WITHDRAWN: Initial management strategies for dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND: This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia (a) Initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures). (b) Early endoscopy. (c) Testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori )and endoscope only those positive. (d) H. pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources. An individual patient data meta-analysis of health economic data was conducted MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five papers reporting 27 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (three trials) and histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H. pylori test and endoscope versus usual management (three trials), H. pylori test and treat versus endoscopy (six trials), and test and treat versus acid suppression alone in H. pylori positive patients (four trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were; for PPI compared with antacid 0.72 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.80), PPI compared with H2RA 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with H. pylori test and treat (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but was not cost effective (mean additional cost of endoscopy US$401 (95% CI $328 to 474). Test and treat may be more effective than acid suppression alone (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Proton pump inhibitor drugs (PPIs) are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The relative efficacy of histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and PPIs is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H. pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia but is not cost effective as part of an overall management strategy.

Helicobacter pylori test and treat versus proton pump inhibitor in initial management of dyspepsia in primary care: multicentre randomised controlled trial (MRC-CUBE trial).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori "test and treat" compared with empirical acid suppression in the initial management of patients with dyspepsia in primary care. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 80 general practices in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 699 patients aged 18-65 who presented to their general practitioner with epigastric pain, heartburn, or both without "alarm symptoms" for malignancy. INTERVENTION: H pylori 13C urea breath test plus one week of eradication treatment if positive or proton pump inhibitor alone; subsequent management at general practitioner's discretion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost effectiveness in cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) (EQ-5D) and effect on dyspeptic symptoms at one year measured with short form Leeds dyspepsia questionnaire. RESULTS: 343 patients were randomised to testing for H pylori, and 100 were positive. The successful eradication rate was 78%. 356 patients received proton pump inhibitor for 28 days. At 12 months no significant differences existed between the two groups in QALYs, costs, or dyspeptic symptoms. Minor reductions in costly resource use over the year in the test and treat group "paid back" the initial cost of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Test and treat and acid suppression are equally cost effective in the initial management of dyspepsia. Empirical acid suppression is an appropriate initial strategy. As costs are similar overall, general practitioners should discuss with patients at which point to consider H pylori testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN87644265.

Helicobacter pylori "test and treat" or endoscopy for managing dyspepsia: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Helicobacter pylori "test and treat" has been recommended for the management of young dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms, and trials have suggested that it is as effective as endoscopy. However, none of these trials have had sufficient sample size to confirm that "test and treat" costs less or to detect small differences in effect. A collaborative group has prospectively registered trials comparing prompt endoscopy with a "test and treat" approach, with the aim of performing an individual patient data meta-analysis of both effect and resource utilization data. METHODS: Researchers provided data for meta-analysis, pooling effects of interventions on individual dyspepsia symptoms. Standardized unit costs were applied to resource utilization, and net benefit was calculated at patient level. Effects, costs, and net benefit were then pooled at study level. RESULTS: Five trials were identified, containing 1924 patients (946 endoscopy [mean age, 40 years], 978 "test and treat" [mean age, 41 years]). The relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after 1 year was reduced with endoscopy compared with "test and treat" (RR = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-0.99). "Test and treat" cost 389 dollars less per patient (95% CI: 275-502 dollars). Using the net benefit approach, at no realistic level of willingness to pay per patient symptom-free did prompt endoscopy become cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt endoscopy confers a small benefit in terms of cure of dyspepsia but costs more than "test and treat" and is not a cost-effective strategy for the initial management of dyspepsia.