Economic evaluation of a randomized trial comparing Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat and prompt endoscopy strategies for managing dyspepsia in a primary-care setting.

BACKGROUND: In western European countries, most dyspeptic patients are initially managed by their general practitioners (GPs), who use a range of strategies to manage dyspepsia. We performed an economic analysis of a Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat strategy versus a prompt endoscopy approach in a primary care setting. METHODS: Data were used from the Strategy: Endoscopy versus Serology (SENSE) study, performed in The Netherlands from 1998 to 2001. Patients were randomized to a prompt endoscopy (n = 105) or test-and-treat (n = 118) group. Follow-up lasted 1 year. Adverse events were not recorded in the SENSE study. Health care costs were based on the total amount of dyspepsia-related drugs used, the number of dyspepsia-related GP visits, the number of diagnostic tests, and the number of dyspepsia-related referrals to specialists. The use of medical resources was calculated as standardized costs for 1999, recorded as euros. (On December 31, 1999, 1.00 Euro = 1.00 US dollar.) Quality of life was measured at inclusion and 1 year later, using the RAND-36 questionnaire. To calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), we transformed the individual scores of the RAND-36 into 1 overall score, the Health Utilities Index Mark 2, which introduced a limitation to the study. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. The 95% confidence limits were calculated using a parametric bootstrap method with angular transformation. All cost data were analyzed from a third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: The total costs per patient were 511 Euros, with 0.037 QALY gained per patient, in the test-and-treat group, and 748 Euros, with 0.032 QALY gained per patient, in the endoscopy group (between groups, P < 0.001 and P = NS, respectively). The point estimate of the ICER indicated that the test-and-treat strategy yielded cost savings and QALYs gained. Parametric bootstrap confidence limits indicated cost savings per QALY gained in 75.7% of the bootstrap simulations. CONCLUSION: This analysis of data from the SENSE1026 study suggests that the H pylori test-and-treat strategy was more cost-effective than prompt endoscopy in the initial management of dyspepsia in general practice, from the perspective of a third-party payer.

Does the declining prevalence of Helicobacter pylori unmask patients with idiopathic peptic ulcer disease? Trends over an 8 year period.

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have suggested that the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with ulcer disease who were not using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has been overestimated. The decreasing prevalence of H. pylori could lead to a relative increase in the number of patients with this idiopathic peptic ulcer disease (IPUD). This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of IPUD and any possible trends. DESIGN AND METHODS: The reports of all upper gastro-intestinal endoscopies performed in a Dutch regional hospital over the period 1991 to 1998 were reviewed. If a gastric and/or duodenal ulcer had been diagnosed, data concerning possible H. pylori infection (culture, histology, rapid in-house urease test) were retrieved. If H. pylori tests were negative, hospital files were examined for possible use of NSAIDs or other rare causes of ulcer disease. When these were not found, stored biopsy specimens were tested for H. heilmanii by using the polymerase chain reaction technique. RESULTS: Ulcer disease was diagnosed in 405 patients who had undergone endoscopy (159 with gastric ulcer, 235 with duodenal ulcer, and 11 with both gastric and duodenal ulcer). H. pylori infection was found in 349 of these patients (86.2%). Thirty-three of the 56 H. pylori negative patients used NSAIDs and three patients had Crohn's disease, leaving 20 patients with IPUD (4.9%, 12 gastric ulcer and eight duodenal ulcer). Time trends over the study period showed a decrease of H. pylori associated peptic ulcer disease (P <0.002) and an increase of NSAID associated peptic ulcer disease (P <0.0005). The prevalence of IPUD remained stable (P=0.978). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of patients with H. pylori negative ulcer disease significantly decreased in our study population due to an increase in the number of patients with NSAID associated peptic ulcer disease. IPUD was rare and its prevalence did not increase over a period of 8 years.

Approach to treatment of dyspepsia in primary care: a randomized trial comparing "test-and-treat" with prompt endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The value of the "test-and-treat" strategy in the approach to dyspepsia has been evaluated only in a few secondary care studies. Most patients with dyspepsia, however, are treated by their primary care physician. This study evaluated the test-and-treat strategy in primary care. METHODS: Patients consulting their general practitioners for dyspepsia were randomized to either direct open-access endoscopy with Helicobacter pylori testing or a test-and-treat strategy by H pylori serology. In the 12-month follow-up period, any additional treatment or referral for investigations was left at the discretion of the general practitioner. At the end of the study, data were collected concerning the number of endoscopies, changes in symptom severity and quality of life, patient satisfaction, and the use of medical resources. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy patients were enrolled (129 who received endoscopy and 141 in the test-and-treat group). The prevalence of H pylori infection was 38.3% and 37.2% in the test-and-treat and endoscopy groups, respectively. In the test-and-treat group, 46 patients (33%) were referred for endoscopy during follow-up. Improvement in symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction was comparable in both groups. Patients in the test-and-treat group paid more dyspepsia-related visits to their general practitioner (P =.005). Patients in the endoscopy group were more often prescribed proton pump inhibitors (P =.007), whereas patients in the test-and-treat group were more often prescribed prokinetic drugs (P =.005). CONCLUSIONS: The test-and-treat strategy proved to be as effective and safe as prompt endoscopy. Only a minority of patients were referred for endoscopy after the test-and-treat approach.