Lack of effect of treating Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with nonulcer dyspepsia. Omeprazole plus Clarithromycin and Amoxicillin Effect One Year after Treatment (OCAY) Study Group.

It is uncertain whether treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection relieves symptoms in patients with nonulcer, or functional, dyspepsia. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, multicenter trial of patients with H. pylori infection and dyspeptic symptoms (moderate-to-very-severe pain and discomfort centered in the upper abdomen). Patients were excluded if they had a history of peptic ulcer disease or gastroesophageal reflux disease and had abnormal findings on upper endoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to seven days of treatment with 20 mg of omeprazole twice daily, 1000 mg of amoxicillin twice daily, and 500 mg of clarithromycin twice daily or with omeprazole alone and then followed up for one year. Treatment success was defined as the absence of dyspeptic symptoms or the presence of minimal symptoms on any of the 7 days preceding the 12-month visit. RESULTS: Twenty of the 348 patients were excluded after randomization because they were not infected with H. pylori, were not treated, or had no data available. For the remaining 328 patients (164 in each group), treatment was successful for 27.4 percent of those assigned to receive omeprazole and antibiotics and 20.7 percent of those assigned to receive omeprazole alone (P=0.17; absolute difference between groups, 6.7 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -2.6 to 16.0). After 12 months, gastritis had healed in 75.0 percent of the patients in the group given omeprazole and antibiotics and in 3.0 percent of the patients in the omeprazole group (P<0.001); the respective rates of H. pylori eradication were 79 percent and 2 percent. In the group given omeprazole and antibiotics, the rate of treatment success among patients with persistent H. pylori infection was similar to that among patients in whom the infection was eradicated (26 percent vs. 31 percent). There were no significant differences between the groups in the quality of life after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with nonulcer dyspepsia, the eradication of H. pylori infection is not likely to relieve symptoms

The usefulness of a structured questionnaire in the assessment of symptomatic gastresophageal reflux disease

BackgroundThe diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) rests primarily on recognition of symptom patterns that are classical for reflux disease, but little attention has been paid to the use of a formal questionnaire for identifying such symptom patterns.MethodsA self-administered questionnaire was developed which has seven items that focus on the nature of the symptoms and the precipitating, exacerbating, and relieving factors. The diagnostic validity of the questionnaire was tested against endoscopy and 24-h pH monitoring. A further evaluation was undertaken in patients with symptoms suggestive of GERD and in patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia, to identify factors that might predict symptom relief during treatment with omeprazole.ResultsWhen endoscopic esophageal mucosal breaks and 24-h pH data were used as criteria for the diagnosis of GERD, the questionnaire had a sensitivity of 92% but a very low specificity of 19%. Symptom relief during treatment with omeprazole was predicted by the presence of heartburn, described as 'a burning feeling rising from the stomach or lower chest up towards the neck' (P = 0.004), and 'relief from antacids' (P = 0.02). In non-ulcer dyspepsia a positive response to omeprazole was confined to the subgroup of patients who identified their main discomfort as heartburn as described above.ConclusionThe present questionnaire using descriptive language usefully identified heartburn in patients presenting with upper abdominal symptoms, and this symptom predicted symptom resolution during treatment with omeprazole.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/982935

Randomised clinical trial: the burden of illness of uninvestigated dyspepsia before and after treatment with esomeprazole - results from the STARS II study

Background  Patients with dyspepsia often experience troublesome symptoms. Aim: To assess the burden of uninvestigated dyspepsia (symptoms, health-related quality of life [HRQL] and work productivity) before and after 8 weeks’ esomeprazole treatment. Methods: Patients (n = 1250) with uninvestigated dyspepsia (no endoscopy within 6 months and ≤2 endoscopies within 10 years) underwent a 1-week esomeprazole acid-suppression test before randomisation to 7 weeks’ esomeprazole or placebo. The Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ), Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaires were completed at baseline (1-week off-treatment) and 8 weeks. WPAI results were further analysed among patients who responded to the acid-suppression test. Results: The highest baseline symptom score was for the RDQ dyspepsia domain, and the highest disease burden was for QOLRAD vitality and food/drink problems. After 8 weeks, significant improvements vs. placebo were observed for all RDQ and QOLRAD domains. The sub-population of acid-suppression test responders, but not the total WPAI population, had a significant work productivity improvement vs. placebo. Conclusions: Uninvestigated dyspepsia is associated with high symptom load and impacts on HRQL and work productivity. Esomeprazole improves HRQL among such patients, and improves work productivity among 1-week acid-suppression trial responders

Cost of detecting malignant lesions by endoscopy in 2741 primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current guidelines recommend empirical, noninvasive approaches to manage dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms, but concerns about missed lesions persist; the cost savings afforded by noninvasive approaches must be weighed against treatment delays. We investigated the prevalence of malignancies and other serious abnormalities in patients with dyspepsia and the cost of detecting these by endoscopy. METHODS: We studied 2741 primary-care outpatients, 18-70 years in age, who met Rome II criteria for dyspepsia. Patients with alarm features (dysphagia, bleeding, weight loss, etc) were excluded. All patients underwent endoscopy. The cost and diagnostic yield of an early endoscopy strategy in all patients were compared with those of endoscopy limited to age-defined cohorts. Costs were calculated for a low, intermediate, and high cost environment. RESULTS: Endoscopies detected abnormalities in 635 patients (23%). The most common findings were reflux esophagitis with erosions (15%), gastric ulcers (2.7%), and duodenal ulcers (2.3%). The prevalence of upper gastrointestinal malignancy was 0.22%. If all dyspeptic patients 50 years or older underwent endoscopy, 1 esophageal cancer and no gastric cancers would have been missed. If the age threshold for endoscopy were set at 50 years, at a cost of $500/endoscopy, it would cost$82,900 (95% CI, $35,714-$250,000) to detect each case of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms rarely have serious underlying conditions at endoscopy. The costs associated with diagnosing an occult malignancy are large, but an age cut-off of 50 years for early endoscopy provides the best assurance that an occult malignancy will not be misse

Cost of detecting malignant lesions by endoscopy in 2741 primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current guidelines recommend empirical, noninvasive approaches to manage dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms, but concerns about missed lesions persist; the cost savings afforded by noninvasive approaches must be weighed against treatment delays. We investigated the prevalence of malignancies and other serious abnormalities in patients with dyspepsia and the cost of detecting these by endoscopy. METHODS: We studied 2741 primary-care outpatients, 18-70 years in age, who met Rome II criteria for dyspepsia. Patients with alarm features (dysphagia, bleeding, weight loss, etc) were excluded. All patients underwent endoscopy. The cost and diagnostic yield of an early endoscopy strategy in all patients were compared with those of endoscopy limited to age-defined cohorts. Costs were calculated for a low, intermediate, and high cost environment. RESULTS: Endoscopies detected abnormalities in 635 patients (23%). The most common findings were reflux esophagitis with erosions (15%), gastric ulcers (2.7%), and duodenal ulcers (2.3%). The prevalence of upper gastrointestinal malignancy was 0.22%. If all dyspeptic patients 50 years or older underwent endoscopy, 1 esophageal cancer and no gastric cancers would have been missed. If the age threshold for endoscopy were set at 50 years, at a cost of $500/endoscopy, it would cost$82,900 (95% CI, $35,714-$250,000) to detect each case of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms rarely have serious underlying conditions at endoscopy. The costs associated with diagnosing an occult malignancy are large, but an age cut-off of 50 years for early endoscopy provides the best assurance that an occult malignancy will not be misse