Search

The diminishing prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection among most segments of the Canadian population has led to changes in the etiologies and patterns of associated upper gastrointestinal diseases, including fewer peptic ulcers and their complications. Canadian Aboriginals and recent immigrants are among populations in which the prevalence of H pylori infection remains high and, therefore, the health risks imposed by H pylori remain a significant concern. Population-based strategies for H pylori eradication in groups with a low prevalence of infection are unlikely to be cost effective, but such measures are attractive in groups in which the prevalence rates of infection remain substantial. In addition to a lower prevalence of peptic ulcers and dyspepsia, the public health value of eradication may be particularly important if this leads to a reduction in the prevalence of gastric cancer in high prevalence groups. Therefore The Canadian Helicobacter Study Group held a conference that brought together experts in the field to address these issues, the results of which are reviewed in the present article. Canadians with the highest prevalence of H pylori infection are an appropriate focus for considering the health advantages of eradicating persistent infection. In Canadian communities with a high prevalence of both H pylori and gastric cancer, there remains an opportunity to test the hypothesis that H pylori infection is a treatable risk factor for malignancy.

Background: The cost-effectiveness of initial strategies in managing Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinalsymptoms remains controversial., Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of six management approaches to uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms in the Canadian setting., Methods: The present study analyzed data from four randomized trials assessing homogeneous and complementary populations of Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms with comparable outcomes. Symptom-free months, qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct costs in Canadian dollars of two management approaches based on the Canadian Dyspepsia Working Group (CanDys) Clinical Management Tool, and four additional strategies (two empirical antisecretory agents, and two prompt endoscopy) were examined and compared. Prevalence data, probabilities, utilities and costs were included in a Markov model, while sensitivity analysis used Monte Carlo simulations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were determined., Results: Empirical omeprazole cost $226 per QALY ($49 per symptom-free month) per patient. CanDys omeprazole and endoscopy approaches were more effective than empirical omeprazole, but more costly. Alternatives using H2-receptor antagonists were less effective than those using a proton pump inhibitor. No significant differences were found for most incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. As willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds rose from $226 to $24,000 per QALY, empirical antisecretory approaches were less likely to be the most costeffective choice, with CanDys omeprazole progressively becoming a more likely option. For WTP values ranging from $24,000 to $70,000 per QALY, the most clinically relevant range, CanDys omeprazole was the most cost-effective strategy (32% to 46% of the time), with prompt endoscopy-proton pump inhibitor favoured at higher WTP values., Conclusions: Although no strategy was the indisputable cost effective option, CanDys omeprazole may be the strategy of choiceover a clinically relevant range of WTP assumptions in the initial management of Canadian patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia.

Over the past decade, multiple clinical reports have demonstrated that the use of propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by gastroenterologists and trained endoscopy nurses is safe and effective in appropriately selected patients. Proposed benefits of propofol sedation include rapid onset of action, improved patient comfort and rapid clearance, as well as prompt recovery and discharge from the endoscopy unit. As a result of medical evidence, a number of international professional societies have endorsed the use of propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In Canada, no formal guidelines currently exist. In the present article, the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology presents a position statement, incorporating updated information on the use of propofol sedation for endoscopy in adult patients.

Introduction: The increased demand for colonoscopy, coupled with the introduction of new bowel cleansing preparations and recent caution advisories in Canada, has prompted a review of bowel preparations by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology., Methods: The present review was conducted by the Clinical Affairs group of committees including the endoscopy, hepatobiliary/transplant, liaison, pediatrics, practice affairs and regional representation committees, along with the assistance of Canadian experts in the field. An effort was made to systematically assess randomized prospective trials evaluating commonly used bowel cleansing preparations in Canada., Results: Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-; sodium phosphate (NaP)-; magnesium citrate (Mg-citrate)-; and sodium picosulphate, citric acid and magnesium oxide (PSMC)-containing preparations were reviewed. Regimens of PEG 2 L with bisacodyl (10 mg to 20 mg) or Mg-citrate (296 mL) are as effective as standard PEG 4 L regimens, but are better tolerated. NaP preparations appear more effective and better tolerated than standard PEG solutions. PSMC has good efficacy and tolerability but head-to-head trials with NaP solutions remain few, and conclusions equivocal. Adequate hydration during preparation and up to the time of colonoscopy is critical in minimizing side effects and improving bowel cleansing in patients receiving NaP and PSMC preparations. All preparations may cause adverse events, including rare, serious outcomes. NaP should not be used in patients with cardiac or renal dysfunction (PEG solution is preferable in these patients), bowel obstruction or ascites, and caution should be exercised when used in patients with pre-existing electrolyte disturbances, those taking medications that may affect electrolyte levels and elderly or debilitated patients. Health Canada's recommended NaP dosing for most patients is two 45 mL doses 24 h apart. However, both safety and efficacy data on this dosing schedule are lacking. Many members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology expert panel administer both doses within 24 h, as studied in clinical trials, after careful one-on-one discussion of risks and benefits in carefully selected patients. Safety data on PSMC and combination preparations in North America are limited and clinicians are encouraged to keep abreast of developments in this area., Conclusions: All four preparations reviewed provided effective bowel cleansing for colonoscopy in the majority of patients, with varying tolerability. Adequate hydration is essential in patients receiving the preparations.

As an update to previously published recommendations for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection, an evidence-based appraisal of 14 topics was undertaken in a consensus conference sponsored by the Canadian Helicobacter Study Group. The goal was to update guidelines based on the best available evidence using an established and uniform methodology to address and formulate recommendations for each topic. The degree of consensus for each recommendation is also presented. The clinical issues addressed and recommendations made were: population-based screening for H. pylori in asymptomatic children to prevent gastric cancer is not warranted; testing for H. pylori in children should be considered if there is a family history of gastric cancer; the goal of diagnostic interventions should be to determine the cause of presenting gastrointestinal symptoms and not the presence of H. pylori infection; recurrent abdominal pain of childhood is not an indication to test for H. pylori infection; H. pylori testing is not required in patients with newly diagnosed gastroesophageal reflux disease; H. pylori testing may be considered before the use of long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy; testing for H. pylori infection should be considered in children with refractory iron deficiency anemia when no other cause has been found; when investigation of pediatric patients with persistent or severe upper abdominal symptoms is indicated, upper endoscopy with biopsy is the investigation of choice; the 13C-urea breath test is currently the best noninvasive diagnostic test for H. pylori infection in children; there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend stool antigen tests as acceptable diagnostic tools for H. pylori infection; serological antibody tests are not recommended as diagnostic tools for H. pylori infection in children; first-line therapy for H. pylori infection in children is a twice-daily, triple-drug regimen comprised of a proton pump inhibitor plus two antibiotics (clarithromycin plus amoxicillin or metronidazole); the optimal treatment period for H. pylori infection in children is 14 days; and H. pylori culture and antibiotic sensitivity testing should be made available to monitor population antibiotic resistance and manage treatment failures.

Previous consensus statements have recommended one- to two-week proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapies with clarithromycin and either amoxicillin or metronidazole as first-line treatments for children with Helicobacter pylori infection. The objective of the present review was to summarize data from pediatric studies that have examined treatment efficacy, safety, drug resistance and reinfection rates related to anti-H. pylori therapies. Data from a recent meta-analysis of pediatric studies were used along with the authors' existing databases and searches of individual studies. Regimens that were identified as greater than 80% efficacious in children included a two-week therapy with a nitroimidazole and amoxicillin in Europe; a two-week regimen of bismuth, amoxicillin and metronidazole in developed countries (except Spain); a one- to two-week regimen of a PPI, clarithromycin and amoxicillin in Northern Europe, Asia and the Middle East; and a two-week regimen of a PPI, clarithromycin and metronidazole in Canada. Although recommended as a first-line treatment in adults, two-week treatment with a PPI, clarithromycin and amoxicillin eradicated only 68% of H. pylori infections in North American children. Treatment efficacy was reduced in the presence of metronidazole and/or clarithromycin resistance. Further studies of anti-H. pylori treatments in children in North America and developing countries are warranted.

The present paper is an update to and extension of the previous systematic review on the primary care management of patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia (UD). The original publication of the clinical management tool focused on the initial four- to eight-week assessment of UD. This update is based on new data from systematic reviews and clinical trials relevant to UD. There is now direct clinical evidence supporting a test-and-treat approach in patients with nondominant heartburn dyspepsia symptoms, and head-to-head comparisons show that use of a proton pump inhibitor is superior to the use of H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in the initial treatment of Helicobacter pylori-negative dyspepsia patients. Cisapride is no longer available as a treatment option and evidence for other prokinetic agents is lacking. In patients with long-standing heartburn-dominant (ie, gastroesophageal reflux disease) and nonheartburn-dominant dyspepsia, a once-in-a-lifetime endoscopy is recommended. Endoscopy should also be considered in patients with new-onset dyspepsia that develops after the age of 50 years. Conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetylsalicylic acid and cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitors can all cause dyspepsia. If their use cannot be discontinued, cotherapy with either a proton pump inhibitor, misoprostol or high-dose H2RAs is recommended, although the evidence is based on ulcer data and not dyspepsia data. In patients with nonheartburn-dominant dyspepsia, noninvasive testing for H pylori should be performed and treatment given if positive. When starting nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for a prolonged course, testing and treatment with H2RAs are advised if patients have a history of previous ulcers or ulcer bleeding.

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the most prevalent acid-related disorder in Canada and is associated with significant impairment of health-related quality of life. Since the last Canadian Consensus Conference in 1996, GERD management has evolved substantially., Objective: To develop up-to-date evidence-based recommendations relevant to the needs of Canadian health care providers for the management of the esophageal manifestations of GERD., Consensus Process: A multidisciplinary group of 23 voting participants developed recommendation statements using a Delphi approach; after presentation of relevant data at the meeting, the quality of the evidence, strength of recommendation and level of consensus were graded by participants according to accepted principles., Outcomes: GERD applies to individuals who reflux gastric contents into the esophagus causing symptoms sufficient to reduce quality of life, injury or both; endoscopy-negative reflux disease applies to individuals who have GERD and a normal endoscopy. Uninvestigated heartburn-dominant dyspepsia - characterised by heartburn or acid regurgitation - includes erosive esophagitis or endoscopy-negative reflux disease, and may be treated empirically as GERD without further investigation provided there are no alarm features. Lifestyle modifications are ineffective for frequent or severe GERD symptoms; over-the-counter antacids or histamine H2-receptor antagonists are effective for some patients with mild or infrequent GERD symptoms. Proton pump inhibitors are more effective for healing and symptom relief than histamine H2-receptor antagonists; their efficacy is proportional to their ability to reduce intragastric acidity. Response to initial therapy - a once-daily proton pump inhibitor unless symptoms are mild and infrequent (fewer than three times per week) - should be assessed at four to eight weeks. Maintenance medical therapy should be at the lowest dose and frequency necessary to maintain symptom relief; antireflux surgery is an alternative for a small proportion of selected patients. Routine testing for Helicobacter pylori infection is unnecessary before starting GERD therapy. GERD is associated with Barrett's epithelium and esophageal adenocarcinoma but the risk of malignancy is very low. Endoscopic screening for Barrett's epithelium may be considered in adults with GERD symptoms for more than 10 years; Barrett's epithelium and low-grade dysplasia generally warrant surveillance; endoscopic or surgical management should be considered for confirmed high-grade dysplasia or malignancy., Conclusion: Prospective studies are needed to investigate clinically relevant risk factors for the development of GERD and its complications; GERD progression, on and off therapy; optimal management strategies for typical GERD symptoms in primary care patients; and optimal management strategies for atypical GERD symptoms, Barrett's epithelium and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Aim: To use current evidence-based recommendations to provide a user-friendly clinical algorithm for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, adapted to the Canadian environment., Methods: A multidisciplinary consensus group of 25 participants representing 11 national societies used a seven-step approach to develop recommendations according to accepted standards. Sources of data included narrative and systematic reviews as well as published and new meta-analyses. A small writing subgroup subsequently created the algorithm., Results: Recommendations emphasize appropriate initial resuscitation of the patient and a multidisciplinary approach to clinical risk stratification that determines the need for early endoscopy. Early endoscopy allows safe and prompt discharge of selected patients classified as low risk. Endoscopic hemostasis is reserved for patients with high-risk endoscopic lesions. Although monotherapy with injection or thermal coagulation is effective, the combination is superior to either treatment alone. High-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibition is recommended in patients who have undergone successful endoscopic therapy. Routine second-look endoscopy is not recommended. Patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to ulcer disease should be tested and treated for Helicobacter pylori infection., Conclusions: This algorithm should facilitate appropriate risk stratification, use of endoscopic therapy and the appropriate utilization of proton-pump inhibition to optimize the care of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The algorithm should be customized to the resources of individual medical centres. Its application should be studied with appropriate outcomes recorded and validation performed.

Objective: To assess Helicobacter pylori eradication after one week dual ranitidine bismuth citrate-clarithromycin (RBC-C) or triple omeprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin (OCA) therapy., Methods: In this multicentre Canadian trial, H pylori-positive patients with functional dyspepsia or inactive peptic ulcer disease were randomized to open-label treatment with RBC-C (ranitidine bismuth citrate 400 mg plus clarithromycin 500 mg) or OCA (omezaprole 20 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg and amoxicillin 1000 mg), given twice a day for seven days. Treatment allocation was randomly assigned. H pylori infection was confirmed by positive 13C-urea breath test (13C-UBT). H pylori status was reassessed by UBT at least four and 12 weeks after treatment (negative: d13CO2 below 3.5 per mil). Intention-to-treat (ITT) eradication rates were determined for all patients with confirmed H pylori infection. Per protocol (PP) rate was determined for all patients treated with at least two evaluable follow-up visits., Results: Three hundred five patients were included in the ITT and 222 in the PP analysis. The ITT eradication rates were 66% for RBC-C and 78% for OCA. The PP success rates were 84% for RBC-C and 96% for OCA. The difference for both ITT 12% (95% CI 2 to 22) and PP 12% (95% CI 4 to 19) were statistically significant, P=0.030 and P=0.007, respectively. Treatment was generally well tolerated., Conclusion: The eradication rate for the seven-day dual RBC-C regimen was lower than that for OCA.

The issue of whether to screen individuals for Barrett's esophagus (BE) to prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is highly controversial. Important considerations are that BE is not highly prevalent in the general population and that not many patients with BE develop or die from EAC. Studies that suggest an improved prognosis from surveillance programs are susceptible to lead-time bias. Most of the principles for effective screening, as outlined by the World Health Organization, are not met by endoscopic screening and surveillance protocols. The diagnosis of BE (and dysplasia) is often unclear. Most patients with BE are not identified by screening, and few deaths would be prevented by surveillance. A decision analysis found that the most cost effective screening protocol would be every five years, but the costs associated with prolongation of life are very high, even if a group at high risk for EAC could be identified.