Sequential versus Standard Triple Therapy for First-Line Helicobacter pylori Eradication: An Update.

BACKGROUND: non-bismuth sequential therapy (SEQ) was suggested as a first-line anti-Helicobacter pylori treatment alternative to standard triple therapy (STT). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of 10-day SEQ vs. STT (of at least 7 days) using bibliographical searches up to July 2021, including treatment-naïve adult or children. The intention-to-treat (ITT) eradication rate and the risk difference (RD) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 69 RCTs were evaluated, including 19,657 patients (9486 in SEQ; 10,171 in STT). Overall, SEQ was significantly more effective than STT (82% vs. 75%; RD 0.08; p < 0.001). The results were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 68%), and 38 studies did not demonstrate differences between therapies. Subgroup analyses suggested that patients with clarithromycin resistance only and all geographical areas but South America could benefit more from SEQ. Both therapies have evolved over the years, showing similar results when STT lasted 14 days; however, a tendency toward lower SEQ efficacy was noted from 2010 onwards. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to 2010, SEQ was significantly more effective than STT, notably when 7-day STT was prescribed. A tendency toward lower differences between SEQ and STT has been noted, especially when using 10-day STT. None of the therapies achieved an optimal efficacy and therefore cannot be recommended as a valid first-line H. pylori treatment.

Clinically apparent Helicobacter pylori infection and the risk of incident Alzheimer's disease: A population-based nested case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: Our population-based study assessed whether clinically apparent Helicobacter pylori infection (CAHPI) is associated with the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: We assembled a population-based cohort of all dementia-free subjects in the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (UK CPRD), aged ≥50 years (1988-2017). Using a nested case-control approach, we matched each newly developed case of AD with 40 controls. Conditional logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of AD associated with CAHPI compared with no CAHPI during ≥2 years before the index date. We also used salmonellosis as a negative control exposure. RESULTS: Among 4,262,092 dementia-free subjects, 40,455 developed AD after a mean 11 years of follow-up. CAHPI was associated with an increased risk of AD (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21) compared with no CAHPI. Salmonellosis was not associated with the risk of AD (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.29). DISCUSSION: CAHPI was associated with a moderately increased risk of AD. HIGHLIGHTS: CAHPI was associated with an 11% increased risk of AD in subjects aged ≥50 years. The increase in the risk of AD reached a peak of 24% a decade after CAHPI onset. There was no major effect modification by age or sex. Sensitivity analyses addressing several potential biases led to consistent results.

Novel Negative Pressure Protective Box in Upper Digestive Endoscopy: A Prospective Case Series.

In the context of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 pandemic, we have developed a novel negative pressure aerosol protector for upper endoscopy (TRACEY). TRACEY is the first endoscopic enclosure to have passed stringent testing for aerosol protection. The following describes its clinical use in a single-center prospective case series. Overall, 15 patients were included. All endoscopic procedures were successful without premature removal of TRACEY. In addition, its use did not lead to significant patient discomfort, technical hinderance, or adverse events. TRACEY seems to offer a safe and easy to use aerosol protection for upper endoscopy and a potential Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 mitigation strategy in endoscopy.

What Patients Want in a Smartphone App That Supports Colonoscopy Preparation: Qualitative Study to Inform a User-Centered Smartphone App.

BACKGROUND: The preparation for colonoscopy is elaborate and complex. In the context of colorectal cancer screening, up to 11% of patients do not keep their colonoscopy appointments and up to 33% of those attending their appointments have inadequately cleansed bowels that can delay cancer diagnosis and treatment. A smartphone app may be an acceptable and wide-reaching tool to improve patient adherence to colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative study was to employ a user-centered approach to design the content and features of a smartphone app called colonAPPscopy to support individuals preparing for their colonoscopy appointments. METHODS: We conducted 2 focus group discussions (FGDs) with gastroenterology patients treated at the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Canada. Patients were aged 50 to 75 years, were English- or French-speaking, and had undergone outpatient colonoscopy in the previous 3 months; they did not have inflammatory bowel disease or colorectal cancer. FGDs were 75 to 90 min, conducted by a trained facilitator, and audiotaped. Participants discussed the electronic health support tools they might use to help them prepare for the colonoscopy, the content needed for colonoscopy preparation, and the features that would make the smartphone app useful. Recordings of FGDs were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key user-defined content and features to inform the design of colonAPPscopy. RESULTS: A total of 9 patients (7 male and 2 female) participated in one of 2 FGDs. Main content areas focused on bowel preparation instructions, medication restrictions, appointment logistics, communication, and postcolonoscopy expectations. Design features to make the app useful and engaging included minimization of data input, reminders and alerts for up to 7 days precolonoscopy, and visual aids. Participants wanted a smartphone app that comes from a trusted source, sends timely and tailored messages, provides reassurance, provides clear instructions, and is simple to use. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified the need for postcolonoscopy information as well as reminders and alerts in the week before colonoscopy, novel content, and features that had not been included in previous smartphone-based strategies for colonoscopy preparation. The ability to tailor instructions made the smartphone app preferable to other modes of delivery. Study findings recognize the importance of including potential users in the development phase of building a smartphone app.

Reconciliation of Recent Helicobacter pylori Treatment Guidelines in a Time of Increasing Resistance to Antibiotics.

Increasing resistance to antibiotics worldwide has adverse effects on the effectiveness of standard therapies to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection. We reviewed guidelines developed by expert groups in Europe, Canada, and the United States for the treatment of H pylori infection. We compared the recommendations of these guidelines, reconciled them, and addressed the increasing resistance of H pylori to antibiotic therapy regimens. The guidelines recommend bismuth quadruple therapy for first-line treatment, replacing clarithromycin-based triple therapy. There is consensus for concomitant 4-drug therapy as an alternative, especially when bismuth is not available. When therapy is unsuccessful, it is likely due to resistance to clarithromycin, levofloxacin, and/or metronidazole; these drugs, if used previously, should be avoided in subsequent eradication attempts. Second-line therapies should be bismuth quadruple therapy or levofloxacin triple therapy, depending on suspected resistance, reserving rifabutin-based triple and high-dose dual amoxicillin proton pump inhibitor therapy for subsequent treatment attempts. The increasing resistance of H pylori to antibiotic therapy necessitates local availability of susceptibility tests for individuals, and establishment of regional and national monitoring programs to develop evidence-based locally relevant eradication strategies. Further studies into the development of more easily accessible methods of resistance testing, such as biomarker analysis of stool samples, are required. Options under investigation include substituting vonoprazan for proton pump inhibitors, adding probiotics, and vaccine development. Narrow-spectrum antibiotics and new therapeutic targets could be identified based on genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic analyses of H pylori.

Effectiveness of Second through Sixth Line Salvage Helicobacter pylori Treatment: Bismuth Quadruple Therapy is Almost Always a Reasonable Choice.

Aim. There is a paucity of data on the efficacy of empiric H. pylori treatment after multiple treatment failures. The aim of this study is to examine the efficacy of empiric salvage therapy as a second through sixth line treatment. Methods. In this single gastroenterology center prospective study in Montreal, Canada, patients with failed H. pylori treatment were offered empiric salvage therapy based on the patients' previous antibiotic exposure. Enrollment occurred after 1-5 previous failed attempts and eradication determined at least 4 weeks after completion of treatment. Results. 205 treatments were attempted in 175 patients using 7 different regimens. Eradication was achieved in 154 attempts (PP = 81% (154/191), ITT = 75% (154/205)). Bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT) had higher eradication success (PP = 91% (102/112), ITT = 84% (102/121)) when compared to all PPI triple therapies combined (PP = 66% (49/74), absolute risk reduction (ARR): 25% (95% CI: 13-37), ITT = 62% (49/79), ARR: 22% (95% CI: 10-35), and p < 0.001) and when compared to levofloxacin triple therapy (PP = 66% (40/61), ARR: 26% (95% CI: 13-39), ITT = 61% (40/66), and ARR: 24% (95% CI: 10-37)). Eradication was achieved in a high proportion with BQT on attempt two (PP = 94% (67/71), ITT = 91% (67/74)), three (PP = 85% (17/20), ITT = 71% (17/24)), four (PP = 100% (11/11), ITT = 92% (11/12)), and five (PP = 86% (6/7), ITT = 75% (6/8)). Patients with previous combined bismuth and tetracycline exposure had a lower proportion of eradication compared to patients without such an exposure (PP: 60% (6/10) versus 95% (94/99), ARR: 35% (95% CI: 11-64), and p < 0.001; ITT: 55% (6/11) versus 90% (94/105), ARR: 35% (95% CI: 10-62), and p < 0.01). Conclusions. Salvage therapy with a bismuth quadruple regimen is superior to triple therapies and is effective for second through fifth line empirical treatment (≥85% PP, ≥70% ITT). Successful eradication is significantly lower with BQT if a similar bismuth based regimen was used in the past.

Sequential versus standard triple first-line therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication.

BACKGROUND: Non-bismuth quadruple sequential therapy (SEQ) comprising a first induction phase with a dual regimen of amoxicillin and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for five days followed by a triple regimen phase with a PPI, clarithromycin and metronidazole for another five days, has been suggested as a new first-line treatment option to replace the standard triple therapy (STT) comprising a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), clarithromycin and amoxicillin, in which eradication proportions have declined to disappointing levels. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of a SEQ regimen with STT for the eradication of H. pylori infection, and to compare the incidence of adverse effects associated with both STT and SEQ H. pylori eradication therapies. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted bibliographical searches in electronic databases, and handsearched abstracts from Congresses up to April 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 10-day SEQ and STT (of at least seven days) for the eradication of H. pylori. Participants were adults and children diagnosed as positive for H. pylori infection and naïve to H. pylori treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a pre-piloted, tabular summary to collect demographic and medical information of included study participants as well as therapeutic data and information related to the diagnosis and confirmatory tests.We evaluated the difference in intention-to-treat eradication between SEQ and STT regimens across studies, and assessed sources of the heterogeneity of this risk difference (RD) using subgroup analyses.We evaluated the quality of the evidence following Cochrane standards, and summarised it using GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 RCTs with a total of 12,284 participants (6042 in SEQ and 6242 in STT). The overall analysis showed that SEQ was significantly more effective than STT (82% vs 75% in the intention-to-treat analysis; RD 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.11; P < 0.001, moderate-quality evidence). Results were highly heterogeneous (I² = 75%), and 20 studies did not demonstrate differences between therapies.Reporting by geographic region (RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.12; studies = 44; I² = 75%, based on low-quality evidence) showed that differences between SEQ and STT were greater in Europe (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.19) when compared to Asia, Africa or South America. European studies also showed a tendency towards better efficacy with SEQ; however, this tendency was reversed in 33% of the Asian studies. Africa reported the closest risk difference (RD 0.14 , 95% 0.07 to 0.22) to Europe among studied regions, but confidence intervals were wider and therefore the quality of the evidence showing SEQ to be superior to STT was reduced for this region.Based on high-quality evidence, subgroup analyses showed that SEQ and STT therapies were equivalent when STT lasted for 14 days. Although, overall, the mean eradication proportion with SEQ was over 80%, we noted a tendency towards a lower average effect with this regimen in the more recent studies (2008 and after); weighted linear regression showed that the efficacies of both regimens evolved differently over the years, having a higher reduction in the efficacy of SEQ (-1.72% yearly) than in STT (-0.9% yearly). In these more recent studies (2008 and after) we were also unable to detect the superiority of SEQ over STT when STT was given for 10 days.Based on very low-quality evidence, subgroup analyses on antibiotic resistance showed that the widest difference in efficacy between SEQ and STT was in the subgroup analysis based on clarithromycin-resistant participants, in which SEQ reached a 75% average efficacy versus 43% with STT.Reporting on adverse events (AEs) (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; participants = 8103; studies = 27; I² = 26%, based on high-quality evidence) showed no significant differences between SEQ and STT (20.4% vs 19.5%, respectively) and results were homogeneous.The quality of the studies was limited due to a lack of systematic reporting of the factors affecting risk of bias. Although randomisation was reported, its methodology (e.g. algorithms, number of blocks) was not specified in several studies. Additionally, the other 'Risk of bias' domains (such as allocation concealment of the sequence randomisation, or blinding during either performance or outcome assessment) were also unreported.However, subgroup analyses as well as sensitivity analyses or funnel plots indicated that treatment outcomes were not influenced by the quality of the included studies. On the other hand, we rated 'length of STT' and AEs for the main outcome as high-quality according to GRADE classification; but we downgraded 'publication date' quality to moderate, and 'geographic region' and 'antibiotic resistance' to low- and very low-quality, respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis indicates that prior to 2008 SEQ was more effective than STT, especially when STT was given for only seven days. Nevertheless, the apparent advantage of sequential treatment has decreased over time, and more recent studies do not show SEQ to have a higher efficacy versus STT when STT is given for 10 days.Based on the results of this meta-analysis, although SEQ offers an advantage when compared with STT, it cannot be presented as a valid alternative, given that neither SEQ nor STT regimens achieved optimal efficacy ( ≥ 90% eradication rate).

The Toronto Consensus for the Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection in Adults.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Helicobacter pylori infection is increasingly difficult to treat. The purpose of these consensus statements is to provide a review of the literature and specific, updated recommendations for eradication therapy in adults. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified studies on H pylori treatment. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were developed through an online platform, finalized, and voted on by an international working group of specialists chosen by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology. RESULTS: Because of increasing failure of therapy, the consensus group strongly recommends that all H pylori eradication regimens now be given for 14 days. Recommended first-line strategies include concomitant nonbismuth quadruple therapy (proton pump inhibitor [PPI] + amoxicillin + metronidazole + clarithromycin [PAMC]) and traditional bismuth quadruple therapy (PPI + bismuth + metronidazole + tetracycline [PBMT]). PPI triple therapy (PPI + clarithromycin + either amoxicillin or metronidazole) is restricted to areas with known low clarithromycin resistance or high eradication success with these regimens. Recommended rescue therapies include PBMT and levofloxacin-containing therapy (PPI + amoxicillin + levofloxacin). Rifabutin regimens should be restricted to patients who have failed to respond to at least 3 prior options. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal treatment of H pylori infection requires careful attention to local antibiotic resistance and eradication patterns. The quadruple therapies PAMC or PBMT should play a more prominent role in eradication of H pylori infection, and all treatments should be given for 14 days.

A 14-day course of triple therapy is superior to a 10-day course for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori: A Canadian study conducted in a 'real world' setting.

BACKGROUND: Successful Helicobacter pylori eradication with the traditional seven-day course of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) triple therapy is declining. Prolonging therapy to either 10 or 14 days is associated with better eradications rates. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 14-day course of triple therapy versus a 10-day course in the treatment of H pylori in Canada. METHODS: Consecutive treatment-naive patients with clinical indications for H pylori eradication underwent either a 10-day course or a 14-day course of traditional PPI triple therapy depending on the date of the office visit (an odd date received the 10-day course, whereas an even date received the 14-day treatment). H pylori eradication was ascertained via urea breath test or gastric biopsies performed ≥4 weeks after completion of therapy. Analyses were by both intention to treat and per-protocol. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients were included in the study (31 in the 10-day group and 52 in the 14-day group). In the intention-to-treat analysis, eradication rates were 82.7% (95% CI 70% to 92%) versus 45.2% (95% CI 27% to 64%), favouring the 14-day treatment (P<0.001). Similarly, in the per-protocol analysis, eradication rates were 91.5% (95% CI 80% to 98%) versus 63.6% (95% CI 41% to 83%), favouring the 14-day arm (P=0.01). Adverse events and compliance were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: A 14-day course of standard PPI triple therapy was superior to a shorter-duration therapy and should be included as a first-line regimen for H pylori eradication in Canada. The 10-day course of treatment did not achieve an acceptable eradication rate and should no longer be used in this country.

Randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes of video capsule endoscopy with push enteroscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate diagnostic yields and downstream clinical outcomes comparing video capsule endoscopy (VCE) with push enteroscopy (PE). METHODS: Patients with OGIB and negative esophagogastroduodenoscopies and colonoscopies were randomly assigned to VCE or PE and followed for 12 months. End points included diagnostic yield, acute or chronic bleeding, health resource utilization and crossovers. RESULTS: Data from 79 patients were analyzed (VCE n=40; PE n=39; 82.3% overt OGIB). VCE had greater diagnostic yield (72.5% versus 48.7%; P<0.05), especially in the distal small bowel (58% versus 13%; P<0.01). More VCE-identified lesions were rated possible or certain causes of bleeding (79.3% versus 35.0%; P<0.05). During follow-up, there were no differences in the rates of ongoing bleeding (acute [40.0% versus 38.5%; P not significant], chronic [32.5% versus 45.6%; P not significant]), nor in health resource utilization. Fewer VCE-first patients crossed over due to ongoing bleeding (22.5% versus 48.7%; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A VCE-first approach had a significant diagnostic advantage over PE-first in patients with OGIB, especially with regard to detecting small bowel lesions, affecting clinical certainty and subsequent further small bowel investigations, with no subsequent differences in bleeding or resource utilization outcomes in follow-up. These findings question the clinical relevance of many of the discovered endoscopic lesions or the ability to treat most of these effectively over time. Improved prognostication of both patient characteristics and endoscopic lesion appearance with regard to bleeding behaviour, coupled with the impact of therapeutic deep enteroscopy, is now required using adapted, high-quality study methodologies.

Prolonged treatment duration is required for successful Helicobacter pylori eradication with proton pump inhibitor triple therapy in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Traditional seven-day proton pump inhibitor triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication has recently shown disappointing results outside of Canada. Prolonging therapy may be associated with poorer compliance and, hence, may not have a better outcome in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of seven- and 14-day triple therapy for first-line treatment of H pylori infection in an effectiveness setting in Canada. METHODS: A total of 314 consecutive treatment-naive, adult H pylori-infected patients were allocated to either a seven- or 14-day triple therapy regimen, with a subgroup of 172 consecutive patients quasi-randomized to treatment according to date of visit. Eradication was confirmed using either urea breath test or gastric biopsies. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Eradication was achieved in a higher proportion of patients who underwent 14-day versus seven-day treatment regimens (overall: 85% versus 70% [P≤0.001]; subgroup: 83% versus 64% [P≤0.01]). Although successful eradication was also associated with older age and a diagnosis of ulcer disease, multivariate analysis revealed only longer treatment duration and lack of yogurt ingestion as independent predictors of successful eradication. There was a trend toward reduced success in the latter years of the study. Side effects were similar in both groups and were not prevented by yogurt ingestion. CONCLUSIONS: The currently recommended duration of proton pump inhibitor triple therapy in Canada should be increased from seven to 14 days, the latter having achieved an excellent result in this particular real-world setting. Yogurt added no benefit. Further study is required to compare 10-day with 14-day treatment regimens.

Colorectal cancer surveillance after index colonoscopy: guidance from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

BACKGROUND: Differences between American (United States [US]) and European guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance may create confusion for the practicing clinician. Under- or overutilization of surveillance colonoscopy can impact patient care. METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) convened a working group (CAG-WG) to review available guidelines and provide unified guidance to Canadian clinicians regarding appropriate follow-up for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance after index colonoscopy. A literature search was conducted for relevant data that postdated the published guidelines. RESULTS: The CAG-WG chose the 2012 US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) on Colorectal Cancer to serve as the basis for the Canadian position, primarily because the US approach was the simplest and comprehensively addressed the issue of serrated polyps. Aspects of other guidelines were incorporated where relevant. The CAG-WG recommendations differed from the US MSTF guidelines in three main areas: patients with negative index colonoscopy should be followed-up at 10 years using any of the appropriate screening tests, including colonoscopy, for average-risk individuals; among patients with >10 adenomas, a one-year interval for subsequent colonoscopy is recommended; and for long-term follow-up, patients with low-risk adenomas on both the index and first follow-up procedures can undergo second follow-up colonoscopy at an interval of five to 10 years. DISCUSSION: The CAG-WG adapted the US MSTF guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance to the Canadian health care environment with a few modifications. It is anticipated that the present article will provide unified guidance that will enhance physician acceptance and encourage appropriate utilization of recommended surveillance intervals.

The 2012 SAGE wait times program: Survey of Access to GastroEnterology in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Periodically surveying wait times for specialist health services in Canada captures current data and enables comparisons with previous surveys to identify changes over time. METHODS: During one week in April 2012, Canadian gastroenterologists were asked to complete a questionnaire (online or by fax) recording demographics, reason for referral, and dates of referral and specialist visits for at least 10 consecutive new patients (five consultations and five procedures) who had not been seen previously for the same indication. Wait times were determined for 18 indications and compared with those from similar surveys conducted in 2008 and 2005. RESULTS: Data regarding adult patients were provided by 173 gastroenterologists for 1374 consultations, 540 procedures and 293 same-day consultations and procedures. Nationally, the median wait times were 92 days (95% CI 85 days to 100 days) from referral to consultation, 55 days (95% CI 50 days to 61 days) from consultation to procedure and 155 days (95% CI 142 days to 175 days) (total) from referral to procedure. Overall, wait times were longer in 2012 than in 2005 (P<0.05); the wait time to same-day consultation and procedure was shorter in 2012 than in 2008 (78 days versus 101 days; P<0.05), but continued to be longer than in 2005 (P<0.05). The total wait time remained longest for screening colonoscopy, increasing from 201 days in 2008 to 279 days in 2012 (P<0.05). DISCUSSION: Wait times for gastroenterology services continue to exceed recommended targets, remain unchanged since 2008 and exceed wait times reported in 2005.

A one-year economic evaluation of six alternative strategies in the management of uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms in Canadian primary care.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of initial strategies in managing Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinalsymptoms remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of six management approaches to uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms in the Canadian setting. METHODS: The present study analyzed data from four randomized trials assessing homogeneous and complementary populations of Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms with comparable outcomes. Symptom-free months, qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct costs in Canadian dollars of two management approaches based on the Canadian Dyspepsia Working Group (CanDys) Clinical Management Tool, and four additional strategies (two empirical antisecretory agents, and two prompt endoscopy) were examined and compared. Prevalence data, probabilities, utilities and costs were included in a Markov model, while sensitivity analysis used Monte Carlo simulations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were determined. RESULTS: Empirical omeprazole cost $226 per QALY ($49 per symptom-free month) per patient. CanDys omeprazole and endoscopy approaches were more effective than empirical omeprazole, but more costly. Alternatives using H2-receptor antagonists were less effective than those using a proton pump inhibitor. No significant differences were found for most incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. As willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds rose from $226 to $24,000 per QALY, empirical antisecretory approaches were less likely to be the most costeffective choice, with CanDys omeprazole progressively becoming a more likely option. For WTP values ranging from $24,000 to $70,000 per QALY, the most clinically relevant range, CanDys omeprazole was the most cost-effective strategy (32% to 46% of the time), with prompt endoscopy-proton pump inhibitor favoured at higher WTP values. CONCLUSIONS: Although no strategy was the indisputable cost effective option, CanDys omeprazole may be the strategy of choiceover a clinically relevant range of WTP assumptions in the initial management of Canadian patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia.