Recommendations for the management of irritable bowel syndrome in family practice. IBS Consensus Conference Participants.

To help family physicians manage patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a consensus conference was convened in June 1997 at which 5 internationally recognized experts in IBS presented position papers on selected topics previously circulated to the conference participants. Five working groups comprising family physicians, gastroenterologists and allied health care professionals from across Canada were then charged with developing recommendations for the diagnosis, patient education, psychosocial management, dietary advice and pharmacotherapy, respectively. An evidence-based approach was used where possible; otherwise, recommendations were made by consensus. The participants concluded that family physicians can make a positive diagnosis of IBS using symptom criteria. The pathophysiology is poorly understood, but motility and sensory disturbances appear to play a role. Neither psychological nor specific dietary factors cause IBS, but both can trigger symptoms. Drug therapy is not recommended for the routine treatment of IBS, but short-term trials of drug therapy may be targeted to predominant symptoms in selected patients. A step-wise, patient-centred approach to management is outlined.

The Second Canadian Consensus Conference on the Management of Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

The Second Canadian Consensus Conference on the Management of Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) was organized by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology to address major advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of GERD, to review the new methods of investigation and therapy introduced since the first conference in 1992 and to examine the issue of relevant health economics. The changes that have taken place over the past four years have been sufficiently dramatic to necessitate reassessment of the recommendations made following the first conference. The second conference dealt with the investigation and treatment of uncomplicated GERD and the complex issues of esophageal and extraesophageal complications such as chest pain, Barrett's esophagus, and reflux-related pulmonary and laryngeal disorders. The role of laparoscopic surgery was also discussed. A decision tree for investigation and treatment of patients with GERD was developed. The 38 participants represented a broad spectrum of experience, location of practice and special interests. The distribution of participants conformed to the recommendations of the Canadian Medical Association guidelines for consensus documents in that there should be input from all possible interested parties. A list of the state-of-the-art lectures presented during the conference, the small group sessions, the session chairpersons and participants are appended to this document. CONCLUSIONS. UNCOMPLICATED GERD: GERD with alarm symptoms must be investigated immediately. There was no consensus about when to investigate uncomplicated GERD, ie, whether to perform endoscopy immediately or after initial therapy fails. There was controversy regarding 'step up' (H2 receptor antagonist [H2RA] or prokinetic [PK] first therapy) versus 'step down' therapy (proton pump inhibitor [PPI] first therapy). The majority decision was for short term 'step up' therapy and investigation if symptoms do not improve or recur. Maintenance therapy should be carried out with the initial therapy that was effective. H2RAs and PKs may suffice for maintenance therapy in milder GERD; however, for severe esophagitis, PPIs should be used. SURGERY: Indications for laparoscopic surgery should be the same as for conventional antireflux operations. NONCARDIAC ANGINA-LIKE CHEST PAIN: After exclusion of nonesophageal causes, the majority decided that eight weeks of therapy with a PPI should be performed, while some suggested work-up before a therapeutic test. In the absence of response or recurrence, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and, depending on the circumstances, 24 h ambulatory pH/motility may be indicated. BARRETT'S ESOPHAGUS: Only patients who, in case of future discovery of cancer or dysplasia, are able or willing to undergo therapy should have surveillance. In the absence of dysplasia EGD should be performed every two years, and in the presence of mild dysplasia every three to six months. All agreed that for severe dysplasia, esophagectomy or poor risk patients, esophageal mucosal ablation is indicated. ESTRAESOPHAGEAL COMPLICATONS (EECs): Asthma, chronic cough and posterior laryngitis were considered EECs. Although PPIs may decrease symptoms, improvement alone is not diagnostic of the presence of EEC. Ambulatory pH studies with two pH probes or ambulatory pH/motility may be useful in establishing causation. HEALTH ECONOMICS: There are limited data for an economic comparison among the different drugs or between medical and surgical therapy.

Health economics of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The present study provides an overview of the current state of health economics studies of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). It indicates the strengths and weaknesses of individual studies, and the state of health economics analysis in general as they apply to GERD. Specifically, this study adopts a pharmacoeconomic perspective, which is a subsection of health economics analytical methods, to provide a comparative analysis of alternative courses of action based on cost and consequence. The pharmacoeconomic outlook is most effective when it considers a comprehensive societal perspective, with special consideration given to other relevant viewpoints, such as the payer, the primary provider and, most important, the patient. Pharmacoeconomics provides several specific analytical techniques for GERD-related health economics analysis. The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus conference on GERD in 1996 thought that a cost effective analysis was the most appropriate technique to assess the pharmacoeconomics of GERD. Six previous studies on GERD health economics have been performed comparing omeprazole with H2 receptor antagonists. These studies vary in cost data collected and in analytical techniques. In general, the existing outcome measurements of these previous health economics studies are not ideal. Namely, they combine various GERD grades, use randomized controls, are endoscopically based, assess pharmaceutical therapy only and are short term. More appropriate health economic trials in GERD, which focus on GERD management strategies and therapeutic treatment of GERD, need to be designed and conducted. These economic assessments, however, should not replace detailed thinking, careful observation, good judgement and common sense.