Economic evaluation of a randomized trial comparing Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat and prompt endoscopy strategies for managing dyspepsia in a primary-care setting

Helicobacter pylori "Test-and-Treat" strategy with urea breath test: A cost-effective strategy for the management of dyspepsia and the prevention of ulcer and gastric cancer in Spain-Results of the Hp-Breath initiative

BACKGROUND

Data from clinical trials comparing Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) management strategies in patients with dyspepsia are limited. Cost-effectiveness simulation models might help to identify the optimal strategy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of the H. pylori "Test and Treat" (T&T) strategy including the use of urea breath test (UBT) vs symptomatic treatment (ST) and vs upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) as a first procedure in patients with dyspepsia.

METHODS

Three main strategies: "T&T" strategy including the use of UBT, "UGE" and "ST" have been compared using cost-effectiveness models developed in accordance with the Spanish medical practice. For the model simulations, a time horizon of 4 weeks was considered for the endpoint "Dyspepsia symptoms relief" and 10 years when using "Peptic ulcer avoided" and "Gastric cancer avoided" endpoints.

RESULTS

For the endpoint "Dyspepsia symptoms relief", T&T strategy appears to be the most cost-effective (883€/success) compared to UGE strategy and to ST strategy (respectively 1628€ and 990€/success). For the endpoint "Probability of peptic ulcer", the T&T strategy appears to be the most cost-effective (421€/peptic ulcer avoided/y) compared to UGE strategy and ST strategy (respectively 728€ and 632€/peptic ulcer avoided/y). For the endpoint "Gastric cancer avoided", the T&T strategy appears to be the most cost-effective (524€/gastric cancer avoided/y) compared to UGE strategy and "ST" strategy (respectively 716€ and 696€/gastric cancer avoided/y).

CONCLUSIONS

T&T strategy including the use of UBT is the most cost-effective medical approach for management of dyspepsia and for the prevention of ulcer and gastric cancer.

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/).

Functional dyspepsia impacts absenteeism and direct and indirect costs

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common morbid condition but data are limited on the direct and indirect costs for employees with FD or on its impact on productivity. Few data on absenteeism and no objective information are available. This study aimed to assess the impact of FD on costs and effects on absenteeism and work output (productivity).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of payroll data and adjudicated health insurance medical and prescription claims collected over a 4-year study period (January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2004) from more than 300,000 employees. Data from employees with and without (controls) FD were compared using 2-part regression techniques. Outcome measures included medical (total and by place of service) and prescription costs, absenteeism, and objectively measured productivity output.

RESULTS

Employees with FD (N = 1669) had greater average annual medical and prescription drug costs and indirect costs (owing to sick leave and short- and long-term disability absences) than controls (N = 274,206). Compared with controls, the FD employees incurred costs that were $5138 greater and had greater costs for each place of service (all P < .0001). The employees with FD had an additional 0.83 absence days per year and produced 12% fewer units per hour than controls (both P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Employees with FD have greater costs at all places of service and lower productivity than employees without FD.

Cost-effectiveness of a potential future Helicobacter pylori vaccine in the Netherlands: the impact of varying the discount rate for health

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a potential Helicobacter pylori (HP) vaccine for the Dutch situation, we developed a Markov model. Several HP prevalence scenarios were assessed. Additionally, we assessed the impact of the discount rate for health on the outcomes, as this influence can be profound for vaccines. When applying the current discount rate of 1.5% for health, the expected cost-effectiveness of HP vaccination is estimated below the informal Dutch threshold of euro 20,000/LYG when the HP prevalence is assumed > or =20% in the Dutch population. In conclusion, we showed that HP vaccination could possibly be a cost-effective intervention. However, this depends to a large extend on the prevalence of HP in the population. Furthermore, we showed the large impact of the discount rate for health on the cost-effectiveness of a HP vaccination program, illustrative for other vaccination programs.

Dyspepsia and Helicobacter pylori

Dyspepsia is defined as a chronic or recurrent pain centered in the upper abdomen. Dyspeptic symptoms have a high prevalence in the population and represent a common reason for patients to see a primary care physician. Therefore, dyspepsia displays a major health care burden and produces high socioeconomic costs. The etiology of dyspeptic symptoms is various and complex and has opened a wide spectrum of putative mechanisms. In a subset of patients dyspeptic symptoms are likely to originate from Helicobacter pylori infection. Population-based studies have demonstrated that H. pylori is detected more frequently in dyspeptic patients compared to controls. H. pylori eradication therapy gives modest but significant benefit in non-ulcer dyspepsia and leads to long-term symptom improvement. It also reduces the risk of developing peptic ulcer disease and other H. pylori-related gastric pathologies (i.e. atrophic gastritis, gastric cancer). The main therapeutic strategy for managing dyspepsia in patients under the age of 45 years is 'test and treat'. H. pylori eradication is recommended in patients with dyspepsia and no other gastroduodenal abnormalities than H. pylori induced gastritis. In patients presenting with alarm features a prompt upper endoscopy should be performed to exclude peptic ulcer disease, esophageal and gastric malignancies or other more rare upper gastrointestinal diseases.

The seroepidemiology of Helicobacter pylori infection in Australia

BACKGROUND

Infection with Helicobacter pylori is common worldwide and a significant cause of upper gastrointestinal disease. Prevalence of this infection varies in different population groups internationally. Because of the invasiveness of specimen collection for bacteriologic diagnosis and the expense of tests such as labeled urea breath tests, serology is the most feasible means of determining the population epidemiology of H. pylori. The aim of this study was to describe the seroepidemiology of H. pylori infection in Australia.

METHODS

H. pylori-specific ELISA for the presence of IgG antibodies was performed on a representative sample of 2413 sera from Australia in 2002, using validated serosurveillance methods.

RESULTS

The overall seroprevalence of H. pylori infection in Australia was 15.1% in 2002, with no statistical difference between genders. Seropositivity rates increased progressively with age, ranging between 4.0% in the 1-4-year-olds and 23.3% in the 50-59-year-olds.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of infection with H. pylori in Australia was lower than rates reported in other developed countries, at 15.4%. This study provides important baseline measurements for future preventive measures including vaccine research and development. Further studies to determine subgroups at higher risk of infection may help target the more susceptible populations.

Helicobacter pylori and non-malignant diseases

The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori-associated peptic ulcers, in particular duodenal ulcers, is decreasing following decreasing prevalence of H. pylori infection, while the frequency of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)-induced and H. pylori-negative idiopathic ulcers is increasing. The incidence of bleeding ulcers has been stable during the last decades. Several putative H. pylori virulence genes, i.e., cag, vacA, babA, or dupA, as well as host-related genetic factors like IL-1beta and TNFalpha-gene polymorphism, have been proposed as risk factors for duodenal ulcer. H. pylori eradication may prevent NSAID complications, in particular, when it is performed before introduction of NSAIDs. There is a complex association between H. pylori and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and the impact of H. pylori eradication on the appearance of GERD symptoms depends on various host- and bacteria-related factors. Eradication of H. pylori in GERD is recommended in patients before instauration of a long-term PPI treatment to prevent the development of gastric atrophy. A small proportion (10%) of non-ulcer dyspepsia cases may be attributed to H. pylori and may benefit from eradication treatment. A test-and-treat strategy is more cost-effective than prompt endoscopy in the initial management of dyspepsia.

Cost-effectiveness of screening for albuminuria with subsequent fosinopril treatment to prevent cardiovascular events: A pharmacoeconomic analysis linked to the prevention of renal and vascular endstage disease (PREVEND) study and the prevention of renal and vascular endstage disease intervention trial (PREVEND IT)

OBJECTIVE

This study estimated the cost-effectiveness,from the Dutch health care perspective, of screening for albuminuria in the general Dutch population to prevent cardiovascular events (CVEs) with subsequent angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment, using data from the Prevention of REnal and Vascular ENdstage Disease Intervention Trial (PREVEND IT).

METHODS

PREVEND IT was a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 x 2 factorial design within the larger observational Prevention of REnal and Vascular ENdstage Disease (PREVEND) study. The PREVEND IT study was conducted to assess the effects of fosinopril 20 mg and pravastatin 40 mg on CVEs in subjects with specific inclusion criteria: urinary albumin excretion (UAE) rate in the range from 15 to 300 mg/d, blood pressure <160/100 mm Hg, and plasma cholesterol level <8.0 mmol/L. Cost-effectiveness estimates for the Dutch population were expressed in euros (2002; 1 euro = US 1.01 dollars) as net costs per life-year gained (LYG) in the baseline and sensitivity (stochastic) analyses.

RESULTS

Data were assessed for 864 subjects, with a mean (SD) follow-up of 46 (7) months. CVEs occurred in 45 (5.2%) subjects. Subjects who received fosinopril had a 40% lower incidence of CVEs than subjects in the placebo group (3.9% vs 6.5%, respectively; P = NS). The cost-effectiveness of screening for albumnuria was determined to be euro 16,700/LYG for the study population. Stochastic analysis indicated that the probability of the cost-effectiveness being below the suggested Dutch threshold of euro 20,000/LYG was 59% in the baseline analysis. The probability of cost-effectiveness below euro 20,000/LYG would increase to 91% if only subjects with UAE >50 mg/d were treated with fosinopril. Limiting the screening to subjects aged >50 years and >60 years also improved cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study suggest that screening the general Dutch population for albuminuria and subsequently treating those found positive with fosinopril may be cost-effective compared with no screening and adopting the Dutch health care perspective. However, confirmation from larger multicenter trials is needed.