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. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00251992.

Accounting for the effect of GERD symptoms on patients' health-related quality of life: supporting optimal disease management by primary care physicians.

AIM: To review, from a primary care physician (PCP) perspective, the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for assessment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms, their impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL) and the effectiveness of therapy. RESULTS: While generic and disease-specific PRO instruments have been used in the assessment of GERD, the latter can be considered to be more appropriate as they focus only on problems relevant to the disease in question (and therefore tend to be more responsive to change). Such instruments include the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire and the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale and the Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ). Their use indicates that GERD symptoms are troublesome and significantly reduce patients' HRQL, and that effective treatment of GERD improves HRQL. The GERD Impact Scale (GIS) questionnaire, primarily developed for use within primary care, can also help to determine the impact of symptoms on patients' everyday lives and, in turn, the benefit of appropriately targeted therapy. Notably, these PRO instruments were developed from focus groups of GERD patients, and only aspects rated of highest importance are used in the final instruments. Consequently, PCPs can feel confident that these questionnaires encompass the most relevant points that they are likely to ask in terms of how symptoms affect patients' everyday lives. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians are encouraged to make wider use of PRO instruments within routine practice to improve communication with their GERD patients that, in turn, could lead to improved clinical outcomes and greater patient satisfaction.

One-week acid suppression trial in uninvestigated dyspepsia patients with epigastric pain or burning to predict response to 8 weeks' treatment with esomeprazole: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: While empiric acid-suppressive therapy for uninvestigated dyspepsia patients with symptoms of epigastric pain or burning is standard practice, it is unknown whether an early response to therapy predicts outcome. AIM: To evaluate whether a 1-w acid suppression trial is effective for predicting 8-w response in such patients. METHODS: Helicobacter pylori-negative patients (aged 18-50 years) in primary care with uninvestigated epigastric pain or burning were randomized to esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. or b.d. for 1w, followed by esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. or placebo for 7w. Each day, patients rated the severity of their symptoms. RESULTS: Based on the last 3d, 1-w response rates were 39% (231 of 588) and 43% (258 of 596) with esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. and b.d., respectively. Based on the last 7d, response rates at 4w were 38% (283 of 738) and 25% (93 of 380) for esomeprazole and placebo, respectively, and 47% (339 of 716) and 34% (124 of 368), respectively, at 8w (both P < 0.001 vs. placebo). The sensitivity and specificity of esomeprazole treatment were 58% and 70%, respectively, at 8w. CONCLUSION: A 1-w acid suppression trial is of limited clinical value for predicting 8-w response in patients with symptoms of epigastric pain or burning. Esomeprazole provides greater symptom control than placebo at 4w and 8w.

Randomized-controlled trial of esomeprazole in functional dyspepsia patients with epigastric pain or burning: does a 1-week trial of acid suppression predict symptom response?

BACKGROUND: Early identification of true responders to acid suppression in functional dyspepsia patients with symptoms of epigastric pain or burning may enable clinicians to optimally tailor treatment. AIM: To evaluate whether a 1-w acid suppression trial is useful for identifying true responders in this population. METHODS: Patients (18-70 years) were randomized to either esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s., b.d. or placebo for 1w, and then esomeprazole 40 mg q.d.s. or placebo for 7w. Epigastric pain and/or burning were recorded on a 4-point scale (0 = none, 3 = severe). Trial-week response was defined as symptom score sum < or = 1 on last 3d of therapy; response at 8w was symptom score sum < or = 1 over preceding 7d. RESULTS: 1-w response rates were 33% (199 of 597), 29% (188 of 629) and 23% (71 of 315) with esomeprazole q.d.s., esomeprazole b.d. and placebo, respectively (P = 0.002 for esomeprazole groups vs. placebo). At 8w, trial week sensitivity and specificity were 46% and 80%, respectively, for esomeprazole (40 or 80 mg), and 33% and 87%, respectively, for placebo. The positive and negative predictive values for esomeprazole were 60% and 69%. CONCLUSION: Response to a 1-w acid suppression trial is of limited use for predicting symptom response at 8w in patients with unexplained epigastric pain or burning.

An evidence-based approach to the management of uninvestigated dyspepsia in the era of Helicobacter pylori. Canadian Dyspepsia Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: To provide Canadian primary care physicians with an evidence-based clinical management tool, including diagnostic and treatment recommendations, for patients who present with uninvestigated dyspepsia. RECOMMENDATIONS: The management tool has 5 key decision steps addressing the following: (1) evidence that symptoms originate in the upper gastrointestinal tract, (2) presence of alarm features, (3) use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), (4) dominant reflux symptoms and (5) evidence of Helicobacter pylori infection. All patients over 50 years of age who present with new-onset dyspepsia and patients who present with alarm features should receive prompt investigation, preferably by endoscopy. The management options for patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia who use NSAIDs regularly are: (1) to stop NSAID therapy and assess symptomatic response, (2) to treat with NSAID prophylaxis if NSAID therapy cannot be stopped or (3) to refer for investigation. Gastroesophageal reflux disease can be diagnosed clinically if the patient's dominant symptoms are heartburn or acid regurgitation, or both; these patients should be treated with acid suppressive therapy. The remaining patients should be tested for H. pylori infection, and those with a positive result should be treated with H. pylori-eradication therapy. Those with a negative result should have their symptoms treated with optimal antisecretory therapy or a prokinetic agent. VALIDATION AND EVIDENCE: Evidence for resolution of the dyspepsia symptoms was the main outcome measure. Supporting evidence for the 5 steps in the management tool and the recommendations for treatment were graded according to the strength of the evidence and were endorsed by consensus of committee members. If no randomized controlled clinical trials were available, the recommendations were based on the best available evidence. LITERATURE REVIEW: Evidence was obtained from MEDLINE searches for pertinent articles published from 1966 to October 1999. The searches focused on dyspepsia, diagnosis and treatment. Additional articles were retrieved through a manual search of bibliographies and abstracts from international gastroenterology conferences.