Cost-effectiveness analysis of two management strategies for dyspepsia

Web-Based Educational Intervention for Patients With Uninvestigated Dyspepsia Referred for Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Endoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract endoscopy for uninvestigated dyspepsia is low, and its clinical implications are limited. There is an unmet need for better strategies to reduce the volume of upper GI tract endoscopic procedures for dyspepsia.

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness of a web-based educational intervention as a tool to reduce upper GI tract endoscopy in uninvestigated dyspepsia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial enrolled participants between November 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019, with follow-up 52 weeks after randomization, at 4 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants included patients with uninvestigated dyspeptic symptoms who were referred for upper GI tract endoscopy by their general health care clinician without prior consultation of a gastroenterologist. A total of 119 patients, aged 18 to 69 years, were included. Patients were excluded if any of the following red flag symptoms were present: (indirect) signs of upper GI tract hemorrhage (hematemesis, melena, hematochezia, or anemia), unintentional weight loss of 5% or higher of normal body weight during a period of 6 to 12 months, persistent vomiting, dysphagia, or jaundice.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to education (intervention) or upper GI tract endoscopy (control). Education consisted of a self-managed web-based educational intervention, containing information on gastric function, dyspepsia, and upper GI tract endoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Difference in the proportion of upper GI tract endoscopy procedures between those who received access to the web-based educational intervention and those who did not at 12 weeks and 52 weeks after randomization, analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included quality of life (Nepean Dyspepsia Index) and symptom severity (Patient Assessment of Gastrointestinal Disorders Symptom Severity Index) measured at baseline and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Of 119 patients included (median age, 48 years [interquartile range, 37-56 years]; 48 men [40%]), 62 were randomized to web-based education (intervention) and 57 to upper GI tract endoscopy (control). Significantly fewer patients compared with controls underwent upper GI tract endoscopy after using the web-based educational intervention: 24 (39%) vs 47 (82%) (relative risk, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.64; P < .001). Symptom severity and quality of life improved equivalently in both groups. One additional patient in the intervention group required upper GI tract endoscopy during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Findings of this study indicate that web-based patient education is an effective tool to decrease the need for upper GI tract endoscopy in uninvestigated dyspepsia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03205319.

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.

Prevention of overuse: A view on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Many upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies worldwide are performed for inappropriate indications. This overuse of healthcare negatively affects healthcare quality and puts pressure on endoscopy services. Dyspepsia is one of the most common inappropriate indications for upper GI endoscopy as diagnostic yield is low. Reasons for untimely referral are: unfamiliarity with dyspepsia guidelines, uncertainty about etiology of symptoms, and therapy failure. Unfiltered open-access referrals feed upper GI endoscopy overuse. This review highlights strategies applied to diminish use of upper GI endoscopies for dyspepsia. First, we describe the impact of active guideline implementation. We found improved guideline adherence, but resistance was encountered in the process. Secondly, we show several forms of clinical assessment. While algorithm use reduced upper GI endoscopy volume, effects of referral assessment of individual patients were minor. A third strategy proposed Helicobacter pylori test and treat for all dyspeptic patients. Many upper GI endoscopies can be avoided using this strategy, but outcomes may be prevalence dependent. Lastly, empirical treatment with Proton pump inhibitors achieved symptom relief for dyspepsia and avoided upper GI endoscopies in about two thirds of patients. Changing referral behavior is complex as contributing factors are manifold. A collaboration of multiple strategies is most likely to succeed.

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.

[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/).

Clinical trial: the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care--prospective randomized comparison of rabeprazole 20 mg with esomeprazole 20 and 40 mg

BACKGROUND

A trial of empirical PPI therapy is usual practice for most patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in primary care.

AIM

To determine if the 4-week efficacy of rabeprazole 20 mg for resolving heartburn and regurgitation symptoms is non-inferior to esomeprazole 40 mg or 20 mg.

METHODS

In all, 1392 patients were randomized to rabeprazole 20 mg, esomeprazole 20 mg or 40 mg once daily. Patients, doctors and assessors were blinded. Symptom resolution data were collected on days 0-7 and day-28 using the Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders Symptom Severity Index with a shortened version used on days 8-27.

RESULTS

Rabeprazole 20 mg was non-inferior to esomeprazole 40 mg for complete resolution of regurgitation and satisfactory resolution of heartburn and regurgitation. For complete heartburn resolution, the efficacy of rabeprazole 20 mg and esomeprazole 40 mg was statistically indistinguishable, although the non-inferiority test was inconclusive. Rabeprazole 20 mg was non-inferior to esomeprazole 20 mg for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In uninvestigated GERD patients, rabeprazole 20 mg was non-inferior to esomeprazole 40 mg for complete and satisfactory relief of regurgitation and satisfactory relief of heartburn, and not different for complete resolution of heartburn.