The health economics of Helicobacter pylori infection

Economic considerations are becoming increasingly important as health care becomes more expensive. Evidence for effectiveness is usually gained from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) but often there is insufficient evidence of the costs of alternative strategies in trials. Often, therefore, economic models are needed to extrapolate data from a variety of sources to give an indication of which strategy is cost effective. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) testing and treating in a wide variety of upper gastrointestinal diseases is a good example of the application of economic analyses to health care interventions. H. pylori eradication in peptic ulcer disease is very effective with systematic reviews giving a number needed to treat of around two compared to no therapy. RCTs have also suggested that treating H. pylori is also more effective and less expensive than continuous H(2) receptor antagonist therapy and is therefore the dominant strategy in treating peptic ulcer disease. The impact of H. pylori eradication in infected patients with functional dyspepsia is less dramatic, with systematic reviews suggesting a number needed to treat of 14. Economic models suggest that in Europe H. pylori eradication is cost-effective compared to offering no treatment (e.g. in the UK we can be 95% certain this approach is cost effective if you are willing to pay $51/month free from dyspepsia). In the USA it is less certain that this is a cost-effective approach due to the higher cost of eradication therapy. H. pylori test and treat has been proposed as an alternative to early endoscopy in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia. We have conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis of five RCTs that has addressed the cost effectiveness of this approach. Endoscopy was slightly more effective than H. pylori test and treat at relieving dyspepsia at one year but was not cost-effective as it cost $9000/dyspepsia cure at one year. Population H. pylori test and treat has been proposed as a strategy to prevent noncardia gastric cancer. RCTs have suggested this approach may be cost saving but more data are needed on whether H. pylori eradication will reduce gastric cancer mortality before this strategy can be recommended.     

Limited value of alarm features in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Alarm features such as dysphagia, weight loss, or anemia raise concern of an upper gastrointestinal malignancy in patients with dyspepsia. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of alarm features in predicting malignancy by performing a metaanalysis based on the published literature. METHODS: English-language studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and CINAHL. Cohort studies that measured alarm features and compared them with the endoscopic findings were included. Studies were screened for inclusion by 2 authors who independently extracted the data. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated by comparing the alarm feature with the endoscopic diagnosis. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve method was used to summarize test characteristics across studies. Individual alarm features were also assessed when the study report permitted. RESULTS: Eighty-three of 2600 studies met the initial screening criteria; 15 met inclusion criteria after detailed review. These 15 studies evaluated a total of 57,363 patients, of whom 458 (.8%) had cancer. The sensitivity of alarm symptoms varied from 0% to 83% with considerable heterogeneity between studies. The specificity also varied significantly from 40% to 98%. A clinical diagnosis made by a physician was very specific (range, 97%-98%) but not very sensitive (range, 11%-53%). CONCLUSIONS: Alarm features have limited predictive value for an underlying malignancy. Their use in dyspepsia management strategies needs further refinement and study.     

Review article: uninvestigated dyspepsia and non-ulcer dyspepsia-the use of endoscopy and the roles of Helicobacter pylori eradication and antisecretory therapy

Due to its prevalence, impact on quality-of-life and the associated significant health resource utilization, dyspepsia is a major healthcare concern. The available management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia include prompt endoscopy, the 'test-and-treat' strategy for Helicobacter pylori, and empiric antisecretory therapy. There is consensus that endoscopy should be reserved for patients with alarm features (e.g. symptom onset after 45 years of age, recurrent vomiting, weight loss, dysphagia, evidence of bleeding, anaemia), H. pylori-positive individuals who fail test-and-treat, and those with an inadequate response to empiric antisecretory therapy. Factors influencing the decision between test-and-treat and empiric antisecretory therapy in uninvestigated dyspepsia include the local prevalence of H. pylori and peptic ulcer disease and the proportion of ulcers attributable to H. pylori. For uninvestigated dyspepsia in patients without alarm features, test-and-treat is the preferred initial management method in Europe based on the relatively high prevalence of H. pylori/peptic ulcer disease whereas empiric antisecretory therapy is preferred in many parts of the United States, where the prevalence of H. pylori/peptic ulcer disease is relatively low. In patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia, H. pylori eradication and empiric antisecretory therapy result in comparable and small, but statistically significant, improvements in dyspepsia. Empiric antisecretory therapy is the preferred initial method of managing non-ulcer dyspepsia in Europe and the US. The test-and-treat approach would receive increased enthusiasm if H. pylori cure is shown to prevent development of gastric cancer in non-ulcer dyspepsia patients in a large Western trial.     

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.     

Ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status as risk factors for esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus

Barrett's esophagus is thought to be a disease occurring predominantly in White Caucasian males of higher socioeconomic status. There are no published studies simultaneously examining risk of Barrett's esophagus according to ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status within a single data set. The authors conducted a retrospective case-control analysis within a cross-sectional study to determine risk of Barrett's esophagus in relation to sociodemographic variables in a large United Kingdom population. All patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at two clinical centers between January 2000 and January 2003 were evaluated. Data on ethnicity, age, gender, socioeconomic status, and the presence of Barrett's esophagus and esophagitis at endoscopy were collected. A total of 20,310 patients were analyzed. Barrett's esophagus was more common in White Caucasians (401/14,095 (2.8%)) than in South Asians (16/5,190 (0.3%)) (adjusted odds ratio (OR)=6.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.56, 10.22), as was esophagitis (2,500/14,095 (17.7%) vs. 557/5,190 (10.7%); adjusted OR=1.76, 95% CI: 1.57, 1.97). Patients with Barrett's esophagus were also more likely to be male (adjusted OR=2.70, 95% CI: 2.18, 3.35) and of higher socioeconomic status (adjusted OR=1.58, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.15 (top tertile vs. bottom tertile)). White Caucasian ethnicity, male gender, and higher socioeconomic status are independent risk factors for Barrett's esophagus.