Effect and cost-effectiveness of step-up versus step-down treatment with antacids, H2-receptor antagonists, and proton pump inhibitors in patients with new onset dyspepsia (DIAMOND study): a primary-care-based randomised controlled trial.
BACKGROUND
Substantial physician workload and high costs are associated with the treatment of dyspepsia in primary health care. Despite the availability of consensus statements and guidelines, the most cost-effective empirical strategy for initial management of the condition remains to be determined. We compared step-up and step-down treatment strategies for initial management of patients with new onset dyspepsia in primary care.


METHODS
Patients aged 18 years and older who consulted with their family doctor for new onset dyspepsia in the Netherlands were eligible for enrolment in this double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Between October, 2003, and January, 2006, 664 patients were randomly assigned to receive stepwise treatment with antacid, H(2)-receptor antagonist, and proton pump inhibitor (step-up; n=341), or these drugs in the reverse order (step-down; n=323), by use of a computer-generated sequence with blocks of six. Each step lasted 4 weeks and treatment only continued with the next step if symptoms persisted or relapsed within 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were symptom relief and cost-effectiveness of initial management at 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT); the ITT population consisted of all patients with data for the primary outcome at 6 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00247715.


RESULTS
332 patients in the step-up, and 313 in the step-down group reached an endpoint with sufficient data for evaluation; the main reason for dropout was loss to follow-up. Treatment success after 6 months was achieved in 238 (72%) patients in the step-up group and 219 (70%) patients in the step-down group (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.7-1.3). The average medical costs were lower for patients in the step-up group than for those in the step-down group (euro228 vs euro245; p=0.0008), which was mainly because of costs of medication. One or more adverse drug events were reported by 94 (28%) patients in the step-up and 93 (29%) patients in the step-down group. All were minor events, including (other) dyspeptic symptoms, diarrhoea, constipation, and bad/dry taste.


CONCLUSIONS
Although treatment success with either step-up or step-down treatment is similar, the step-up strategy is more cost effective at 6 months for initial treatment of patients with new onset dyspeptic symptoms in primary care.
van Marrewijk
Corine J
CJ
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Mujakovic
Suhreta
S
Fransen
Gerdine A J
GA
Numans
Mattijs E
ME
de Wit
Niek J
NJ
Muris
Jean W M
JW
van Oijen
Martijn G H
MG
Jansen
Jan B M J
JB
Grobbee
Diederik E
DE
Knottnerus
J André
JA
Laheij
Robert J F
RJ
D000328:Adult; D000863:Antacids / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D004415:Dyspepsia / Q000145:classification / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000503:physiopathology; D005260:Female; D006635:Histamine H2 Antagonists / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009426:Netherlands; D010147:Pain Measurement; D010352:Patient Dropouts; D054328:Proton Pump Inhibitors / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D012720:Severity of Illness Index
D000863:Antacids; D006635:Histamine H2 Antagonists; D054328:Proton Pump Inhibitors