PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15769439

Idiopathic Dyspepsia.

Abstract

Idiopathic dyspepsia refers to pain and/or discomfort perceived in the epigastrium that is not secondary to organic, systemic, or metabolic diseases. Symptoms may overlap with those of gastroesophageal reflux disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Gastrointestinal motor disorders, hypersensitivity to mechanical or chemical stimuli, and psychosocial factors can act individually or in concert to induce the symptoms of dyspepsia. Accordingly, there is no single therapy, and treatment must be individualized. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection rarely achieves symptom improvement. Treatment of idiopathic dyspepsia should begin by reassuring the patient about the benign nature of the syndrome and educating them on the knowledge that has been achieved in recent years regarding potential causes of the syndrome. Both prokinetic and antisecretory drugs have been reported to improve dyspeptic symptoms, but results are not completely convincing. Although well-designed studies demonstrate superiority of proton pump inhibitors over placebo, it should be noted that patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease were invariably included; when these patients are excluded, the benefit of antisecretory medications is questionable. We suggest that patients with idiopathic dyspepsia be initially treated according to the predominant symptom. Those with epigastric pain/burning should receive a trial with standard doses of proton pump inhibitors for 4 to 8 weeks, whereas prokinetic patients should be prescribed at recommended doses for similar periods of time to patients with nonpainful dyspeptic symptoms such as posprandial fullness, early satiety, nausea, or vomiting. Nonresponders may benefit from combination therapies or short trials with higher doses of drugs. Visceral analgesics and antidepressants can also be prescribed alone or in combinations with other therapeutic strategies. Recent studies demonstrate utility for psychologic therapy and hypnotherapy, although truly controlled studies are difficult in this area. Herbal medicines deserve further evaluation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vincenzo Stanghellini, Elisabetta Poluzzi, Fabrizio De Ponti, Roberto De Giorgio, Giovanni Barbara, Roberto Corinaldesi. 2005. Idiopathic Dyspepsia.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-005-0010-3

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗