Freston J W
Department of Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, USA.
Gastroenterology. 1997 Dec;113(6 Suppl):S163-6. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(97)80032-7.
Several areas regarding Helicobacter pylori that need improvement or clarification in the United States include treatment of dyspepsia, physician education on disease associations with H. pylori, and evidence from U.S. studies that 7-day H. pylori eradication regimens are more effective than current regimens. Dyspepsia, a ubiquitous condition in the United States, is routinely managed on the basis of a positive H. pylori serology without other investigations. This approach has been fostered by cost-effectiveness studies of various approaches to duodenal ulcer and dyspeptic patients. Serology-directed therapy was the most cost-effective option vs. endoscopy-directed management. The option of not obtaining endoscopy had broad appeal to primary care physicians. In addition, a recent survey suggests that even gastroenterologists routinely attempt H. pylori eradication in infected patients with nonulcer dyspepsia, despite a number of negative efficacy studies. Finally, the option of not eradicating a World Health Organization-defined carcinogen in the litigious United States is unappealing to clinicians. Eradication of H. pylori in patients with dyspepsia despite more negative trials is likely to continue. There is evidence that U.S. physician awareness of the H. pylori-disease associations and the best therapies are improving rapidly, but further improvement is needed. Discrepancy of awareness of H. pylori between gastroenterologists and family physicians exists. In a recent survey, 94% and 72% of gastroenterologists regarded H. pylori as a causative agent in duodenal and gastric ulcer, respectively, vs. 68% and 68% of family physicians, and only 9% of family physicians believed there was a definite relationship between H. pylori infection and gastric cancer vs. 21% of gastroenterologists. One hundred three different H. pylori regimens were being used; 31% of family physicians and 11% of gastroenterologists used ineffective regimens or regimens of unknown effectiveness. Although 1-week proton pump inhibitor triple therapy is promising, there is skepticism that U.S. studies will yield the optimistic results that have characterized the European studies. Unlike in Europe, the U.S. standard is to use double diagnostics to prove eradication rather than just the urea breath test and to use intent-to-treat rather than assessable patient analyses. Both approaches reduce apparent eradication rates.
在美国,幽门螺杆菌相关的几个方面需要改进或澄清,包括消化不良的治疗、医生对幽门螺杆菌相关疾病的教育,以及美国研究表明7天的幽门螺杆菌根除方案比现行方案更有效的证据。消化不良在美国是一种普遍存在的疾病,通常基于幽门螺杆菌血清学阳性进行处理,而不进行其他检查。十二指肠溃疡和消化不良患者的各种治疗方法的成本效益研究推动了这种方法。血清学指导的治疗是相对内镜指导管理而言最具成本效益的选择。不进行内镜检查的选择对初级保健医生有广泛吸引力。此外,最近一项调查表明,尽管有多项阴性疗效研究,但即使是胃肠病学家也经常尝试对感染幽门螺杆菌的非溃疡性消化不良患者进行根除治疗。最后,在美国这个诉讼盛行的国家,不根除世界卫生组织定义的致癌物这一选择对临床医生没有吸引力。尽管有更多阴性试验,但消化不良患者中幽门螺杆菌的根除可能仍会继续。有证据表明,美国医生对幽门螺杆菌与疾病关联以及最佳治疗方法的认识正在迅速提高,但仍需进一步改进。胃肠病学家和家庭医生对幽门螺杆菌的认识存在差异。在最近一项调查中,分别有94%和72%的胃肠病学家认为幽门螺杆菌是十二指肠溃疡和胃溃疡的致病因素,而家庭医生的这一比例分别为68%和68%,只有9%的家庭医生认为幽门螺杆菌感染与胃癌有明确关系,而胃肠病学家的这一比例为21%。当时正在使用103种不同的幽门螺杆菌治疗方案;31%的家庭医生和11%的胃肠病学家使用无效方案或疗效未知的方案。尽管1周质子泵抑制剂三联疗法很有前景,但有人怀疑美国的研究会得出欧洲研究那样乐观的结果。与欧洲不同,美国的标准是使用双重诊断来证明根除,而不仅仅是尿素呼气试验,并且使用意向性治疗而不是可评估患者分析。这两种方法都会降低表观根除率。