Helicobacter pylori screening for individuals requiring chronic NSAID therapy: a decision analysis

Cost Effectiveness Associated with Helicobacter pylori Screening and Eradication in Patients Taking Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and/or Aspirin

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study was performed to investigate the cost effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori screening/eradication in South Korean patients treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or aspirin.

METHODS

A decision Markov model was used to estimate the effectiveness and economic impact of an H. pylori screening/eradication strategy compared to a no-screening strategy among patients who were included in the model at the age of 40 years. Utility weights were applied to four of the health status groups to reflect quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The costs of screening, H. pylori eradication, and managing peptic ulcer and ulcer complications were obtained from South Korea-specific data.

RESULTS

The total costs per patient were US $2,454 for the H. pylori screening/eradication and US $3,182 for the no-screening strategy. The QALYs for the two strategies were 16.05 and 15.73, respectively. The results were robust for the analyses of all different cohort groups who entered the model at the age of 30, 50, or 60 years and for NSAIDs-naïve patients. Through the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the robustness of our study's results was also determined.

CONCLUSIONS

The H. pylori screening/eradication strategy was found to be less expensive and more effective compared to the no-screening strategy among South Korean patients taking NSAIDs and/or aspirin.

Cost Effectiveness Associated with Helicobacter pylori Screening and Eradication in Patients Taking Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and/or Aspirin

Background/Aims

This study was performed to investigate the cost effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori screening/eradication in South Korean patients treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or aspirin.

Methods

A decision Markov model was used to estimate the effectiveness and economic impact of an H. pylori screening/eradication strategy compared to a no-screening strategy among patients who were included in the model at the age of 40 years. Utility weights were applied to four of the health status groups to reflect quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The costs of screening, H. pylori eradication, and managing peptic ulcer and ulcer complications were obtained from South Korea-specific data.

Results

The total costs per patient were US $2,454 for the H. pylori screening/eradication and US $3,182 for the no-screening strategy. The QALYs for the two strategies were 16.05 and 15.73, respectively. The results were robust for the analyses of all different cohort groups who entered the model at the age of 30, 50, or 60 years and for NSAIDs-naïve patients. Through the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the robustness of our study's results was also determined.

Conclusions

The H. pylori screening/eradication strategy was found to be less expensive and more effective compared to the no-screening strategy among South Korean patients taking NSAIDs and/or aspirin.

Interaction of Helicobacter pylori infection and low-dose aspirin in the upper gastrointestinal tract: implications for clinical practice

Low-dose aspirin has been shown to increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal tract injury. Risk factors in upper gastrointestinal complications in low-dose aspirin users are less well defined than in other NSAID users, and there are enough intrinsic differences in the two agents to discuss them separately. In particularly, the role of Helicobacter pylori and the benefit of its eradication in decreasing the risk of upper gastrointestinal tract injury in low-dose ASA users remains controversial. Various consensus groups have recommended H. pylori testing and eradication in low-dose ASA users with a prior history of peptic ulcer or ulcer bleeding. The basis of this recommendation is derived from a limited, albeit expanding evidence on the role of H. pylori in upper gastrointestinal tract injury in low-dose ASA users and on the effectiveness of H. pylori eradication in reducing the risk of complications such as rebleeding in high-risk patients.

Balancing the gastrointestinal benefits and risks of nonselective NSAIDs

Nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most widely used classes of medications to treat pain and inflammation. However, gastrointestinal complications associated with NSAIDs are prevalent, largely due to the frequent use of these agents. Adverse events associated with NSAIDs include minor side effects, such as dyspepsia, as well as serious complications, such as bleeding and perforation. Although the probability that any given individual user of an NSAID will suffer a serious gastrointestinal complication is fairly low, widespread patient exposure can translate into a major national health burden. The increasing use of aspirin in the prevention of cardiovascular events and the availability of select over-the-counter NSAIDs represent additional challenges to clinicians in their efforts to make the most appropriate therapeutic decisions while minimizing the potential gastrointestinal risks associated with the use of these agents. Side effects such as dyspepsia do not provide adequate warning of gastrointestinal complications, because most complications occur without the presence of antecedent symptoms. Therefore, accurate risk assessment and the management of controllable risk factors are crucial to the safe administration of NSAIDs. This review focuses on the gastrointestinal effects of aspirin, acetaminophen, and other nonselective NSAIDs, and discusses those factors that are associated with increased risk for adverse gastrointestinal events in certain individuals.

Should we eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in patients receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-dose aspirin?

Whether Helicobacter pylori infection alters the risk of ulcer disease in patients receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or low-dose aspirin is one of the most controversial topics in peptic ulcer research. This is an important management issue, particularly in countries where peptic ulcer disease is common and the prevalence of H. pylori infection is high. Current evidence shows that H. pylori infection increases the ulcer risk associated with NSAIDs or low-dose aspirin. Eradication of H. pylori reduces the subsequent risk of endoscopic and complicated ulcers in patients who are about to start long-term NSAIDs. Among patients with H. pylori infection and a history of ulcer bleeding who continue to use low-dose aspirin, 1 week of eradication therapy prevents recurrent ulcer bleeding. Failure of eradication and concomitant use of NSAIDs, however, account for most cases of recurrent bleeding with low-dose aspirin. The apparent protective effect of H. pylori in long-term NSAIDs users reported in some studies was actually the weeding out of susceptible patients who were intolerant to NSAIDs. There is no convincing evidence that eradication of H. pylori has any clinically important adverse effect on the healing and prevention of ulcers in NSAIDs users.

NSAID-induced peptic ulcers and Helicobacter pylori infection: implications for patient management

The conflicting data about the influence of Helicobacter pylori infection on the ulcer risk in patients receiving NSAIDs can be accounted for by the heterogeneity of study designs and the diversified host response to H. pylori. Factors that will affect the outcome include the choice of H. pylori diagnostic tests, previous ulcer complications, concurrent use of acid suppressants, NSAID-naive versus long-term users, low-dose aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) versus non-aspirin NSAIDs and whether the result was derived from a pre-specified endpoint or post hoc subgroup analysis. Current evidence suggests that H. pylori eradication reduces the ulcer risk for patients who are about to start receiving NSAIDs but not for those who are already on long-term NSAID therapy. Since treatment with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) worsens H. pylori-associated corpus gastritis, H. pylori should be tested for, and eradicated if present, before starting long-term prophylaxis with PPIs. Patients with H. pylori infection and a history of ulcer complications who require NSAIDs should receive concomitant PPIs or misoprostol after curing the infection. Among patients receiving low-dose aspirin, who have H. pylori infection and previous ulcer complications, long-term treatment with a PPI further reduces the risk of complicated ulcers if H. pylori eradication fails or if patients use concomitant non-aspirin NSAIDs. Current data on the gastric safety of COX-2 selective NSAIDs in H. pylori-infected patients are conflicting. Limited data suggest that the gastroduodenal sparing effect of rofecoxib is negated by H. pylori infection in patients who have had prior upper gastrointestinal events. In light of potential cardiovascular risk with COX-2 selective NSAIDs, it is important to weigh the potential adverse effects against the benefits for an individual patient.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Reappraisal of non-invasive management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia: a cost-minimization analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits of the Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat strategy are attributable largely to the cure of peptic ulcer disease while limiting the use of endoscopy.

AIM

To reappraise the test-and-treat strategy and empirical proton pump inhibitor therapy for the management of uninvestigated dyspepsia in the light of the decreasing prevalence of H. pylori infection, peptic ulcer disease and peptic ulcer disease attributable to H. pylori.

METHODS

Using a decision analytical model, we estimated the cost per patient with uninvestigated dyspepsia managed with the test-and-treat strategy ($25/test; H.pylori treatment, $200) or proton pump inhibitor ($90/month). Endoscopy ($550) guided therapy for persistent or recurrent symptoms.

RESULTS

In the base case (25%H. pylori prevalence, 20% likelihood of peptic ulcer disease, 75% of ulcers due to H.pylori), the cost per patient is $545 with the test-and-treat strategy and $529 with proton pump inhibitor, and both strategies yield similar clinical outcomes at 1 year. H. pylori prevalence, the likelihood of peptic ulcer disease and the proportion of ulcers due to H.pylori are important determinants of the least costly strategy. At an H. pylori prevalence below 20%, proton pump inhibitor is consistently less costly than the test-and-treat strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

As the H. pylori prevalence, the likelihood of peptic ulcer disease and the proportion of ulcers due to H. pylori decrease, empirical proton pump inhibitor becomes less costly than the test-and-treat strategy for the management of uninvestigated dyspepsia. Given the modest cost differential between the strategies, the test-and-treat strategy may be favoured if patients without peptic ulcer disease derive long-term benefit from H.pylori eradication.

Decision analysis to estimate cost effectiveness in neurosurgery

Medical decisions often depend, in part, on cost-effectiveness concerns. Decision analysis is frequently used to help resolve these questions. Unfortunately, this technique has received little attention in neurosurgery. Using an example of moderate head injury, the authors illustrate the utility of this powerful tool in estimating the cost effectiveness of neurosurgical management options.

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori and risk of peptic ulcers in patients starting long-term treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Whether Helicobacter pylori increases the risk of ulcers in patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is controversial. We hypothesised that eradication of H pylori infection would reduce the risk of ulcers for patients starting long-term NSAID treatment.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled if they were NSAID naïve, had a positive urea breath test, had dyspepsia or an ulcer history, and required long-term NSAID treatment. They were randomly assigned omeprazole triple therapy (eradication group) or omeprazole with placebo antibiotics (placebo group) for 1 week. All patients were given diclofenac slow release 100 mg daily for 6 months from randomisation. Endoscopy was done at 6 months or if severe dyspepsia or gastrointestinal bleeding occurred. The primary endpoint was the probability of ulcers within 6 months. Analyses were by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Of 210 arthritis patients screened, 128 (61%) were positive for H pylori. 102 patients were enrolled, and 100 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. H pylori was eradicated in 90% of the eradication group and 6% of the placebo group. Five of 51 eradication-group patients and 15 of 49 placebo-group patients had ulcers. The 6-month probability of ulcers was 12.1% (95% CI 3.1-21.1) in the eradication group and 34.4% (21.1-47.7) in the placebo group (p=0.0085). The corresponding 6-month probabilities of complicated ulcers were 4.2% (1.3-9.7) and 27.1% (14.7-39.5; p=0.0026).

INTERPRETATION

Screening and treatment for H pylori infection significantly reduces the risk of ulcers for patients starting long-term NSAID treatment.

Helicobacter pylori, NSAIDs and gastrointestinal haemorrhage

Helicobacter pylori infection and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) cause the majority of bleeding ulcers. Whether the presence of H. pylori infection would affect the risk of ulcers in patients taking NSAIDs is important for both theoretical and practical reasons. However, the results have been so conflicting that there is no consensus on the management of patients requiring NSAIDs who are infected with H. pylori. The controversy is largely due to the variable study design and marked heterogeneity of the study population. Studying the interaction between H. pylori and NSAIDs without considering these factors often leads to erroneous conclusions. Current evidence suggests that H. pylori contributes to an increased ulcer risk for patients who are about to start NSAID treatment, whereas NSAIDs probably account for the majority of ulcer disease in patients who are already taking long-term NSAIDs. In the light of the reduced gastric toxicity of COX-2 inhibitors, the relative importance of H. pylori in the pathogenesis of ulcers is expected to increase. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that H. pylori contributes to ulcer bleeding associated with low-dose aspirin. Among H. pylori-positive patients with a history of ulcer bleeding who are taking low-dose aspirin, the eradication of H. pylori has been shown to be comparable to omeprazole in preventing recurrent bleeding.

Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

The complex interaction between H. pylori and NSAIDs implies that it is over simplistic to conclude that their relationship is independent, synergistic, or antagonistic without considering the influence of other factors. Factors such as previous exposure to NSAIDs, a history of ulcer complication, concurrent use of acid-suppressant therapy, and the difference between NSAIDs and low-dose aspirin all affect the outcome. Several recommendations can be made with regard to the indications of H. pylori eradication for patients requiring NSAIDs. First, patients taking NSAIDs who have ulcers or previous ulcer disease should be tested for the bacterium, and it should be eradicated if present because it is impossible to determine whether the ulcers are caused by H. pylori or NSAIDs or both. Antiulcer drugs should be prescribed to prevent ulcer recurrence for patients who continue to require NSAIDs. Although the efficacy of omeprazole is enhanced by H. pylori infection, it is not justified to leave a pathogen in the stomach in exchange for a modest therapeutic gain. Second, for patients who take low-dose aspirin, eradication of H. pylori substantially reduces the risk of ulcer bleeding. It is advisable that patients taking low-dose aspirin who are at risk of ulcer bleeding should be tested for H. pylori and treated for it if the infection is found. Third, for patients who are about to start NSAIDs, screen-and-treat H. pylori has the potential of reducing the ulcer risk at an affordable incremental cost. It might be argued that any interaction between H. pylori and NSAIDs would become irrelevant in the era of COX-2-selective NSAIDs. Even among patients who are receiving a COX-2-selective NSAID, however, a large-scale study showed that the ulcer risk is significantly higher in H. pylori-positive patients than in uninfected patients. This finding suggests that the relative importance of H. pylori in ulcer development might increase with a reduced toxicity of COX-2-selective NSAIDs. With an increasing use of low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis, the problem of aspirin-related ulcer disease is expected to rise. Given the significant role of H. pylori in the latter condition, screen-and-treat H. pylori might be a useful strategy for the prevention of ulcer complications in high-risk patients receiving low-dose aspirin in the future.

Prophylaxis and treatment of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced upper gastrointestinal side-effects

The use of specific agents to heal mucosal lesions or to prevent non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicity, has focused upon two approaches: replacement of prostaglandin deficiency and inhibition of acid secretion. Acid suppression with traditional ulcer healing doses of H2-blockers is effective in healing gastric and duodenal ulcers upon discontinuation of the offending drug. In the event the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug must be continued, the use of H2-blockers is associated with a decrease in the healing rate. In long-term prevention studies, H2-blockers significantly reduce duodenal ulcer rates, but are ineffective in reducing gastric ulceration. More potent acid inhibition with a double-dose of H2-blockers (famotidine 80 mg daily, ranitidine 600 mg daily) may reduce the risk of gastric and duodenal ulcers. Marked acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (omeprazole 20-40 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg daily) also appears to be very effective in healing gastric and duodenal ulcers in patients continuing the offending drug as well. An analysis of pooled data from comparative studies on omeprazole vs ranitidine, misoprostol and sucralfate shows a therapeutic advantage in favour of the proton pump inhibitor, ranging from 10 to 40%. In long-term prevention studies, omeprazole (20 mg daily) and pantoprazole (40 mg daily) have also been shown to reduce the risk of gastric and duodenal ulcers and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related dyspepsia. Current data from recent comparative studies of omeprazole (20 mg daily) vs ranitidine (150 mg daily) and misoprostol (200 microg daily) showed that, after 6 months' follow-up, the proton pump inhibitor was significantly superior to control drugs in reducing the risk both of gastric and duodenal ulcer. Misoprostol (at doses ranging from 400 microg to 800 microg/day) is an effective form of therapy for preventing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastroduodenal lesions. However high-dose misoprostol only, seems adequate for the prevention of ulcer complications, mainly in high-risk non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users. Thus, available data are undoubtedly in favour of the proton pump inhibitors as well tolerated and effective drugs in the prophylaxis and treatment of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related mucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract.

Prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms and complications due to NSAIDs

The mechanisms by which aspirin(ASA) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) cause gastrointestinal symptoms are poorly understood. They probably arise from several causes, including direct and indirect mucosal injury, exacerbation of underlying peptic ulcer disease or non-ulcer dyspepsia, exacerbation of Helicobacter pylori gastritis, and possibly motility disorders. No single form of therapy has been generally successful. Because, in most cases, symptoms abate fairly rapidly with continued treatment, there is little evidence that benefit associated with any symptom-directed drug therapy is superior to placebo beyond 4 weeks. Exceptions may be the subsets of patients with pre-existing ulcer disease or heartburn, exacerbated by the NSAID therapy, who usually benefit from acid-suppressive drug treatment. Different NSAIDs vary in the frequency with which their use leads to gastrointestinal(GI) complications such as haemorrhage, perforation, obstruction, or the symptomatic ulcers from which about 40% of the complications arise. Most gastroduodenal ulcers heal over time, albeit more slowly, with conventional doses of any of the available anti-ulcer drugs. Maintenance therapy may be needed in many patients who continue NSAID therapy. Anti-ulcer drugs have not, thus far, been shown to be more effective than placebo in preventing ulcer complications or their recurrence. The use of COX-2-selective inhibitors appears, in outcome studies, to reduce gastrointestinal bleeding, including bleeding from ulcers, but it is not established that the ulcers protected were caused by NSAIDs, as distinct from ulcers exacerbating or recurring from antecedent peptic ulcer disease. To-date, perforation or obstruction have not been shown to be affected by selective COX-2 inhibitor drugs. If the major problem giving rise to severe NSAID complications is pre-existing peptic ulcer disease, it may yet emerge that the most effective approach will be the use of proton pump inhibitor drugs, for the duration of NSAID therapy, in a small subset of high-risk patients. Most other low-risk patients may not need any special care. Co-morbid conditions have a major impact on outcome of NSAID therapy. Morbidity or even death attributable solely to NSAIDs is probably small in normal patients, and requires little in the way of prophylaxis.

Helicobacter pylori and NSAID gastropathy: an ambiguous association

Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with adverse gastro- intestinal effects ranging from mild dyspepsia to serious complications such as bleeding peptic ulcer. However, controversy persists regarding the interaction between these two well-documented risk factors. Physiology studies reveal that H. pylori infection can protect the upper gastrointestinal tract by increasing prostaglandin levels. In contrast, clinical trial evidence suggests that eradication of H. pylori infection leads to a decreased risk for endoscopic ulcers in people taking NSAIDs. Given the rates of morbidity and mortality and costs attributable to NSAID-associated toxicity, preventive strategies to reduce NSAID side-effects remain important. Until controlled investigations definitively quantify the effect of H. pylori infection and eradication on clinically significant adverse events, a compelling argument can be made for H. pylori testing of chronic NSAID users at increased risk for ulcer disease and eradicating the organism if present.