Gastroenterology

Gastroenterology

Volume 128, Issue 7, June 2005, Pages 1838-1844
Gastroenterology

Clinical-alimentary tract
Helicobacter pylori “Test and Treat” or Endoscopy for Managing Dyspepsia: An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2005.03.004Get rights and content

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 less per patient (95% CI: $275–$502). 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.

Section snippets

Materials and Methods

Meta-analysis at trial level is restricted to pooling the data in an aggregated format reported by the trials. Although contact with authors may provide additional information not reported in the publication, this method has a number of limitations that arise because of the heterogeneity between different trials. This heterogeneity has several sources, which can occur as a result of differences between subject populations, application of interventions, effects measures, coding of resource data,

Results

Five trials were identified comparing management based on a prompt upper GI endoscopy strategy with an H pylori “test and treat” approach for the initial management of dyspepsia. Three trials9, 10 (Dr. Paul Myres, personal communication, May 2004) were registered with the collaborator’s group, of which one10 was published as a full paper. One trial (Myres) had closed early because of poor recruitment, but full follow-up data had been collected on most of the patients recruited, expressly for

Discussion

This study, the first of its kind in this field, has used rigorous methodology to confirm that a prompt endoscopy strategy for the initial management of dyspepsia confers a clinically small, but statistically significant, benefit in terms of patients’ symptom resolution compared with a “test and treat” approach. The explanation for this difference is not clear. We noted an increase in proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescribing in those patients assigned to prompt endoscopy. However, when a

References (27)

  • A.E. Duggan et al.

    Does initial management of patients with dyspepsia alter symptom response and patient satisfaction? Results from a randomised trial

    Gastroenterology

    (1999)
  • K.E.L. McColl et al.

    Randomised trial of endoscopy with testing for Helicobacter pylori compared with non-invasive H pylori testing alone in the management of dyspepsia

    BMJ

    (2002)
  • M. Roland et al.

    Understanding controlled trialswhat are pragmatic trials?

    BMJ

    (1998)
  • Cited by (0)

    Paul Moayyedi has received speaker’s fees and research funds from AstraZeneca, Wyeth Laboratories, and Abbott Laboratories. Brendan C. Delaney has received speaker’s fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Wyeth, and AxCan Pharma; holds grants from the MRC and NHS R&D program; and is supported by an NHS R&D Primary Care Career Scientist Award (No. CSA99/008).

    View full text