting: which diagnostic test should be used?

AIM

To identify the most accurate and efficient test for diagnosing Helicobacter pylori infection in primary care patients.

STUDY DESIGN

A whole blood test, an ELISA, and carbon13 urea breath test (CUBT) were evaluated in a primary care setting and validated against two different gold standards that used gastric biopsies.

POPULATION

Primary care patients who had dyspeptic complaints lasting at least 2 weeks and were referred for endoscopy.

OUTCOMES MEASURED

Positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity and specificity were determined for all three noninvasive H. pylori tests.

RESULTS

Data from the three non-invasive H. pylori tests were available for 136 primary care dyspeptic patients referred for endoscopy. They were compared with data from the gold standards. The positive predictive value of the whole blood test was in the range 71-75%, the ELISA 83-86%, and the CUBT 88-92%, while the negative predictive values were in the ranges 72-77%, 96-100%, and 95-98%, respectively. The sensitivity of the whole blood test was in the range 36-42%, the ELISA 93-100%, and the CUBT 92-97%, while the specificities were in the ranges 92-93%, 90-91% and 93-95%, respectively. The positive predictive value of the ELISA dropped significantly at lower H. pylori infection rates.

DISCUSSION

Both the ELISA and CUBT are effective in the primary care setting, while the whole blood tests produces inferior results. ELISA might, however, be less suitable for detecting H. pylori infection in a population with a low rate of infection.

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.

Review Article: is Helicobacter pylori relevant in the management of reflux disease?

Data on the interaction of reflux disease and Helicobacter pylori infection are limited in scope and rigour, controversial and difficult to interpret. Despite this, a framework of understanding is emerging, which is consistent with known effects on gastric acid secretion. In patients with moderate to severe H. pylori-induced corpus gastritis, eradication can increase substantially impaired gastric acid secretion sufficiently to precipitate reflux disease in people with pre-existing sub-clinical defective gastro-oesophageal competence. By contrast, reflux disease in duodenal ulcer patients probably benefits from eradication of H. pylori. There appears to be no significant impact on reflux disease from eradication in healthy subjects or individuals whose primary problem is reflux disease. Helicobacter pylori-infected reflux disease patients respond slightly better to proton pump inhibitors. These agents cause a topographic alteration of gastritis from antrum to corpus, the clinical significance of which is controversial. Many practitioners misjudge the risks and benefits of the effects of H. pylori eradication on reflux disease. Regardless of patient diagnosis, the balance is in favour of H. pylori eradication. For those in whom reflux oesophagitis development is a defined possibility, oesophagitis is mild, easily treated and most unlikely to be associated with any major risk for development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Increased gastric acid secretion after Helicobacter pylori eradication may be a factor for developing reflux oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

The role of acid secretion in reflux oesophagitis which may develop after H. pylori eradication is not well known.

AIM

To investigate the participation of altered gastric acid secretion and the presence of hiatal hernia in the development of reflux oesophagitis after eradication therapy for H. pylori.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total of 105 patients with H. pylori infection, but without reflux oesophagitis at the time of eradication therapy, were followed prospectively for 7 months after the clearance of this microorganism. Gastric acid secretion was assessed by endoscopic gastrin test, and the presence of hiatal hernia by endoscopy.

RESULTS

Reflux oesophagitis developed in 11 out of 105 (10.5%) patients when examined at 7 months after the eradication therapy. The incidence was correlated significantly with the increase in gastric acid secretion after the eradication of H. pylori, and was significantly higher in the patients with hiatal hernia (20%) than in those without it (0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased acid secretion after H. pylori eradication is an important risk factor of reflux oesophagitis, especially in patients with hiatal hernia.

Dyspepsia in pregnancy

Dyspepsia with or without nausea is common during pregnancy. Known ulcer disease, gastritis, and GERD may improve during pregnancy. Many women have a stoic and long-suffering posture during pregnancy owing to an unrealistic expectation concerning the teratogenicity of commonly used drugs. It is appropriate in medicine to alleviate pain and suffering when possible, and many drugs can be used safely and effectively to control upper gastrointestinal tract symptoms. When symptoms are persistent into the late second trimester, refractory to pharmacologic treatment, or severe, H. pylori infection, complications of ulcer disease, and underlying cancer should be suspected and sequentially ruled out. More timely treatment and work-up of nonobstetric disease during pregnancy is expected to lower perinatal complications.

Symptom and health-related quality-of-life measures for use in selected gastrointestinal disease studies: a review and synthesis of the literature

Patient-rated symptom and health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) outcomes are important end-points for clinical trials of medical treatments for gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Based on this review, patient outcomes research is focused on gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia, with a growing interest in irritable bowel syndrome but little research in gastroparesis. State-of-the-art for patient-rated symptom scales is rudimentary with an abundance of scales and little attention to systematic instrument development or comprehensive psychometric evaluation. Generally, disease-specific HR-QOL measures have been more systematically developed and evaluated psychometrically, but few have been incorporated into clinical trials. More comprehensive outcome assessments are needed to determine the effectiveness of new medical treatments for functional GI disorders. Future clinical trials of GI disorders should combine clinician assessments of outcomes and symptoms with patient-rated symptom and HR-QOL end-points.