Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “DYSPEPSIA”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Review article: uninvestigated dyspepsia and non-ulcer dyspepsia-the use of endoscopy and the roles of Helicobacter pylori eradication and antisecretory therapy.

Due to its prevalence, impact on quality-of-life and the associated significant health resource utilization, dyspepsia is a major healthcare concern. The available management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia include prompt endoscopy, the 'test-and-treat' strategy for Helicobacter pylori, and empiric antisecretory therapy. There is consensus that endoscopy should be reserved for patients with alarm features (e.g. symptom onset after 45 years of age, recurrent vomiting, weight loss, dysphagia, evidence of bleeding, anaemia), H. pylori-positive individuals who fail test-and-treat, and those with an inadequate response to empiric antisecretory therapy. Factors influencing the decision between test-and-treat and empiric antisecretory therapy in uninvestigated dyspepsia include the local prevalence of H. pylori and peptic ulcer disease and the proportion of ulcers attributable to H. pylori. For uninvestigated dyspepsia in patients without alarm features, test-and-treat is the preferred initial management method in Europe based on the relatively high prevalence of H. pylori/peptic ulcer disease whereas empiric antisecretory therapy is preferred in many parts of the United States, where the prevalence of H. pylori/peptic ulcer disease is relatively low. In patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia, H. pylori eradication and empiric antisecretory therapy result in comparable and small, but statistically significant, improvements in dyspepsia. Empiric antisecretory therapy is the preferred initial method of managing non-ulcer dyspepsia in Europe and the US. The test-and-treat approach would receive increased enthusiasm if H. pylori cure is shown to prevent development of gastric cancer in non-ulcer dyspepsia patients in a large Western trial.

Algorithms↗

Comparison of the clinical features and illness behaviour of patients presenting with dyspepsia of unknown cause (essential dyspepsia) and organic disease.

The aim of this study was to describe the clinical features of patients with chronic unexplained dyspepsia and compare the symptoms with peptic ulcer and biliary pain, and determine the prevalence of symptoms that may indicate psychoneurotic traits and measure chronic illness behaviour (days lost from work and doctor visits). Studied were: 113 patients with essential dyspepsia, defined as endoscopically confirmed non-ulcer dyspepsia where gallstones, the irritable bowel syndrome and gastro-esophageal reflux have been excluded and there is no ascertainable cause for the dyspepsia; 55 patients with dyspepsia and peptic ulceration at endoscopy; and 53 patients with diagnosed biliary pain and cholelithiasis, proven at cholecystectomy. All patients completed a detailed structured history questionnaire in the presence of one investigator. More patients with peptic ulcer than with essential dyspepsia experienced night pain, pain relieved by food, and vomiting, while more patients with essential dyspepsia than with cholelithiasis experienced epigastric pain, lack of radiation of pain, continuous pain, mild to moderate pain, pain before meals, pain relieved by food and antacids, pain aggravated by food and alcohol, and an absence of vomiting (all p less than 0.01). Symptoms suggesting psychoneurosis, aerophagy symptoms, and chronic illness behaviour were similar in all groups. We conclude that certain symptoms may be of value in diagnosing the underlying cause of dyspepsia.

Adolescent↗

Validity of a new quality of life scale for functional dyspepsia: a United States multicenter trial of the Nepean Dyspepsia Index.

OBJECTIVE: The lack of a suitable disease-specific, health-related quality of life instrument for dyspepsia prompted the development of the Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI). The utility of the NDI in functional dyspepsia is unknown. We aimed to assess the validity of this new quality of life instrument for the first time in United States patients with documented functional dyspepsia. METHODS: The long form of the NDI contains a symptom index and 42 items designed to measure impairment of subjects' ability to engage in and to enjoy relevant aspects of their life because of dyspepsia, as well as a ranking of the individual importance of each aspect. Patients (n = 101, mean age 51 yr, 62% female) who had a history of functional dyspepsia for > or = 1 month and a negative endoscopy within the prior 1 yr were followed for 14 days. Patients completed the NDI and the validated Speilberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, Short Form-36, and a global assessment of symptoms and quality of life at baseline and 14 days later; the NDI was also retested at 48 h and 2 wk. RESULTS: Five clinically relevant factors (subscales), namely, tension/sleep, interference, eating/drinking, knowledge/control, and work/study were identified by factor analysis, after incorporating individual importance ratings (25 items total). All subscales had excellent face validity and internal consistency (Chronbach's alpha, all >0.85). Reliability was also excellent (intraclass correlations all >0.84). There were modest typically negative correlations between a number of the NDI subscales and the Short Form-36, anxiety, and depression, indicating that the NDI is disease-specific and supporting its validity. Changes in NDI scales correlated moderately with global assessment of change (total score r = -0.49), indicating initial responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The Nepean Dyspepsia Index is a valid, disease-specific index for functional dyspepsia, measuring symptoms and health-related quality of life.

Dyspepsia↗

Systematic review and economic evaluation of Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Dyspepsia Review Group.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy and cost effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment in patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia infected with H pylori. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing H pylori eradication with placebo or another drug treatment. Results were incorporated into a Markov model comparing health service costs and benefits of H pylori eradication with antacid treatment over one year. DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials from January 1966 to May 2000. Experts in the field, pharmaceutical companies, and journals were contacted for information on any unpublished trials. Trial reports were reviewed according to predefined eligibility and quality criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative risk reduction for remaining dyspeptic symptoms (the same or worse) at 3-12 months. Cost per dyspepsia-free month estimated from Markov model based on estimated relative risk reduction. RESULTS: Twelve trials were included in the systematic review, nine of which evaluated dyspepsia at 3-12 months in 2541 patients. H pylori eradication treatment was significantly superior to placebo in treating non-ulcer dyspepsia (relative risk reduction 9% (95% confidence interval 4% to 14%)), one case of dyspepsia being cured for every 15 people treated. H pylori eradication cost pound56 per dyspepsia-free month during first year after treatment. CONCLUSION: H pylori eradication may be cost effective treatment for non-ulcer dyspepsia in infected patients but further evidence is needed on decision makers' willingness to pay for relief of dyspepsia.

Antacids↗

[Dyspepsia-related quality of life. Spanish adaptation and validation of the questionnaire Dyspepsia-Related Health Scale].

BACKGROUND: Dyspepsia affects about 25 % of the population and may cause an important decrease in quality of life. The aim of this work was to perform a Spanish validation and adaptation of the questionnaire DRHS (Dyspepsia Related Health Scale), a tool that assesses dyspepsia-related quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHOD: The study was carried out in 234 subjects, 163 with symptoms of dyspepsia and 71 health volunteers. Two rheumatologists, 2 general practitioners, 1 gastroenterologist, 1 clinical pharmacologist, 1 pharmacoepidemiologist and 1 psychologist were involved in the work. The process of adaptation and validation included translation and re-translation, pilot study in 16 patients, dimensionality, reliability and validity (of content, of construct, convergent, predictive and discriminative). RESULTS: The mean age was 49.1 years (SD: 18) and 60.7 % were females. The between-judges agreement rate of Hambleton and Rovinelli, which evaluates the content validity, was lower than 0.41. The construct validity assessed by the factorial analysis of responses showed that each subscale may be considered unidimensional in both health volunteers and individuals with dyspepsia. Reliability was satisfactory (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92) and stability of measures (test-retest) was excellent with a correlation coefficient of 0.95. The convergent validity, assessed by means of the EuroQoL, was only moderate with a correlation coefficient of 0.54 (p < 0.001). The predictive validity, assessed by administering the questionnaire 12 days after treating dyspepsia, showed a correlation coefficient of 0.47 between the two measures (p < 0.001). There was also a relationship between scores variation and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish version of the DRHS, so-called QoL-PEI (questionnaire of quality of life related with problems of stomach and intestine), displays good metric properties and is able to predict the evolution of dyspepsia. The results of this study show that this tool is essentially unidimensional, yet it can be used on a multidimensional form to perform a differentiated assessment of each evaluated case.

Adolescent↗

Development of a new dyspepsia impact scale: the Nepean Dyspepsia Index.

BACKGROUND: There is not at present a suitable disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for uninvestigated dyspepsia and functional (non-ulcer) dyspepsia. AIM: To develop a new multi-dimensional disease-specific instrument. METHODS: The Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI) was designed to measure impairment of a subject's ability to engage in relevant aspects of their life and also their enjoyment of these aspects; in addition, the individual importance of each aspect is assessed. A 42-item quality of life measure was developed and tested, both in out-patients presenting to general practice with upper gastrointestinal complaints (n = 113) and in a randomly chosen population-based sample (n = 347). RESULTS: Adequate face and content validity was documented by an expert panel. Factor analysis identified four clinically relevant subscales: interference with activities of daily living, work, enjoyment of life and emotional well-being; lack of knowledge and control over the illness; disturbance to eating or drinking; and disturbance to sleep because of dyspepsia. These scales had high internal consistency. Both symptoms and the quality of life scores discriminated dyspepsia from health. CONCLUSION: The Nepean Dyspepsia Index is a reliable and valid disease-specific index for dyspepsia, measuring symptoms and health-related quality of life.

Adult↗

The prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings in primary care patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia: the Canadian Adult Dyspepsia Empiric Treatment - Prompt Endoscopy (CADET-PE) study.

BACKGROUND: Uninvestigated dyspepsia is common in family practice. The prevalence of clinically significant upper gastrointestinal findings (CSFs) in adult uninvestigated dyspepsia patients, and their predictability based on history, is unknown. METHODS: Prompt endoscopy was performed within 10 days of referral, in 1040 adult patients presenting with uninvestigated dyspepsia at 49 Canadian family practitioner centres. Subsequent management strategies during a 6-month follow-up period were determined by the individual family practitioners. RESULTS: CSFs were identified in 58% (603/1040) of patients. Erosive oesophagitis was most common (43%; N = 451); peptic ulcer was uncommon (5.3%; N = 55). Alarm symptoms were uncommon (2.8%; N = 29). Most patients had at least three dyspepsia symptoms, more than 80% had at least six, and approximately half had eight or more. Based on the dominant symptom, 463 (45%) patients had ulcer-like, 393 (38%) had reflux-like and 184 (18%) had dysmotility-like dyspepsia. The patients' dominant symptom was not predictive of endoscopic findings. Oesophagitis was more common in those with dominant reflux-like symptoms and was the most common finding in all subgroups. The prevalence of gastroduodenal findings was similar in all symptom subgroups. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection (30%; 301/1013) was associated with gastroduodenal findings. CONCLUSIONS: Dyspepsia subclassifications, based on dominant symptom, are of limited value in predicting the presence and nature of CSFs. Oesophagitis was by far the most common diagnosis (43% of patients). CSFs were common in uninvestigated dyspepsia patients and their nature suggests patients could be initially treated effectively, without endoscopy, using empirical acid suppressive therapy.

Adolescent↗

The Hong Kong index of dyspepsia: a validated symptom severity questionnaire for patients with dyspepsia.

AIM: Locally validated symptom questionnaires are essential instruments in dyspepsia research. A symptom score for Chinese dyspeptics was developed. Multiple aspects of validity and reliability were assessed. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with endoscopy-negative dyspepsia and 65 healthy controls were presented with a list of 24 previously determined common abdominal symptoms and asked to rate the severity in a five point Likert scale. Comprehensibility and relevance of symptoms were assessed. The questionnaire was administered 3 h later to assess for reproducibility. A locally validated Short Form-36 quality-of-life questionnaire was also administered. Cisapride 5 mg thrice daily was prescribed to dyspeptic patients but not to the controls. The dyspepsia symptom and SF-36 questionnaires were repeated after 3 weeks for patients under treatment. Global change in symptoms and the need for further medical care were assessed. Concept, content, construct and criterion validity, consistency and reproducibility of the dyspepsia symptom questionnaire were assessed. RESULTS: All items were considered comprehensible by more than 90% of subjects. Relevance of individual symptoms to dyspeptic patients ranged from 10.8-76.9%. Twelve items were selected by logistic regression to account for most of the differences between control and dyspeptic patients. Test-retest reproducibility and internal consistency were good with the intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.89 and Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.90. A cut-off score of equal to or greater than 16 was determined to discriminate between controls and dyspeptic patients. The dyspepsia score correlated negatively with all domains of the SF-36 quality of life scale except physical functioning. The dyspepsia questionnaire also discriminated between patients who reported a subjective improvement in symptoms and those who reported no change or worsening. CONCLUSIONS: The dyspepsia symptom index was easy to understand, internally consistent and reproducible. It predicted global symptom change, and the symptom severity scores correlated negatively with quality of life.

Adult↗

Do NSAIDs cause dyspepsia? A meta-analysis evaluating alternative dyspepsia definitions.

OBJECTIVE: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be associated with dyspepsia, but the relationship is obscured by variations in the terminology used to report GI symptoms. Using alternative definitions, we assessed the relationship between NSAID use and dyspepsia. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR, and BIOSIS databases (1966-1997) and New Drug Application reviews, identifying randomized, placebo-controlled trials (5 days or more duration) of any NSAID, reporting original data on GI complications. Based upon reported terms describing upper GI symptoms, we derived three definitions: strict, using terms synonymous with epigastric pain/discomfort; loose, (containing the strict definition plus terms for heartburn, nausea, bloating, anorexia, and vomiting); and a loose definition without heartburn terms (the loose-less-heartburn definition). Using each definition, we performed a random-effects model meta-analysis of the relationship between NSAID exposure and dyspepsia. RESULTS: Fifty-five published and 37 unpublished controlled NSAID trials met our inclusion criteria. The mean duration of the trials was 33.2 days (SD 40 days). Application of the strict definition resulted in a pooled risk ratio of dyspepsia for NSAIDs compared with placebo of 1.36 (95% CI = 1.11-1.67). For the loose definition, the pooled risk ratio was 1.13 (95% CI = 0.98-1.32). The loose-less-heartburn definition yielded a pooled risk ratio of 1.19 (95% CI = 1.03-1.39). In the placebo-treated control groups, the percent of patients reporting dyspepsia ranged from 2.3% (strict definition) to 4.2% (loose and loose-less-heartburn definitions). CONCLUSIONS: Using the strict definition, based solely on epigastric pain-related symptoms, NSAIDs increased the risk of dyspepsia by 36% (p < 0.05). These findings may be useful in creating a standardized definition of NSAID-related dyspepsia.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗

Prevalence, incidence and natural history of dyspepsia and functional dyspepsia.

Estimates of the prevalence of dyspepsia in the community have varied between studies. This is, in large part, because of differences in the definitions used. Roughly speaking, 15-20% of the general population will report recurrent upper abdominal pain over the course of a year. Most of these people do not have endoscopic abnormalities and thus meet the criteria for functional dyspepsia. These symptoms appear to come and go, which makes determination of the incidence of dyspepsia quite difficult. Most studies have not distinguished whether the onset of symptoms represents recurrence or de novo symptoms. Approximately 5-10% of the population will develop symptoms of dyspepsia in a given year, and 50% of people with dyspepsia will lose their symptoms the following year. Regardless of the exact figures, all studies have demonstrated dyspepsia to be exceedingly common in the community.

Dyspepsia↗

Patients with dyspepsia benefit from eradication of Helicobacter pylori if other organic causes for dyspepsia were carefully ruled out.

AIM: In order to investigate the potential of Helicobacter pylori (HP) to induce dyspepsia, we performed a randomized prospective study on the long-term effect of HP-eradication on symptoms of HP-positive dyspeptic patients in whom other organic causes for dyspepsia were carefully ruled out. PATIENTS: 201 patients referred to our endoscopy unit with dyspeptic symptoms for at least six months entered the study. Patients with previous peptic ulcer were excluded. METHODS: After endoscopy of the upper alimentary tract and 13C-urea breath test, patients with active peptic ulcer, hiatal hernia, macroscopic evidence for esophagitis and negative HP-status were excluded. The remaining patients underwent abdominal sonography, H2-exhalation test with lactose, and 24-h pH monitoring in order to exclude other organic causes for dyspepsia. In 20 patients, dyspepsia was assumed to be due to HP-gastritis. Patients received eradication therapy and were controlled as assessed by the 13C-urea breath test six weeks and six months after completion of the therapy. Dyspeptic symptoms were monitored by means of a validated symptom score. RESULTS: Out of 20 patients with HP-gastritis the first eradication treatment was successful in 13, while seven patients remained HP-positive after antibiotic treatment. Six months after completion of therapy the symptoms of HP-eradicated patients improved considerably (score values 17.4 +/- 1.5 and 10.2 +/- 0.8, respectively, p < 0.01) whereas symptoms of patients with persistent infection remained unchanged (21.1 +/- 1.7 and 20.4 +/- 1.5, n.s.) and only improved after successful retherapy (20.4 +/- 1.5 and 11.7 +/- 2.1, p < 0.05). In total, 17 of 20 patients (85%) improved after successful eradication. Also, neutrophil infiltration in the gastric mucosa correlated to both dyspeptic symptoms before therapy (r = 0.85) and the decrease in symptom score after HP-eradication (r = 0.61). In contrast, the symptoms of eight patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease were not improved after eradication (20.0 +/- 1.1 and 18.2 +/- 1.0, n.s.) CONCLUSIONS: HP-infection per se contributes to dyspepsia. 17 of 20 (85%) HP-positive dyspeptic patients improved after HP-eradication, when other potential organic causes for dyspepsia had been ruled out. However, many patients did not completely recover but the symptoms only partly decreased which parallels the persistence of part of the inflammatory infiltration in the gastric mucosa. This emphasizes the importance of HP-gastritis as an organic disease causing dyspeptic symptoms.

Adult↗

Dyspepsia and dyspepsia subgroups in Japan: symptom profiles and experience with cisapride.

In 240 patients with symptoms of dyspepsia, recruited consecutively and investigated in 12 hospitals in Japan, 24.2% were diagnosed having organic dyspepsia; 75.8% had functional dyspepsia, of whom 63.2% were diagnosed by the investigator having dysmotility-like, 13.7% ulcer-like, 11.5% reflux-like, and 11.5% non-specific dyspepsia. There was, however, considerable overlap of symptom profiles. Cisapride therapy initiated in functional dyspeptic patients resulted in moderate or marked improvement in 79.1% of the patients with the highest response rates for dysmotility-like (85.2%), reflux-like (81.0%), and non-specific dyspepsia (76.1%) (versus 52.0% for ulcer-like dyspepsia).

Adolescent↗

Dyspepsia and non-ulcer dyspepsia: an historical perspective.

Dyspepsia or indigestion is one of the most common disorders that is managed by general practitioners and gastroenterologists. Non-ulcer dyspepsia can be defined as upper abdominal pain or nausea in patients in whom endoscopy reveals no evidence of peptic ulceration or gastric cancer. Non-ulcer dyspepsia is a heterogeneous disorder and can be the result of such diverse entities as the irritable bowel syndrome, duodenitis or gastro-oesophageal reflux, or may be idiopathic ("essential" dyspepsia). This review traces the development of modern thought on dyspepsia and non-ulcer dyspepsia, from the 16th century to the present.

Dyspepsia↗

Diagnosis and management of dyspepsia--clinical guideline, 1999. Dyspepsia Working Group, South African Medical Association, South African Gastroenterology Society Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: To outline an approach for the effective, practical and safe diagnosis and management of uninvestigated dyspepsia at a primary level of care appropriate to South Africa. The target group for guideline use included general practitioners and other primary health care providers in the public and private sectors. The guideline includes referral points to higher levels of care. OPTIONS: Two main treatment options for the management of patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia were considered to be relevant to South Africa: Empiric medical therapy (often based on the dominant symptom or symptom complex) with further investigation reserved for 'empiric treatment failures'. Immediate diagnostic evaluation (endoscopy/radiology) of all cases and targeting of therapy based on results. EVIDENCE: Literature review of relevant studies. However, there are insufficient South African data to make fully evidence-based recommendations. VALUES: The working group considered that immediate investigation (by endoscopy/radiology) was not a practical option in the South African setting, owing to a lack of resources. The group stressed the importance of adequate initial evaluation to identify the 'high-risk' patient. RECOMMENDATIONS: Early identification of 'high-risk' patients needing immediate referral to a higher level of care and for further investigation. The remaining 'low-risk' patients should be offered acceptable symptomatic management of dyspepsia. As there is no single ideal first choice drug, selection is often empiric after considering the following: level of contact and care, dominant dyspepsia symptom, availability and cost of medicines, individual preferences. Drug treatment should continue for a finite period (2-4 weeks) and response should be monitored. If treatment fails after a trial of a second drug, then further investigation should be considered as for the 'at-risk' patient. All patients should be given advice on lifestyle changes. A diagnosis of non-ulcer dyspepsia should only be considered when further investigation has not shown specific pathology. When indicated, endoscopy is the preferred method of investigation, but if not available then a barium meal is recommended. The role of Helicobacter pylori in dyspepsia is poorly understood. Empiric H. pylori eradication therapy is not recommended. VALIDATION: Endorsement by the South African Gastroenterology Society, SAMA and other groups that sent representatives to a multidisciplinary consensus meeting to consider the draft guideline and its later modifications. FINANCIAL SPONSOR: Development supported by an unrestricted educational grant by Janssen-Cilag to SAMA.

Antacids↗

SODA (severity of dyspepsia assessment): a new effective outcome measure for dyspepsia-related health.

The aim of this research was to develop and evaluate an instrument for measuring dyspepsia-related health to serve as the primary outcome measure for randomized clinical trials. Building on our previous work we developed SODA (Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment), a multidimensional dyspepsia measure. We evaluated SODA by administering it at enrollment and seven follow-up visits to 98 patients with dyspepsia who were randomized to a 6-week course of omeprazole versus placebo and followed over 1 year. The mean age was 53 years, and six patients (6%) were women. Median Cronbach's alpha reliability estimates over the eight visits for the SODA Pain Intensity, Non-Pain Symptoms, and Satisfaction scales were 0.97, 0.90, and 0.92, respectively. The mean change scores for all three scales discriminated between patients who reported they were improved versus those who were unchanged, providing evidence of validity. The effect sizes for the Pain Intensity (.98) and Satisfaction (.87) scales were large, providing evidence for responsiveness. The effect size for the Non-Pain Symptoms scale was small (.24), indicating lower responsiveness in this study sample. SODA is a new, effective instrument for measuring dyspepsia-related health. SODA is multidimensional and responsive to clinically meaningful change with demonstrated reliability and validity.

Adult↗

Dyspepsia workload in urban general practice and implications of the British Society of Gastroenterology Dyspepsia guidelines (1996).

AIM: To define the characteristics of patients consulting with active dyspeptic symptoms in urban general practice, and to consider the implications of applying the British Society of Gastroenterology Dyspepsia management guidelines. DESIGN: Prospective observational study over a period of 12 months. SETTING: Two multipartner, two-centre general practices in the City of Leeds (UK) with a combined target population of 11 011 registered patients. SUBJECTS: A total of 340 patients consulting with active dyspeptic symptoms (52% male; mean age 53 years, range 16-89 years). RESULTS: Of the practice population, 3% consulted with dyspepsia (first-time consulter: 19%; previous consulter not yet investigated: 30%; previously investigated: 51%). Of 168 undiagnosed patients, 43% had upper abdominal pain (dysmotility-like symptoms in 42%), 35% had reflux symptoms, 22% had mixed symptoms, 12% had 'alarm' symptoms and 18% had a history of NSAID use. Patients < 45 years old with simple dyspepsia accounted for 32% of undiagnosed cases. A fifth of the workload was in dealing with undiagnosed dyspeptics over 45 years old. One per cent of the population would require endoscopy if all undiagnosed cases either > 45 years or with complicated dyspepsia were investigated. Of 172 previously investigated patients, 29% had negative tests, 25% had 'minor' findings, and 45% had evidence of acid-peptic disease. Patients with duodenal ulcer disease accounted for 12% of the total workload. CONCLUSIONS: A knowledge of the characteristics of patients consulting with dyspepsia in primary care should allow the adaptation of guidelines, to ensure advice is relevant to local case mix and compatible with local resources.

Adolescent↗

Management guidelines for uninvestigated and functional dyspepsia in the Asia-Pacific region: First Asian Pacific Working Party on Functional Dyspepsia.

Dyspepsia is most optimally defined as pain or discomfort centred in the upper abdomen. The symptom complex may be caused by peptic ulcer disease, gastro-oesophageal reflux, or gastric cancer but is most often due to functional (or non-ulcer) dyspepsia. While upper endoscopy is the method of choice to determine the underlying cause of dyspepsia, it is expensive. A more pragmatic approach is needed in the Asia Pacific region where health services are limited. A detailed treatment algorithm is given for managing patients presenting with new-onset dyspepsia and documented functional dyspepsia after endoscopy, and evidence to support this approach is reviewed. Prompt endoscopy is recommended for patients with alarm features. In patients without alarm features, treatment for 2-4 weeks with an empirical anti-secretory or prokinetic agent, followed by investigation using non-invasive Helicobacter pylori testing and treatment for patients who do not respond or relapse, is recommended. Trials of management strategies are now needed to establish the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the approaches recommended.

Antiemetics↗

Dyspepsia: organic causes and differential characteristics from functional dyspepsia.

Diseases presenting with dyspepsia fall into two general categories: organic and functional. Overall, most patients with dyspepsia have no underlying identifiable disease process. The diagnostic yield of organic causes is less in younger patients, and, conversely, serious organic lesions are common in elderly dyspeptic patients. The commonest organic causes of dyspepsia are peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux, biliary tract disease, and gastric cancer. Symptoms and physical signs may help to differentiate these organic causes from functional dyspepsia but endoscopic or radiographic/ultrasound studies are usually necessary to ensure the appropriate diagnosis. Less common organic causes of dyspepsia not to be overlooked include drugs, pancreatitis, malabsorption syndromes, metabolic disorders, ischemic heart disease, and collagen vascular disorders.

Age Factors↗