The predictive value of history in dyspepsia

Diagnostic value of symptoms of oesophagogastric cancers in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Selection of primary care patients for investigation of potential oesophagogastric cancer is difficult, as the symptoms may represent benign conditions, which are also more common.

AIM

To review systematically the presenting features of oesophagogastric cancers in primary care, including open-access endoscopy clinics.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched for studies of adults who were symptomatic and presented in primary care or open-access endoscopy clinics. Exclusions were being asymptomatic, screening, or recurrent cancers. Data were extracted to estimate the diagnostic performance of features of oesophagogastric cancers and summarised in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified. The strongest summary sensitivity and specificity estimates were for: dyspepsia 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 0.56) and 0.48 (95% CI = 0.31 to 0.65); pain 0.41 (95% CI = 0.24 to 0.62) and 0.75 (95% CI = 0.51 to 0.89); and dysphagia 0.32 (95% CI = 0.17 to 0.52) and 0.92 (95% CI = 0.81 to 0.97). Summary positive likelihood ratios (LR+) and diagnostic odds ratios were: dyspepsia 0.79 (95% CI = 0.55 to 1.15) and 0.65 (95% CI = 0.32 to 1.33); pain 1.64 (95% CI = 1.20 to 2.24) and 2.09 (95% CI = 1.57 to 2.77); and dysphagia 4.32 (95% CI = 2.46 to 7.58) and 5.91 (95% CI = 3.56 to 9.82). Sensitivity was lower for: anaemia 0.12 [95% Cl = 0.08 to 0.19] with specificity 0.97 [95% Cl = 0.94 to 0.99]; nausea/vomiting/bloating 0.17 [95% Cl = 0.05 to 0.46] and 0.84 [95% Cl = 0.60 to 0.94] respectively; reflux 0.23 [95% Cl = 0.10 to 0.46] and 0.70 [95% Cl = 0.59 to 0.80]; weight loss 0.25 [95% Cl = 0.12 to 0.43] and 0.96 [95% Cl = 0.88 to 0.98]. [corrected]. Corresponding LR+ were: anaemia 4.32 (95% CI = 2.64 to 7.08); nausea/vomiting/bloating 1.07 (95% CI = 0.52 to 2.19); reflux 0.78 (95% CI = 0.47 to 1.78) and; weight loss 5.46 (95% CI = 3.47 to 8.60).

CONCLUSION

Dysphagia, weight loss, and anaemia show the strongest association but with relatively low sensitivity and high specificity. The findings support the value of investigation of these symptoms, but also suggest that, in a population of patients who are low risk but not no-risk, investigation is not currently recommended.

[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/).

Use of the Montreal global definition as an assessment of quality of life in reflux disease

According to the Montreal Consensus Group's classification, gastroesophageal reflux disease develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications such as esophagitis. The characteristic gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms included in this statement are retrosternal burning and regurgitation. Troublesome is meant to imply that these symptoms impact on the well-being of affected individuals; in essence, quality of life (QOL). Whether heartburn and regurgitation symptoms would be characterized as more troublesome in those with confirmed pathologic acid reflux was determined. A second purpose was to assess how well troublesome scores correlated with the results of a validated, disease-specific QOL instrument. Subjects who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with 48-hour wireless esophageal pH testing off proton pump inhibitor therapy were interviewed. Esophagitis on EGD or pH < 4.0 for ≥4.5% of time over the 2-day period was considered positive for acid reflux. Assessment of how troublesome their symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation were made using separate 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS). Subjects were then asked to complete the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) 25-item questionnaire. Sixty-seven patients (21 males, 46 females) with mean age 47.8 ± 15.6 years were identified. Forty (59.7%) had an EGD or pH study positive for acid reflux. Overall 35/40 (87.5%) complained of either heartburn or regurgitation. There was no difference (P= 0.80) in heartburn VAS troublesome ratings for those with (54.0 ± 43.9) and without (56.7 ± 37.6) confirmed acid reflux. The same was true for regurgitation VAS troublesome ratings (P= 0.62). Likewise, mean QOLRAD scores did not differ between those with and without confirmed acid reflux by pH or EGD (4.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.3 ± 1.7; P= 0.61). There was a moderately strong inverse correlation between patient self-rated VAS troublesome scores for both heartburn and regurgitation with each dimension (emotional distress, sleep disturbance, eating problems, physical/social functioning, and vitality) of the QOLRAD (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). In regression analysis, both heartburn and regurgitation troublesome ratings were associated with the overall QOLRAD score independent of pH data, frequency of reflux episodes, age, and gender. Use of the term troublesome in the Montreal Consensus Group classification is supported by our findings. It correlates well with the results of a validated disease-specific QOL instrument. Use of heartburn and regurgitation VAS may serve as accurate measures of the burden of reflux disease on patients. It is likely that these scales will not have sufficient discriminate value to identify individuals with pathologic acid reflux from those with negative studies.

Clinical decision making — an application of judgment analysis and its potential for pharmacy

Objectives

To explore the methodological use of judgment analysis in understanding clinical decision-making among United Kingdom(UK) general practitioners (GPs), and to consider how it might be applied to pharmacy.

Method

Written cases, with clinical and social patient information, were developed for sore throat and dyspepsia. Decision models were created relating social and clinical information to: (1) GPs' perceptions of severity (sore throat); (2) the likelihood of an ulcer diagnosis (dyspepsia).

Setting

Two counties in southern England.

Key findings

Of the 47 practices contacted, 17 (36 per cent) participated with 24 general practitioners completing the sore throat series and 24 different GPs completing the dyspepsia series. Twenty GPs (42 per cent) had decision models incorporating social factors. These GPs were no more likely to prescribe on paper or in practice than those with decision models without social factors.

Conclusion

Judgment analysis has yet to be applied to the decision-making of practising pharmacists. Potential applications include pharmacists' decisionmaking in the area of minor ailment management or the decision when to intervene when monitoring prescriptions. The influence of social factors, such as patient demand, social class or a distressing patient circumstance on pharmacists' decision-making are aspects of decision-making particularly worthy of future investigation.

Systematic review of the symptom burden, quality of life impairment and costs associated with peptic ulcer disease

BACKGROUND

Management of peptic ulcer disease has improved over the past few decades. However, the widespread use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and low-dose acetylsalicylic acid means that the burden of peptic ulcer disease remains a relevant issue.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles published 1966-2007 that reported symptoms, impairment of well-being or health-related quality of life, and costs associated with peptic ulcer disease.

RESULTS

Thirty studies reported the prevalence of patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms in individuals with endoscopically diagnosed symptomatic peptic ulcer disease. Average prevalence estimates, weighted by sample size, were 81% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77%-85%) for abdominal pain (11 studies), 81% (95% CI, 76%-85%) for pain specifically of epigastric origin (14 studies), and 46% (95% CI, 42%-50%) for heartburn or acid regurgitation (11 studies). On average, 29% (95% CI, 25%-34%) of patients with peptic ulcer disease presented with bleeding, often as the initial symptom (11 studies). Patients with peptic ulcer disease had significantly lower health-related quality of life than the general population, as measured by the Psychological General Well-Being index (P <.05; 7 studies) and the Short-Form-36 questionnaire (P <.05; 2 studies). Direct medical costs of peptic ulcer disease based on national estimates from several countries were USD163-866 per patient. The most costly aspects of peptic ulcer disease management were hospitalization and medication. Complicated peptic ulcer disease is particularly costly, estimated to be USD1883-25,444 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Peptic ulcer disease significantly impairs well-being and aspects of health-related quality of life, and is associated with high costs for employers and health care systems.

Sensitivity of ultrasonography for gastric cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients

Endoscopy with biopsy sampling is the gold standard used in gastric cancer diagnosis. However, the positive predictive value of signs and symptoms for the diagnosis of carcinomas is quite limited, and, therefore, many patients are subjected to non-diagnostic endoscopies, especially when symptoms are not so specific. This study shows that ultrasonography is sensitive enough for the diagnosis of gastric cancer, and, therefore, use of this technique would further ensure a better selection of patients for endoscopy. The study included 143 patients (86 men and 57 women, with an average age of 68.6 years) who were suspected of having gastric cancer. The diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography was evaluated in a blind study. The conventional technique was used in all cases. Demographic parameters and a series of other clinical-analytical variables were studied to look for possible gastric cancer predictive factors, which when present would make ultrasonographic results irrelevant. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 12.0, wherein a value of P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Of the 143 patients studied, 40 were diagnosed to have gastric cancer. Sonography was able to diagnose 37 cases correctly, while there were three false negative findings and eight false positive findings. This results in 92.5% sensitivity, 92.2% specificity, 82.2% positive predictive value, 96.9% negative predictive value, and a global accuracy of 92.3%. Univariate analysis showed that persistent vomiting (P = 0.021), hemoglobin level of less than 8 g/dl (P = 0.045) and a positive ultrasonography result (P < 0.0001) were associated with a higher frequency of gastric cancer. Multivariate analysis showed that persistent vomiting, with an odds ratio for gastric cancer of 3.68 (95% confidence interval 1.15-11.79; P = 0.039), and a positive ultrasonography result, with an odds ratio for gastric cancer of 117.78 (95% confidence interval 32.45-427.49; P < 0.0001), could be considered as independent predictive factors for gastric cancer. It was concluded that ultrasonography is a very sensitive and specific technique for diagnosing gastric cancer. Gastric cancer was found to be present in just 28% of the patients studied, and their condition was suspect because of the clinical manifestations. Only vomiting and a positive ultrasonography result can be considered as independent predictive factors of gastric cancer.

Simple uninvestigated dyspepsia: age threshold for early endoscopy in Bosnia and Herzegovina

OBJECTIVE

To establish an optimal age threshold for endoscopy referral in patients with simple uninvestigated dyspepsia in the setting of European developing country (Bosnia and Herzegovina) with low availability and high workload of endoscopy units.

METHODS

We reviewed patient information on all upper endoscopies performed during a 6-year period (2000-2005). Different age thresholds were evaluated in terms of their predictive power for absence of malignancy.

RESULTS

A total of 82 of 4403 (1.86%) dyspeptic patients had upper gastrointestinal (GI) malignancy. Age cutoffs of 40 years for men and 45 years for women had the best predictive power, without any cases of upper GI malignancies below those thresholds. Age cutoffs of 45 years for men and 50 years for women also had excellent negative predictive values (99.7 and 99.9%, respectively) with 1.45 and 0.98 cases of missed upper GI malignancies per 1000 endoscopies, respectively. A total of 1709 of 4403 (38.8%) of endoscopies might have been avoided in men of less than 45 and women of less than 50 with uninvestigated dyspepsia.

CONCLUSION

(i) Age thresholds for endoscopy referral are lower than in Western countries and should be different for men and women. (ii) Cutoff values of 40 and 45 years for men and women, respectively, are completely safe to use. (iii) Thresholds of 45 years for males and 50 years for females have a small level of risk of missing upper GI malignancy, but are acceptable to use in areas of low availability of endoscopy.

The frequency of the psychiatric symptoms in the patients with dyspepsia at a university hospital

OBJECTIVE

According to the psychiatric hypothesis, the symptoms of dyspepsia may be due to depression, anxiety or a somatization disorder. We investigated the frequency of psychiatric symptoms in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures with dyspepsia, either with or without pathological findings, and compared this with control subjects without dyspeptic symptoms.

METHODS

Ninety patients with dyspeptic symptoms and 90 control subjects participated in the study. Both the patients and the controls were asked to complete a questionnaire about socio-demographic characteristics, the Turkish version of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90). In order for us to determine whether the criteria for any of the conditions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) were met, the patients were asked to take part in the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV disorders.

RESULTS

Of the participants, 47.8% had a psychiatric disorder according to DSM-IV criteria, somatoform disorder (44.2%) being the most common. While 42.2% patients were determined to have a pathological finding using endoscopic evaluation, 57.8% had no findings. Together with the somatization and obsessive-compulsive disorder subscale scores, the total SCL-90 score and the mean trait anxiety score were statistically significantly higher in participants with no pathological findings. There were trends for anxiety (13.2% vs. 7.7%) and mood (2.6% vs. 0.0%) disorders to be more frequent in patients with pathological findings, while somatoform disorder+depressive disorder (17.3% vs. 5.2%) was more frequent in patients with no findings, although the differences were not statistically significant (Z=0.7, P>.05). The scores of state-trait anxiety, somatization, obsession-compulsion, depression, anxiety, phobic anxiety and psychotism subscales, and the total SCL-90 score were statistically significantly higher in those participants without a pathological finding than in the controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding the high frequency of psychiatric disorders in patients with dyspeptic symptoms, we think that such patients should be evaluated by two separate departments, gastroenterology and psychiatry.

Digestive symptoms and their psychosocial impact: validation of a questionnaire

OBJECTIVE

Questionnaires evaluating digestive symptoms and their psychosocial impact have not been extensively validated in Norwegian populations. In this study a self-administered questionnaire developed in Norway is evaluated for this purpose.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The questionnaire, the Digestive Symptoms and Impact Questionnaire, DSIQ, was developed by a cooperative group of general practitioners and gastroenterologists. The DSIQ contains 18 similarly structured global-type questions focusing on the patient's own judgement. The validation was based on 567 patients with dyspeptic symptoms or reflux symptoms referred to gastroscopy from general practice.

RESULTS

Eighty percent of the patients responded to all the questions. All response categories were used for all questions. Factor analysis revealed 4 subscales: abdominal pain and bowel symptoms; gastric dysfunction; health impairment and impairment of everyday life. A question about reflux symptoms was retained as a subscale on its own. Overall score was established by calculating the mean of all question responses. Test-retest reliability in stable patients (intraclass correlation coefficient, range 0.80- 0.91) and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha, range 0.65-0.91) were satisfactory. Criterion validity was supported by significant correlations to patients' globally estimated quality of life and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-30). Responsiveness in spontaneously improved patients or patients given effective treatment ranged from moderate to highly responsive (responsiveness statistic range from 0.54 to 2.83).

CONCLUSIONS

The DSIQ is a self-administered, simple and well-validated method for evaluating digestive symptoms and their psychosocial impact. The DSIQ shows satisfactory internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, responsiveness and criterion validity.

Limited value of alarm features in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Alarm features such as dysphagia, weight loss, or anemia raise concern of an upper gastrointestinal malignancy in patients with dyspepsia. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of alarm features in predicting malignancy by performing a metaanalysis based on the published literature.

METHODS

English-language studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and CINAHL. Cohort studies that measured alarm features and compared them with the endoscopic findings were included. Studies were screened for inclusion by 2 authors who independently extracted the data. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated by comparing the alarm feature with the endoscopic diagnosis. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve method was used to summarize test characteristics across studies. Individual alarm features were also assessed when the study report permitted.

RESULTS

Eighty-three of 2600 studies met the initial screening criteria; 15 met inclusion criteria after detailed review. These 15 studies evaluated a total of 57,363 patients, of whom 458 (.8%) had cancer. The sensitivity of alarm symptoms varied from 0% to 83% with considerable heterogeneity between studies. The specificity also varied significantly from 40% to 98%. A clinical diagnosis made by a physician was very specific (range, 97%-98%) but not very sensitive (range, 11%-53%).

CONCLUSIONS

Alarm features have limited predictive value for an underlying malignancy. Their use in dyspepsia management strategies needs further refinement and study.

Role of Helicobacter pylori virulence factor and genotypes in non-ulcer dyspepsia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The role of Helicobacter pylori (HP) in non-ulcer dyspepsia is debatable. Eradicating HP will help a small group of non-ulcer dyspeptic patients. However, it is unclear which subgroup of patients will benefit from eradication therapy. The aim of the present study was to compare the cagA and cagE status, as well as vacA genotypes, of HP in non-ulcer dyspeptic patients who responded successfully to eradication therapy compared with those patients who did not.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with moderate to severe (Likert 2 or 3) non-ulcer dyspepsia with HP were recruited prospectively. Gastric biopsies were taken, DNA extracted and polymerase chain reaction performed to determine the cagA and cagE status and vacA alleles. Eradication therapy was offered until HP was eradicated successfully. The HP status was checked 1 month after eradication therapy using the [(13)C]-urea breath test. All patients were assessed by one interviewer using Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), a four-point Likert scale, and SF-36 for quality of life over 12 months. Treatment success was defined as minimal or no symptoms (Likert 1 or 0). The cagA, cagE and vacA status was blinded to the investigators until completion of the study.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients (36 males, 37 females) were recruited to the study. The mean+/-SD patient age was 53.38+/-12.09 years. When the 36 patients who improved (group A) were compared with the 37 (group B) who did not, no significant difference was found in the cagE positive rate (55.6 vs 43.2%, respectively; P=0.638), cagA positive rate (83.1 vs 73.0%, respectively; P=0.247), vacA m1 versus m2 subtype (84.0 vs 55.6%, respectively; P=0.472) or vacA s1a versus s1c (39.4 vs 57.1%, respectively; P=0.166). There was also no significant difference noted in the SF-36 scores between the two groups after the conclusion of eradication therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Stratification of HP genotypes and virulence factor has no significant impact on the treatment success of non-ulcer dyspepsia.

Meta-analysis: the diagnostic value of alarm symptoms for upper gastrointestinal malignancy

BACKGROUND

With the advent of empirical treatment strategies for patients with dyspeptic symptoms, it becomes increasingly important to select patients with a high risk of having cancer for immediate endoscopy. Usually alarming symptoms are used for this matter, but their diagnostic value is by no means clear.

AIM

To investigate the diagnostic value of alarm symptoms for upper gastrointestinal malignancy.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of studies describing prevalence of alarm symptoms in patients with and without endoscopically verified upper gastrointestinal malignancy were identified through a Medline search. The prevalence, pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

About 17 case studies and nine cohort studies were selected. The mean prevalence of gastrointestinal malignancies in the cohort studies was 2.8% of 16,161 patients. Five cohort studies indicated that 25% of the patients diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal malignancy had no alarm symptoms. The pooled sensitivities of individual alarm symptoms varied from 9 to 41%, the pooled positive predictive value ranged from 4.6 to 7.9%, and was 5.9% for 'having any alarm symptom'. The pooled negative predictive value was 99.4% for 'having any alarm symptom'.

CONCLUSION

The risk of upper gastrointestinal malignancy in any individual without alarm symptoms is very low, but approximately one in four patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer have no alarm symptoms at the time of diagnosis.

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.

[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.

Reflux symptoms in general practice: diagnostic evaluation of the Carlsson-Dent gastro-oesophageal reflux disease questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Amongst primary care patients with dyspeptic symptoms, those with reflux-like symptoms or gastro-oesophageal reflux disease are expected to benefit most from empirical proton pump inhibitor therapy. Recognition of this patient group, however, is difficult. The Carlsson-Dent gastro-oesophageal reflux disease questionnaire was developed to justify the selection of primary care patients for empirical proton pump inhibitor treatment.

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic test characteristics of the Carlsson-Dent questionnaire in a primary care population.

METHODS

A prospective, open-label, multi-centre diagnostic prevalence study was conducted amongst primary care adults with reflux symptoms. All patients completed the questionnaire and underwent gastroscopy. If no abnormalities were found, the patients were prescribed 2 weeks of treatment with omeprazole (20 mg daily). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the overall discriminative value of the questionnaire. Diagnostic test characteristics of both the cut-off score (total diagnostic score) in the questionnaire and the physician's provisional classification were measured using oesophagitis and omeprazole treatment success as the reference tests.

RESULTS

Of the 536 patients included, 515 underwent endoscopy. No abnormalities were found in 286 (55%). Omeprazole treatment success occurred more frequently in patients with a total diagnostic score of > 7 and oesophagitis II-IV in patients with a total diagnostic score of > 9. The diagnostic test characteristics of the questionnaire were comparable with those of the physician's provisional classification. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve did not exceed 0.65. Kappa values for observer agreement with the gold standard were far below 0.4.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic performance of this version of the Carlsson-Dent questionnaire was poor. It equalled the physician's clinical judgement and therefore its value for clinical use is limited.

Changes in food tolerance and lifestyle after eradication of Helicobacter pylori

BACKGROUND

It is known that patients with peptic ulcer disease (PUD) often have an unhealthy lifestyle that results in increased mortality because of smoking-related diseases. No thorough study has been done to see what changes, if any, the patient makes to lifestyle after eradication of Helicobacter pylori.

METHODS

One-hundred-and-eighty-three patients were enrolled in an open-endoscopy setting; 58% had PUD and 42% gastritis and/or duodenitis (G/D). They filled out a lifestyle questionnaire before the start of anti-Helicobacter therapy and again 1 year later.

RESULTS

The prevalence of food intolerance decreased from 71% to 44% among patients with PUD (P < 0.0001) and from 76% to 63% among patients with G/D (P = 0.09). Tolerance improved for coffee, orange juice, fried foods, spicy foods and fruits. There was no significant change in smoking or alcohol consumption after eradication. Coffee and tea consumption was unchanged. Milk consumption decreased from 4.2 dL/day to 3.3 (P = 0.01). The number of meals decreased from 3.5/day to 3.4 (P = 0.005) and snacking from 1.3 snacks/day to 1.1 (P = 0.02). Consumption of fruit increased from 4.0 to 4.3 times/week (P = 0.04), but the frequency of meat, fish, vegetables, spicy foods, salty foods, sweets and cakes did not change. The time spent on each meal was unchanged. There was no change in the time spent exercising. There were few significant differences between PUD and G/D patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Food was better tolerated, but there were no major changes in lifestyle after eradication of H. pylori. Patients therefore do not abuse the privilege of a more tolerant digestion by indulging in a more unhealthy lifestyle.

A rational approach to uninvestigated dyspepsia in primary care: review of the literature

In this paper the rationale and limitations of the four most important approach strategies to dyspepsia in primary care (empiric treatment, prompt endoscopy, "test-and-scope", and "test-and-treat") are analysed. It is concluded that in the absence of alarm symptoms, a "test-and-treat" approach is currently the most rational approach provided that three conditions are met: (1) a highly accurate test should be used, (2) the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori in the population should not be too low, and (3) an effective anti-H pylori regimen should be prescribed taking sufficient time to instruct and motivate the patient.

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

OBJECTIVES

In patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia, a common initial management strategy in primary care is to prescribe a course of empiric antisecretory therapy and to refer those patients who do not respond for endoscopy. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effects of an empiric course of antisecretory therapy on dyspepsia-related health in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia.

METHODS

We conducted a double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia were randomized to a 6-wk course of omeprazole 20 mg p.o. b.id. versus placebo capsules p.o. bi.d. and followed over 1 yr. The patients were at least 18 yr old with at least a 1-wk history of dyspepsia without alarm features. Dyspepsia-related health was measured using the Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (SODA), a valid, reliable, disease-specific outcome measure. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined by a SODA Pain Intensity score > or = 29 (scores, 2-47) during follow-up. Patients who were treatment failures underwent endoscopy.

RESULTS

We enrolled 140 patients. The mean age was 51 yr, and seven (5%) were women. At 2 wk there were fewer treatment failures in the omeprazole group: 12 of 71 patients (17%) in the omeprazole group failed compared with 24 of 69 (35%) in the placebo group (p = 0.037, log rank test). Also, at 6 wk there were fewer failures in the omeprazole group: 21 of 71 patients (30%) in the omeprazole group failed compared with 31 of 69 (45%) in the placebo group in 0.067, log rank test). However, at the 1-yr follow-up, there was no significant difference in treatment failure rates in the two groups: 37 of 71 patients (52%) in the omeprazole group failed compared with 41 of 69 (59%) in the placebo group (p = 0.28, log rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia, as compared with a strategy that would entail prompt endoscopy for all patients, an initial 6-wk course of either placebo or omeprazole reduces the need for endoscopy over a 1-yr follow-up. Compared with placebo, an initial 6-wk course of omeprazole delays, but does not reduce, the need for endoscopy. For proton pump inhibitor therapy to reduce the need for endoscopy, it may need to be given continuously.

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy: a safe and less costly alternative

Upper endoscopy is an integral component in the management of upper gastrointestinal disorders, but it is underutilized because of its high cost and potential complications. Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (T-EGD) is a relatively new technique using an ultrathin endoscope. Because it is better tolerated than standard upper endoscopy, it is performed with the patient unsedated, thus avoiding the associated costs and complications of conscious sedation. In this review, the technique of T-EGD and its current experience are discussed. In addition, potential future applications, special considerations, and potential pitfalls are reviewed.

Dyspepsia: challenges in diagnosis and selection of treatment

BACKGROUND

Despite considerable study, the pathophysiology of dyspepsia remains obscure. This and other factors have impeded development of precise and effective treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVE

This paper provides a brief review of the clinical syndrome of dyspepsia and its pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment.

METHODS

To identify articles for inclusion in this review, a search of MEDLINE was conducted using the key word dyspepsia. Because the literature on this topic is voluminous and duplicative, the search was limited primarily to literature from the last decade and to articles concerning dyspepsia in adults.

RESULTS

The symptoms of dyspepsia, which may include epigastric pain, heartburn. bloating, and early satiety, defy diagnosis in as many as 50% of patients, even after endoscopy and other appropriate studies. In the other half of patients, such causative disorders as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcer disease, cholecystitis, pancreatitis, and gastric cancer may be diagnosed. Despite controversy regarding the selection of therapy, empiric treatment is common for apparent idiopathic dyspepsia. Histamine2-receptor antagonists, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), promotility agents, and coating agents have all been used as empiric therapy for dyspeptic symptoms. With empiric treatment, subsequent management is directed by the therapeutic response. In the absence of a definitive diagnosis, treatment is usually selected on the basis of the type and severity of symptoms, a thorough history and physical examination, and factors such as age and the presence of Helicobacter pylori infection. Five PPIs are currently available--lansoprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole, pantoprazole, and esomeprazole--all with established efficacy in GERD and other acid-mediated disorders. The PPIs can be expected to be useful in certain patients with dyspepsia, and may be prescribed for patients who are found to re- spond to potent antisecretory therapy. Patients' concern about their symptoms, practical considerations, and restrictions imposed by managed care organizations may all affect the choice between empiric therapy and early endoscopy in patients with dyspepsia.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the variety of therapeutic options available for the symptoms of dyspepsia, the many presentations of this condition and the uncertainty of the response to the currently available therapeutic options continue to pose a substantial clinical challenge.

SODA (severity of dyspepsia assessment): a new effective outcome measure for dyspepsia-related health

The aim of this research was to develop and evaluate an instrument for measuring dyspepsia-related health to serve as the primary outcome measure for randomized clinical trials. Building on our previous work we developed SODA (Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment), a multidimensional dyspepsia measure. We evaluated SODA by administering it at enrollment and seven follow-up visits to 98 patients with dyspepsia who were randomized to a 6-week course of omeprazole versus placebo and followed over 1 year. The mean age was 53 years, and six patients (6%) were women. Median Cronbach's alpha reliability estimates over the eight visits for the SODA Pain Intensity, Non-Pain Symptoms, and Satisfaction scales were 0.97, 0.90, and 0.92, respectively. The mean change scores for all three scales discriminated between patients who reported they were improved versus those who were unchanged, providing evidence of validity. The effect sizes for the Pain Intensity (.98) and Satisfaction (.87) scales were large, providing evidence for responsiveness. The effect size for the Non-Pain Symptoms scale was small (.24), indicating lower responsiveness in this study sample. SODA is a new, effective instrument for measuring dyspepsia-related health. SODA is multidimensional and responsive to clinically meaningful change with demonstrated reliability and validity.

Testing for Helicobacter pylori in dyspeptic patients suspected of peptic ulcer disease in primary care: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To develop an easily applicable diagnostic scoring method to determine the presence of peptic ulcers in dyspeptic patients in a primary care setting; to evaluate whether Helicobacter pylori testing adds value to history taking.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

General practitioners' offices in the Utrecht area of the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

565 patients consulting a general practitioner about dyspeptic symptoms of at least two weeks' duration.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The presence or absence of peptic ulcer; independent predictors of the presence of peptic ulcer as obtained from history taking and the added value of H pylori testing were quantified by using multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A history of peptic ulcer, pain on an empty stomach, and smoking were strong and independent diagnostic determinants of peptic ulcer disease, with odds ratios of 5.5 (95% confidence interval 2.6 to 11.8), 2.8 (1.0 to 4.0), and 2.0 (1.4 to 6.0) respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC area) of these determinants together was 0.71. Adding the H pylori test increased the ROC area only to 0.75. However, in a group of patients at high risk, identified by means of a simple scoring rule based on history taking, the predictive value for the presence of peptic ulcer increased from 16% to 26% after a positive H pylori test.

CONCLUSIONS

In the total group of dyspeptic patients in primary care, H pylori testing has no value in addition to history taking for diagnosing peptic ulcer disease. In a subgroup of patients at high risk of having peptic ulcer disease, however, it might be useful to test for and treat H pylori infections.

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.

Increased numbers of women, older individuals, and Blacks receive health care for dyspepsia in the United States

GOALS

The objectives of this research were to use a national probability sample of the U.S. population to determine the demographic characteristics of individuals who obtained care for dyspepsia, to compare these demographic characteristics with those of the U.S. population, and to describe the amount of health care that these individuals received.

STUDY

We analyzed data from the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey, which is based on a national probability sample of the U.S. adult population.

RESULTS

Approximately 3.6 million individuals, or 2% of U.S. adults, obtained care for dyspepsia. Compared with the U.S. population, a predominance of women, individuals 65 years or older, and African Americans obtained care for dyspepsia. Expenditures for health care totaled $2.5 billion.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the major impact of dyspepsia on U.S. health care resources, a critical issue facing investigators is to identify the most cost-effective approach to managing these patients.

Factors associated with consulting medical or non-medical practitioners for dyspepsia: an australian population-based study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how many dyspeptics in the population consult medical and non-medical practitioners, or the factors associated with various consulting patterns.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 748 Australians with dyspepsia investigated their age, sex, dyspepsia symptoms, medical and non-medical consultations, and health status on the SF-12.

RESULTS

Overall, 56% had ever consulted a medical practitioner for dyspepsia. Of these, 54% consulted within 6 months of first symptoms. Non-medical practitioners were consulted by 29%. Compared to dyspeptics in all, or most, other consulting groups, subjects who did not consult (37%, group NO) were characterized by fewer symptoms, better physical health, and younger age. Those who only consulted doctors (34%, group M) were older and had better mental, but poorer physical health. Those who only consulted non-medical practitioners (7%, group N) were younger and had better physical, but poorer mental health. Dyspeptics consulting both medical and non-medical practitioners (22%, group M + N), were older, more dissatisfied with medical care, had more symptoms and poorer physical and mental health. Timing of medical consultations was similar in groups M and M + N. Group M + N dyspeptics consulted similar types, but more non-medical practitioners than group N. No sex differences were found in consulting behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

Many dyspeptics do not consult; they have fewer symptoms than consulters. Consultation with non-medical practitioners is common and is associated with poor mental health. Dyspeptics seeking advice from both medical and non-medical practitioners are less satisfied with their medical management than those who only consult doctors for their dyspepsia.

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.

Review article: the initial management of uninvestigated dyspepsia in younger patients-the value of symptom-guided strategies should be reconsidered

Several major management guidelines on dyspepsia (upper abdominal pain or discomfort) recommend an initial 'test-and-treat' policy (non-invasive Helicobacter pylori testing with eradication therapy if positive) in uninvestigated patients less than about 45 years old. However, the evidence that this is the optimal strategy is limited. Data from the few available randomized controlled trials provide evidence that this policy improves symptomatology more than a 'test-and-endoscope' approach (in which only H. pylori-positive patients undergo early endoscopy) in those with upper abdominal pain. The balance of cost-effectiveness data from clinical studies and decision analyses indicates that both 'test-and-treat' and empirical anti-secretory therapy approaches are more cost-effective than the 'test-and-endoscope' strategy. Therefore, given concerns about the safety of widespread H. pylori eradication, initial empirical anti-secretory therapy may be a cost-effective alternative to the 'test-and-treat' policy in some younger dyspeptic patients. The effectiveness of such an empirical approach might well be improved by symptom-guided therapy and there is growing evidence that the predominant dyspeptic symptom may provide this guide. The diagnostic, therapeutic and economic utility of this approach merits further clinical investigation.

Recurrent symptoms and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in patients with duodenal ulcer treated for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori has been shown to prevent relapse of endoscopically detected duodenal ulcers. There is controversy regarding symptom improvement after therapy. Some studies have suggested that a substantial number of patients remain symptomatic after eradication therapy. Other studies suggest that gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may develop as a result of H. pylori eradication.

AIM

To determine the relationship between symptoms and H. pylori eradication and to determine whether H. pylori eradication results in symptoms or endoscopic findings of GERD.

METHODS

Two hundred and forty-two patients with endoscopically documented duodenal ulcer disease and evidence of H. pylori infection by rapid urease testing and histology were studied in four randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of H. pylori eradication therapy. All patients underwent symptom assessment and endoscopy with biopsy before therapy and 1 and 6 months after completing therapy. The rapid urease test and histology were used to determine H. pylori status. Interviewers were blinded to H. pylori status after eradication and were unaware of the endoscopic findings (interviews were performed prior to repeat endoscopy).

RESULTS

The presence of epigastric pain was significantly associated with persistent H. pylori infection 1 month after therapy (odds ratio 2.3, 95% CI: 1.02-5.2; P=0.041), as was nausea (OR 7.1, 95% CI: 0.93-55.6; P=0.029). The presence of epigastric pain was significantly associated with ulcer relapse at 6 months (OR 7.5, 95% CI: 3.6-15.7; P < 0.001) as was nausea (OR 5.1, 95% CI: 1.7-16.0; P=0.002). Heartburn was not associated with eradication of H. pylori or ulcer relapse. New onset reflux symptoms were reported by 17% (17 of 101 patients) at 6 months and were not significantly different in patients with (15%) and without (22%) persistent H. pylori infection (P=0.47). Erosive oesophagitis was present at endoscopy in one of the 17 cases that developed new heartburn.

CONCLUSIONS

One month after completion of therapy, the presence of epigastric pain or nausea is associated with persistent infection and these symptoms at 6 months are suggestive of duodenal ulcer relapse. The incidence of GERD is not increased in patients who have eradication of H. pylori.

Esophagopharyngeal acid regurgitation: dual pH monitoring criteria for its detection and insights into mechanisms

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A valid technique for the detection of esophagopharyngeal acid regurgitation would be valuable to evaluate suspected reflux-related otolaryngologic and respiratory disorders. The aim of this study was to derive pH criteria that optimally define esophagopharyngeal acid regurgitation and to examine patterns of regurgitation.

METHODS

In 19 healthy controls and 15 patients with suspected regurgitation, dual or quadruple pH sensors were used to monitor pharyngeal and esophageal pH. For each combination of the 2 variables, DeltapH and nadir pH, proportions of pH decreases that occurred during or independent of esophageal acidification were calculated to determine the likelihood that an individual pharyngeal pH decrease was a candidate regurgitation event or a definite artifact.

RESULTS

Overall, 92% of pharyngeal pH decreases of 1-2 pH units and 66% of pH decreases of this magnitude reaching a nadir pH of <4 were artifactual. Optimal criteria defining a pharyngeal acid regurgitation event were a pH decrease that occurred during esophageal acidification, had a DeltapH of >2 units, and reached a nadir of <4 units in less than 30 seconds. Regurgitation occurred more frequently in subjects in an upright (32 of 35) than in a supine (3 of 35 events; P </= 0.0001) position and was more frequently abrupt (synchronous with esophageal acidification) than delayed (P </= 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Accepted criteria for gastroesophageal reflux are not applicable to the detection of esophagopharyngeal acid regurgitation, and most regurgitation occurs abruptly and in upright position.

Management of uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia: a Working Party report for the World Congresses of Gastroenterology 1998

BACKGROUND

The management of dyspepsia is controversial.

METHODS

An international Working Party was convened in 1998 to review management strategies for dyspepsia and functional dyspepsia, based on a review of the literature and best clinical practice.

RESULTS

Dyspepsia, defined as pain or discomfort centred in the upper abdomen, can be managed with reassurance and over-the-counter therapy if its duration is less than 4 weeks on initial presentation. For patients with chronic symptoms, clinical evaluation depends on alarm features including patient age. The age cut off selected should depend on the age specific incidence when gastric cancer begins to increase, but in Western nations 50 years is generally an acceptable age threshold. In younger patients without alarm features, Helicobacter pylori test and treatment is the approach recommended because of its value in eliminating the peptic ulcer disease diathesis. If, after eradication of H. pylori, symptoms either are not relieved or rapidly recur, then an empirical trial of therapy is recommended. Similarly, in H. pylori-negative patients without alarm features, an empirical trial (with antisecretory or prokinetic therapy depending on the predominant symptom) for up to 8 weeks is recommended. If drugs fail, endoscopy should be considered because of its reassurance value although the yield will be low. In older patients or those with alarm features, prompt endoscopy is recommended. If endoscopy is non-diagnostic, gastric biopsies are recommended to document H. pylori status unless already known. While treatment of H. pylori is unlikely to relieve the symptoms of functional dyspepsia, the long-term benefits probably outweigh the risks and treatment can be considered on a case-by-case basis. In H. pylori-negative patients with documented functional dyspepsia, antisecretory or prokinetic therapy, depending on the predominant symptom, is reasonable, assuming reassurance and explanation are insufficient, unless patients have already failed this approach. Other treatment options include antidepressants, antispasmodics, visceral analgesics such as serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists, and behavioural or psychotherapy although these are all of uncertain efficacy. Long-term drug treatment in functional dyspepsia should be avoided; intermittent short courses of treatment as needed is preferred.

CONCLUSION

The management of dyspepsia recommended is based on current best evidence but must be tailored to local factors such as practice setting, the background prevalence of H. pylori and structural disease, and costs.

Dyspepsia and heartburn

Dyspepsia and heartburn are the two cardinal symptoms of foregut dysfunction. When confronting such a problem, that physician must first learn to discern between the two, because treatment can be quite different for the conditions presenting with these symptoms. This article details the approach to work-up and treatment of patients presenting with dyspepsia or heartburn.

Evaluation of a multidimensional measure of dyspepsia-related health for use in a randomized clinical trial

In previous work, we developed a multidimensional measure of dyspepsia-related health. To evaluate the adequacy of this instrument as an outcome measure for a large-scale, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, we used Rasch analysis to address three questions: (1) Are the scales interval-level? (2) Do the scales measure precisely across the entire range of dyspepsia outcomes? (3) Do the scales' items have an optimal number of response categories? We found that the scales were not interval-level and that they did not measure effectively at low or high levels of the dyspepsia-related outcomes. Our results also suggest that patients were capable of discriminating among only four- to seven-item response categories. Further studies are needed to identify items that effectively measure high and low levels of dyspepsia-related outcomes and to validate that decreasing the number of response categories improves the psychometric properties of these scales.

Symptomatic benefit from eradicating Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with nonulcer dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

The eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection is beneficial in patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers. The value of eradicating the infection in patients with dyspepsia and no evidence of ulcer disease is not known.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing the efficacy of treatment for two weeks with 20 mg of omeprazole orally twice daily, 500 mg of amoxicillin three times daily (with 500 mg of tetracycline three times daily substituted for amoxicillin in patients allergic to penicillin), and 400 mg of metronidazole three times daily (160 patients) with that of omeprazole alone (158 patients) for resolving symptoms of dyspepsia in patients with H. pylori infection but no evidence of ulcer disease on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Symptoms were assessed with the Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score, with resolution of symptoms defined as a score of 0 or 1 in the preceding six months (maximal score, 20). One year later the patients were assessed to determine the frequency of the resolution of symptoms.

RESULTS

One month after the completion of treatment, 132 of 150 patients (88 percent) in the group assigned to received omeprazole and antibiotics had a negative test for H. pylori, as compared with 7 of 152 (5 percent) in the group assigned to receive omeprazole alone. One year later, dyspepsia had resolved in 33 of 154 patients (21 percent) in the group given omeprazole and antibiotics, as compared with 11 of 154 (7 percent) in the group given omeprazole alone (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, 7 to 22 percent; P<0.001). Among the patients in the group given omeprazole and antibiotics, the symptoms resolved in 26 of the 98 patients (27 percent) who had had symptoms for five years or less, as compared with 7 of the 56 patients (12 percent) who had had symptoms for more than five years (P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with H. pylori infection and nonulcer, or functional, dyspepsia, treatment with omeprazole and antibiotics to eradicate the infection is more likely to resolve symptoms than treatment with omeprazole alone.

The Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire: a valid tool for measuring the presence and severity of dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

There is currently no validated questionnaire that assesses both the presence and severity of dyspepsia.

AIM

To develop the Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire (LDQ) as a measure of the presence and severity of dyspepsia, and to assess the validity, reliability and responsiveness of this instrument.

METHODS

Unselected patients attending either a hospital dyspepsia clinic or a general practice surgery were interviewed by a trained gastroenterologist or a general practitioner on the presence and severity of dyspepsia. This opinion was compared with the results of the nurse-administered LDQ. Test-retest reliability was assessed by the same research nurse re-administering the LDQ 4-7 days after the initial visit in a subgroup of hospital patients. In a further subgroup of patients one researcher interviewed the patients and a second researcher re-administered the LDQ within 30 min to evaluate inter-rater reliability. The responsiveness of the LDQ was measured by repeating it in patients with endoscopically proven peptic ulcer or oesophagitis 1 month after receiving appropriate therapy.

RESULTS

The LDQ was administered to 99 general practice and 215 hospital patients. In the GP population 41/98 (42%) had dyspepsia according to the GP and the LDQ had a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI: 65-91%) and a specificity of 79% (95% CI: 66-89%). The weighted kappa statistic for the agreement between the LDQ and the clinician for the severity of dyspepsia was 0.58 in the GP population and 0.49 in hospital patients. The kappa statistic for test-retest reliability was 0.83 in 107 patients. The LDQ had excellent inter-rater reliability with a kappa statistic of 0.90 in 42 patients. The median LDQ score fell from 22.5 (range 9-36) to 4.5 (range 0-27) in 12 patients 1 month after receiving appropriate therapy (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The LDQ is a valid, reliable and responsive instrument for measuring the presence and severity of dyspepsia.

Chronic recurrent abdominal pain

Chronic recurrent abdominal pain remains a common medical and surgical problem, frequently dismissed as functional. Instead, these patients should be approached systematically, based on the pattern of recurrent abdominal pain. It is vital to seek out the potential cause of this type of chronic pain because specific and often curative treatment is available.

How should new-onset dyspepsia be managed in general and specialist practice?

Managing patients with new-onset dyspeptic symptoms represents a real challenge in clinical decision-making. The major controversy has been over the optimal management strategy of patients with new-onset dyspeptic symptoms who do not present with alarm symptoms. Since unaided clinical diagnosis is unreliable, proposed management strategies have included empirical treatment algorithms, computer-assisted predictive score models and Helicobacter pylori-based strategies such as test-and-scope or test-and-treat algorithms. Endoscopy remains the diagnostic 'gold standard', and the management should ideally be based on endoscopic diagnosis. Because of economic constraints and increasing waiting lists, this is not possible. When precise and comprehensive guidelines have been formulated, future patients will probably be managed in primary care by a Helicobacter test-and-treat policy, leaving only empirical treatment failures for specialist evaluation.

Estimating the cost of lost productivity in dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

In the field of gastrointestinal disease, productivity costs are highly relevant because work loss is substantial in dyspeptic patients. Productivity costs are normally calculated by multiplying days absent valued by gross earnings. This, however, might lead to an overestimation.

AIM

To use a conservative approach to calculating productivity costs, taking absence compensating mechanisms into account.

METHODS

Patients who visited their general practitioner for the first time with dyspeptic complaints and patients who were known to have persistent dyspeptic complaints were enrolled in two studies. In total, 136 patients completed a questionnaire about their employment situation, absence from work and absence compensating mechanisms.

RESULTS

Sixty-six of the respondents had a paid job, of which 25 (38%) reported absence from work during the previous 4 weeks (average 3.0 days, 1.9 days related to dyspeptic complaints). More than 50% of the employed respondents answered that absence could be compensated for by colleagues, and only in 8% of the cases was absence compensated for by overtime. Using our conservative approach, only one-quarter of the productivity costs remained, compared to the current approach of valuing each day absent as a loss of productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest using both the current and the conservative approaches, analogous to the principles of sensitivity analysis, to avoid overestimation of productivity costs.

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.

Managing dyspepsia: what do we know and what do we need to know?

OBJECTIVE

The conceptual revolution concerning the role of Helicobacter pylori in the pathogenesis of peptic ulcer disease has raised the larger question of how to integrate this new information into the management of patients with dyspepsia. The aim of this research was to critically evaluate current knowledge about dyspepsia and its management.

METHODS

Relevant articles on dyspepsia were identified from MEDLINE searches and from the bibliographies of identified articles. Studies that contained information on the prevalence of dyspepsia, endoscopic findings, and evaluations of alternative management strategies were reviewed.

RESULTS

By coupling H. pylori serological testing with clinical factors such as age and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug use, strategies have been developed that identify patients with organic disease. Although the use of these strategies can reduce the volume of endoscopies, their effects on dyspepsia symptoms are unknown. Computerized decision analysis models have been used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies. The indirect evidence obtained from these models suggests that empiric therapy, guided by H. pylori testing, may be the preferred approach. However, the models have been hampered by the lack of information concerning dyspepsia symptoms, the primary health outcome of the majority of patients seen in primary practice settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, the knowledge needed to integrate H. pylori tests and antimicrobial therapies into the management of patients with dyspepsia in primary practice settings has not been developed. A pressing need exists for a randomized controlled trial to evaluate alternative management strategies. In conducting such a trial, valid, reliable instruments for measuring dyspepsia will be needed.