Dorte Ejg Jarbøl

Proton Pump Inhibitor or Testing for Helicobacter pylori as the First Step for Patients Presenting with Dyspepsia? A Cluster-Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES:The optimal approach for management of patients with dyspepsia has not been determined. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three strategies for management of dyspepsia: empirical antisecretory therapy, testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), or a combination of the two.METHODS:Cluster-randomized trial in general practices. Initial treatment with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was performed in 222 patients, H. pylori test-and-eradicate in 250 patients, and PPI followed by H. pylori-testing if symptoms improved in 250 patients. Symptoms, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and use of resources were recorded during a 1-yr follow-up.RESULTS:The prevalence of H. pylori infection was 24%. We found no difference among the three strategies (p = 0.16) in terms of the proportion of days without dyspeptic symptoms. After 1 yr gastrointestinal symptom scores and quality-of-life scores had improved significantly and equally in the three groups (p < 0.001), but no statistically significant differences were found among the groups. The mean use of endoscopies per patient after 1 yr was higher in the PPI group (0.36 [95% CI 0.30–0.43]) than in the test-and-eradicate group (0.28 [95% CI 0.23–0.34]) and the combination group (0.22 [95% CI 0.17–0.27]), p = 0.02. H. pylori-positive patients given eradication therapy had more days without dyspeptic symptoms (p < 0.001), used less antisecretory therapy (p < 0.01), and were more satisfied (p < 0.001) than H. pylori-negative patients.CONCLUSION:The strategies based on H. pylori test enjoyed similar symptom resolution, but reduced endoscopic workload and lower 1-yr total costs compared with empirical antisecretory therapy.

Health Alliance for prudent antibiotic prescribing in patients with respiratory tract infections (HAPPY AUDIT) -impact of a non-randomised multifaceted intervention programme

BackgroundExcessive use of antibiotics is worldwide the most important reason for development of antimicrobial resistance. As antibiotic resistance may spread across borders, high prevalence countries may serve as a source of bacterial resistance for countries with a low prevalence. Therefore, bacterial resistance is an important issue with a potential serious impact on all countries. Initiatives have been taken to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing in primary care, but only few studies have been designed to determine the effectiveness of multifaceted strategies across countries with different practice setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted intervention targeting general practitioners (GPs) and patients in six countries with different health organization and different prevalence of antibiotic resistance.MethodsGPs from two Nordic countries, two Baltic Countries and two Hispano-American countries registered patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in 2008 and 2009. After first registration they received individual prescriber feedback and they were offered an intervention programme that included training courses, clinical guidelines, posters for waiting rooms, patient brochures and access to point of care tests (Strep A and C-Reactive Protein). Antibiotic prescribing rates were compared before and after the intervention.ResultsA total of 440 GPs registered 47011 consultations; 24436 before the intervention (2008) and 22575 after the intervention (2009). After the intervention, the GPs significantly reduced the percentage of consultations resulting in an antibiotic prescription. In patients with lower RTI the GPs in Lithuania reduced the prescribing rate by 42%, in Russia by 25%, in Spain by 25%, and in Argentina by 9%. In patients with upper RTIs, the corresponding reductions in the antibiotic prescribing rates were in Lithania 20%, in Russia 15%, in Spain 9%, and in Argentina 5%.ConclusionA multifaceted intervention programme targeting GPs and patients and focusing on improving diagnostic procedures in patients with RTIs may lead to a marked reduction in antibiotic prescribing. The pragmatic before-after design used may suffer from some limitations and the reduction in antibiotic prescribing could be influenced by factors not related to the intervention.

Strategies for discontinuation of proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review

PURPOSE Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are considered to be overprescribed. Consensus on how to attempt discontinuation is, however, lacking. We therefore conducted a systematic review of clinical studies on discontinuation of PPIs. METHODS Systematic review based on clinical studies investigating discontinuation strategies and discontinuation rates for users of antisecretory medication judged eligible for withdrawal. The databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to December 2013 using the terms antisecretory, anti-ulcer, PPI, acid suppressant, discontinuation, step-down, step down, cessation, tapering, withdrawal and withhold. Search terms were used either singularly or in combination. Papers written in English or Scandinavian were included. Concurrent hand searching was undertaken to pursue references of references. The website ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for unpublished results and ongoing studies. A total of 371 abstracts were scrutinized to determine relevancy. RESULTS The thorough search resulted in six clinical studies on strategies for discontinuation of PPIs. All discontinuation regimens used in the studies differed, and several interventions have been tested in order to decrease use of PPIs. Discontinuations were reported across all studies ranging from 14% to 64% without deteriorating symptom control. Tapering seems to be a more effective discontinuation strategy than abrupt discontinuation. CONCLUSION Discontinuation of PPIs is feasible in a clinical setting, and a substantial number of the patients treated without a clear indication can safely reduce or discontinue treatment. Tapering seems to be the most effective way of doing this.

Patients suspected of irritable bowel syndrome--cross-sectional study exploring the sensitivity of Rome III criteria in primary care.

OBJECTIVES:The Rome III criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are recommended by guidelines to help identify the syndrome. The majority of IBS patients are managed in primary care, where a pragmatic approach to diagnosis is usually adopted, using clinical judgment and knowledge about the patient. Many general practitioners (GPs) have no or limited knowledge of the diagnostic criteria, few use them, and many consider IBS a diagnosis of exclusion. The aim of this study is to explore the sensitivity of the Rome III criteria in relation to a GP-based clinical diagnosis of IBS, to identify differences between Rome III-positive and -negative patients, and to describe the agreement between the various symptom-based criteria.METHODS:Patients aged 18–50 years, presenting in primary care with gastrointestinal complaints and identified as IBS patients by their GP, were referred for enrollment. The Manning and Rome I–III criteria were evaluated through interviews and patients completed the questionnaires The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS)/The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale modified for use in patients with IBS (GSRS-IBS), Short Form 36, Irritable Bowel Syndrome Quality of Life measurement, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire—irritable bowel version, and a questionnaire on use of health-care resources.RESULTS:A total of 604 patients were referred and 499 were included (mean age 32.8 (s.d. 9.5) years, 75% were female). The Rome III criteria were fulfilled by 376 patients (sensitivity 0.75, 95% CI 71–79%). Rome III-positive patients more frequently reported disturbed defecation, had a higher symptom burden, and lower disease-specific health-related quality of life compared with Rome III-negative patients. The various symptom-based criteria identified slightly different subpopulations with the highest agreement between the Rome II and III criteria.CONCLUSIONS:The Rome III criteria identified three in four patients labeled with IBS in primary care. The relevance of the Rome III for IBS in primary care is supported.

Meta‐analysis: Helicobacter pylori‘test and treat’ compared with empirical acid suppression for managing dyspepsia

Background  Which of Helicobacter pylori‘test and treat’ or empirical acid suppression should be preferred for the initial management of uncomplicated dyspepsia is controversial.

Overlap of symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease, dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome in the general population

Abstract Introduction. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), functional dyspepsia (FD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are common functional gastrointestinal conditions with significant impact on the daily lives of individuals. The objective was to investigate the prevalence and overlap of the three conditions in a Western general population. Material and methods. A nationwide study of 100,000 individuals 20 years and above, randomly selected in the general population. A web-based questionnaire survey formed the basis of this study. Questions regarding FD and IBS were extracted from the ROME III adult questionnaire. Questions regarding GERD were developed based on the Montreal definition. Prevalence estimates for GERD, FD IBS were calculated in total and for each sex separately and for four age groups. A Venn diagram was constructed, illustrating the overlap between the three conditions. Results. The overall response rate was 52.2%. The prevalence of GERD, FD and IBS was 11.2%, 7.7% and 10.5%, respectively, and overlap between two or three of these conditions was seen among 6.5% of the respondents. Among individuals meeting the criteria of one or more of the conditions GERD, FD and IBS, 30.7% had overlap between two or all three conditions. Conclusion. GERD, FD and IBS are common conditions in the general population and the overlap between these conditions is also quite common. When diagnosing patients with GERD, FD and IBS, physicians should keep in mind that these patients could be suffering from more than one of these conditions.

Long-term treatment with probiotics in primary care patients with irritable bowel syndrome – a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial

Abstract Objective. Meta-analyses have indicated effect of probiotics on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, few long-term trials have been conducted and uncertainty remains as to effectiveness and long-term effect in a primary care setting. We aimed to investigate the effect of probiotics compared with placebo in the management of IBS in primary care during a 6-month treatment period and with a 6-month follow-up. Material and methods. We randomized IBS patients fulfilling Rome III criteria to receive two capsules twice daily either containing placebo or a probiotic mixture of Lactobacillus paracasei ssp paracasei F19, Lactobacillus acidophilus La5 and Bifidobacterium Bb12 in an amount of 1.3 × 1010 CFU per capsule. Primary endpoint was proportion of responders defined as patients reporting adequate relief (AR) at least 50% of the time in the 6-month treatment period. Secondary outcomes were proportions of patients reporting AR at different time points, and change in gastrointestinal symptoms and health-related quality of life (HrQOL) from baseline to 6 and 12 months. Results. A total of 131 patients were included in this study. The proportion of responders in the treatment period was 52% (35/67) in the probiotic group versus 41% (26/64) in the placebo group, p = 0.18. Overall we found no difference between the groups in change in gastrointestinal symptoms after treatment. Patients improved in HrQOL, but with no statistically significant difference between the groups. Conclusion. During a 6-month treatment period, we were not able to detect a positive effect of probiotic when compared with placebo.

Prevalence of cancer alarm symptoms: A population-based cross-sectional study

Abstract Objective. To estimate the prevalence of alarm symptoms for breast, colorectal, urinary tract, and lung cancer in the general population. Design. Cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Setting. The former County of Funen, Denmark, with 480 000 inhabitants. Participants. A total of 13 777 randomly selected persons aged 20 years and older. Main outcome measures. Prevalence estimates of having experienced cancer alarm symptoms during the past 12 months: a lump in the breast, blood in bowel movements, blood in urine, or coughing for more than six weeks. The number of alarm symptoms experienced within the past 12 months was also calculated. Results. With a response rate of 69%, 3.3% of responders (95% CI 2.9% to 3.7%) reported a lump in their breast, 5.7% (5.2% to 6.3%) reported blood in bowel movements, 2.2% (1.9% to 2.5%) reported blood in urine, and 6.5% (6.1% to 7.5%) reported coughing for more than six weeks within the past 12 months. Overall, 15.3% (95% confidence interval 14.3% to 16.3%) of the females and 12.7% (11.6% to 13.7%) of the males reported having experienced at least one cancer alarm symptom within the past 12 months. Conclusion. Alarm symptoms of breast, colorectal, urinary tract, and lung cancer are common in the general population and approximately 15% of the population have experienced at least one of these cancer alarm symptom within the past 12 months.

The role of diseases, risk factors and symptoms in the definition of multimorbidity – a systematic review

Abstract Objective is to explore how multimorbidity is defined in the scientific literature, with a focus on the roles of diseases, risk factors, and symptoms in the definitions. Design: Systematic review. Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant publications up until October 2013. One author extracted the information. Ambiguities were resolved, and consensus reached with one co-author. Outcome measures were: cut-off point for the number of conditions included in the definitions of multimorbidity; setting; data sources; number, kind, duration, and severity of diagnoses, risk factors, and symptoms. We reviewed 163 articles. In 61 articles (37%), the cut-off point for multimorbidity was two or more conditions (diseases, risk factors, or symptoms). The most frequently used setting was the general population (68 articles, 42%), and primary care (41 articles, 25%). Sources of data were primarily self-reports (56 articles, 42%). Out of the 163 articles selected, 115 had individually constructed multimorbidity definitions, and in these articles diseases occurred in all definitions, with diabetes as the most frequent. Risk factors occurred in 98 (85%) and symptoms in 71 (62%) of the definitions. The severity of conditions was used in 26 (23%) of the definitions, but in different ways. The definition of multimorbidity is heterogeneous and risk factors are more often included than symptoms. The severity of conditions is seldom included. Since the number of people living with multimorbidity is increasing there is a need to develop a concept of multimorbidity that is more useful in daily clinical work. Key Points The increasing number of multimorbidity patients challenges the healthcare system. The concept of multimorbidity needs further discussion in order to be implemented in daily clinical practice. Many definitions of multimorbidity exist and most often a cut-off point of two or more is applied to a range of 4–147 different conditions. Diseases are included in all definitions of multimorbidity. Risk factors are often included in existing definitions, whereas symptoms and the severity of the conditions are less frequently included.

Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Description of 1250 Patients with Low Back Pain in Danish General and Chiropractic Practice

Study Design. Baseline description of a multicenter cohort study. Objective. To describe patients with low back pain (LBP) in both chiropractic and general practice in Denmark. Background. To optimize standards of care in the primary healthcare sector, detailed knowledge of the patient populations in different settings is needed. In Denmark, most LBP-patients access primary healthcare through chiropractic or general practice. Methods. Chiropractors and general practitioners recruited adult patients seeking care for LBP. Extensive baseline questionnaires were obtained and descriptive analyses presented separately for general and chiropractic practice patients, Mann-Whitney rank sum test and Pearsons chi-square test, were used to test for differences between the two populations. Results. Questionnaires were returned from 934 patients in chiropractic practice and 319 patients from general practice. Four out of five patients had had previous episodes, one-fourth were on sick leave, and the LBP considerably limited daily activities. The general practice patients were slightly older and less educated, more often females, and generally worse on all disease-related parameters than chiropractic patients. All differences were statistically significant. Conclusions. LBP in primary care was recurrent, causing sick leave and activity limitations. There were clear differences between the chiropractic and general practice populations in this study.