Search

Background: The benefits of the Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat strategy are attributable largely to the cure of peptic ulcer disease while limiting the use of endoscopy., Aim: To reappraise the test-and-treat strategy and empirical proton pump inhibitor therapy for the management of uninvestigated dyspepsia in the light of the decreasing prevalence of H. pylori infection, peptic ulcer disease and peptic ulcer disease attributable to H. pylori., Methods: Using a decision analytical model, we estimated the cost per patient with uninvestigated dyspepsia managed with the test-and-treat strategy ($25/test; H.pylori treatment, $200) or proton pump inhibitor ($90/month). Endoscopy ($550) guided therapy for persistent or recurrent symptoms., Results: In the base case (25%H. pylori prevalence, 20% likelihood of peptic ulcer disease, 75% of ulcers due to H.pylori), the cost per patient is $545 with the test-and-treat strategy and $529 with proton pump inhibitor, and both strategies yield similar clinical outcomes at 1 year. H. pylori prevalence, the likelihood of peptic ulcer disease and the proportion of ulcers due to H.pylori are important determinants of the least costly strategy. At an H. pylori prevalence below 20%, proton pump inhibitor is consistently less costly than the test-and-treat strategy., Conclusions: As the H. pylori prevalence, the likelihood of peptic ulcer disease and the proportion of ulcers due to H. pylori decrease, empirical proton pump inhibitor becomes less costly than the test-and-treat strategy for the management of uninvestigated dyspepsia. Given the modest cost differential between the strategies, the test-and-treat strategy may be favoured if patients without peptic ulcer disease derive long-term benefit from H.pylori eradication.

Background: Clinical guidelines support a noninvasive Helicobacter pylori "test-and-treat" strategy for individuals with uncomplicated dyspepsia. However, consensus is lacking regarding the preferred noninvasive testing method., Objective: To use decision analytic modeling to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes associated with noninvasive tests designed to detect either H pylori antibody or active H pylori infection., Design: Decision analytic model., Patients: A simulated patient cohort with uncomplicated dyspepsia., Interventions: The simulated dyspepsia cohort underwent antibody testing or testing to detect active H pylori infection (active testing). Individuals testing positive received eradication therapy., Main Outcome Measures: Appropriate and inappropriate treatment prescribed, cost per patient treated, incremental cost per unnecessary treatment avoided., Results: Active testing led to a substantial reduction in unnecessary treatment for patients without active infection (antibody, 23.7; active, 1.4 per 100 patients) at an incremental cost of $37 per patient. The clinical advantage and cost-effectiveness of active testing was enhanced as the percentage of individuals with a positive antibody test result from past, but not current, infection increased., Conclusions: Active testing for H pylori infection significantly decreases the inappropriate use of antimicrobial therapy when compared with antibody testing. The advantages of active testing should be enhanced as the widespread use of antimicrobial agents increases the proportion of patients with antibody to H pylori, but without active infection.

Objective: Recent European trials demonstrate that testing and treatment for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is an effective alternative to prompt endoscopy in uninvestigated dyspepsia. The eventual endoscopy rate after H. pylori testing, which is a key determinant of cost-effectiveness, is unknown in the United States. Our aim was to determine the endoscopy rate after H. pylori testing in primary care practice in the United States and to compare outcomes among seropositive and seronegative patients., Methods: We performed a retrospective review with mean 13 month follow-up of primary care patients with dyspeptic symptoms tested with office-based H. pylori serology., Results: Of 268 adults tested (37+/-11 yr, 58% women), 57 (21%) were seropositive and 49/57 (86%) received eradication therapy. Endoscopy or contrast radiography was performed on 19% of seropositive and 19% of seronegative patients (p = 0.97). Annualized median disease-related expenditures were similar among seropositive and seronegative patients ($228 [$93-$654] vs $366 [$107-$1268], p = 0.19). However, aggregate expenditures were substantially lower than the cost of endoscopy alone ($816 [$296-$970]). On follow-up, seropositive and seronegative patients had similar numbers of primary care visits (2.9+/-3.2 vs 3.5+/-3.6, p = 0.23), prolonged antisecretory medication use (25 vs 33%, p = 0.27), and specialist referrals (23 vs 24%, p = 0.83)., Conclusion: In a United States center, 81% of primary care patients tested for H. pylori did not undergo endoscopy, and patients incurred significantly lower median expenditures after noninvasive H. pylori testing than the cost of endoscopy alone. Seropositive and seronegative patients experienced comparable outcomes after H. pylori testing.

Helicobacter pylori and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with adverse gastro- intestinal effects ranging from mild dyspepsia to serious complications such as bleeding peptic ulcer. However, controversy persists regarding the interaction between these two well-documented risk factors. Physiology studies reveal that H. pylori infection can protect the upper gastrointestinal tract by increasing prostaglandin levels. In contrast, clinical trial evidence suggests that eradication of H. pylori infection leads to a decreased risk for endoscopic ulcers in people taking NSAIDs. Given the rates of morbidity and mortality and costs attributable to NSAID-associated toxicity, preventive strategies to reduce NSAID side-effects remain important. Until controlled investigations definitively quantify the effect of H. pylori infection and eradication on clinically significant adverse events, a compelling argument can be made for H. pylori testing of chronic NSAID users at increased risk for ulcer disease and eradicating the organism if present.

Objectives: Previous economic studies of Helicobacter pylori eradication in dyspepsia and peptic ulcer disease have not measured quality of life using utilities (preference probabilities), which are needed to compare the cost-effectiveness of such treatment to other health care interventions. The goals of this study were to measure quality of life in patients with dyspepsia or peptic ulcer and apply these measurements to published models of disease management to determine cost-effectiveness in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained., Methods: Utilities for dyspepsia and peptic ulcer disease were measured in adult patients (n = 73) on chronic acid suppression for peptic ulcer or ulcer-like dyspepsia. Median utility values were applied to the results of published cost-effectiveness analyses and a previously validated dyspepsia model. Cost-utility ratios for early H. pylori eradication in uninvestigated dyspepsia and peptic ulcer disease were then computed., Results: The total disutility, or lost quality of life, for an ulcer was 0.11 QALY, of which 0.09 QALY was attributed to dyspeptic symptoms. After these results were incorporated into published studies, cost-utility ratios for ulcer treatment varied from $3,100 to $12,500 per QALY gained, whereas estimates for uninvestigated dyspepsia management ranged from $26,800 to $59,400 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated a range of $1,300 to $27,300 per QALY for management of duodenal ulcer and $15,000 to $129,700 per QALY for dyspepsia., Conclusions: Strategies that emphasize early H. pylori eradication were cost-effective for patients with peptic ulcer and possibly cost-effective for patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia, relative to other medical interventions. Dyspeptic symptoms cause significant disutility that should be incorporated in future cost-effectiveness analyses of treatment strategies.

The unfolding of the H. pylori story coupled with the high prevalence and economic burden associated with upper gastrointestinal symptoms makes H. pylori-associated disorders an ideal candidate for economic evaluation. As a result of the high quality and quantity of data emerging, H. pylori eradication is cost-effective in individuals with either newly diagnosed or past PUD. The role of eradication in other areas, for example, patients with nonulcer dyspepsia and screening to prevent gastric cancer, may never be worked out to some clinicians' satisfaction. Conflicting reports and the lack of definitive clinical trials have frustrated clinicians. H. pylori diagnosis and treatment have not been integrated into everyday clinical practice. As a result, the enormous potential benefits associated with H. pylori eradication have not been achieved. Economic evaluation is not a panacea to the problems confronting medical services delivery. Assessments of medical practice are methodologically challenging, time-consuming, and expensive. Once the answers are in, it remains difficult to alter an individual provider's patterns of care and integrate the research findings into everyday practice. Further research into physician decision making is necessary to complement the advances being made in determining the value of medical interventions. The fruits of these efforts will be the more efficient delivery of health care services, which, it is hoped, ultimately will improve the health of patients. There is no reason to believe, however, that more attention to effectiveness research would lead to a reduction in health care expenditures. Increasing demands for accountability of medical interventions will propel effectiveness movements. Economic analyses, performed in concert with carefully designed clinical studies, will spur more critical review of health care resource allocation decisions. Despite the limitations, the findings generated from effectiveness research will have a major impact on physician practices, guideline development, and reimbursement decisions. The tendency of clinicians not to pay attention to economic evaluations may lead to missed clinical benefits and unnecessary expenditures. Physicians who have been reluctant to appreciate the information provided by economic evaluation must understand what other stakeholders in health care delivery already have accepted: that the rational basis for cost-effectiveness analysis is the overall improvement in the quality of health care services--not simply a tool to reduce health care costs.

Objective: To develop practical guidelines for the treatment of patients with suspected and documented Helicobacter pylori-related gastroduodenal diseases., Methods: A panel of physicians with expertise in H. pylori reviewed, critically appraised, and synthesized the literature on assigned topics and presented their overviews to the panel. Consensus was obtained in controversial areas through discussion., Results and Conclusions: The panel recommended testing for H. pylori in patients with active ulcers, a history of ulcers, or gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphomas. Young, otherwise healthy patients with ulcerlike dyspepsia and those with a family history or fear of gastric cancer may also undergo H pylori testing. Non-endoscopic methods are preferred for H. pylori diagnosis. Dual medication regimens should not be used for therapy; twice-daily triple therapy with a proton pump inhibitor or ranitidine bismuth citrate, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin for 10 to 14 days is an appropriate therapy. Posttreatment assessment of H. pylori status using urea breath testing should be considered in patients with a documented history of ulcer disease or with persistent symptoms.

Objective: Current clinical consensus supports an initial Helicobacter pylori (HP) "test and treat" approach when compared to immediate endoscopy for patients with suspected peptic ulcer disease. Alternative diagnostic approaches that incorporate upper GI radiography (UGI) have not been previously evaluated. We sought to determine the cost effectiveness of UGI compared to a HP test and treat strategy, incorporating recent data addressing the reduced prevalence of HP, lower cost of diagnostic interventions, and reduced attribution of PUD to HP., Methods: Using decision analysis, three diagnostic and treatment strategies were evaluated: 1) Test and Treat--initial HP serology, treat patients who test positive with HP eradication and antiulcer therapy; 2) Initial UGI series--treat all patients with documented ulcer disease with HP eradication and antiulcer therapy; and 3) Initial UGI series, HP serology if ulcer present--treat ulcer and HP based on diagnostic test results., Results: The estimated cost per ulcer cured for each strategy were as follows: test and treat, $3,025; initial UGI, $3,690; and UGI with serology, $3,790. The estimated cost per patient treatment were: test and treat, $498; initial UGI, $610; and UGI with serology, $620. When UGI reimbursement was decreased to less than $50, the UGI strategies yielded a lower cost per patient treated than the test and treat strategy., Conclusion: At the current level of reimbursement, UGI should not be considered a cost-effective alternative to the HP test and treat strategy for the initial evaluation of patients with suspected peptic ulcer disease.

Background: There is consensus that individuals with Helicobacter pylori-associated peptic ulcer disease should receive a test to confirm H. pylori cure if symptoms recur after eradication therapy. It remains controversial whether individuals who are asymptomatic after therapy should undergo a confirmatory test to establish cure. Patients' desire to know whether their infection has been cured and symptom status after treatment are two important determinants of whether confirmatory H. pylori testing should be undertaken routinely., Methods: We identified 87 patients with H. pylori-associated peptic ulcer disease scheduled to undergo urea breath testing 4 weeks after H. pylori eradication therapy. At the time of testing, willingness-to-pay methodology was used to estimate patients' desire for confirmatory testing in the absence of symptoms. At a follow-up visit after eradication therapy (mean follow-up, 297 days; range, 143 to 494 days), patients were surveyed to assess gastrointestinal symptom status., Results: Of the 87 patients, 78 (90%) responded that they would prefer to undergo confirmatory testing if asymptomatic, as opposed to delaying testing until symptoms recurred. Patients' median willingness to pay for confirmatory testing in the absence of symptoms was greater than $50. On follow-up, 38% of patients in whom H. pylori was eradicated reported that their symptoms were completely resolved. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients who reported complete symptom resolution by H. pylori status (H. pylori eradicated 38%, H. pylori infected 28%, P = 0.42, 95% confidence interval, -14% to 34%)., Conclusions: Patients' desire for confirmation of cure, coupled with a frequent need for confirmatory testing as a result of recurrent symptoms after therapy, may justify routine confirmatory testing after H. pylori treatment.

Peptic ulcer disease associated with H pylori infection is curable. The important factors in selecting therapy are efficacy of eradication, prevention of resistance, avoidance or minimization of adverse effects, patient compliance, and cost. The most effective regimens include a bismuth preparation or antisecretory drug (proton pump inhibitor or H2 receptor antagonist) plus two antibiotics administered for 14 days. Dual-drug therapies are not recommended. Triple-drug regimens are more likely to eradicate H pylori and less likely to generate resistant strains among surviving organisms. In general, cure of the infection should be confirmed 4 weeks after completion of the treatment. Antibiotic resistance is an important consideration in choosing therapy, and patients should be taught the importance of compliance. When treatment fails, antibiotic combinations should not be repeated. Considerations for anti-H pylori treatment in a managed care environment mirror those for good medical practice in general, with special attention to stringent cost-control or outcomes-driven measures.

H pylori infection is so common as to seem ubiquitous in many areas of the world. Transmission is believed to be primarily person to person. The pathogen invariably damages the gastric mucosa, resulting in both structural and functional abnormalities. It causes histologic gastritis and is critical in the pathogenesis of the gastritis-associated diseases, namely, gastric ulcer, duodenal ulcer, gastric adenocarcinoma, and primary gastric lymphoma. Elimination of the infection results in healing of gastritis and cure of peptic ulcer disease.

Background: Helicobacter pylori infection has been identified as a risk factor for certain types of gastric cancer. However, the extent to which H. pylori eradication decreases the risk of gastric cancer is unknown, raising the question of whether population-based H. pylori screening should be undertaken., Objective: To compare clinical and economic effects of H. pylori screening, with and without confirmatory testing, with no screening to prevent gastric cancer., Design: Decision analysis incorporating a Markov simulation., Patients: Simulated cohorts of men and women with varying risk of gastric cancer., Intervention: Three strategies were evaluated: (1) no screening; (2) H. pylori serologic testing, treat those positive for H. pylori, no follow-up testing; and (3) H. pylori serologic testing, treat those positive for H. pylori, followed by a test to confirm H. pylori eradication, retreat those who test positive. In the principal analysis, the risk of gastric cancer after H. pylori eradication was assumed to be similar to that for those without H. pylori infection. Scenarios with less optimistic assumptions regarding risk reduction of cancer were evaluated., Main Outcome Measures: Gastric cancer rates, discounted cost per life-year saved., Results: If H. pylori eradication reduced the risk of cancer to that of people never infected, both H. pylori intervention strategies reduced gastric cancer rates so that each yielded at least 12 additional life-years per 1000 40-year-old white men screened when compared with no screening. Helicobacter pylori serologic testing without posttreatment confirmatory testing resulted in the lowest cost per additional life-year saved (S6264). The cost-effectiveness of the H. pylori screening strategies varied substantially as the level of risk reduction of cancer was varied, but remained cost-effective even at moderate rates (<30%) of excess risk reduction of cancer in all cohorts evaluated., Conclusions: Population-based H. pylori screening has the potential to produce important health benefits at a reasonable cost at moderate rates of excess risk reduction of cancer. Controlled studies are necessary to confirm and quantify the impact of H. pylori eradication on the risk of gastric cancer.

Eradication of H pylori and cure of peptic ulcer disease are possible if effective regimens are used correctly. Treatment markedly improves clinical outcomes and significantly decreases cost of care. As primary care physicians take a larger role in management of these infections, they need to understand the importance of identifying and treating patients with H pylori-associated peptic ulcer disease. Successful treatment of this infection depends on the appropriate antimicrobial therapy and patient compliance with the chosen regimen.

Several areas of broad agreement exist concerning the management of specific patient groups with clear-cut complications of H. pylori-colonization. Other aspects of this infection remain less well defined. These include the mode of transmission and pathogenesis of H. pylori, the clinical management of patients who do not have ulcer disease, and the approach to populations at risk of the clinical consequences of this bacterium. This review focuses on the unresolved issues of H. pylori infection that are of concern to the clinical gastroenterologist.

Objectives: The clinical and economic benefits of Helicobacter pylori eradication for patients with newly diagnosed peptic ulcer disease are widely accepted. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of H. pylori eradication in the large cohort of asymptomatic patients receiving maintenance antisecretory therapy for a previously documented peptic ulcer disease., Methods: A decision analytic model estimated the clinical and economic effects of two management strategies for asymptomatic patients receiving maintenance antisecretory therapy for a previously documented peptic ulcer: strategy 1-immediate H. pylori eradication therapy and cessation of maintenance therapy, and strategy 2-continued-maintenance antisecretory therapy, with H. pylori eradication therapy reserved for the first symptom recurrence., Results: At 1 yr, the model estimated that immediate H. pylori eradication therapy (strategy 1) led to 22% fewer months with ulcers (28.7 vs. 36.8 ulcer months/100 patient years), 10% fewer months with ulcer symptoms (21.0 vs. 23.1 symptom months/100 patient years), and 24% lower per-patient expenditures ($587 vs. $767/patient year) than maintenance antisecretory therapy and symptom-based H. pylori eradication (strategy 2). Immediate H. pylori eradication, however, resulted in 14% more months with upper gastrointestinal symptoms from all causes (37.9 vs. 33.2 symptom months/100 patient years) than strategy 2, because maintenance antisecretory therapy was effective in treating symptoms due to causes other than peptic ulcer disease., Conclusions: Ulcer-related outcomes of asymptomatic patients receiving maintenance antisecretory agents for peptic ulcer disease can be improved with immediate H. pylori eradication at reduced cost. Therefore, H. pylori eradication should be aggressively pursued in all patients-symptomatic or not-with previously documented peptic ulcers, who are receiving maintenance antisecretory therapy.

While the medical community has accepted the role of H. pylori in the pathogenesis of peptic ulcer disease, confusion persists among clinicians regarding when and on which patients to attempt H. pylori eradication. Thus, the objective for outcomes research in H. pylori is to help clinicians identify which patients benefit from H. pylori eradication and to determine the cost-effective strategies for their diagnosis, treatment and follow-up care. Economic evaluation of the impact of H. pylori infection has focused primarily on assessment of patient with documented peptic ulcer disease, with particular attention to costs of pharmaceuticals. However, drug costs are only one portion of the total costs of management for patients with acid-related disorders and therefore must be put in the appropriate context. Additional aspects of patient benefit (e.g. patient satisfaction) and health-care expenditures (e.g. over-the-counter medications, specialist visits, hospitalizations) must be included in an evaluation of the value of a particular diagnostic test, treatment, clinical guideline or disease management strategy. As a result of the high quality and quantity of data emerging, it can be safely said that H. pylori eradication is cost-effective in selected patient populations: newly documented peptic ulcer disease; history of peptic ulcer disease and taking maintenance therapy; and suspected peptic ulcer disease using a serological test to guide initial treatment. The role of eradication in other areas, for example, patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia and screening to prevent gastric cancer, remains to be seen. In addition to the performance of rigorous studies, researchers must respond to the 'information overload' on busy clinicians, by effectively disseminating their findings. If data generated from outcomes research are not integrated into everyday clinical practice, the enormous benefits associated with H. pylori eradication will not be achieved.

Objectives: The authors examine how specialist and generalist physicians adapted their practice patterns to emerging information on the role of Helicobacter pylori in peptic ulcer disease (PUD)., Methods: Data were collected via a mail survey sent to national random samples of gastroenterologists, family practitioners, and general internists in April 1994. A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the determinants of the timing of adoption of antibiotic therapy for suspected or confirmed PUD., Results: Most respondents (99.1% of specialists and 64.6% of generalists) had prescribed antibiotic therapy to eradicate Helicobacter pylori at least once. The median specialist adopted 21 months before the medical generalist. Timing of adoption also was related to gender, board certification, PUD case load, and practice setting., Conclusions: Gastroenterologists were more likely than primary care physicians to adopt antibiotic therapy for PUD, even before the evidence of this therapy's effectiveness was conclusive. Primary care physicians remained less likely to adopt after efficacy was established. The slower adoption by primary care physicians appeared to be related both to having less information than specialists about the new therapy and to more conservative practice styles. Measures to facilitate the flow of information about new technologies to primary care physicians may be warranted. Research on interspecialty differences in adoption of new therapies can contribute to understanding the consequences of the current shift from specialist- to generalist-driven care.

Objective: To compare the clinical and economic effects of five likely treatment strategies in children with dyspepsia: initial diagnostic endoscopy (EGD) with biopsy for Helicobacter pylori infection; initial EGD without biopsy; H. pylori serology screening and treatment for H. pylori if positive; empiric treatment with antisecretory therapy; and empiric treatment for H. pylori with antibiotics and antisecretory therapy., Methods: Our decision analysis model incorporated data from published literature on the incidence of duodenal ulcer disease and effect of H. pylori infection. Cost inputs were derived from payments made by third-party payers. For the three noninvasive strategies that did not include immediate endoscopy, endoscopy was performed on the first episode of symptom recurrence., Results: The estimated costs per child evaluated for each strategy were: EGD with biopsy, $1458; EGD alone, $1248; H. pylori serology, $1224; antisecretory, $1160; and antisecretory-antibiotic, $1164. Results were sensitive to the costs of EGD and the likelihood of recurrent symptoms in children. When the cost of endoscopy fell below $950 or if over 65% of patients without ulcers eventually underwent endoscopy, there was no longer a cost advantage for initial noninvasive treatment when compared with EGD alone strategy., Conclusion: In a decision analysis model, empiric antisecretory treatment in children with dyspepsia was most cost-effective, eliminating 40% of endoscopies and leading to antibiotic use in only those patients with H. pylori (4%). Further studies to determine the actual recurrence rate of symptoms after empiric antisecretory treatment of children with dyspepsia are required.

Objectives: To assess differences between gastroenterologists and primary care physicians in the United States in their attitudes, timing of adoption, and practice patterns concerning the use of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy in peptic ulcer disease (PUD) patients., Methods: We surveyed a random sample of 4500 gastroenterologists, family practitioners, and general internists shortly after a National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference recommended eradication of H. pylori in PUD patients., Results: The survey response rate was 30%. Bivariate comparisons revealed significant differences between primary care physicians and gastroenterologists in sources of information about H. pylori, beliefs about the strength of the evidence supporting the relationship between H. pylori and PUD, adoption of H. pylori eradication therapy and timing of first use, and patients likely to receive eradication therapy. Although adoption of H. pylori eradication therapy was nearly universal among gastroenterologists by April 1994 (99%), approximately one-third of primary care providers had never prescribed H. pylori eradication therapy. Practice patterns of physicians using eradication therapy also varied significantly by specialty group., Conclusions: Gastroenterologists were more aware of the relationship of H. pylori to PUD and adapted their practices more quickly to this emerging information than did primary care providers. Specialty differences in attitudes and adoption patterns of medical innovation existed, even when the new intervention did not require specialized training or equipment. These findings have important clinical implications as the role of primary care physicians expands and managed care delivery systems decrease the use of specialist services.

Objective: To compare the clinical and economic effects of a strategy using immediate endoscopy to a non-invasive strategy utilizing a serologic test for Helicobacter pylori infection for individuals with symptoms suggestive of peptic ulcer disease., Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating the clinical and economic effects of alternative management strategies of hypothetical patients with suspected peptic ulcer disease in a computer simulation model., Intervention: Two strategies for hypothetical patients with suspected ulcer disease were evaluated: 1) Immediate endoscopy and biopsy for H. pylori, using antisecretory treatment in all patients with documented ulcers and adding antibiotic eradication therapy for those patients with ulcers whose biopsies were positive for H. pylori. 2) Empiric treatment with antisecretory therapy and serologic testing for H. pylori for all patients, using antibiotic eradication therapy only in patients testing positive for H. pylori., Measurements: Cost per ulcer cured over a one-year study period., Results: The more cost-effective strategy was the test-and-treat strategy (Strategy 2) with $4481 cost per ulcer cured. The immediate endoscopy strategy resulted in $8045 cost per ulcer cured. The cost-effectiveness advantage of the non-invasive strategy diminished as the cost of endoscopy fell or as the probability of recurrent symptoms rose in patients initially managed without endoscopy., Conclusion: Endoscopy, though costly, precisely guided diagnosis and treatment and, thus, potentially reduced the number of patients inappropriately treated. However, cost-effectiveness analysis supports the continued practice of initial non-invasive management of patients with symptoms suggestive of peptic ulcer disease, achieving the benefits of H. pylori eradication through the use of serologic testing to guide antibiotic use.

Objective: To estimate the clinical and economic effects of available invasive and noninvasive management strategies for peptic ulcer and Helicobacter pylori in persons with symptoms suggesting peptic ulcer disease., Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision analytic model., Intervention: 2 immediate endoscopy and 3 noninvasive diagnostic and treatment strategies were evaluated: 1) immediate endoscopy for peptic ulcer and biopsy for H. pylori; 2) immediate endoscopy without biopsy; 3) serologic test for H. pylori; 4) empiric treatment with antisecretory therapy; and 5) empiric treatment with antisecretory therapy and antibiotic agents to eradicate H. pylori., Measurements: Cost per ulcer cured and cost per patient treated., Results: The estimated costs per ulcer cured by strategy were as follows: 1) endoscopy and biopsy for H. pylori, $8045; 2) endoscopy without biopsy, $6984; 3) serologic test for H. pylori, $4541; 4) empiric antisecretory therapy, $4835; and 5) empiric antisecretory and antibiotic therapy, $4155. The predicted costs per patient treated were as follows: 1) endoscopy and biopsy for H. pylori, $1584; 2) endoscopy without biopsy, $1375; 3) serologic test for H. pylori, $894; 4) empiric antisecretory therapy, $952; and 5) empiric antisecretory and antibiotic therapy, $818. The cost-effectiveness advantage of the noninvasive strategies diminished as the cost of endoscopy decreased or as the probability of recurrent symptoms increased in patients initially managed without endoscopy., Conclusion: Endoscopy, although costly, precisely guided diagnosis and treatment and thus potentially reduced the number of patients inappropriately treated. However, the safety and effectiveness of less expensive, less invasive diagnostic and treatment strategies strongly support initial noninvasive care of symptomatic persons thought to have peptic ulcer disease.