Therapeutic trial in dyspepsia: its role in the primary care setting

Chronic acid-related disorders are common and underinvestigated

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were as follows: to establish the prevalence of chronic acid-related disorders in a managed care population; to describe these patients; and to examine rates of adherence to current guidelines for investigation of dyspepsia and peptic ulcer disease.

METHODS

The design was a population-based cohort study. The sample was drawn from 216,720 adult (aged >18 yr) members of a managed care organization that had an electronic medical record linked to administrative and pharmacy databases. We included adults with continuous enrollment from July, 1998, to January, 2000, who were dispensed histamine-2 blockers or proton-pump inhibitors, or both, for > or =1 yr. Dispensing data, sociodemographic and clinical information, comorbidities, and investigations were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The final cohort consisted of 5064 patients; 64% were aged > or =50 yr, 47% were male, and 11% were African American. The prevalence of chronic acid-related disorders was 2.3%. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (59%) was the most common condition, followed by dyspepsia (35% of cohort; 18% investigated by endoscopy). There were 917 dyspepsia patients > or =50 yr who had not been investigated by endoscopy (81% of dyspepsia patients in this age group). There were 97 patients with peptic ulcer disease who did not have a documented test for Helicobacter pylori (34% of patients with peptic ulcer disease).

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic acid-related disorders are common in primary care, and many patients use acid suppressing medications on a long-term basis. Nevertheless, according to current practice guidelines, our patients were underinvestigated. Future guidelines should specifically address the management of patients who use acid suppressing medications on a chronic basis.

Helicobacter pylori treatment instead of maintenance therapy for peptic ulcer disease: the effectiveness of case-finding in general practice

BACKGROUND

Maintenance therapy with acid-inhibiting medication is common in general practice. Since the eradication of Helicobacter pylori has become the treatment of choice for peptic ulcer disease, H. pylori treatment could replace maintenance therapy in patients with an ulcer history.

AIM

To determine the effectiveness of a full peptic ulcer disease history case-finding strategy, together with subsequent H. pylori testing and treatment, in discontinuing maintenance therapy.

METHOD

Patients were included from seven general practices, who had been using acid-inhibiting medication for more than 3 months in the period May 1996-May 1997. Patients with a history of proven peptic ulcer disease were tested, and treated with proton pump inhibitor-triple therapy if positive. Maintenance therapy was discontinued and restart within 12 months was monitored.

RESULTS

Long-term acid suppression was used by 2.8% of the practice-populations. A peptic ulcer disease history was found in 18% of the patients, 73% of whom were offered the 'H. pylori test and treat' alternative. The majority responded: 92% of the H. pylori-infected patients were treated, 78% of whom successfully discontinued long-term medication.

CONCLUSION

Implementing an 'H. pylori test and treat' strategy enabled one-third of the patients with a peptic ulcer disease history to stop maintenance therapy successfully. The strategy contributes to reduction of long-term drug use, but compliance needs improvement.

The effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia: a qualitative systematic review

PURPOSE

Dyspepsia is a common primary care condition, yet its optimal management is poorly defined. We reviewed the literature to answer the following questions about patients with dyspepsia: 1) Does endoscopy result in improved patient outcomes? 2) Does endoscopy result in a reduction in the use of subsequent medical resources? 3) Does endoscopy result in improved medical decision making? 4) Is endoscopy cost effective?

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of English-language articles in the MEDLINE, HEALTHSTAR, and EMBASE computerized bibliographic databases from January 1985 to July 1998. We included all studies, including decision analyses, with information about the effectiveness of endoscopy, as measured by its impact on patient outcomes, resource utilization, clinical decision making, or cost effectiveness. Two independent reviewers abstracted data from each study, and assessed its methodologic quality.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. For 3 of the 4 clinical questions, the weight of evidence does not support the effectiveness of endoscopy. The largest randomized clinical trial comparing endoscopy with empiric therapy demonstrates equivalent symptoms and quality of life at 1 year, with increased patient satisfaction and lower costs for initial endoscopy. Suboptimal study design, including lack of appropriate comparison groups, limit studies measuring the impact of endoscopy on resource utilization and decision-making. Decision analyses indicate that noninvasive H pylori testing followed by anti-H pylori therapy or empiric antisecretory therapy is more cost effective than initial endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of one randomized clinical trial, the preponderance of available data does not support the effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia. Prospective clinical trials that evaluate patient outcomes and resource utilization, and take H pylori status into account, are needed to determine the effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia.

Management of dyspepsia in general practice. A critical assessment

The International Gastro Primary Care Group (IGPCG) Upper Gastrointestinal Disease Management Plan is mainly characterised by the proposal that management of patients with upper gastrointestinal syndromes be based on the predominant symptom, rather than on symptom clusters. Although no study has directly tested this hypothesis in general practice, some data indirectly support the proposal. Classification based on the relevance of specific symptoms could identify distinct subgroups of patients with functional dyspepsia with at least partially different features. Data obtained from the literature are discussed and evaluated in relation to the suggested algorithm. Overall, this management plan for patients with dyspepsia seems to be both safe and effective. However, there is a need for prospective studies evaluating its actual validity.

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.

Appropriateness of indications for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: association with relevant endoscopic disease

BACKGROUND

Since the institution of open access endoscopy units there has been a considerable increase of referrals for UGI examinations. Therefore, guidelines for the appropriate use of UGI endoscopy are needed.

METHODS

The outcome of first diagnostic UGI endoscopy was prospectively assessed for several referral indications in a consecutive series of 2900 patients. Indications were judged "appropriate" when significantly (p < 0.01) associated with clinically "relevant" endoscopic findings.

RESULTS

The proportion of relevant disease for various indications was as follows: signs of UGI bleeding (42.2%); history of peptic ulcer (40.5%); dysphagia (31.9%), short-term (24.4%), and without therapy (20.9%). Relevant endoscopic findings were observed in 21.0% of dyspeptic patients aged 45 years or less, and in 25.3% of those older than 45 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

The generally approved alarm symptoms should be a reason to perform endoscopy without hesitation. Dyspeptic symptoms, despite adequate empiric treatment, as well as first dyspeptic symptoms in patients older than 45 years should also be a reason for endoscopic investigation. Our results support the strategy to treat patients younger than 45 years who have isolated dyspepsia by a limited course of antipeptic agents, provided that they are seen for re-evaluation within 4 to 6 weeks.

Cisapride or cimetidine in the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Results of a double-blind, randomized, Swiss multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Functional dyspepsia is a major diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for the clinician. Several systems for the identification of 'high-risk' patients and classifications of dyspepsia subtypes and treatment schemes have been proposed in the past with limited experimental evidence to support the claims made. The present trial was designed to compare two different treatment modalities in a group of functional dyspepsia patients selected on the basis of a standardized diagnostic procedure as 'non-risk' for organic disease and to assess the result in the major symptom sub-groups of functional dyspepsia as a means of identifying the potential for improving treatment outcome.

METHODS

The efficacy of the prokinetic drug cisapride (5 mg four times daily) and of the histamine H2-receptor antagonist cimetidine (200 mg four times daily) were evaluated after 1 month of treatment and after a further follow-up of 1 month. Patients were randomized to the trial if they fulfilled the following criteria: 1) 'low-risk' symptoms or negative endoscopy findings, and 2) 2 weeks of single-blind antacid treatment did not provide satisfactory relief. For analysis patients were stratified into dyspepsia subtypes.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-one patients entered the run-in period, and 137 patients were randomized to the study. At the end of 4 weeks' treatment a small but significant difference in favour of cisapride was found; this difference can mainly be accounted for by the significant difference found in the dysmotility-like subtype (83% improved with cisapride versus 59% with cimetidine). No significant differences could be detected between drugs in the other dyspepsia subtypes at the end of the treatment-or follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms the classification into dyspepsia-subtypes as a useful tool in selecting the most appropriate drug therapy.

Functional dyspepsia versus other functional gastrointestinal disorders: a practical approach in Belgian general practices

This paper identifies the symptom profile associated with the four main diagnoses of functional digestive disorders (dyspepsia, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), gastritis, and constipation) made by general practitioners in Belgium. Results are also presented from a multicentre study in which the effects of cisapride, administered as an oral tablet or suspension, were evaluated in patients with these functional digestive disorders. Analysis of symptom patterns revealed that early satiety and postprandial abdominal bloating were the most prominent symptoms, followed by eructation (belching), heartburn, regurgitation, postprandial epigastric burning or discomfort, and nausea. These symptoms occurred in all diagnostic groups. However, different symptom patterns were associated with each of the disorders; for example, heartburn and regurgitation were the core symptoms in patients diagnosed as having GORD, early satiety and abdominal bloating were characteristic of patients diagnosed with dyspepsia, and fasting or postprandial pain were characteristic of patients given the diagnosis of gastritis. Therefore, it appears that these diagnoses used by general practitioners in Belgium closely correspond to reflux-like, dysmotility-like and ulcer-like dyspepsia, as defined by an international working party. Cisapride improved the core symptoms in about 80% of patients with GORD or dyspepsia, relieved all epigastric symptoms in about 80% of patients with gastritis, and significantly decreased the use of laxatives and increased stool frequency in constipated patients. Cisapride was well tolerated and thus appears to be a useful option in the treatment of functional digestive disorders in a general practice setting.

Risk factors, co-medication, and concomitant diseases: their influence on the outcome of therapy with cisapride

In a 28-day non-blinded study of 1071 patients with functional dyspeptic symptoms in a general practice setting, 666 presented with mainly typical symptoms of functional dyspepsia and received 5 mg cisapride three times daily, while 405 with predominating symptoms indicative of gastroesophageal reflux received 10 mg cisapride three times daily. On the basis of an anamnestic risk factor analysis for organic lesions, 'low-risk' patients were to be treated directly with cisapride, while for 'high-risk' patients a more thorough gastrointestinal examination was recommended before starting cisapride. Of patients in the dyspepsia group 75% reported a good or excellent response; the corresponding rate was 80% in the reflux group. Low-risk patients in both groups tended to respond better than high-risk patients (mean difference, 11%). Patients and investigators reached identical assessments of response. Concomitant antacids, calcium antagonists, beta-blockers and sedatives did not affect the results, but concomitant NSAIDs reduced the mean improvement rate by 14% (p < 0.01). Adverse effects such as abdominal cramps and loose stools were uncommon (< or = 3.4%).

Cisapride in chronic dyspepsia: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

The efficacy and tolerability of cisapride in chronic dyspepsia was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. After 4 weeks' treatment with oral cisapride 10 mg three times daily (n = 14), bloating and epigastric discomfort were significantly reduced compared with placebo (n = 15; p < 0.05). Moreover, the global response to treatment was excellent or good in 71.4% of patients in the cisapride group versus 20.0% with placebo. No significant side effects were observed. It is concluded that cisapride is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for chronic dyspepsia.

Factors affecting short- and long-term outcome of a short therapeutic trial with cisapride in dyspeptic patients

In a Dutch general practice trial conducted in 599 patients with symptoms of dyspepsia, the response to 5 mg cisapride three times daily was rated excellent or good in 61% of patients at week 2. On increasing the dose to 10 mg three times daily in 132 patients with poor to moderate response, the result at the end of treatment was rated as good or excellent in 45% of these patients, and the mean symptom score further decreased significantly (p < 0.05). The longer the pretreatment duration of dyspeptic symptoms, the lower was the overall response rate to cisapride short-term therapy (80% in patients with complaints < 3 months versus 50% in those with complaints > 4 years). Cisapride also proved effective in patients previously treated with prokinetic agents (72% response rate), antacids (66%) and H2-receptor antagonists (48%). On long-term follow-up, dyspepsia relapse rates among the total patient population (n = 357) and the patient sample fully 'cured' after 4 weeks of cisapride (n = 226) were respectively 30% and 27% after 6 months. Factors affecting recurrence of dyspeptic symptoms included age, duration of symptoms prior to trial entry and mean symptom score at end of the treatment study, but not the symptom severity prior to treatment. Relapsing patients presented mainly with the same symptom profile as at the first study, and the majority (88%) responded well to repeated treatment with cisapride. In conclusion, most patients responded well to a short therapeutic trial with cisapride and remained free from relapse in the subsequent 6 months. Repeated treatment in patients with recurrent symptoms appeared to be successful.

Cisapride in functional dyspepsia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial in general practice patients

This trial included patients from general practice with endoscopy-negative chronic dyspepsia and epigastric pain or discomfort. Eleven eligible patients with sufficiently severe dyspeptic symptoms after a 2-week placebo run-in period were entered into a 4-week, parallel group, double-blind randomized comparison of 10 mg cisapride three times daily and matched placebo, and were subsequently evaluable. Symptoms were comparable in the two treatment groups at the start of double-blind treatment. The cisapride group had a significantly greater reduction in the frequency of daytime epigastric pain/discomfort and the frequency and severity of nocturnal pain/discomfort after 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, all six cisapride recipients were free of nocturnal pain, compared with only one of five placebo recipients. After 4 weeks of double-blind therapy, improvements in the placebo group had reduced between-treatment differences, with five of six cisapride recipients and three of five placebo recipients being free of nocturnal pain. Cisapride was well tolerated.