The approach to dyspepsia in primary health care. A systematic review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v24i2.10477Keywords:
Non-investigated Dyspepsia, Initial Management, Primary HealthAbstract
Introduction: The initial management of dyspepsia on a primary health level is controversial. It is estimated that 4 out of 10 adults present per year a new or a first episode of dyspepsia, and 1 out of 10 visits his/her doctor. Many patients that perform an upper digestive endoscopy (UDE) do not report significant findings. The aim of this work is to determine, based on scientific evidence, which primary health strategies present the best trade-off cost-effectiveness for the initial management of patient with dyspepsia. Methodology: A systematic review was conducted on several sources: MEDLINE®, The Cochrane Library, Bandolier, Medscape®, TRIP database, DARE, EBM Resources and Preventive Services, of papers published between 1985 and May 2005. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT) that benchmark different initial strategies were performed. Five RCTs were included for a comparison of «initial UDE» versus «empirical treatment», four RCTs for a comparison of «test for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) and its eradication («test and treat»)» versus « pharmacology intervention», and four RCTs for trading-off «»test and treat» strategy» versus «UDE». Three meta-analyses (one still to be published), and eight guidelines and one review based on scientific evidences were reviewed. Results: Five RCTs (n = 1473) that compared the initial UDE to the empirical treatment demonstrate a non-significant reduction of recurrence risk of dyspeptic symptoms. In four RCTs (n = 1863), the initial UDE strategy showed a small clinical benefit, but statistically significant, when compared to the «test and treat» strategy; nevertheless, the incurred costs were higher. In four RCTs (n = 1056) where the «test and treat» strategy was benchmarked against the empirical treatment, the clinical benefit was proved to be statistically significant, without cost differences. In addition, guidelines based on scientific evidences of various societies were reviewed and compared, along with recommendation forces. Discussion/Conclusion: The initial management of «Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) and its eradication » test presents a best trade-off cost-effectiveness than that of strategies that involve UDE or initial prescription; on the other hand, the empirical treatment was more advantageous on the «cost-effectiveness» relationship that the initial UDE. The latter is not recommended as a first line of approach to patients with dyspepsia without alarm symptoms. A decision making algorithm, enriched with recommendation levels, is presented.Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The authors will assign to the RPMGF the sole right to publish and distribute the content of the manuscript specified in this declaration via physical, electronic, broadcasting or any other medium that may come into existence. They also grant the RPMGF the right to use and exploit this manuscript, in particular by assigning, selling or licensing its content. This permission is permanent and takes effect from the moment the manuscript is submitted, has the maximum duration allowed by applicable Portuguese or international law and is of worldwide scope. The authors further declare that this assignment is made free of charge. If the RPMGF informs the authors that it is not going to publish their manuscript, the exclusive assignment of rights ceases forthwith.
The authors authorise the RPMGF (or any entity it may appoint) to act on their behalf when it believes that copyright may have been infringed.
