A double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia

Curcuma longa Linn versus omeprazole in treatment of functional dyspepsia: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common problem in gastroenterology practice. The study aimed to compare the efficacy of Curcuma longa Linn versus omeprazole and placebo among patients diagnosed with FD.

METHODS

From November 2017 to November 2018, patients diagnosed with FD according to ROME IV criteria were enrolled. Patients were randomized into curcumin, omeprazole, or placebo groups. The Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (SODA) was used to evaluate clinical effectiveness after 2 and 4 weeks. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients were randomized. Forty-five, 43, and 44 patients were in the curcumin, omeprazole, and placebo groups, respectively. At 4 weeks, the mean SODA score change of pain and non-pain symptoms decreased in the curcumin group compared with the placebo group (pain -16.98 ± 8.09 vs -10.53 ± 4.43; P < 0.001, non-pain -7.96 ± 3.41 vs -6.05 ± 3.03; P < 0.008). No significant difference was observed between curcumin and omeprazole groups (pain -16.98 ± 8.09 vs -14.69 ± 6.41; P = 0.302, non-pain -7.96 ± 3.41 vs -7.07 ± 2.27; P = 0.486). The mean change of the SODA satisfaction score at 4 weeks was higher in the curcumin group compared with the omeprazole group but without statistical significance (9.17 ± 3.88 vs 8.63 ± 3.89, P = 1). The mean change of EQ-5D index at 4 weeks was highest in the curcumin group but not statistically different from other groups (0.12 ± 0.13 vs 0.09 ± 0.10 vs 0.07 ± 0.05; P = 0.055).

CONCLUSION

Curcuma longa Linn can improve dyspeptic symptoms, improve quality of life, and provide satisfaction equivalent to omeprazole in treatment of FD.

Functional gastrointestinal disorders. Overlap syndrome Clinical guidelines of the Russian Scientific Medical Society of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterological Scientific Society of Russia

.

Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of Helicobacter pylori-related dyspepsia and peptic ulcer in the UK

OBJECTIVE

Clinical data comparing diagnostic strategies in the management of Helicobacter pylori-associated diseases are limited. Invasive and noninvasive diagnostic tests for detecting H. pylori infection are used in the clinical care of patients with dyspeptic symptoms. Modelling studies might help to identify the most cost-effective strategies. The objective of the study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a 'test-and-treat' strategy with the urea breath test (UBT) compared with other strategies, in managing patients with H. pylori-associated dyspepsia and preventing peptic ulcer in the UK.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness models compared four strategies: 'test-and-treat' with either UBT or faecal antigen test (FAT), 'endoscopy-based strategy' and 'symptomatic treatment'. A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a simulation model in order to identify probabilities and costs associated with relief of dyspepsia symptoms (over a 4-week time horizon) and with prevention of peptic ulcers (over a 10-year time horizon). Clinical and cost inputs to the model were derived from routine medical practice in the UK.

RESULTS

For relief of dyspepsia symptoms, 'test-and-treat' strategies with either UBT (€526/success) and FAT (€518/success) were the most cost-effective strategies compared with 'endoscopy-based strategy' (€1317/success) and 'symptomatic treatment' (€1 029/success). For the prevention of peptic ulcers, 'test-and-treat' strategies with either UBT (€208/ulcer avoided/year) or FAT (€191/ulcer avoided/year) were the most cost-effective strategies compared with 'endoscopy-based strategy' (€717/ulcer avoided/year) and 'symptomatic treatment' (€651/ulcer avoided/year) (1 EUR=0,871487 GBP at the time of the study).

CONCLUSION

'Test-and-treat' strategies with either UBT or FAT are the most cost-effective medical approaches for the management of H. pylori-associated dyspepsia and the prevention of peptic ulcer in the UK. A 'test-and-treat' strategy with UBT has comparable cost-effectiveness outcomes to the current standard of care using FAT in the UK.

Proton pump inhibitors use and the risk of fatty liver disease: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-induced hypochondria can change the composition of the gut microbiota, inducing overgrowth of small bowel bacteria, which has been suggested to promote the development of fatty liver disease through the gut-liver axis. In this study, we aimed to investigate the association between PPI use and the risk of fatty liver disease.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort, a nationwide population-based representative sample, from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2015. PPI use was identified from treatment claims and considered as a time-varying variable.

RESULTS

During 1 463 556 person-years of follow-up, 75 727 patients had at least one PPI prescription, and 3735 patients developed fatty liver disease. The hazard ratio for fatty liver disease comparing PPI users with non-PPI users was 1.68 (95% confidence interval, 1.61-1.75). When adjusted for multiple confounders, including age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol intake, exercise, income level, and comorbidities, the association was still significant (hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-1.57). After considering the amounts of PPIs stratified by cumulative defined daily dose, the dose-response effect was observed until 180 days. Subgroup analysis also revealed that PPI use was correlated to an increased risk of fatty liver disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This current national wide cohort study suggests that PPI use was associated with an increased risk of fatty liver disease compared with non-use of PPIs. Clinicians should consider fatty liver as a potential risk when prescribing PPI.

Safety assessment of omeprazole use: a review

BACKGROUND

Risks regarding hospital admission due to adverse drug reactions and drug interactions from use of omeprazole have been reported. The question guiding the present review was "Which adverse events occur in patients using omeprazole in a Food and Drug Administration-approved and/or off-label manner?" It was also proposed to evaluate the safety of use of omeprazole.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative narrative review with critical evaluation, in a public university.

METHODS

The PubMed, SCOPUS, LILACS, SciELO, EMBASE and EBSCO databases were searched on July 31, 2018. Studies evaluating adverse events were screened.

RESULTS

72 articles were included, among which 58 reported on adverse drug events (47, adverse drug reactions; 5, drug interactions; and 6, situations of ineffectiveness). 28 adverse drug reactions not described in compendia and drug leaflets were described in these studies: myocardial infarction (6); stroke (2); spontaneous abortion (1); proliferative changes (1); chills (1); heart failure (1); thrombosis (2); and dementia (1), among others. Severe adverse reactions, for instance cardiac problems, Steven-Johnson syndrome and proliferative changes, were identified. The antiplatelet effects of drugs such as clopidogrel, in patients who underwent heart-related surgery, increased the risk of developing cardiac problems, such as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke. In newly transplanted patients, decreased absorption of mycophenolate mofetil occurred, thus leading to rejection of transplanted organs.

CONCLUSION

Use of omeprazole should be monitored primarily in patients with heart disorders using antiplatelet agents concomitantly, and in newly transplanted patients using mycophenolic acid, in order to avoid serious adverse reactions.

Discontinuing Long-Term PPI Therapy: Why, With Whom, and How?

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most widely used class of drugs prescribed over the long term in all of clinical medicine with 8-10% of ambulatory adults have been prescribed a PPI in the past 30 days. However, numerous studies have raised doubts about the long term safety of PPI use. The purpose of this review is threefold: (i) To provide an overview of the current evidence demonstrating associations between PPI use and adverse health outcomes and the likelihood of the associations being causal (Why?); (ii) To be able to identify long-term PPI users in whom the intensity of PPI therapy could be reduced or in whom PPIs could be eliminated outright (Who?); and (iii) To provide strategies on how to reduce or stop chronic PPI therapy while maintaining symptom control and reducing the risk for symptom or upper GI disease recurrence (How?).

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.

Current management strategies and emerging treatments for functional dyspepsia

Functional dyspepsia refers to painful and nonpainful symptoms that are perceived to arise in the upper digestive tract but are not secondary to organic, systemic or metabolic diseases. The symptoms of this syndrome often overlap with those of GERD and IBS, making its management far from simple. If Helicobacter pylori infection is diagnosed in patients with functional dyspepsia, it should be treated. In patients with mild or intermittent symptoms, reassurance and lifestyle advice might be sufficient; in patients not responding to these measures, or in those with more severe symptoms, drug therapy should be considered. Both PPIs and prokinetics can be used in initial empirical pharmacotherapy based on symptom patterns--a PPI is more likely to be effective in the presence of retrosternal or epigastric burning or epigastric pain, whereas a prokinetic is more effective in dyspepsia with early satiation or postprandial fullness. Although combinations of PPIs and prokinetics might have additive symptomatic effects, single-drug therapy is initially preferable. Antidepressants or referral to a psychiatrist or psychotherapist can be considered in nonresponders and in those whose symptoms have a marked effect on daily functioning. Despite extensive research, functional dyspepsia treatment often remains unsatisfactory. Better characterization of dyspeptic subgroups and understanding of underlying mechanisms will enable treatment advances to be made in the future.

[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/).

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.

Current medical treatments of dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome

Dyspepsia is a highly prevalent condition characterized by symptoms originating in the gastroduodenal region without underlying organic disorder. Treatment modalities include acid-suppressive drugs, gastroprokinetic drugs, Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy, tricyclic antidepressants, and psychological therapies. Irritable bowel syndrome is a multifactorial, lower functional gastrointestinal disorder involving disturbances of the brain-gut axis. The pathophysiology provides the basis for pharmacotherapy: abnormal gastrointestinal motor functions, visceral hypersensitivity, psychosocial factors, intraluminal changes, and mucosal immune activation. Medications targeting chronic constipation or diarrhea may also relieve irritable bowel syndrome. Novel approaches to treatment require approval, and promising agents are guanylate cyclase cagonists, atypical benzodiazepines, antibiotics, immune modulators, and probiotics.

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.

One-week acid suppression trial in uninvestigated dyspepsia patients with epigastric pain or burning to predict response to 8 weeks' treatment with esomeprazole: a randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

While empiric acid-suppressive therapy for uninvestigated dyspepsia patients with symptoms of epigastric pain or burning is standard practice, it is unknown whether an early response to therapy predicts outcome.

AIM

To evaluate whether a 1-w acid suppression trial is effective for predicting 8-w response in such patients.

METHODS

Helicobacter pylori-negative patients (aged 18-50 years) in primary care with uninvestigated epigastric pain or burning were randomized to esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. or b.d. for 1w, followed by esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. or placebo for 7w. Each day, patients rated the severity of their symptoms.

RESULTS

Based on the last 3d, 1-w response rates were 39% (231 of 588) and 43% (258 of 596) with esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. and b.d., respectively. Based on the last 7d, response rates at 4w were 38% (283 of 738) and 25% (93 of 380) for esomeprazole and placebo, respectively, and 47% (339 of 716) and 34% (124 of 368), respectively, at 8w (both P < 0.001 vs. placebo). The sensitivity and specificity of esomeprazole treatment were 58% and 70%, respectively, at 8w.

CONCLUSION

A 1-w acid suppression trial is of limited clinical value for predicting 8-w response in patients with symptoms of epigastric pain or burning. Esomeprazole provides greater symptom control than placebo at 4w and 8w.

Initial treatment with lansoprazole in young dyspeptic patients with negative urea breath test result: a randomized controlled trial with 12-month follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Although empirical antisecretory drug therapy is recommended to young dyspeptic patients without alarming features, the effectiveness of this approach remains undetermined. We evaluated the long-term effects of an initial 12-wk course of lansoprazole in young dyspeptic patients without Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection.

METHODS

Patients who were less than 45 yr and presented with at least 3 months of dyspepsia in the absence of alarming features were eligible. They were offered (13)C-urea breath test (UBT) to determine H. pylori status and all symptomatic patients with negative UBT were randomized to receive lansoprazole 30 mg daily or placebo for 12 wk. Those who had previous endoscopy or positive UBT were excluded. Primary end point was the proportion of patients with treatment failure, defined as worsening of global dyspeptic symptom, while on study medication. Patients were followed up for 26 wk for global dyspeptic symptom as determined by 7-point Likert scale. Quality-of-life assessment (SF-36), need of endoscopy, and utilization of other health-care services were monitored for 52 wk.

RESULTS

A total of 157 dyspeptic patients were randomized. At the end of 12-wk treatment, the proportion of patients with treatment failure was similar in the lansoprazole (33.3%) and placebo (30.3%) groups (P= 0.74). Patients' global assessment of their dyspeptic symptom was comparable at all time points measured. There was also no significant difference in the SF-36 mental and physical summary scales. At the end of 52 wk, there was no difference in the proportion of patients who underwent endoscopy, had additional medical consultations, or used other nonstudy medications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Lansoprazole is not effective in the initial management of young dyspeptic patients without H. pylori infection.

Reflux, Dyspepsia, and Disorders of the Foregut

Disorders of the foregut are an increasingly common cause of symptoms in Western populations. This review summarizes recent advances in the understanding and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, dyspepsia and celiac disease.

Effects of proton-pump inhibitors on functional dyspepsia: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess systematically the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the treatment of functional dyspepsia compared with placebo and to determine if any difference in the response exists between symptom subgroups of functional dyspepsia.

METHODS

A literature search was performed through September 2005 in PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases to include randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of PPIs for the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Relative risk (RR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated under a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 3725 patients were identified. PPIs were found to be more effective than placebo for reducing symptoms in patients with functional dyspepsia (RRR, 10.3%; 95% CI, 2.7%-17.3%). The estimated number needed to treat is 14.6 (95% CI, 8.7-57.1). When stratified analyses were performed, a significant difference in the efficacy was observed only in patients with ulcer-like (RRR, 12.8%; 95% CI, 7.2%-18.1%) and reflux-like dyspepsia (RRR, 19.7%; 95% CI, 1.8%-34.3%), but not in those with dysmotility-like (RRR, 5.1%; 95% CI, -10.9% to 18.7%) and unspecified dyspepsia (RRR, -8.0%; 95% CI, -23.7% to 5.6%). The effect of H pylori on the efficacy of PPIs remains unclear. Significant heterogeneity among studies was found for the overall analysis, dysmotility-like dyspepsia, H pylori-negative subgroup, and different dose subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

PPIs are more effective than placebo for the management of patients with ulcer-like and reflux-like functional dyspepsia.

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.

Diagnostic approach to dyspepsia

The optimal diagnostic approach to the dyspeptic patient in primary care is still debated. Early endoscopy continues to be the diagnostic gold standard but competing non-invasive strategies challenge this. The most important approaches are empiric antisecretory treatment reserving endoscopy for unresponsive patients and patients with an early symptomatic relapse and helicobacter-based strategies reserving endoscopy for infected patients (test-and-scope) or for failures after eradication therapy (test-and-treat). Early endoscopy is recommended in patients with alarm features and should be considered in patients with new onset dyspepsia after age 50. In the remaining patients, early investigation can only be recommended in areas providing endoscopy at a low cost and with a short waiting list. The test-and-scope strategy may lead to a rise in the referral rates for endoscopy and cannot be recommended. The test-and-treat strategy is well documented in clinical trials as a safe and cost-effective approach. Helicobacter-based strategies are challenged by a decreasing prevalence of peptic ulcer disease and of the infection. In the near future, the empirical acid inhibition strategy will probably be cost-effective as gastro-oesophageal reflux becomes the predominant disorder in dyspeptic patients.

The management of peptic ulcer disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The period under review has seen little evolution in our understanding of the empiric management of dyspepsia. The role of Helicobacter pylori in this setting remains controversial, and a policy of risk stratification with the prudent use of test and treat and symptomatic therapy, with endoscopy for nonresponsive cases, seems to have some support from the literature in this period.

RECENT FINDINGS

The management of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-associated and aspirin-associated complications has received a lot of attention in the period under review. The COX-2 selective agents have maintained their reputation as safer (but not "safe") options, although some of the original work with one of these agents has been rigorously interrogated and found wanting. Studies in the review period have focused our attention on the less than satisfactory protection of proton pump inhibitor cotherapy, the site-specific nature of ulcer recurrences (which may have therapeutic implications), lower gastroenterology complications associated with NSAID use, and the beneficial effect of proton pump inhibitor cotherapy for patients receiving low-dose aspirin. One should also expect a lot more information in the future with regard to the use of the nitric oxide donating class of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and aspirin.

SUMMARY

Findings are presented that suggest that the H.pylori stool antigen test is not as reliable as the urea breath test, while the most promising "new therapy" for H. pylori is not new, but rather an amalgam of some older drugs combined in a new "quadruple" therapy strategy, which shows some promise.

Impact of upper endoscopy on satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

In patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia who undergo endoscopy, the presence of abnormal findings guides subsequent management. However, upper endoscopy is "negative" in the majority of these patients, and the value of endoscopy in these individuals has been questioned. This study evaluated the impact of endoscopy on patient satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia.

METHODS

The study was a secondary analysis of data obtained from a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial, evaluating a 6-week course of omeprazole versus placebo in 140 patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia who were followed for up to 1 year. The setting was the primary care outpatient clinics at the Houston Veterans Affairs Hospital. Participants had to be 18 years of age or older with at least a 1-week history of dyspepsia (epigastric discomfort) without alarm features. Satisfaction was measured at each visit with the Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment, a validated, reliable dyspepsia-related health measure that has a satisfaction scale (scores 2-23; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction). Patients unresponsive to empiric therapy with placebo or omeprazole based on predefined criteria underwent endoscopy. Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment satisfaction scores were analyzed for 5 visits: 2 closest in time to, but before, the day of endoscopy (Times 1 and 2); immediately before endoscopy (Time 3); and the 2 visits closest in time after endoscopy (Times 4 and 5). After determining there was no difference in treatment failure rates between patients who received placebo or omeprazole, data from these groups were combined. The mean Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment satisfaction scores for Times 1 through 5 in all patients who underwent endoscopy were compared as well as for subgroups with positive and negative endoscopic findings with a repeated-measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Data on all 5 visits were available in 62 patients, 36 of whom had a negative endoscopy. For all patients the mean scores for Time 2 (8.5; 95% CI [7.4, 9.6]), and Time 3 (7.6; 95% CI [6.6, 8.6]) were significantly lower than those for Time 4 (13.7; 95% CI [12.2, 15.3]) and Time 5 (14.4; 95% CI [12.9, 15.9]). The mean score for Time 1 (11.1; 95% CI [9.5, 12.6]) was significantly lower than the mean score for Time 5. Similar significant improvements in satisfaction scores were observed in subgroups with negative and positive findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia, endoscopy leads to improved patient satisfaction regardless of the endoscopic findings.