Chronic dyspepsia pain in general practice--its causes and diagnosis

[Prospective validation of a clinical scoring system for the diagnosis of organic dyspepsia]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Predictive symptomatic scoring models have been proposed to select patients with dyspepsia, who may be candidates to endoscopy. In a previous study performed by gastroentrologists from our group, we obtained three scales of symptoms to predict organic dyspepsia, peptic ulcer and esophagitis, respectively. Here we analyze the reproducibility of those scoring models of symptoms when used either by other gastroenterologists or general practitioners.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

It was a clinical prospective study of 230 patients from the Viladecans hospital area (120 from primary healthcare and 110 from the gastroenterologist's consultation). The three validation scales were performed in each patient. Then, we performed a diagnostic gastroscopy which allowed to classify patients into those with organic dyspepsia (ulcer, esophagitis, cancer) or those with functional dyspepsia. We calculated the overall predictive accuracy for the gastroenterologist and the general practitioner and for the three diagnoses (organic dyspepsia, ulcer or esophagitis) using the C statistic.

RESULTS

Discriminative capacities were 0.75 and 0.82 for organic dyspepsia, 0.78 and 0.86 for ulcer disease, and 0.78 and 0.82 for esophagitis, for the general practitioner and the gastroenterologist, respectively. In this validation study, the best cut-off value, namely the one combining good sensitivity and specificity, was found to be 7.

CONCLUSIONS

A correct predictive capacity of the symptomatic score models when used by other gastroenterologists or by primary healthcare practioners confirms its reproducibility and transferability. The use of predictive symptomatic score models in everyday clinical practice can allow to rationalize the referral for endoscopy in our local setting.

Care of the elderly with gastrointestinal problems in family practice

Gastrointestinal problems in older people cause a great amount of anxiety, morbidity and mortality. In general these diseases present for the first time to family practitioners. The management of gastrointestinal problems is more difficult because in an older age group, functional diseases can present in the same way as organic diseases. In addition, family practitioners see a different kind of patient than speciality physicians and may not have immediate access to diagnostic investigations. In this chapter, the role of the family practitioner in screening for gastrointestinal problems in asymptomatic older people is explored. In addition, how they differentiate between organic and non-organic disease and refer appropriately to secondary care is discussed. The role of family practitioners in the on-going maintenance of gastrointestinal diseases and in the management of Helicobacter pylori in community dwelling older people is also considered.

Value of the unaided clinical diagnosis in dyspeptic patients in primary care

OBJECTIVES

Attempts to establish a clinical diagnosis in dyspeptic patients have generally been unrewarding. However, studies in unselected dyspeptic patients are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the value of the unaided clinical diagnosis by general practitioners (GP) and by experienced gastroenterologists (GA) in unselected dyspeptic patients in primary care.

METHODS

Three hundred forty-seven patients with epigastric pain/discomfort for more than 2 wk who were consulting general practitioners (n = 73), but without alarm symptoms. GPs and GAs gave a provisional diagnosis based on an unstructured interview. All patients underwent endoscopy within 5 days of referral. Validity of the provisional diagnoses was measured using the endoscopic diagnoses as the gold standards.

RESULTS

For GPs, the sensitivity of a provisional diagnosis of peptic ulcer was 61% [95% confidence intervals (CI): 46-74%]; for specificity 73%, the 95% CI was 68-78%; and for positive predictive values, it was 28%, the 95% CI was 20-37%. GAs were more reluctant to predict ulcer, leading to a higher specificity: 84% (95% CI: 79-88%), but a similar sensitivity: 55% (95% CI: 40-69%). The GPs were unable to distinguish between functional and organic dyspepsia (chance-corrected overall validity: 9%; 95% CI: 0-18%). GPs and GAs agreed in their provisional diagnosis in only 45% of the patients, in whom the diagnosis was confirmed by endoscopy in 2/3.

CONCLUSION

The unaided clinical diagnosis given by the GP and by the GA in dyspeptic patients in primary care is unreliable. Nearly half of patients with ulcer or esophagitis were misclassified, despite a high susceptibility to organic disease. Different patients were problematic for GPs and GAs, which may indicate that most dyspeptic patients do not present with symptoms characteristic of a specific disease.

Accuracy of provisional diagnoses of dyspepsia in patients undergoing first endoscopy

BACKGROUND

This study assessed agreement between provisional and endoscopic diagnoses for patients with dyspepsia undergoing initial endoscopy, and examined variation between clinicians at 2 hospitals.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 423 consecutive patients.

RESULTS

Crude percentage agreement ranged from 55% to 97%. Kappa scores revealed poor agreement: peptic ulcers (0.11: 95% CI [0.05, 0.17]); gastroesophageal reflux disease (0.29: 95% CI [0.20, 0.38]); benign esophageal stricture (0.33: 95% CI [0.08, 0.58]); and cancer (0.12: 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36]). Positive and negative predictive values for cancer and benign esophageal stricture showed that agreement for a negative diagnosis was almost perfect, whereas agreement for a positive diagnosis was low. Only 17% of patients with cancer were given an accurate provisional diagnosis. Accuracy of diagnosis did not vary substantially between hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Crude percentage agreement is misleading. Emphasis should be placed on better prediction of cancer, benign esophageal stricture, and peptic ulcer disease. Accuracy of provisional diagnosis in everyday practice is no worse than that found in prospective studies in which clinicians knew a priori that diagnoses would be scrutinized. The difficulty of predicting diagnoses supports increased reliance on endoscopy.

Review article: the continuing dilemma of dyspepsia

Dyspepsia drains a substantial proportion of healthcare resources in industrialized countries and an appropriate management strategy is needed. An aetiological role for Helicobacter pylori infection has been demonstrated in a number of pathological conditions associated with dyspepsia, such as peptic ulcer and gastric malignancies, but not in functional dyspepsia. Endoscopy and diagnosis-based treatment, H. pylori testing and eradication therapy, history taking and empirical therapy, are the main tools that are currently available for managing patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Endoscopy identifies malignancies and organic diseases of the proximal gut and therefore provides reassurance to both doctors and patients. It should be recommended in older patients with suspicious symptoms and it has proven to be more cost-effective than empirical H2-receptor antagonists in patients with ulcer-like symptoms. Empirical eradication in all dyspeptics without suspicious symptoms is a cost-effective approach that cures the majority of peptic ulcers. Nevertheless, it does not control symptoms in the majority of patients, it may exacerbate gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, and it encourages antibiotic resistance. The realities of current clinical practice require empirical therapy in most, if not all, the dyspeptics seen by general practitioners. A detailed history taking can help to diagnose gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and to identify suspicious symptoms. Furthermore, identification of dyspepsia subgroups may provide guidance for empirical therapy. Nevertheless, even analysis of individual symptoms does not provide a sufficient diagnostic yield to differentiate functional from organic dyspepsia and appropriate investigations are needed in patients with poor response to short-term therapy or frequent relapses.

GPs' ability to diagnose dyspepsia based only on physical examination and patient history

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic value of the general practitioner's (GP's) unaided working diagnoses in dyspepsia. To compare the proportions of final diagnoses and the characteristics of patients who would have been referred to gastroscopy or to empirical drug treatment.

DESIGN

Clinical study.

PATIENTS

400 consecutive dyspeptic patients consulting their GPs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values (PV+ and PV-) were calculated for the GP's working diagnoses in cases of dyspepsia. The outcome of his/her decisions on how to manage dyspeptic patients was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Gastroesophageal reflux disease would have been diagnosed accurately, with a sensitivity of 0.59, specificity 0.83, PV+ 0.43 and PV- 0.90. GPs diagnosed functional disorders with a sensitivity of 0.43, specificity 0.69, PV+ 0.56 and PV- 0.54; peptic ulcer with a sensitivity of 0.37, specificity 0.83, PV+ 0.28 and PV- 0.88; and malignancy with a sensitivity of 0.13, specificity 0.97, PV+ 0.08 and PV- 0.98. Patients who would have been referred to gastroscopy had more often lost weight (p = 0.01), suffered from abdominal pain (p=0.03) and from symptoms partly suggesting irritable bowel syndrome (p< or =0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical diagnosis of the causes of dyspepsia is unreliable. In selecting patients for gastroscopy, more attention should be paid to risk factors such as age, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and history of previous peptic ulcer.

Management of dyspeptic patients in primary care. Value of the unaided clinical diagnosis and of dyspepsia subgrouping

BACKGROUND

Most dyspeptic patients in primary care are managed without confirmatory investigations. In this study the reliability of the unaided clinical diagnosis and the diagnostic value of dyspepsia subgrouping are evaluated in unselected dyspeptic patients in primary care.

METHODS

Six hundred and twelve unselected dyspeptic patients were referred for interview and endoscopy. General practitioners stated a provisional diagnosis and a proposed management strategy. Before endoscopy, patients were classified on the basis of predominant symptoms as reflux-, ulcer-, or dysmotility-like or as unclassifiable

RESULTS

The sensitivity and the positive predictive value of the diagnosis of ulcer were 0.58 and 0.29, respectively, and those for esophagitis 0.30 and 0.43. The predictive value of a clinical diagnosis of functional dyspepsia was high, but, considering the high prevalence of the condition, the chance-corrected validity was at the same level as for the other diagnoses (0.18-0.22). Classification of patients by predominant symptoms increased the a priori probability of ulcer and esophagitis in the respective subgroups. However, more than one-third of the patients with ulcer or esophagitis were classified in inappropriate subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult to select an appropriate management strategy for dyspeptic patients on the basis of symptoms and history alone. Dyspepsia subgroups are of limited help in the decision process because of the low predictive value of the endoscopic diagnosis.

Helicobacter pylori infection, reflux esophagitis, and atrophic gastritis: an unexplored triangle

OBJECTIVE

H. pylori causes chronic gastritis, which may progress to peptic ulcer, gastric atrophy, or gastric cancer. However, little is known about the role of H. pylori infection in reflux esophagitis and the relationship between reflux esophagitis and atrophic gastritis needs to be clarified. We sought to identify the possible interrelationships among Helicobacter pylori infection, reflux esophagitis, and atrophic gastritis, to signal areas in which researchers should consider focusing their attention.

METHODS

A broad-based Medline search was performed to identify all related publications addressing H. pylori infection, atrophic gastritis, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), secretion of gastric acid, and gastric motility published between 1966 and July 1997.

RESULTS

Whereas some studies have shown no significant association between H. pylori infection and reflux esophagitis, others have observed that the prevalence of H. pylori infection was lower in patients with GERD, implying a protective role. Eradication of H. pylori leads to occurrence of reflux esophagitis in some cases, but the mechanisms inducing posteradication reflux esophagitis are unknown. H. pylori infection may lead to atrophic gastritis (and hence hypochlorhydia) through both bacterial and host factors, although gastric atrophy and subsequent intestinal metaplasia are hostile to H. pylori because of hypochlorhydria. Although it has been reported that long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy for refractory reflux esophagitis may induce or enhance the development of gastric atrophy in H. pylori-infected patients, this relationship has been disputed.

CONCLUSIONS

H. pylori infection may be negatively associated with reflux esophagitis, but this requires confirmation. Research then needs to focus on whether this is explained through motility- or acid-related mechanisms. The potential costs of maintenance antireflux therapy may need to be taken into account when evaluating the cost effectiveness of anti-H. pylori therapy.

Policy analysis of the conversion of histamine2 antagonists to over-the-counter use

OBJECTIVES

The authors assess the costs associated with treatment of dyspepsia with histamine2 antagonists versus without availability of over-the-counter (OTC).

METHODS

A cost analysis was performed using a decision-analysis model. Patients with an initial episode of dyspepsia were studied. The model includes costs associated with consumption of OTC and prescription (Rx) medications for dyspepsia, physician visits and associated diagnostic testing, time spent for physician visits and diagnostic tests, and hospitalization costs.

RESULTS

The model is sensitive to the relative cost of histamine2 antagonists when purchased Rx or OTC, as well as to the efficacy of these drugs in relieving dyspeptic symptoms. For patients with nonulcer dyspepsia (the largest group of likely consumers), the model demonstrates a cost savings if the OTC cost of the medication is slightly less than one third the Rx cost. Costs are similar whether or not histamine2 antagonists are available OTC. If the symptom relief efficacies of histamine2 antagonists are equivalent whether purchased by prescription only or OTC, then the health-care expenditures for a typical patient with dyspepsia are $204 for OTC availability and $203 for Rx-only use. Viewing costs from the perspective of a managed-care organization, expenditures for an episode of dyspepsia are $149 regardless of whether or not histamine2 antagonists are available OTC. Restricting the analysis to patients with underlying nonulcer dyspepsia yields similar results. Variation of numerous assumptions and probabilities other than histamine antagonist cost and efficacy, including costs associated with physician visits and diagnostic tests, and the likelihood of seeking medical care, do not substantially affect the results of the model.

CONCLUSIONS

Health-care costs associated with initial treatment of dyspepsia are similar regardless of the availability of histamine2 antagonists OTC. This is due largely to the similar efficacy of these drugs compared with antacids and the predicted increase in diagnostic testing that may result if a patient visits a physician after failure to achieve symptom relief with OTC use of histamine2 antagonists.

General practitioners' approach to dyspepsia. Survey of consultation frequencies, treatment, and investigations

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of patient visits for dyspepsia in primary care. The diagnostic approaches made and drug treatment given by general practitioners were recorded.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study 36,230 patients over 15 years of age visited their health center in an area serving a population of 506,000 inhabitants, between 6 and 19 May 1991. The frequency of dyspepsia was 2.1% (n = 766). These patients formed the basis of this study.

RESULTS

The incidence of dyspepsia leading to a health center visit was 20.9/1000 inhabitants/year. Patients older than 45 years consulted their general practitioners for dyspepsia more often than younger patients. Men older than 45 years of age had had their symptoms longer before seeking medical advice than younger men or women of the same age (p = 0.03 and p < 0.05, respectively). In association with the first visit, older (over 45 years) patients were evaluated more frequently (p = 0.03) by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy than younger (15-44 years) ones. Upper abdominal ultrasound was performed almost as often as upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Sucralfate was prescribed for dyspeptic symptoms more often than H2-blockers or omeprazole, which were mainly used in patients with a definitive diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of medical visits for dyspepsia increased with age. Older men sought medical advice for dyspepsia after a longer delay than others. Upper abdominal endoscopy was performed in association with the first visit in older patients more often than in younger ones.

Etiology of dyspepsia: four hundred unselected consecutive patients in general practice

BACKGROUND

Four hundred consecutive unselected patients with dyspepsia in health care centers were investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the frequency of various causes of dyspepsia in primary care and to evaluate the usefulness of the latest definition of functional dyspepsia.

METHODS

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, upper abdominal ultrasound, a test for lactose intolerance, and basic laboratory screening were performed in every patient.

RESULTS

Esophagitis was the cause of symptoms in 15%, symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux without esophagitis in 12%, duodenal ulcer in 9%, gastric ulcer in 4%, erosive duodenitis in 2%, lactose intolerance in 9%, gallstone disease in 2%, and malignancy in 2%. Other more infrequent causes of dyspepsia were giardiasis, celiac disease, erosive gastritis, and chronic pancreatitis. One hundred and thirty-five patients had functional dyspepsia with subgroups of ulcer-like (22%), dysmotility-like (28%), and nonspecific (50%). Irritable bowel syndrome was diagnosed in 37 patients (9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The cause of dyspepsia was organic in 45%. Functional disorders, when symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux was included, were diagnosed in 55%. The latest classification of functional dyspepsia is not in accordance with the symptom complex.

Economic costs of functional dyspepsia

Dyspepsia is defined as chronic or recurrent symptoms believed to originate in the upper gastrointestinal tract. When routine investigation results in no identifiable explanation for those symptoms patients are labelled as having functional dyspepsia. In community-based surveys, approximately 30% of the otherwise apparently healthy population report dyspeptic symptoms and the majority are believed to have functional dyspepsia. Although only 1 in 4 or 5 patients make use of healthcare resources, this patient category is one of the largest in ambulatory care (1.6 to 5% of all consultations in general practice). The annual frequency of consultations for functional dyspepsia in Sweden has been estimated at 47 per 1000 population. In consequence of its high prevalence and associated absenteeism, the total costs of functional dyspepsia are considerable. In Sweden in 1981, the costs were estimated at $US55 000 per 1000 population ($US113 630 in 1991 dollars). The most cost-effective management strategy remains to be defined. Evidence is accumulating that the traditional 'wait-and-see' policy with initial empirical therapeutic trials without investigation may not be the most cost conserving strategy.

Patterns of dyspepsia in patients with no clinical evidence of organic diseases

We studied 2000 dyspeptic patients with no obvious signs of organic disease at their first examination, in order to (1) verify how many diagnoses of idiopathic dyspepsia had really been made after exhaustive diagnostic procedures and (2) evaluate the diagnostic power of the symptoms in distinguishing organic from idiopathic dyspepsia. This latter was considered only when no structural abnormalities were found. In all the other cases, a distinction was made between "related" and "associated" organic dyspepsia according to whether or not there was a certain relationship between the abnormalities and the dyspeptic symptoms. The patients were referred to us as follows: (1) spontaneously, (2) sent by physicians collaborating with us, (3) referred to our open access endoscopic service. The results show the frequency of idiopathic dyspepsia was 26%, whereas associated structural abnormalities were present in 45.4%. Obvious organic causes of dyspepsia were seen in 28.6% (24% benign and 4.6% malignant diseases). When considered separately, no symptom alone allows a correct diagnosis. The simultaneous evaluation of the symptoms with linear discriminant analysis distinguishes between idiopathic and organic dyspeptic patients in about 70% of the cases. A higher discrimination percentage in about 70% of the cases. A higher discrimination percentage could probably be obtained using a wider range of clinical parameters and/or a more complex statistical analysis of the interrelationships which exist between the clinical symptoms and the final diagnosis.

How well do general practitioners manage dyspepsia?

This paper reports the incidence of dyspepsia in general practice, the characteristics of patients, the types of complaints presented and the management of the dyspeptic patient by general practitioners. Fourteen general practitioners in the Maastricht region of the Netherlands studied 318 consecutive patients presenting with dyspepsia. Two questionnaires were used: one filled in by the patient (82% response), the other by the physician (100% response). The diagnostic conclusions which were established after three months of follow-up were compared with the diagnostic hypotheses at the initial consultation. The annual consultation rate for dyspepsia was calculated as 27 per 1000 registered subjects. One third of the patients had an earlier history of dyspepsia. Almost all patients (95%) complained of pain, and 37% had been suffering from pain for more than three months before consulting the general practitioner. The general practitioner prescribed medication in 70% of cases; less commonly the patient was referred for x-ray (14%), endoscopy (13%) or to a specialist (11%). A higher age was associated with a higher probability of referral, and with the finding of organic disease. A history of ulcer disease was strongly correlated with the diagnosis of an ulcer during the current episode. The overall concordance between the general practitioner's diagnostic hypothesis at the initial consultation and the diagnostic conclusion after three months of follow-up was 78%; it was highest when minor pathology was suspected. We conclude that dyspepsia is managed well in general practice and is only rarely associated with major lesions. Dyspeptic patients referred to a specialist therefore constitute a highly selected population.

Gastric cancer in primary care: how hard should you look?

This article addresses the question of how vigorously a physician should search for gastric cancer among dyspeptic patients. To address this subject, two major questions are posed: Which patients presenting with dyspepsia are at highest risk of having gastric cancer? Does early diagnosis of symptomatic gastric cancer affect outcome? Although early detection of gastric cancer has been increasingly reported since the advent of fiberoptic endoscopy, factors such as lead time bias and an unchanged case-fatality rate preclude a definitive conclusion of improved treatment outcomes resulting from early detection. At present, a policy of routine immediate investigation of dyspeptic patients has not been shown to reduce gastric cancer mortality.