Delaney B C, Moayyedi P, Forman D
Department of Primary Care and General Practice, Primary Care and Clinical Sciences Building, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK, B15 2TT.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003(2):CD001961. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001961.
This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn.
To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia (a) initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures) (b) early endoscopy (c) testing for Helicobacter pylori and endoscope only those positive (d) H.pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing.
Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists.
All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care.
Data was collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources.
Twenty papers reporting 23 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (two trials) and H2 receptor antagonists (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H.pylori 'test and scope' v usual management (three trials), H.pylori test and treat v. endoscopy (four trials), and test and treat v. acid suppression alone in H.pylori positive patients (two trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% CI were, for PPI: antacid 0.72 (0.64-0.80), PPI: H2RA 0.63 (0.47-0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with initial prescribing (RR 0.89 (0.77-1.02). H.pylori test and endoscopy increases costs in primary care, but does not improve symptoms. H.pylori test and eradicate may be as effective as endoscopy- based management and reduces costs, by decreasing the proportion of patients that are endoscoped. 'Test and treat' may be more effective than acid suppression alone, RR 0.59 (0.42-0.83).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: PPIs are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The relative efficacy of H2RA and PPI is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H.pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia. The review will be updated in 2004 with an individual patient data meta-analysis of the economic data, and a subgroup analysis by age and predominant dyspeptic symptom.
本综述探讨了消化不良患者的管理策略(初始检查与经验性治疗的组合)。消化不良的定义包括上腹部疼痛和烧心。
确定以下针对消化不良患者的初始管理策略的有效性、可接受性和成本效益:(a) 初始药物治疗(治疗失败时包括内镜检查);(b) 早期内镜检查;(c) 检测幽门螺杆菌,仅对阳性患者进行内镜检查;(d) 无论是否进行过检测,进行幽门螺杆菌根除治疗。
通过电子检索和与试验者广泛联系来查找试验。
所有关于初级保健中消化不良患者的随机对照试验。
收集了有关消化不良症状、生活质量和资源使用的数据。
共找到20篇报告23项比较的论文。对比较质子泵抑制剂(PPI)与抗酸剂(两项试验)、H2受体拮抗剂(三项试验)、早期内镜检查与初始抑酸治疗(五项试验)、幽门螺杆菌“检测和内镜检查”与常规管理(三项试验)、幽门螺杆菌检测和治疗与内镜检查(四项试验)以及幽门螺杆菌阳性患者中检测和治疗与单纯抑酸治疗(两项试验)的试验进行了汇总分析。PPI比H2受体拮抗剂和抗酸剂都显著更有效。PPI与抗酸剂比较的相对风险(RR)及95%置信区间为0.72(0.64 - 0.80),PPI与H2受体拮抗剂比较的RR及95%置信区间为0.63(0.47 - 0.85)。其他药物比较结果要么缺失,要么无定论。与初始开药相比,初始内镜检查与复发性消化不良症状风险的小幅降低相关(RR 0.89(0.77 - 1.02))。幽门螺杆菌检测和内镜检查增加了初级保健成本,但未改善症状。幽门螺杆菌检测和根除可能与基于内镜检查的管理同样有效,并通过减少接受内镜检查的患者比例降低成本。“检测和治疗”可能比单纯抑酸治疗更有效,RR为0.59(0.42 - 0.83)。
在这些可能未充分排除胃食管反流病患者的试验中,PPI对消化不良有效。H2受体拮抗剂和PPI的相对疗效尚不确定。早期通过内镜检查或幽门螺杆菌检测可能使一些消化不良患者受益。本综述将于2004年更新,对经济数据进行个体患者数据荟萃分析,并按年龄和主要消化不良症状进行亚组分析。