Volume 7, Issue 8, Pages 816-822 (August 2009)

14 of 38

ABSTRACT

FULL TEXT

FULL-TEXT PDF (803 KB)

What Makes Individuals With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Dissatisfied With Their Treatment?

published online 16 March 2009.

Background & Aims

Despite the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as therapeutics for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in randomized controlled trials, a number of studies have shown that a proportion of patients with GERD are not satisfied with their treatment. This article reviews the possible reasons why patients are dissatisfied with the way their disease is managed.

Methods

Studies published between 1970 and 2007 were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, and the author's existing database. The 2708 publications were reviewed, and irrelevant ones were excluded. Eleven studies were found to be appropriate for use in this review.

Results

Patients who are given prescriptions for PPIs tend to be more satisfied than those given H2-receptor antagonists. Partial responders are likely to be more dissatisfied than patients whose symptoms are fully resolved. A decrease in health-related quality of life is associated with greater dissatisfaction. Patients are more likely to be satisfied if they are taken seriously by their physician and if their symptoms are investigated. They are also more likely to be satisfied if the patient-physician consultation is interactive.

Conclusions

Patient satisfaction is a complex issue that depends on many factors. Patient satisfaction can be influenced by treatment regimen, general level of well-being, the bedside manner of the physician, and the quality of patient-physician communication. Improvements in recognition of GERD can improve management of the disease as well as patient satisfaction with their care and treatment.

Abbreviations used in this paper: GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease, H2RA, H2-receptor antagonist, HRQoL, health-related quality of life, PPI, proton pump inhibitor, QOLRAD, Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia.

Article Outline

• Abstract

• Methods

• Results

• Factors Influencing the Satisfaction of Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Health Status

• Type of Medication

• Treatment Regimen

• Dissatisfaction Is Predicted by Lack of Response to Treatment

• Well-Being and Quality of Life

• Discussion

• Ways to Improve Patient Satisfaction With Treatment for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

• Secure the correct diagnosis

• Provide effective treatment and promote adherence

• Improve communication between physician and patient

• Manage patient expectations

• Strengths and Limitations

• Future Research

• Conclusions

• Acknowledgment

• References

• Copyright

Typically characterized by frequent or troublesome heartburn and/or acid regurgitation, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic, painful condition that impairs health-related quality of life (HRQoL).1 GERD might result in disturbed sleep, reduced productivity at work, and impaired daily activities.2, 3 Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) offer effective treatment for GERD, with clinical trials showing high rates of symptom resolution and healing of reflux esophagitis.4, 5, 6 Studies have shown that treatment with PPIs is associated with increased HRQoL in patients with GERD.7, 8 PPIs appear to be more effective in patients with reflux esophagitis than in patients with reflux disease without esophagitis. A review of studies examining the efficacy of PPIs found the 4-week symptom response rate to be significantly higher in patients with reflux esophagitis than in patients with nonerosive reflux disease (56% vs 37%; P < .0001).9

Despite the efficacy of treatment for GERD in clinical trials, there is the perception that in clinical practice a proportion of patients are not satisfied with their treatment. For example, at the Marrakech workshop on symptom evaluation in reflux disease, 95% of the 28 attending gastroenterologists agreed that more than one third of patients with GERD are somewhat dissatisfied with their current prescription therapy.10 This finding is supported by the results of population-based studies that have reported the overall level of satisfaction with treatment among individuals with GERD. A U.S. study of 11,600 individuals with chronic heartburn found that 54% of patients who took prescription medication were not totally satisfied with their treatment.11 Similarly, in a population-based survey of 1681 individuals with reflux symptoms (22% of whom took PPIs and 27% of whom took antacids or alginates), 33% said that they were not totally satisfied with their treatment.12 This study systematically reviews the possible reasons why these individuals with GERD are dissatisfied with their treatment.

Methods

Studies to be included in this review were identified from PubMed and EMBASE (Figure 1). Studies were restricted to those published between 1970 and 2007 in English. Reviews of patient dissatisfaction and the author's existing database were also examined for appropriate publications. These searches identified 2708 unique publications. These were reviewed by title, abstract, and then full manuscript; studies that reported irrelevant information were excluded at each stage. These searches identified 11 studies appropriate for use in this review. Four studies used a questionnaire to assess satisfaction levels,11, 13, 14, 15 five studies measured satisfaction by using a Likert scale,16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and two studies did not report how satisfaction was assessed.12, 21

View Large Image
Download to PowerPoint

Figure 1. Flow of prospective studies through the search and selection process.

Results

Factors Influencing the Satisfaction of Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Health Status

Degl' Innocenti et al16 surveyed 217 individuals who had been diagnosed with GERD and who rated their symptoms as moderate or severe.22 All individuals had been treated with esomeprazole 40 mg for 4 weeks. The study questionnaire included a single item that asked “how satisfied are you with the study treatment you received?” Responses to this question were measured on a 7-point Likert scale with the options completely satisfied, very satisfied, quite satisfied, no change, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied, and completely dissatisfied. This study found that patients who reported their heartburn to be more severe before treatment, and who are likely to have had more severe GERD, were significantly more likely to be satisfied after 4 weeks' treatment with a PPI than those with less severe symptoms at baseline (P < .001).

However, a French postal survey of the general population (n = 5395) found individuals with more frequent symptoms to be less satisfied with their treatment.12 This study identified 1681 individuals with GERD (heartburn and/or regurgitation), 419 of whom had frequent symptoms (at least weekly) and 1252 who had less frequent symptoms. Significantly fewer subjects with at least weekly heartburn symptoms were completely satisfied with their treatment when compared with those with less frequent symptoms (67% vs 80%; P < .01). This study did not report how satisfaction was assessed. However, this effect was not consistent across all treatments. Complete satisfaction with treatment with antacids/alginates was significantly lower in subjects with frequent symptoms than in those with occasional symptoms (63% vs 83%; P < .01), whereas the level of satisfaction with PPI treatment was unaffected by symptom frequency (68% vs 75%; P > .05).12

Type of Medication

A number of studies also suggested that the type of medication used can affect satisfaction. A telephone survey in the United States identified individuals who had experienced heartburn within the previous 7 days or who were taking medication to eliminate heartburn (n = 1000).21 All respondents were asked whether they experienced nighttime heartburn. Of the 791 individuals who did experience nighttime heartburn, 71% (399/562) of those taking over-the-counter medications and 51% (165/324) of those taking prescription medications were not completely satisfied with their treatment (significance not reported). This study did not report how satisfaction was assessed.

In a second U.S. survey of 11,604 individuals who were using prescription medication to treat chronic heartburn, the type of medication taken also appeared to influence patient satisfaction.11 This study measured satisfaction by using a 10-point scale ranging from 1 (totally unsatisfied) to 10 (totally satisfied). For analysis, the scale was reduced to 5 points: totally satisfied (9–10 points), somewhat satisfied (7–8), neither satisfied nor unsatisfied (5–6), somewhat unsatisfied (3–4), and totally unsatisfied (1–2). When stratified by type of medication, 59% of those taking PPIs were totally satisfied (2424/4109), and 24% were somewhat satisfied (974/4109). Of those patients taking H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs), 46% were totally satisfied (1744/3782), and 31% were somewhat satisfied (1176/3782), and of those taking prokinetics, 43% were totally satisfied, and 30% were somewhat satisfied (sample size not reported) (Figure 2). PPI treatment was associated with significantly higher levels of satisfaction than H2RA treatment (χ2 = 136.9; P < .001).

View Large Image
Download to PowerPoint

Figure 2. Satisfaction is higher in patients taking PPIs than in those taking H2RAs or prokinetics.11

A prospective, randomized, open, parallel-group study carried out in Norway assessed satisfaction in 1797 individuals with symptoms suggestive of GERD (heartburn as the predominant symptom, with or without acid regurgitation).17 Satisfaction was assessed by using a 7-point Likert scale with the options completely satisfied, very satisfied, quite satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied, and completely dissatisfied. This study found that after 6 months, significantly more patients were completely satisfied or very satisfied with continuous (82.2%) or on-demand (75.4%) PPI therapy than with continuous H2RA therapy (33.5%; P < .0001).

Pooled data from 2 phase III randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trials of individuals with endoscopy-negative reflux symptoms (n = 849) showed that after 4 weeks of treatment, individuals prescribed lansoprazole 30 mg (n = 286) were significantly more likely to be satisfied with their treatment than those taking ranitidine 150 mg (n = 281) (83.0% vs 74.9%; P < .001).14 However, no significant differences were seen between those taking lansoprazole 15 mg (n = 282) and those taking ranitidine 150 mg (78.7% vs 74.9%; P = .13). Satisfaction was measured by using a validated questionnaire.

Treatment Regimen

A regular treatment regimen appears to be related to satisfaction in patients with GERD. For example, 2 randomized prospective studies found that continuous once-daily esomeprazole tended to be associated with greater patient satisfaction than on-demand esomeprazole,17, 19 although the difference in satisfaction was relatively small in both studies (4.8–7.0%) and only reached significance in the study by Hansen et al17 (82.2% completely/very satisfied with continuous treatment vs 75.4% completely/very satisfied with on-demand treatment; P < .01). Both these studies assessed satisfaction by using a 7-point Likert scale.

The duration of the treatment regimen might also influence patient satisfaction. In a study by Meineche-Schmidt et al,18 patients with symptoms suggestive of GERD (heartburn as the predominant symptom with or without acid regurgitation) who were symptom-free after 4 weeks of treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg daily were randomized to 3 different strategies in case of relapse during the subsequent 6 months: esomeprazole 20 mg on demand (453 patients) or esomeprazole 40 mg daily for either 2 weeks (449 patients) or 4 weeks (455 patients). Satisfaction was assessed by using a 7-point Likert scale with the options completely satisfied, very satisfied, quite satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied, and completely dissatisfied. There were no significant differences between the 3 treatment arms in terms of patients being satisfied. However, significantly more patients in the 4-week group than in the 2-week group were very satisfied with their treatment (84% vs 74%; P < .05).

Several studies have shown that treatment change can have an effect on patient satisfaction. In a study of 105 patients in the United States who were converted from omeprazole to lansoprazole, Nelson et al15 found that satisfaction scores were significantly lower after conversion than they were before conversion (mean score ± standard deviation, 7.24 ± 2.78 and 9.00 ± 1.49, respectively; P < .001). This was supported by the results of a second survey of 158 patients who underwent a formulary change from omeprazole to lansoprazole.13 This study found that significantly more patients preferred the medication they were taking before conversion (64% vs 36%; P < .005).

Dissatisfaction Is Predicted by Lack of Response to Treatment

The presence of residual symptoms is associated with dissatisfaction with PPI treatment. A survey of 400 individuals who took a prescribed PPI at least once during the week before the study (treated conditions included heartburn, acid indigestion, reflux, ulcer, and hiatus hernia) assessed satisfaction with this treatment by using a 10-point Likert scale in which 10 indicated extreme satisfaction, and 0 indicated complete lack of satisfaction.20 This study found that 49% of respondents were extremely satisfied with their treatment when the group was considered as a whole, whereas only 34% of those with breakthrough symptoms were completely satisfied (significance not reported).

Well-Being and Quality of Life

In the study by Degl' Innocenti et al,16 the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire (QOLRAD) was used to assess patients' level of emotional distress, sleep disturbance, problems with food and drink, limitations in physical and social functioning, and vitality. This questionnaire uses a 7-point scale on which a higher score indicates a better HRQoL, and the minimal important difference is approximately 0.5. This study found that the greater the improvement in vitality with treatment, the more likely it was that patients would be satisfied with their treatment (P < .001).

Discussion

This review identified a number of factors that are associated with dissatisfaction with treatment in patients with GERD. Patients taking PPIs tend to be more satisfied than those receiving less effective treatment. However, a proportion of patients taking PPIs are dissatisfied with their treatment. It is possible that this is linked to the finding that dissatisfaction is also related to the presence of residual symptoms. Approximately 40% of individuals who are taking prescription medication for reflux symptoms still have residual symptoms.23 An international survey of 1908 individuals with symptoms of GERD found that of the 727 who had a formal diagnosis of GERD and who were taking prescribed medication, 68% reported some unresolved symptoms.24

A number of mechanisms have been proposed to explain these residual symptoms. The most widely discussed are weakly acidic reflux and visceral hypersensitivity.25 It is possible that these 2 potential causes are actually related, and that visceral hypersensitivity leads to greater awareness of weakly acidic reflux, rather than the reflux itself being the cause. Lack of response to PPI treatment could also be influenced by the presence of other gastrointestinal disorders. Patients with GERD typically have a range of symptoms simultaneously, which reflects the prevalence of concomitant diseases such as functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome.26, 27 These disorders are less likely to respond to PPI therapy and might therefore result in unresolved symptoms. Other potential explanations for lack of response to PPI treatment include duodenogastroesophageal reflux, delayed gastric emptying, or eosinophilic esophagitis, although evidence for these mechanisms is lacking. Finally, it has been shown that nonadherence to PPI therapy is common28, 29 and is also likely to result in residual symptoms.

Dissatisfaction is also associated with lower HRQoL. Decreasing HRQoL is correlated with decreasing satisfaction with medical care in general.14, 30, 31 Patients tend to be more satisfied if they are taken seriously and if their symptoms are investigated. For example, some studies have shown that satisfaction among patients with dyspepsia is greater if they undergo endoscopy, regardless of the result of the procedure.32, 33

Studies in other therapy areas have also found that, in general, when patients report that their expectations are met, they also report greater satisfaction.34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 Results of a study of 750 patients who visited a clinic because of physical symptoms showed that patients with no unmet expectations had less worry about serious illness (54% vs 27%; P < .001) and greater satisfaction (59% vs 19%; P < .001) than those with unmet expectations.40 In a study of a related group of 500 patients, the presence of unmet expectations markedly decreased patients' satisfaction immediately after the visit and also 2 weeks and 3 months later.41 There is also evidence that making the consultation process more interactive between patient and physician improves the level of satisfaction in patients with peptic ulcer disease.42

Ways to Improve Patient Satisfaction With Treatment for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Figure 3 summarizes strategies to improve patient satisfaction with treatment for GERD, each of which is discussed in detail below.

View Large Image
Download to PowerPoint

Figure 3. Potential strategies to improve patient satisfaction.

Secure the correct diagnosis

To ensure patient satisfaction, it is vital that patients receive the correct diagnosis. Some patients with less troublesome heartburn or reflux might have functional upper gastrointestinal disorders (eg, functional dyspepsia) rather than GERD and might not receive benefit from PPIs or other antisecretory medications.43 They are therefore likely to remain dissatisfied with their treatment. Diagnostic questionnaires can assist physicians in making the correct diagnosis and can therefore help to improve patient satisfaction.44, 45, 46 Treatment algorithms that predict patient response to PPIs have also been proposed.47, 48 These tools could help to ensure that each patient receives the most appropriate treatment. Diagnostic testing such as endoscopy, pH studies, and motility testing might also be useful, but GERD can be diagnosed in primary care on the basis of symptoms alone.1

Provide effective treatment and promote adherence

Absence of symptoms correlates with satisfaction in patients with GERD.20 Strategies for improving patient satisfaction must therefore take into consideration which treatments are the most effective and must also ensure high levels of adherence to the treatment. Nonadherent patients are more likely to have residual symptoms and therefore to be dissatisfied with their medication. Conversely, patients who are already dissatisfied with their treatment might be more likely to become nonadherent to their medication.

Improve communication between physician and patient

Making the consultation process more interactive can improve patient satisfaction.42 This can be done by asking simple questions and by using terminology that the patient can understand and relate to easily. This could involve asking about the impact of GERD on daily living (ie, well-being). Communication can also be assisted through the use of patient questionnaires,49, 50, 51 educational leaflets,52 or patient agenda forms.53

Manage patient expectations

It is important that clinicians ensure that patients with GERD are aware that it is a chronic disease, and that therapy will alleviate their symptoms but will not cure their disease. This ought to reduce the number of patients who are surprised or dissatisfied when their symptoms return if they stop taking PPIs, even if they were symptom-free while taking medication. However, not all patients expect complete absence of symptoms in the long-term, and many patients with GERD are willing to continue a treatment strategy that provides substantial, but less than absolute, symptom control.54

In a study of 91 patients starting PPI therapy, only 4 patients (4.4%) had no real expectations of this medication.55 The leading expectations were improvement in (61%) or elimination of (33%) perceived symptoms, healing of esophagitis (50%), return to normal daily life (46%), and improvement in quality of life (44%). Thirty-six percent expected no further therapy after this initial treatment, and 34% expected the PPI treatment to have no side effects.

Occasional heartburn and/or regurgitation are experienced by a substantial proportion of the population. Patients with troublesome or frequent reflux symptoms might therefore be particularly in need of reassurance from their primary care physician that they have a real disease and not “just heartburn.” However, patients also need to be reassured that they are at low risk of esophageal cancer, especially if they have normal endoscopy results, and even if they have nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Improved physician-patient communication will help physicians to identify patients' specific expectations about their treatment and other care.

Strengths and Limitations

A key strength of this review is the fact that the searches identified a wide range of studies with varying methodologies. However, it should be remembered that different people will interpret the concept of satisfaction in different ways. It is likely to be interpreted differently by each patient and is dependent on factors such as the outcome of treatment, the interpersonal skills of health professionals, physician confidence and continuity, the quality of the patient-physician relationship, the level of patient participation and control, the accessibility, availability, and convenience of treatment, and the financial circumstances of the patient. These differing interpretations of satisfaction might impact on the generalizability of the results. Another limitation is the lack of uniformity in the measurement of satisfaction across the various studies. In particular, only 4 studies used validated questionnaires to measure satisfaction. Furthermore, none of the studies examined potential confounding factors for patient satisfaction such as patient-physician relationship and physician confidence.

Future Research

Future patient satisfaction surveys need to consider carefully the sampling time frame of the study and to adjust for pertinent patient characteristics.41 There is also a need to increase the emphasis on patient satisfaction as an outcome in clinical trials.10 Many patients with GERD make changes to their lifestyle to try to alleviate their symptoms.56, 57 It would be interesting to study the impact of this self-care on patient satisfaction.

Adherence to medication and dissatisfaction with this medication seem likely to be related. However, to my knowledge, no studies have been performed to examine this link. Research to explore this potential connection would be of great interest.

Validated tools such as the GERD Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for GERD are available for assessing the true satisfaction of patients with their treatment.30, 58 It would be valuable to use these questionnaires to establish whether the GERD Impact Scale51 and the Reflux Disease Questionnaire44, 45, 59 can improve patient satisfaction in clinical practice.

Conclusions

Levels of satisfaction reflect the true success of GERD therapy from the patient's perspective. Despite the availability of highly effective treatments for GERD, population-based surveys show that at least one third of individuals taking medication for GERD are not satisfied with their treatment. This is particularly true for those taking over-the-counter medicines to relieve symptoms.

This review shows that patient satisfaction can be influenced by a number of factors including treatment regimen, general level of well-being, the patient's expectations, and the quality of patient-physician communication. The last of these is probably the most amenable to improvement through measures such as the use of validated questionnaires to help physicians identify more effectively which symptoms patients have and the impact of these symptoms on the patient's well-being. Leaflets can also be used to encourage patients to volunteer more information. Improving communication will also make physicians more aware of patients' specific expectations.

Improved recognition of GERD can also improve management of the disease, and, in turn, improve patient satisfaction with care and treatment. Systematic use of treatment satisfaction data could be used to make choices between alternatives in the organization or provision of health care for individuals with GERD.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the help of Drs Catherine Hill and Catherine Henderson (Research Evaluation Unit, Oxford PharmaGenesis Limited, Oxford, UK), supported by AstraZeneca R&D Mölndal, who assisted with literature searches, managed the references, and edited the text of the manuscript for clarity, flow, and consistency.

References

1. 1Vakil N, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S, Kahrilas P, et al. The Montreal definition and classification of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD): a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:1900–1920. MEDLINE | CrossRef

2. 2Liker H, Jones R, Ducrotte P. The effect of sleep disturbance due to gastroesophageal reflux disease on work and leisure productivity: results from a multinational survey. Gastroenterology. 2005;128(Suppl 2):A386.

3. 3Camilleri M, Dubois D, Coulie B, et al. Prevalence and socioeconomic impact of upper gastrointestinal disorders in the United States: results of the US Upper Gastrointestinal Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:543–552. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (254 KB) | CrossRef

4. 4McQuaid KR, Laine L. Early heartburn relief with proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:553–563. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (153 KB) | CrossRef

5. 5Edwards SJ, Lind T, Lundell L. Systematic review: proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the healing of reflux oesophagitis: a comparison of esomeprazole with other PPIs. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24:743–750. MEDLINE | CrossRef

6. 6Gralnek IM, Dulai GS, Fennerty MB, et al. Esomeprazole versus other proton pump inhibitors in erosive esophagitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:1452–1458. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (459 KB) | CrossRef

7. 7Kulig M, Leodolter A, Vieth M, et al. Quality of life in relation to symptoms in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: an analysis based on the ProGERD initiative. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;18:767–776. MEDLINE | CrossRef

8. 8Gerson LB, Ullah N, Hastie T, et al. Patient-derived health state utilities for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:524–533. MEDLINE | CrossRef

9. 9Dean BB, Gano AD, Knight K, et al. Effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in nonerosive reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:656–664. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (171 KB) | CrossRef

10. 10Dent J, Armstrong D, Delaney DC, et al. Symptom evaluation in reflux disease: proceedings of a workshop held in Marrakech, Morocco. Gut. 2004;53(Suppl 4):iv1–iv65. CrossRef

11. 11Crawley JA, Schmitt CM. How satisfied are chronic heartburn sufferers with their prescription medications? (results of the patient unmet needs survey). J Clin Outcomes Manage. 2000;7:29–34.

12. 12Bretagne JF, Honnorat C, Richard-Molard B, et al. Comparative study of characteristics and disease management between subjects with frequent and occasional gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;23:607–616. MEDLINE | CrossRef

13. 13Condra LJ, Morreale AP, Stolley SN, et al. Assessment of patient satisfaction with a formulary switch from omeprazole to lansoprazole in gastroesophageal reflux disease maintenance therapy. Am J Manag Care. 1999;5:631–638. MEDLINE

14. 14Mathias SD, Colwell HH, Miller DP, et al. Health-related quality-of-life and quality-days incrementally gained in symptomatic nonerosive GERD patients treated with lansoprazole or ranitidine. Dig Dis Sci. 2001;46:2416–2423. MEDLINE | CrossRef

15. 15Nelson WW, Vermeulen LC, Geurkink EA, et al. Clinical and humanistic outcomes in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease converted from omeprazole to lansoprazole. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2491–2496. MEDLINE | CrossRef

16. 16Degl' Innocenti A, Guyatt GH, Wiklund I, et al. The influence of demographic factors and health-related quality of life on treatment satisfaction in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease treated with esomeprazole. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:4. MEDLINE | CrossRef

17. 17Hansen AN, Bergheim R, Fagertun H, et al. Long-term management of patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a Norwegian randomised prospective study comparing the effects of esomeprazole and ranitidine treatment strategies on health-related quality of life in a general practitioners setting. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60:15–22. MEDLINE | CrossRef

18. 18Meineche-Schmidt V, Hauschildt Juhl H, Ostergaard JE, et al. Costs and efficacy of three different esomeprazole treatment strategies for long-term management of gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms in primary care. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:907–915. MEDLINE | CrossRef

19. 19Pace F, Negrini C, Wiklund I, et al. Quality of life in acute and maintenance treatment of non-erosive and mild erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22:349–356. MEDLINE | CrossRef

20. 20Robinson M, Shaw K. Proton pump inhibitor attitudes and usage: a patient survey. Pharm Ther J. 2002;27:202–206.

21. 21Shaker R, Castell DO, Schoenfeld PS, et al. Nighttime heartburn is an under-appreciated clinical problem that impacts sleep and daytime function: the results of a Gallup survey conducted on behalf of the American Gastroenterological Association. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:1487–1493. MEDLINE | CrossRef

22. 22Schunemann HJ, Armstrong D, degl'Innocenti A, et al. A randomized multicenter trial to evaluate simple utility elicitation techniques in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Care. 2004;42:1132–1142. MEDLINE | CrossRef

23. 23Fass R, Shapiro M, Dekel R, et al. Systematic review: proton-pump inhibitor failure in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: where next?. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22:79–94. MEDLINE | CrossRef

24. 24Jones R, Liker H, Ducrotte P. Symptom prevalence in patients taking OTC and prescribed medication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): results from a multinational survey. Gastroenterology. 2005;128(Suppl 2):A526–A527.

25. 25Fass R. Proton-pump inhibitor therapy in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: putative mechanisms of failure. Drugs. 2007;67:1521–1530. CrossRef

26. 26Kennedy TM, Jones RH, Hungin AP, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and bronchial hyper-responsiveness in the general population. Gut. 1998;43:770–774. MEDLINE

27. 27Thomson AB, Barkun AN, Armstrong D, et al. 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. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;17:1481–1491. MEDLINE | CrossRef

28. 28Hungin AP, Rubin G, O'Flanagan H. Factors influencing compliance in long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49:463–464. MEDLINE

29. 29Hungin AP, Rubin GP, O'Flanagan H. Long-term prescribing of proton pump inhibitors in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49:451–453. MEDLINE

30. 30Coyne KS, Wiklund I, Schmier J, et al. Development and validation of a disease-specific treatment satisfaction questionnaire for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;18:907–915. MEDLINE | CrossRef

31. 31Williams TL, Esmail A, May CR, et al. Patient satisfaction with teledermatology is related to perceived quality of life. Br J Dermatol. 2001;145:911–917. MEDLINE | CrossRef

32. 32Bytzer P, Hansen JM, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell OB. Empirical H2-blocker therapy or prompt endoscopy in management of dyspepsia. Lancet. 1994;343:811–816. Abstract | CrossRef

33. 33Rabeneck L, Wristers K, Souchek J, et al. Impact of upper endoscopy on satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:295–299. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (78 KB) | CrossRef

34. 34Abramowitz S, Cote AA, Berry E. Analyzing patient satisfaction: a multianalytic approach. Qual Rev Bull. 1987;13:122–130.

35. 35Kravitz RL. Patients' expectations for medical care: an expanded formulation based on review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 1996;53:3–27. MEDLINE

36. 36McKinley RK, Stevenson K, Adams S, et al. Meeting patient expectations of care: the major determinant of satisfaction with out-of-hours primary medical care?. Fam Pract. 2002;19:333–338. MEDLINE | CrossRef

37. 37Petrie KJ, Frampton T, Large RG, et al. What do patients expect from their first visit to a pain clinic?. Clin J Pain. 2005;21:297–301. MEDLINE | CrossRef

38. 38Staniszewska S, Ahmed L. The concepts of expectation and satisfaction: do they capture the way patients evaluate their care?. J Adv Nurs. 1999;29:364–372. MEDLINE | CrossRef

39. 39Williams S, Weinman J, Dale J, et al. Patient expectations: what do primary care patients want from the GP and how far does meeting expectations affect patient satisfaction?. Fam Pract. 1995;12:193–201. MEDLINE

40. 40Jackson JL, Kroenke K. The effect of unmet expectations among adults presenting with physical symptoms. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:889–897. MEDLINE

41. 41Jackson JL, Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52:609–620. MEDLINE | CrossRef

42. 42Greenfield S, Kaplan SH, Ware JE. Expanding patient involvement in care: effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:510–528.

43. 43Galmiche JP, Clouse RE, Balint A, et al. Functional esophageal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1459–1465. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (171 KB) | CrossRef

44. 44Veldhuyzen van Zanten S, Wiklund I, White RJ, et al. Validation of the reflux disease questionnaire (RDQ), a new symptom scale for use in patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Gastroenterology. 2004;126(Suppl 2):T1166.

45. 45Shaw MJ, Talley NJ, Beebe TJ, et al. Initial validation of a diagnostic questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:52–57. MEDLINE | CrossRef

46. 46Ducrotte P, Zerbib F. ReQuest: a new questionnaire for the simultaneous evaluation of symptoms and well-being in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux. Digestion. 2007;75(Suppl 1):79–86. CrossRef

47. 47Bytzer P, Blum AL. Personal view: rationale and proposed algorithms for symptom-based proton pump inhibitor therapy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:389–398. MEDLINE | CrossRef

48. 48Meineche-Schmidt V, Christensen E. Which dyspepsia patients will benefit from omeprazole treatment? (Analysis of a Danish multicenter trial). Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:2777–2783. MEDLINE | CrossRef

49. 49Jones RH, Hungin AP, Phillips J, et al. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care in Europe: clinical presentation and endoscopic findings. Eur J Gen Pract. 1995;1:149–154. CrossRef

50. 50Thomson ABR, Armstrong D, Barkun AN, et al. The high prevalence of clinically significant findings (CSFs) at endoscopy (EDG) in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia (UD) is not predicted by patients' dyspepsia symptoms (CADET–PE Study). Can J Gastroenterol. 2002;16(Suppl A):A149.

51. 51Jones R, Coyne K, Wiklund I. The gastro-oesophageal reflux disease impact scale: a patient management tool for primary care. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25:1451–1459. MEDLINE

52. 52Little P, Dorward M, Warner G, et al. Randomised controlled trial of effect of leaflets to empower patients in consultations in primary care. BMJ. 2004;328:441–444.

53. 53Middleton JF, McKinley RK, Gillies CL. Effect of patient completed agenda forms and doctors' education about the agenda on the outcome of consultations: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2006;332:1238–1242.

54. 54Bytzer P. Goals of therapy and guidelines for treatment success in symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(Suppl):S31–S39. MEDLINE | CrossRef

55. 55Kamolz T, Pointner R. What do heartburn sufferers expect from proton pump inhibitors when prescribed for the first time?. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol. 2004;50:143–147.

56. 56Grime J, Pollock K, Blenkinsopp A. Proton pump inhibitors: perspectives of patients and their GPs. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51:703–711. MEDLINE

57. 57Oliveria SA, Christos PJ, Talley NJ, et al. Heartburn risk factors, knowledge, and prevention strategies: a population-based survey of individuals with heartburn. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:1592–1598. MEDLINE | CrossRef

58. 58Shikiar R, Flood E, Siddique R, et al. Development and validation of the gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment satisfaction questionnaire. Dig Dis Sci. 2005;50:2025–2033. MEDLINE | CrossRef

59. 59Halling K, Junghard O, Dent J, et al. Development of an enhanced questionnaire for diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease based on the reflux disease questionnaire, the GERD impact scale and the gastrointestinal symptom rating scale. Gut. 2007;56(Suppl 3):A209.

Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Køge University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Reprint requests Address requests for reprints to: Dr Peter Bytzer, Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Køge University Hospital, DK-4600 Køge, Denmark. fax: (45) 56-63-15-52

Conflicts of interest The author discloses the following: Peter Bytzer has received research funding from manufacturers of proton pump inhibitors (AstraZeneca, Eisai, Janssen-Cilag) and H2-receptor antagonists (Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline) and has served on advisory boards, as a consultant, and on the speakers' bureau for manufacturers of antireflux medication (AstraZeneca, Eisai, Janssen-Cilag, Nycomed, Orexo, Reckitt Benckiser, Wyeth).

PII: S1542-3565(09)00215-8

doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2009.03.006

14 of 38