Cost effectiveness of initial endoscopy for dyspepsia in patients over age 50 years: a randomised controlled trial in primary care

Up-Front Endoscopy Maximizes Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Satisfaction in Uninvestigated Dyspepsia

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Practice guidelines promote a routine noninvasive, non-endoscopic initial approach to investigating dyspepsia without alarm features in young patients, yet many patients undergo prompt upper endoscopy. We aimed to assess tradeoffs among costs, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes to inform discrepancy between guidelines and practice.

METHODS

We constructed a decision-analytic model and performed cost-effectiveness/cost-satisfaction analysis over a 1-year time horizon on patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia without alarm features referred to gastroenterology. A RAND/UCLA expert panel informed model design. Four competing diagnostic/management strategies were evaluated: prompt endoscopy, testing for Helicobacter pylori and eradicating if present (test-and-treat), testing for H pylori and performing endoscopy if present (test-and-scope), and empiric acid suppression. Outcomes were derived from systematic reviews of clinical trials. Costs were informed by prospective observational cohort studies and national commercial/federal cost databases. Health gains were represented using quality-adjusted life years.

RESULTS

From the patient perspective, costs and outcomes were similar for all strategies (maximum out-of-pocket difference of $30 and <0.01 quality-adjusted life years gained/year regardless of strategy). Prompt endoscopy maximized cost-satisfaction and health system reimbursement. Test-and-scope maximized cost-effectiveness from insurer and patient perspectives. Results remained robust on multiple one-way sensitivity analyses on model inputs and across most willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Noninvasive management strategies appear to result in inferior cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction outcomes compared with strategies promoting up-front endoscopy. Therefore, additional studies are needed to evaluate the drivers of patient satisfaction to facilitate inclusion in value-based healthcare transformation efforts.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of functional dyspepsia

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common disorder of gut-brain interaction, affecting approximately 7% of individuals in the community, with most patients managed in primary care. The last British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guideline for the management of dyspepsia was published in 1996. In the interim, substantial advances have been made in understanding the complex pathophysiology of FD, and there has been a considerable amount of new evidence published concerning its diagnosis and classification, with the advent of the Rome IV criteria, and management. The primary aim of this guideline, commissioned by the BSG, is to review and summarise the current evidence to inform and guide clinical practice, by providing a practical framework for evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of patients. The approach to investigating the patient presenting with dyspepsia is discussed, and efficacy of drugs in FD summarised based on evidence derived from a comprehensive search of the medical literature, which was used to inform an update of a series of pairwise and network meta-analyses. Specific recommendations have been made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. These provide both the strength of the recommendations and the overall quality of evidence. Finally, in this guideline, we consider novel treatments that are in development, as well as highlighting areas of unmet need and priorities for future research.

Age Cutoff and Yield of Prompt Esophagogastroduodenoscopy to Detect Malignancy in Vietnamese with Upper Gastrointestinal Symptoms: An Endoscopic Database Review of 472,744 Patients from 2014 to 2019

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Age cutoff is an important factor in deciding whether esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is necessary for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. However, the cutoff value is significantly different across populations. We aimed to determine the age cutoff for EGD that assures a low rate of missing upper gastrointestinal malignancy (UGIM) and to assess the yield of prompt EGD in Vietnamese patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal symptoms.

METHODS

All EGDs performed in outpatients during a 6-year period (2014-2019) at a tertiary hospital that provided an open-access endoscopy service were retrospectively reviewed. Repeat or surveillance EGDs were excluded. Different age cutoffs were evaluated in terms of their prediction of the absence of UGIM. The yield of endoscopy to detect one malignancy (YoE) was also calculated.

RESULTS

Of 472,744 outpatients presenting with upper gastrointestinal symptoms, there were 2198 (0.4%) patients with UGIM. The median age and male-to-female ratio of patients with UGIMs were 57.9 ± 12.5 years and 2.5 : 1, respectively. The YoEs in patients <40, 40-60, and >60 years of age were <1, 1-10, and >10 per 1000 EGDs, respectively. The age cutoffs of 30 years in females and 35 years in males could detect 98.2% (95% CI: 97.7%-98.8%) of UGIM cases with a YoE of about 1 per 1000 EGDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The age cutoff for EGD in Vietnamese should be lower than that recommended by current international guidelines. The strategy of prompt EGD showed a low YoE, and its cost-effectiveness requires further investigation.

Value of age and alarm features for predicting upper gastrointestinal malignancy in patients with dyspepsia: an endoscopic database review of 4664 patients in Thailand

OBJECTIVE

Age and alarm features are commonly used as indicators for endoscopy in dyspeptic patients; however, the age cut-off and the predictive value of these parameters for identifying upper gastrointestinal (UGI) malignancies are uncertain.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Data were extracted from the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Centre of Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, during 2005-2011.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patients underwent a first-time upper endoscopy for dyspepsia. Patients with previous surgery, suspected UGI malignancy by imaging, or indefinite biopsy results on prior examination were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Alarm features included dysphagia, unintentional weight loss, GI bleeding/anaemia, and persistent vomiting. The diagnostic performance of each alarm feature and different age cut-off values were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 4664 patients (mean age: 52.0±14.4 years, 66% female) were included. Alarm symptoms were presented in 21.6%. The prevalence of active Helicobacter pylori infection was 26.3%. Fifty-eight (1.2%) patients had UGI malignancy. The prevalence of malignancy significantly increased with increasing age (0.6% in patients aged <50 years, and 1.8% in patients aged >60 years (p<0.001)). Cancer was found in two patients aged <50 years who did not have alarm features. Patients with alarm features had a higher prevalence of malignancy (OR 22.3, 95% CI 10.5 to 47.4; p<0.001) than those without. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of alarm features for UGI malignancy were 87.0%, 79.1%, 4.7% and 99.8%, respectively. Among all age groups, persistent vomiting had a positive likelihood ratio (PLR) >10, while dysphagia and GI bleeding/anaemia had a PLR >10 in patients <50 years old.

CONCLUSION

Despite the overall limited value of age and alarm features, persistent vomiting, dysphagia, and GI bleeding/anaemia are strong predictors for malignancy in patients aged <50 years. Without these symptoms, cancer prevalence is negligible; thus, they are worthy guidance for endoscopic evaluation in this age group.

Net benefit separation and the determination curve: A probabilistic framework for cost-effectiveness estimation

Considerations regarding clinical effectiveness and cost are essential in comparing the overall value of two treatments. There has been growing interest in methodology to integrate cost and effectiveness measures in order to inform policy and promote adequate resource allocation. The net monetary benefit aggregates information on differences in mean cost and clinical outcomes; the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was developed to characterize the extent to which the strength of evidence regarding net monetary benefit changes with fluctuations in the willingness-to-pay threshold. Methods to derive insights from characteristics of the cost/clinical outcomes besides mean differences remain undeveloped but may also be informative. We propose a novel probabilistic measure of cost-effectiveness based on the stochastic ordering of the individual net benefit distribution under each treatment. Our approach is able to accommodate features frequently encountered in observational data including confounding and censoring, and complements the net monetary benefit in the insights it provides. We conduct a range of simulations to evaluate finite-sample performance and illustrate our proposed approach using simulated data based on a study of endometrial cancer patients.

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.

[Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients of advanced age]

The dramatic increase in life expectancy is leading to a significant increase in the use of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the elderly. Taking into account these demographic changes, the use of gastrointestinal endoscopy in this age group is of great importance. Although these procedures are generally safe and well tolerated even in very elderly patients, the onset of physiological changes associated with aging and the increased prevalence of cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities raise the risk of sedation related complications in these patients. Age alone is not a contraindication for performing any endoscopic procedure. However, elderly patients have their own peculiarities that require a detailed review of the characteristics, risks and benefits of endoscopic procedures in this specific context.

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.

Efficacy of early endoscopy and colonoscopy in very elderly patients with gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of early (within the first 24 hour from application) endoscopy and colonoscopy in very elderly patients with GIS bleeding.

METHODS

In this study, 95 patients were included who underwent early endoscopy with the pre-diagnosis of upper GIS bleeding or endoscopy-colonoscopy with the pre-diagnosis of lower GIS bleeding between 2012 and 2016. Endoscopy and colonoscopy procedures were compared in terms of the development of complications, tolerance of procedure, detection of bleeding site, and rate of therapeutic interventions performed for bleeding. In addition, the adequacy of colonoscopy preparation was evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between endoscopy and colonoscopy on procedural complication (2.1% vs 2.8%) and tolerance rates (81% vs 74.2), (p>0.05). The bleeding site was detected during endoscopy in 34(56.6%) patients, and an endoscopic intervention was required for 15(25%) of these patients. The bleeding site was detected during colonoscopy in 12(34.3%) patients, and an endoscopic intervention was performed for two (5.7%) patients (p<0.05). In addition, the colonoscopy procedure was suboptimal in 26 of 35 patients (74.2%) because of poor preparations.

CONCLUSION

Early endoscopy and colonoscopy are safe and well tolerated in very elderly patients with GIS bleeding. Upper GIS endoscopy in this patient population enables the detection of the bleeding site and an endoscopic intervention for the bleeding. However, colonoscopy is insufficient for detecting bleeding sites, and colonoscopic treatment of bleeding sites is difficult because of poor or no preparation in this patient population.

Initial experience of direct-to-test endoscopic ultrasonography for suspected choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound has become an invaluable tool in the investigation of patients with suspected pancreatobiliary disease. We set out to determine whether a "direct-to-test" endoscopic ultrasound procedure could be offered to selected patients with suspected choledocholithiasis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included patients referred to our general gastroenterology service with clinical history, symptomatology and/or laboratory results compatible with choledocholithiais. Almost all patients had already had a transabdominal ultrasound performed at the request of their general practitioner. All patients underwent direct-to-test day-case endoscopic ultrasound under conscious sedation. Procedures were performed by a single practitioner using an oblique-viewing radial echoendoscope. The diagnostic yield and frequencies of discharge, onward referral and follow-up were determined. Overall diagnostic yield of direct-to-test endoscopic ultrasound was 61%. The most common diagnoses were cholelithiasis (18%) and choledocholithiasis (11%); one periampullary cancer was also detected. A definitive outcome (discharge or referral for a therapeutic procedure) occurred in 14 of 28 patients (50%). The remaining 14 patients underwent further out-patient evaluation. Eventual diagnoses in this group included autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis and drug-induced hepatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with suspected biliary disease, direct-to-test endoscopic ultrasound has a high diagnostic yield, and may be an appropriate mode of investigation.

A one-year economic evaluation of six alternative strategies in the management of uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms in Canadian primary care

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of initial strategies in managing Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinalsymptoms remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of six management approaches to uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms in the Canadian setting.

METHODS

The present study analyzed data from four randomized trials assessing homogeneous and complementary populations of Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms with comparable outcomes. Symptom-free months, qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct costs in Canadian dollars of two management approaches based on the Canadian Dyspepsia Working Group (CanDys) Clinical Management Tool, and four additional strategies (two empirical antisecretory agents, and two prompt endoscopy) were examined and compared. Prevalence data, probabilities, utilities and costs were included in a Markov model, while sensitivity analysis used Monte Carlo simulations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were determined.

RESULTS

Empirical omeprazole cost $226 per QALY ($49 per symptom-free month) per patient. CanDys omeprazole and endoscopy approaches were more effective than empirical omeprazole, but more costly. Alternatives using H2-receptor antagonists were less effective than those using a proton pump inhibitor. No significant differences were found for most incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. As willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds rose from $226 to $24,000 per QALY, empirical antisecretory approaches were less likely to be the most costeffective choice, with CanDys omeprazole progressively becoming a more likely option. For WTP values ranging from $24,000 to $70,000 per QALY, the most clinically relevant range, CanDys omeprazole was the most cost-effective strategy (32% to 46% of the time), with prompt endoscopy-proton pump inhibitor favoured at higher WTP values.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no strategy was the indisputable cost effective option, CanDys omeprazole may be the strategy of choiceover a clinically relevant range of WTP assumptions in the initial management of Canadian patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia.<p>

Evidence-based approach to dyspepsia: from Helicobacter pylori to functional disease

Patients with dyspepsia may present with associated complaints of abdominal pain, bloating, fullness, acid reflux, and epigastric tenderness on examination. The evaluation of patients with dyspepsia includes taking a comprehensive history and performing a physical examination. Although taking a patient history has its limitations in making an accurate diagnosis, it is useful in guiding the selection of subsequent diagnostic tests. Differential diagnoses of dyspepsia are best addressed using an anatomical approach. Patients with chronic dyspepsia lasting > 1 month should be evaluated for the presence of alarm features. Alarm features mandate an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy examination, as these may be suggestive of a malignancy. In patients without alarm features, a Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat strategy is cost-effective if the prevalence of H. pylori infection is high. Tests for H. pylori infection can be divided into non-invasive and minimally invasive tests. Many different antibiotic combination therapies (eg, triple therapy, quadruple therapy, levofloxacin-based therapy, sequential therapy, concomitant therapy, and probiotics with eradication therapy) are now available for the eradication of H. pylori infection. In patients who are symptomatic without an organic pathology, functional dyspepsia and other causes of abdominal pain need to be considered. Functional dyspepsia is best managed using a multifaceted approach by establishing a good physician-patient relationship, dietary and lifestyle interventions, medical therapy, psychotherapy, and the use of psychotropic medications. This review rationalizes the current-day recommendations for the evaluation and management of patients with dyspepsia in a clinical setting.

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”.

The epidemiology, diagnosis, and cost of dyspepsia and Helicobacter pylori gastritis: a case-control analysis in the Southwestern United States

BACKGROUND

Dyspepsia is among the most common complaints evaluated by gastroenterologists, but there are few studies examining its current epidemiology, evaluation, and costs. We examined these issues in a large managed care system in the Southwestern United States.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case-control analysis of adults with incident dyspepsia or a Helicobacter pylori-related condition in years 2006 through 2010 using utilization data. Medical record abstraction of 400 cases was conducted to obtain additional clinical information.

RESULTS

A total of 6989 cases met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Women had a substantially higher risk of dyspepsia than men (14 per 1000 per year vs 10 per 1000; p < .001), and the incidence of dyspepsia increased with age such that persons in their seventh decade had almost twice the risk of those aged 18-29. Hispanic persons had a significantly higher risk of dyspepsia and positive H. pylori testing. Dyspepsia cases had a higher prevalence of other chronic comorbidities than their matched controls. Dyspepsia patients had healthcare costs 54% higher than controls even before the diagnosis was made, and costs in the initial diagnostic period were $483 greater per person, but subsequent costs were not greatly affected. Among those aged 55 and younger, the "test and treat" approach was used in 53% and another 18% had an initial esophagogastroduodenoscopy, as compared to 47 and 27%, respectively, among those over the age of 55.

CONCLUSIONS

Women and older adults have a higher incidence of dyspepsia than previously appreciated, and Hispanics in this region also have a higher risk. Current guidelines for dyspepsia evaluation are only loosely followed.

[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/).

Diagnostic accuracy of age and alarm symptoms for upper GI malignancy in patients with dyspepsia in a GI clinic: a 7-year cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether using demographic characteristics and alarm symptoms can accurately predict cancer in patients with dyspepsia in Iran, where upper GI cancers and H. pylori infection are common.

METHODS

All consecutive patients referred to a tertiary gastroenterology clinic in Tehran, Iran, from 2002 to 2009 were invited to participate in this study. Each patient completed a standard questionnaire and underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Alarm symptoms included in the questionnaire were weight loss, dysphagia, GI bleeding, and persistent vomiting. We used logistic regression models to estimate the diagnostic value of each variable in combination with other ones, and to develop a risk-prediction model.

RESULTS

A total of 2,847 patients with dyspepsia participated in this study, of whom 87 (3.1%) had upper GI malignancy. Patients reporting at least one of the alarm symptoms constituted 66.7% of cancer patients compared to 38.9% in patients without cancer (p<0.001). Esophageal or gastric cancers in patients with dyspepsia was associated with older age, being male, and symptoms of weight loss and vomiting. Each single predictor had low sensitivity and specificity. Using a combination of age, alarm symptoms, and smoking, we built a risk-prediction model that distinguished between high-risk and low-risk individuals with an area under the ROC curve of 0.85 and acceptable calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the predictors demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy. While our risk-prediction model had reasonable accuracy, some cancer cases would have remained undiagnosed. Therefore, where available, low cost endoscopy may be preferable for dyspeptic older patient or those with history of weight loss.

Dyspepsia: organic versus functional

Dyspepsia is the medical term for difficult digestion. It consists of various symptoms in the upper abdomen, such as fullness, discomfort, early satiation, bloating, heartburn, belching, nausea, vomiting, or pain. The prevalence of dyspepsia in the western world is approximately 20% to 25%. Dyspepsia can be divided into 2 main categories: "organic" and "functional dyspepsia" (FD). Organic causes of dyspepsia are peptic ulcer, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric or esophageal cancer, pancreatic or biliary disorders, intolerance to food or drugs, and other infectious or systemic diseases. Pathophysiological mechanisms underlying FD are delayed gastric emptying, impaired gastric accommodation to a meal, hypersensitivity to gastric distension, altered duodenal sensitivity to lipids or acids, altered antroduodenojenunal motility and gastric electrical rhythm, unsuppressed postprandial phasic contractility in the proximal stomach, and autonomic nervous system-central nervous system dysregulation. Pathogenetic factors in FD are genetic predisposition, infection from Helicobacter pylori or other organisms, inflammation, and psychosocial factors. Diagnostic evaluation of dyspepsia includes upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, abdominal ultrasonography, gastric emptying testing (scintigraphy, breath test, ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging), and gastric accommodation evaluation (magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, single-photon emission computed tomography, and barostat). Antroduodenal manometry can be used for the assessment of the myoelectrical activity of the stomach, whereas sensory function can be evaluated with the barostat, tensostat, and satiety test. Management of FD includes general measures, acid-suppressive drugs, eradication of H. pylori, prokinetic agents, fundus-relaxing drugs, antidepressants, and psychological interventions. This review presents an update on the diagnosis of patients presenting with dyspepsia, with an emphasis on the pathophysiological and pathogenetic mechanisms of FD and the differential diagnosis with organic causes of dyspepsia. The management of uninvestigated and FD, as well as the established and new pharmaceutical agents, is also discussed.

EUS compared with endoscopy plus transabdominal US in the initial diagnostic evaluation of patients with upper abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

Primary upper endoscopy (EGD) and transabdominal US (TUS) are often performed in patients with upper abdominal pain.

OBJECTIVE

Primary: Determine whether the combination of EGD and EUS was equivalent to EGD plus TUS in the diagnostic evaluation of upper abdominal pain. Secondary: Compare EUS versus TUS in detecting abdominal lesions, and compare EGD by using an oblique-viewing echoendoscope versus the standard, forward-viewing endoscope in detecting mucosal lesions.

DESIGN

Prospective, paired design.

SETTING

Six academic endoscopy centers.

PATIENTS

This study involved patients with upper abdominal pain referred for endoscopy.

INTERVENTION

All patients had EGD, EUS, and TUS. The EGD was done using both an oblique-viewing echoendoscope and the standard, forward-viewing endoscope (randomized order) by two separate endoscopists in a blinded fashion, followed by EUS. TUS was performed within 4 weeks of EGD/EUS, also in a blinded fashion.

FOLLOW-UP

telephone interviews and chart reviews.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Diagnose possible etiology of upper abdominal pain and detect clinically significant lesions.

RESULTS

A diagnosis of the etiology of upper abdominal pain was made in 66 of 172 patients (38%). The diagnostic rate was 42 of 66 patients (64%) for EGD plus EUS versus 41 of 66 patients (62%) for EGD plus TUS, which was statistically equivalent (McNemar test; P = .27). One hundred ninety-eight lesions were diagnosed with either EUS or TUS. EUS was superior to TUS for visualizing the pancreas (P < .0001) and for diagnosing chronic pancreatitis (P = .03). Two biliary stones were detected only by EUS. Two hundred fifty-one mucosal lesions were similarly diagnosed with EGD with either the standard, forward-viewing endoscope or the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (kappa = 0.48 [95% CI, .43-.54]). EGD with the standard, forward-viewing endoscope was preferred for biopsies.

LIMITATIONS

No cost analysis.

CONCLUSION

The combination of EGD with EUS is equivalent to EGD plus TUS for diagnosing a potential etiology of upper abdominal pain. EUS is superior to TUS for detecting chronic pancreatitis. EGD combined with EUS should be considered in the first-line diagnostic evaluation of patients with upper abdominal pain.

Prompt upper endoscopy is an appropriate initial management in uninvestigated chinese patients with typical reflux symptoms

OBJECTIVES

We sought to investigate the prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings (CSEFs) in Chinese patients presenting with uninvestigated typical reflux symptoms in the absence of alarm symptoms, and to evaluate whether prompt endoscopy is an appropriate initial management in these patients.

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting with uninvestigated typical reflux symptoms (i.e., heartburn or acid regurgitation) as chief complaints were recruited for symptom evaluation and upper endoscopy, followed by a 2-week proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy.

RESULTS

Of 469 patients recruited, CSEFs were observed in 180 (38.4%): 154 (32.8%) with erosive esophagitis (EE), 18 (3.8%) with Barrett's esophagus (BE), 24 (5.1%) with peptic ulcer disease (PUD), and 4 (0.9%) with carcinomas (1 esophageal carcinoma and 3 gastric adenocarcinomas). Multivariate analysis identified that an age >50 years (odds ratio (OR)=1.94, P=0.008), male gender (OR=4.11, P<0.001), being overweight or obese (OR=2.99, P<0.001), and alcohol use (OR=9.96, P<0.001) were independent risk factors for EE; an age >50 years (OR=4.61, P=0.003) and alcohol use (OR=5.50, P=0.003) were independent risk factors for BE; and Helicobacter pylori infection (OR=8.52, P<0.001) and alcohol use (OR=4.08, P=0.004) were independent risk factors for PUD. Symptom evaluation and response to PPI treatment were not correlated with EE, BE, and PUD in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CSEFs other than gastroesophageal reflux disease are present in a considerable proportion of Chinese patients with uninvestigated typical reflux symptoms but without alarm features. Symptom evaluation is of limited practical value, and thus prompt endoscopy seems to be an appropriate initial management option in these patients.

Endoscopy in the elderly: a review of the efficacy and safety of colonoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Gastrointestinal endoscopy including colonoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are safe and efficacious in elderly patients. Screening colonoscopies have little efficacy in patients over 80 years. Colonoscopies performed for bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia have a higher yield in elderly patients. Colonic preparations were well tolerated and colonoscopic success rates are high in elderly patients. However, poor colonic preparation is more likely in these patients. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is a high-yield procedure with no significant increase in adverse events in patients over 80 years with symptoms including dyspepsia and dysphagia. ERCP in the elderly carries a high degree of success with low complication rates. Elderly patients undergoing ERCP carry similar risks of bleeding and perforation and a lower risk of pancreatitis compared with younger patients. Advanced age should not be regarded as an absolute contraindication to any gastrointestinal endoscopy procedure.

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.

Managing dyspepsia

The prevalence of dyspepsia in the general population is as high as 40%, and its management represents a considerable financial burden to the health care system. Causes of dyspepsia amenable to medical therapy include peptic ulcer and functional dyspepsia, and testing for Helicobacter pylori and treating positive individuals is beneficial in both conditions. Individuals presenting for the first time with uninvestigated dyspepsia, age greater than 50 years, or alarm features require upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy to exclude gastroesophageal malignancy. Upper GI endoscopy for younger individuals without alarm features is not cost-effective compared with the "test and treat" approach. Test and treat and empirical acid-suppression using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) have similar costs and effects. Recent evidence suggests that empirical acid suppression commencing with antacids is as effective as PPI. Screening and treatment of H. pylori in PPI users and the community may reduce the costs of managing dyspepsia.

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.

Cost of detecting malignant lesions by endoscopy in 2741 primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Current guidelines recommend empirical, noninvasive approaches to manage dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms, but concerns about missed lesions persist; the cost savings afforded by noninvasive approaches must be weighed against treatment delays. We investigated the prevalence of malignancies and other serious abnormalities in patients with dyspepsia and the cost of detecting these by endoscopy.

METHODS

We studied 2741 primary-care outpatients, 18-70 years in age, who met Rome II criteria for dyspepsia. Patients with alarm features (dysphagia, bleeding, weight loss, etc) were excluded. All patients underwent endoscopy. The cost and diagnostic yield of an early endoscopy strategy in all patients were compared with those of endoscopy limited to age-defined cohorts. Costs were calculated for a low, intermediate, and high cost environment.

RESULTS

Endoscopies detected abnormalities in 635 patients (23%). The most common findings were reflux esophagitis with erosions (15%), gastric ulcers (2.7%), and duodenal ulcers (2.3%). The prevalence of upper gastrointestinal malignancy was 0.22%. If all dyspeptic patients 50 years or older underwent endoscopy, 1 esophageal cancer and no gastric cancers would have been missed. If the age threshold for endoscopy were set at 50 years, at a cost of $500/endoscopy, it would cost $82,900 (95% CI, $35,714-$250,000) to detect each case of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms rarely have serious underlying conditions at endoscopy. The costs associated with diagnosing an occult malignancy are large, but an age cut-off of 50 years for early endoscopy provides the best assurance that an occult malignancy will not be missed.

Clinical trial: a randomized trial of early endoscopy, Helicobacter pylori testing and empirical therapy for the management of dyspepsia in primary care

BACKGROUND

Early endoscopy, Helicobacter pylori eradication and empirical acid suppression are commonly used dyspepsia management strategies in primary care but have not been directly compared in a single trial.

AIM

To compare endoscopy, H. pylori test and refer, H. pylori test and treat and empirical acid suppression for dyspepsia in primary care.

METHODS

Patients presenting to their general practitioner with dyspepsia were randomized to endoscopy, H. pylori'test and treat', H. pylori test and endoscope positives, or empirical therapy with symptoms, patient satisfaction, healthcare costs and cost effectiveness at 12 months being the outcomes.

RESULTS

At 2 months, the proportion of patients reporting no or minimal dyspeptic symptoms ranged from 74% for those having early endoscopy to 55% for those on empirical therapy (P = 0.009), but at 1 year, there was little difference among the four strategies. Early endoscopy was associated with fewer subsequent consultations for dyspepsia (P = 0.003). 'Test and treat' resulted in fewer endoscopies overall and was most cost-effective over a range of cost assumptions. Empirical therapy resulted in the lowest initial costs, but the highest rate of subsequent endoscopy. Gastro-oesophageal cancers were found in four patients randomized to the H. pylori testing strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

While early endoscopy offered some advantages 'Test and treat' was the most cost-effective strategy. In older patients, early endoscopy may be an appropriate strategy in view of the greater risk of malignant disease.

Leaders, leadership and future primary care clinical research

BACKGROUND

A strong and self confident primary care workforce can deliver the highest quality care and outcomes equitably and cost effectively. To meet the increasing demands being made of it, primary care needs its own thriving research culture and knowledge base.

METHODS

Review of recent developments supporting primary care clinical research.

RESULTS

Primary care research has benefited from a small group of passionate leaders and significant investment in recent decades in some countries. Emerging from this has been innovation in research design and focus, although less is known of the effect on research output.

CONCLUSION

Primary care research is now well placed to lead a broad re-vitalisation of academic medicine, answering questions of relevance to practitioners, patients, communities and Government. Key areas for future primary care research leaders to focus on include exposing undergraduates early to primary care research, integrating this early exposure with doctoral and postdoctoral research career support, further expanding cross disciplinary approaches, and developing useful measures of output for future primary care research investment.

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.

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.

Clinical trial: knowledge of negative Helicobacter pylori status reduces subsequent dyspepsia-related resource use

BACKGROUND

Screening for Helicobacter pylori reduces dyspepsia and dyspepsia-related costs in positive individuals.

AIMS

To assess effect of knowledge of H. pylori status on healthcare-seeking in negative individuals.

METHODS

H. pylori-negative subjects in a community screening programme were randomized to placebo triple therapy or informed of their negative H. pylori status. Dyspepsia-related resource data were extracted from primary care records at 2 years, and National Health Service reference costs were applied to calculate the total cost per subject. Proportions of individuals incurring any cost were compared using a relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences in costs were compared using an independent sample t-test.

RESULTS

A total of 1353 H. pylori-negative individuals were randomized to placebo whilst 1355 were informed of their infection status. In the placebo arm, 212 (16%) subsequently incurred any dyspepsia-related cost compared to 172 (13%) informed of their infection status (RR of incurring cost = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67-0.97). Those informed of their infection status incurred lower costs (mean saving per individual = pound 11.02; 95% CI: - pound 3.52 to 25.56).

CONCLUSIONS

H. pylori-negative individuals informed of infection status sought health care for dyspepsia less often than those who were unaware. Population screening may reduce dyspepsia-related costs in uninfected, as well as infected individuals.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of two management strategies for dyspepsia

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness of endoscopy and empirical proton pump inhibition (PPI) therapy for management of dyspepsia in primary care.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial, including prospective collection of economic resource data, was conducted in general practice from June 2000 to August 2002, Aarhus County, Denmark. We randomly assigned 368 dyspeptic patients from thirty-two general practices to treatment with omeprazol 40 mg for 2 weeks (n=184) or endoscopy (n=184). The study adopted a societal perspective, and the year of costing was 2006.

OUTCOME MEASURES

days free of dyspeptic symptoms and proportion of patients with dyspepsia after 1 year based on patients' and general practitioners' (GPs) assessment. Costs were estimated from patient and GP questionnaires and from medical records.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness (CE) ratio for 1 day free of dyspeptic symptoms using the endoscopy strategy was euro/day 154 compared with the PPI strategy. The incremental CE ratio for one person free of dyspeptic symptoms after 1 year using the endoscopy strategy was euro13,905 based on the patients' evaluation, and the incremental CE ratio for one person free of predominant symptoms after 1 year was euro5,990 according to the GPs' evaluation. The PPI strategy was both cheaper and more effective than the endoscopy strategy when reflux was the predominant symptom.

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy using empirical antisecretory PPI therapy should be recommended if the alternative is an endoscopy strategy for managing dyspeptic patients in general practice, especially if reflux was the predominant symptom.

Factors contributing to patient nonattendance at open-access endoscopy

Patients who miss endoscopy appointments cause inefficient utilization of medical resources. Because national nonattendance rates are as high as 27% and reasons for nonattendance have not been well studied, we sought to quantitate nonattendance at our tertiary care institution. We conducted a retrospective records review of the institutional database to identify patients who did not attend a scheduled endoscopy appointment between January 2000 and December 2003. Nonattendance was defined as either not showing up for an appointment or canceling it on the day it was scheduled. At our institution, patient care assistants contact such patients to document their reasons in the database. Of 36,480 patients scheduled for outpatient endoscopy, 1,490 (4.1%) did not show up because of either facility-related (44.3%; e.g., scheduling errors) or patient-related (55.7%; e.g., noncancellation, illness, or hospitalization) reasons. Our 4.1% nonattendance rate over 4 years is considerably lower than that reported by other endoscopy centers.

Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation

Background

The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) is a method for summarizing the uncertainty in estimates of cost-effectiveness. The CEAC, derived from the joint distribution of costs and effects, illustrates the (Bayesian) probability that the data are consistent with a true cost-effectiveness ratio falling below a specified ceiling ratio. The objective of the paper is to illustrate how to construct and interpret a CEAC.

Methods

A retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) randomized controlled trial with 4060 patients followed for 3.5 years. The target population was patients with atrial fibrillation who were 65 years of age or had other risk factors for stroke or death similar to those enrolled in AFFIRM. The intervention involved the management of patients with atrial fibrillation with antiarrhythmic drugs (rhythm-control) compared with drugs that control heart rate (rate-control). Measurements of mean survival, mean costs and incremental cost-effectiveness were made. The uncertainty surrounding the estimates of cost-effectiveness was illustrated through a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.

Results

The base case point estimate for the difference in effects and costs between rate and rhythm-control is 0.08 years (95% CI: -0.1 years to 0.24 years) and -US$5,077 (95% CI: -$1,100 to -$11,006). The CEAC shows that the decision uncertainty surrounding the adoption of rate-control strategies is less than 1.7% regardless of the maximum acceptable ceiling ratio. Thus, there is very little uncertainty surrounding the decision to adopt rate-control compared to rhythm-control for patients with atrial fibrillation from a resource point of view.

Conclusion

The CEAC is straightforward to calculate, construct and interpret. The CEAC is useful to a decision maker faced with the choice of whether or not to adopt a technology because it provides a measure of the decision uncertainty surrounding the choice.

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.

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.

Nutrients and dyspepsia: paradigms and reality

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Dyspepsia is a common disorder that presents as persistent or recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort in the upper abdomen and originates from organic or functional causes. Heterogeneous disorders, physiopathological, psychosomatic, sociocultural, demographic and genetic components have a great impact on its presentation. Physiopathological elements and the influence of nutrients on symptomatology are discussed to help establish clearer guidelines for treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Gastric emptying is affected by physiological, pharmacological and dietary factors and is translated into symptoms and signs such as anorexia, nausea, vomiting, weight loss and abdominal pain. Liquid or solid meals may cause early or delayed emptying, which is associated with symptoms of postprandial fullness. Abnormal glucose and electrolyte serum values may also cause transitory emptying delay. Fatty and acid nutrients have also been reported to aggravate symptoms of functional dyspepsia, especially after large meals. Studies have also pointed at food sensibility and the effect of Helicobacter pylori infection on gastric emptying in symptomatic patients. Patients may suffer antral hypomotility and total/partial postingestion pattern conversion. Spinal brain axis dysfunction caused by peripheral inflammation is associated with gastric dysmotility. An association between symptoms and functional polymorphisms is pending further clarification. It has been questioned whether the genotype is associated with a specific physiopathological mechanism, postinfectious functional disorders or psychological/social alterations.

SUMMARY

The treatment of dyspepsia is empiric and is directed at improving symptoms associated with alterations in emptying, postprandial accommodation, hypersensibility and hyperalgesia. Further studies are required to correlate symptoms with food kinetics at the initial postfood ingestion stages.

Is it possible to reduce endoscopy workload using age, alarm symptoms and H. pylori as predictors of peptic ulcer and oesophagogastric cancers?

OBJECTIVES

We examined referrals to oesophagogastroduodenoscopy and the impact of demographic and clinical variables to predict major findings (peptic ulcer, cancer) on oesophagogastroduodenoscopy.

METHODS

We collected data on 3669 consecutive patients referred for oesophagogastroduodenoscopy.

RESULTS

Dyspeptic and reflux symptoms constituted 80% of oesophagogastroduodenoscopy referrals. A major finding was observed in 419 patients (11.4%). The mean age of cancer patients was 72.7 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 70.0-76.5 years) and that of peptic ulcer patients 62.0 years (95% CI 60.5-63.5 years). Independent risk factors for a major finding were age >50 years (odds ratio (OR) 1.62, 95% CI 1.24-2.10), male sex (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11-1.72), ulcer-type pain (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.80-3.02), weight loss (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.14-2.53), anaemia (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.38-2.40), bleeding symptoms (OR 3.27, 95% CI 2.26-4.75) and Helicobacter pylori (OR 2.49, 95% CI 2.00-3.11), whereas reflux symptoms were protective (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-1.00). The area under receiver operating characteristic curve of age over 50 years with alarm symptoms to predict major finding was 0.68 (95% CI 0.65-0.71), which positive H. pylori status increased to 0.71 (95% CI 0.69-0.74). Of the major findings, 87.2% were detected in patients with risk factors. Major findings were detected in 15.1% patients with and 8.1% (p < 0.001) without alarm symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Dyspeptic and reflux symptoms constitute the majority of oesophagogastroduodenoscopy workload. Discriminative power of alarm symptoms even with positive H. pylori status to detect peptic ulcer or cancer was low. Because of their low cancer risk, reflux and dyspeptic patients younger than 50 years can be treated without oesophagogastroduodenoscopy.