Objectives: Whether patients with typical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and without alarm features should be treated empirically or undergo endoscopy first is a debated issue. In this study, our aim was to assess the efficacy, and to compare the direct costs and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL), of two treatment strategies (empirical vs endoscopy-oriented treatment) in a large population of patients with GERD.
Methods: In total, 612 patients were randomized to either empirical treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily (od) (group 1, N = 309) or endoscopy and treatment according to endoscopic findings (group 2, N = 303, esomeprazole 40 mg od in patients with reflux esophagitis and esomeprazole 20 mg od in patients without esophagitis) for 4 wk, followed by esomeprazole 20 mg od maintenance treatment in both groups. Direct costs and HRQL were analyzed in both treatment arms.
Results: At the end of the acute treatment phase (week 4), 267 patients in group 1 (86.4%) and 265 patients in group 2 (87.5%) were considered responders to treatment (intention-to-treat analysis, P= 0.878). Empirical treatment proved to be cost-effective by saving 38.72 euros per treated patient. At the end of the maintenance phase (week 24), a similar proportion of patients responded to treatment in the two groups (71.8%vs 68.3%, P= 0.389). HRQL improved from baseline to week 24 in both groups (difference between study groups not significant).
Conclusions: In patients with GERD, empirical treatment with esomeprazole proved to be cost-effective compared with endoscopy-oriented treatment, and did not negatively affect patient HRQL. These results should be taken into account in the management of GERD patients in clinical practice.