AIM: To determine the global prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia according to Rome criteria.
METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify population-based studies reporting prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia in adults (≥18 years old) according to Rome I, II, III or IV criteria. Prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia was extracted, according to criteria used to define it. Pooled prevalence, according to study location and certain other characteristics, odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: Of 2133 citations evaluated, 67 studies fulfilled eligibility criteria, representing 98 separate populations, comprising 338 383 subjects. Pooled prevalence ranged from 17.6% (95% CI 9.8%-27.1%) in studies defining uninvestigated dyspepsia according to Rome I criteria, to 6.9% (95% CI 5.7%-8.2%) in those using Rome IV criteria. Postprandial distress syndrome was the commonest subtype, occurring in 46.2% of participants using Rome III criteria, and 62.8% with Rome IV. Prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia was up to 1.5-fold higher in women, irrespective of the definition used. There was significant heterogeneity between studies in all our analyses, which persisted even when the same criteria were applied and similar methodology was used.
CONCLUSIONS: Even when uniform symptom-based criteria are used to define the presence of uninvestigated dyspepsia, prevalence varies between countries. This suggests that there are environmental, cultural, ethnic, dietary or genetic influences determining symptoms.
DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The following databases were searched using the keywords ("rebamipide" OR "gastroprotective agent*" OR "mucosta") AND ("dyspepsia" OR "indigestion" OR "gastrointestinal symptoms"): PubMed, Wed of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register. The primary outcome was dyspepsia or upper GI symptom score improvement. Pooled analysis of the main outcome data were presented as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data.
RESULTS: From an initial 248 records, 17 randomised controlled trial (RCT) publications involving 2170 subjects (1224 rebamipide, 946 placebo/control) were included in the final analysis. Twelve RCTs were conducted in subjects with organic dyspepsia (peptic ulcer disease, reflux esophagitis or NSAID-induced gastropathy) and five RCTs were conducted in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD). Overall, dyspepsia symptom improvement was significantly better with rebamipide compared to placebo/control drug (RR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.64-0.93; SMD -0.46, 95% CI = -0.83 to -0.09). Significant symptom improvement was observed both in pooled RR and SMD in subjects with organic dyspepsia (RR 0.72, 95% CI = 0.61-0.86; SMD -0.23, 95% CI = -0.4 to -0.07), while symptom improvement in FD was observed in pooled SMD but not RR (SMD -0.62, 95% CI = -1.16 to -0.08; RR 1.01, 95% CI = 0.71-1.45).
CONCLUSION: Rebamipide is effective in organic dyspepsia and may improve symptoms in functional dyspepsia.
OBJECTIVE: To determine which factors influence compliance with treatment.
METHODS: A systematic prospective non-interventional registry (Hp-EuReg) of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists. Compliance was considered adequate if ≥90% drug intake. Data were collected until September 2021 using the AEG-REDCap e-CRF and were subjected to quality control. Modified intention-to-treat analyses were performed. Multivariate analysis carried out the factors associated with the effectiveness of treatment and compliance.
RESULTS: Compliance was inadequate in 646 (1.7%) of 38,698 patients. The non-compliance rate was higher in patients prescribed longer regimens (10-, 14-days) and rescue treatments, patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia/functional dyspepsia, and patients reporting adverse effects. Prevalence of non-adherence was lower for first-line treatment than for rescue treatment (1.5% vs. 2.2%; p dyspepsia, rescue-treatment, prolonged treatment regimens, the presence of adverse events, and the use of non-bismuth sequential and concomitant treatment. Adequate treatment compliance was the variable most closely associated with successful eradication.