Rethinking the laryngopharyngeal reflux treatment algorithm: Evaluating an alternate empiric dosing regimen and considering up-front, pH-impedance, and manometry testing to minimize cost in treating suspect laryngopharyngeal reflux disease

Which Provider Specialties are Performing Diagnostic Procedures for Dysphagia in the United States?

OBJECTIVE

Care of patients with dysphagia occurs at the intersection of several different medical specialties. Otolaryngologists are uniquely equipped to diagnose dysphagia given their specialized training, yet the extent to which otolaryngologists perform diagnostic procedures for dysphagia is unknown. The objective of this study was to characterize the specialty-level variation among providers performing diagnostic assessments for dysphagia.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of dysphagia care utilization among Medicare beneficiaries from 2013 to 2021 using the CMS Physician & Other Practitioners by Provider and Service dataset. American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) data reports were used to determine the total number of providers per specialty. For each procedure and specialty, the percentage of providers performing >10 procedures annually and the average annual number of procedures per performing provider (non-radiology) were calculated.

RESULTS

We analyzed nine common dysphagia diagnostic procedures, including manometry, 24-h pH testing, flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), and modified barium swallow study (MBSS). Mean 3.7 (SD 1.4) otolaryngologists (0.04% of practicing) performed manometry testing annually, compared to 493 (69.3) gastroenterologists (3.3%). Less than 1% of practicing otolaryngologists (37.8 (8.0) (0.04%)) and gastroenterologists (51.6 (8.4), 0.35%) performed 24-h pH testing annually. FEES testing was most commonly performed by otolaryngologists; however, only 48 (6.3) providers (0.51% of practicing) performed these procedures annually. For MBSS, fewer otolaryngologists (5.2 (1.0), 0.05%) perform these assessments than other medical specialties. Each otolaryngologist performed 110.7 (52.5) studies annually, compared to 200.1 (68.0) per gastroenterologist.

CONCLUSION

Otolaryngologists represent a small fraction of providers performing dysphagia-related diagnostic procedures despite a unique training within our specialty to comprehensively diagnose and manage this condition.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:3698-3705, 2024.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition that occurs when reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus causes symptoms and/or complications. The prevalence of GERD in Western societies has been estimated at 30%, making it one of the most commonly encountered disorders in primary care. The spectrum of GERD includes typical symptoms of esophageal reflux (heartburn and/or regurgitation); esophageal injury (erosive esophagitis; stricture; Barrett esophagus; and, rarely, adenocarcinoma); and extraesophageal symptoms, such as hoarseness and chronic cough. Proper diagnosis and treatment of GERD includes symptom control, exclusion of other disorders, avoiding overuse of medications and invasive testing, and minimizing complications.

Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease: Updated examination of mechanisms, pathophysiology, treatment, and association with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) is an inflammatory condition in the laryngopharynx and upper aerodigestive tract mucosa caused by reflux of stomach contents beyond the esophagus. LPRD commonly presents with sym-ptoms such as hoarseness, cough, sore throat, a feeling of throat obstruction, excessive throat mucus. This complex condition is thought to involve both reflux and reflex mechanisms, but a clear understanding of its molecular mechanisms is still lacking. Currently, there is no standardized diagnosis or treatment protocol. Therapeutic strategies for LPRD mainly include lifestyle modifications, proton pump inhibitors and endoscopic surgery. This paper seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature regarding the mechanisms, patho-physiology and treatment of LPRD. We also provide an in-depth exploration of the association between LPRD and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Continued PPI use and gastrointestinal evaluations after a negative pH study in patients with throat symptoms from possible extraesophageal GERD

Background

Recent guidelines have advocated for upfront pH testing in patients with isolated symptoms of extra-esophageal gastrointestinal reflux disease (EE-GERD) under the assumption that a negative pH study will prevent further gastrointestinal (GI) investigations, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and reduce cost. We sought to evaluate if this actually occurs.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed on patients who underwent 24-hour combined pH-impedance testing off PPI for suspected EE-GERD. A negative study was defined as DeMeester score <14.7.

Results

59 patients were included (mean age 53.2; 50.8% women). Most (38, 64.4%) had a negative study. Findings of laryngopharyngoreflux on laryngoscopy did not predict pH results. Those with a negative study had the same number of followup GI appointments, repeat endoscopies, and repeat pH studies compared to those with a positive study (p=NS). While PPIs were more frequently stopped in those with a negative pH study, still 14 (36.8%) were continued on a PPI. At the end of the follow-up period (mean 43.6 months), 18 (47.4%) subjects with a negative pH study were still prescribed PPIs. Patients who were diagnosed with post-nasal drip or rhinits were significantly less likely to still be receiving a PPI (5.6% vs 35.0%, p=0.045).

Conclusions

Despite a negative pH study, a substantial number of patients with isolated EE-GERD symptoms are continued on a PPI and they undergo GI follow-up at the same rate as those with a positive study. These findings bring into question the recent recommendations for upfront pH testing in suspected EE-GERD and its reported cost savings.

Tonghua Liyan granules in the treatment of Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease with stagnation of phlegm and qi syndrome: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Background: Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) is an extraesophageal syndromic manifestation of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Despite the increasing incidence of and concern about LPRD, treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is unsatisfactory. Here, LPRD was treated with Tonghua Liyan (THLY) granules in combination with PPIs to evaluate treatment efficacy and possible adverse reactions. Methods: Seventy-six LPRD patients with stagnation of phlegm and qi syndrome (SPQS) were randomly divided into an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group received THLY granules combined with rabeprazole capsules. The control group received THLY granule placebo combined with rabeprazole capsules. A parallel, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with these two groups. The treatment cycle was 8 weeks. The reflux symptom index (RSI), clinical symptom score, salivary pepsin content, reflux finding score (RFS) and gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GerdQ) were used to evaluate clinical efficacy. The final efficacy rate was evaluated according to the RSI and clinical symptom score. Results: Compared with those at baseline, all the indicators in the experimental group and control group significantly improved (p < 0.01). In terms of the RSI, clinical symptom score, and RFS, the experimental group had a higher degree of improvement (p < 0.05), and the overall efficacy rate was higher (p < 0.05). In terms of the salivary pepsin concentration and GerdQ, there was no significant difference between the test group and the control group (p > 0.05). Both groups of safety indicators showed no abnormalities and did not cause any allergic reactions in the body. Conclusion: Compared with PPIs alone, THLY granules combined with PPIs are more effective in the treatment of LPRD patients with SPQS in terms of symptoms and signs. This combination treatment, because of its higher clinical efficacy and lack of obvious adverse reactions, is worthy of clinical promotion and further in-depth study. Clinical Trial Registration: www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2100046614.

Updates to the modern diagnosis of GERD: Lyon consensus 2.0

The Lyon Consensus provides conclusive criteria for and against the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and adjunctive metrics that consolidate or refute GERD diagnosis when primary criteria are borderline or inconclusive. An international core and working group was assembled to evaluate research since publication of the original Lyon Consensus, and to vote on statements collaboratively developed to update criteria. The Lyon Consensus 2.0 provides a modern definition of actionable GERD, where evidence from oesophageal testing supports revising, escalating or personalising GERD management for the symptomatic patient. Symptoms that have a high versus low likelihood of relationship to reflux episodes are described. Unproven versus proven GERD define diagnostic strategies and testing options. Patients with no prior GERD evidence (unproven GERD) are studied using prolonged wireless pH monitoring or catheter-based pH or pH-monitoring off antisecretory medication, while patients with conclusive GERD evidence (proven GERD) and persisting symptoms are evaluated using pH-impedance monitoring while on optimised antisecretory therapy. The major changes from the original Lyon Consensus criteria include establishment of Los Angeles grade B oesophagitis as conclusive GERD evidence, description of metrics and thresholds to be used with prolonged wireless pH monitoring, and inclusion of parameters useful in diagnosis of refractory GERD when testing is performed on antisecretory therapy in proven GERD. Criteria that have not performed well in the diagnosis of actionable GERD have been retired. Personalisation of investigation and management to each patient's unique presentation will optimise GERD diagnosis and management.

Is empiric proton pump inhibition in patients with symptoms of extraesophageal gastroesophageal reflux justified?

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has had a marked increase in Western countries with a paralleling interest in extraesophageal (EE) manifestations of GERD, including laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). There are considerable differences in clinical practice between gastroenterologists, otolaryngologists and pulmonologists.

METHODS

In this narrative review we address some of these controversies concerning EE manifestations of GERD and LPR.

RESULTS

It is disputed whether there is causal relationship between reflux and the numerous symptoms and conditions suggested to be EE manifestations of GERD. Similarly, the pathophysiology is uncertain and there are disagreements concerning diagnostic criteria. Consequently, it is challenging to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. A significant number of patients are given a trial course with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for several months before symptoms are evaluated. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs PPI treatment does not seem to be advantageous over placebo, and the evidence supporting that patients without verified GERD have any benefit of PPI treatment is negligible. There is a large increase in both over the counter and prescribed PPI use in several countries and a significant proportion of this use is without any symptomatic benefit for the patients. Whereas short-term treatment has few side effects, there is concern about side-effects after long-term use. Although empiric PPI treatment for suspected EE manifestations of GERD instead of prior esophageal 24-hour pH and impedance monitoring is included in several guidelines by various societies, this practice contributes to overtreatment with PPI.

CONCLUSION

We argue that the current knowledge suggests that diagnostic testing with pH and impedance monitoring rather than empiric PPI treatment should be chosen in a higher proportion of patients presenting with symptoms possibly attributable to EE reflux.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Diagnosis and Management of Extraesophageal Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and expert advice regarding the clinical management of patients with suspected extraesophageal gastroesophageal reflux disease.

METHODS

This article provides practical advice based on the available published evidence including that identified from recently published reviews from leading investigators in the field, prospective and population studies, clinical trials, and recent clinical guidelines and technical reviews. This best practice document is not based on a formal systematic review. The best practice advice as presented in this document applies to patients with symptoms or conditions suspected to be related to extraesophageal reflux (EER). This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these BPA statements do not carry formal ratings of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Gastroenterologists should be aware of potential extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and should inquire about such disorders including laryngitis, chronic cough, asthma, and dental erosions in GERD patients to determine whether GERD may be a contributing factor to these conditions. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Development of a multidisciplinary approach to extraesophageal (EER) manifestations is an important consideration because the conditions are often multifactorial, requiring input from non-gastroenterology (GI) specialties. Results from diagnostic testing (ie, bronchoscopy, thoracic imaging, laryngoscopy, etc) from non-GI disciplines should be taken into consideration when gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is considered as a cause for extraesophageal symptoms. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Currently, there is no single diagnostic tool that can conclusively identify GER as the cause of EER symptoms. Determination of the contribution of GER to EER symptoms should be based on the global clinical impression derived from patients' symptoms, response to GER therapy, and results of endoscopy and reflux testing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Consideration should be given toward diagnostic testing for reflux before initiation of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with potential extraesophageal manifestations of GERD, but without typical GERD symptoms. Initial single-dose PPI trial, titrating up to twice daily in those with typical GERD symptoms, is reasonable. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Symptom improvement of EER manifestations while on PPI therapy may result from mechanisms of action other than acid suppression and should not be regarded as confirmation for GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: In patients with suspected extraesophageal manifestation of GERD who have failed one trial (up to 12 weeks) of PPI therapy, one should consider objective testing for pathologic GER, because additional trials of different PPIs are low yield. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Initial testing to evaluate for reflux should be tailored to patients' clinical presentation and can include upper endoscopy and ambulatory reflux monitoring studies of acid suppressive therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Testing can be considered for those with an established objective diagnosis of GERD who do not respond to high doses of acid suppression. Testing can include pH-impedance monitoring while on acid suppression to evaluate the role of ongoing acid or non-acid reflux. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Alternative treatment methods to acid suppressive therapy (eg, lifestyle modifications, alginate-containing antacids, external upper esophageal sphincter compression device, cognitive-behavioral therapy, neuromodulators) may serve a role in management of EER symptoms. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Shared decision-making should be performed before referral for anti-reflux surgery for EER when the patient has clear, objectively defined evidence of GERD. However, a lack of response to PPI therapy predicts lack of response to anti-reflux surgery and should be incorporated into the decision process.

Diagnosis of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: Past, Present, and Future-A Mini-Review

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a variant of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in which gastric refluxate irritates the lining of the aerodigestive tract and causes troublesome airway symptoms or complications. LPR is a prevalent disease that creates a significant socioeconomic burden due to its negative impact on quality of life, tremendous medical expense, and possible cancer risk. Although treatment modalities are similar between LPR and GERD, the diagnosis of LPR is more challenging than GERD due to its non-specific symptoms/signs. Due to the lack of pathognomonic features of endoscopy, mounting evidence focused on physiological diagnostic testing. Two decades ago, a dual pH probe was considered the gold standard for detecting pharyngeal acidic reflux episodes. Despite an association with LPR, the dual pH was unable to predict the treatment response in clinical practice, presumably due to frequently encountered artifacts. Currently, hypopharygneal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH catheters incorporating two trans-upper esophageal sphincter impedance sensors enable to differentiate pharyngeal refluxes from swallows. The validation of pharyngeal acid reflux episodes that are relevant to anti-reflux treatment is, therefore, crucial. Given no diagnostic gold standard of LPR, this review article aimed to discuss the evolution of objective diagnostic testing and its predictive role of treatment response.

[Current possibilities and challenges in the treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux]

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is characterized by backflow of gastric or gastroduodenal content and gases into the upper aerodigestive tract, which can damage the mucus membranes of the larynx and pharynx. It is associated with a variety of symptoms such as retrosternal burning and acid regurgitation, or other unspecific symptoms such as hoarseness, globus sensation, chronic cough, or mucus hypersecretion. Due to the lack of data and the heterogeneity of studies, diagnosis of LPR is problematic and challenging, as recently discussed. Moreover, the different therapeutic approaches are also discussed controversially in the face of the poor evidence base, and include pharmacologic and conservative dietary measures. Hence, in the following review, the available options for treatment of LPR are critically discussed and summarized for daily clinical use.

Symptoms classically attributed to laryngopharyngeal reflux correlate poorly with pharyngeal reflux events on multichannel intraluminal impedance testing

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is thought to be a common etiology of throat and airway symptoms. Diagnosis of LPR is challenging, given the variable symptomatology and response to therapy. Identifying symptoms that better correlate with LPR may inform management strategies. We aimed to examine the association between patient-reported symptoms and objectively identified LPR on ambulatory reflux monitoring. This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adults with suspected LPR undergoing combined hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH testing (HEMII-pH) at a tertiary center. All patients completed standardized symptom surveys for presenting symptoms, reflux symptom index (RSI), and voice handicap index (VHI). LPR was defined as >1 full-column pharyngeal reflux event on HEMII-pH over 24 hours. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. A total of 133 patients were included (mean age = 55.9 years, 69.9% female). Of this 83 (62.4%) reported concomitant esophageal symptoms. RSI and VHI did not correlate with proximal esophageal or pharyngeal reflux events (Kendall's tau correlations P > 0.05), although the mean RSI was higher in the LPR group (21.1 ± 18.9 vs. 17.1 ± 8.3, P = 0.044). Cough, but not other laryngeal symptoms, was more common among patients with esophageal symptoms (58% vs. 36%, P = 0.014). Neither laryngeal symptoms nor esophageal symptoms of reflux predicted LPR on univariate or multivariable analyses (all P > 0.05). Neither laryngeal symptoms classically attributed to LPR nor typical esophageal symptoms correlated with pharyngeal reflux events on HEMII-pH. Clinical symptoms alone are not sufficient to make an LPR diagnosis. Broad evaluation for competing differential diagnoses and objective reflux monitoring should be considered in patients with suspected LPR symptoms.

Improved esophagography screening for esophageal motility disorders using wave appearance and supra-junctional ballooning

BACKGROUND

High-resolution manometry (HRM) is the gold standard for diagnosing esophageal motility disorders (EMDs); however, it requires specialized equipment. The development of more accessible screening examinations is expected. We evaluated the utility of barium esophagography (BE) screening using two novel findings to diagnose EMDs.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and October 2020, 244 patients with suspected EMDs who underwent both HRM and BE were analyzed. The EMD diagnosis was based on HRM findings using Chicago Classification version 3.0. BE was performed using sequential esophagography with barium sulfate. Three conventional BE findings (air-fluid level, rosary-bead/corkscrew appearance, and absent/weak peristalsis) and two novel BE findings (wave appearance and supra-junctional ballooning) were used for diagnosis.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of BE screening using the two novel findings and conventional findings to diagnose EMDs were 79.4% and 88%, respectively [area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.837]. Without these novel findings, they were 63.9% and 96%, respectively (AUC = 0.800), respectively. Achalasia was highly correlated with the air-fluid level (88.7%). Absent contractility was highly correlated with absent/weak peristalsis (85.7%). Relatively high correlations were observed between distal esophageal spasm and rosary-bead/corkscrew appearance (60%), and between achalasia and wave appearance (59.7%). The intra-observer reproducibility and inter-observer agreement for individual BE findings were 84.4% and 75%, respectively. Wave appearance was associated with higher integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) and shorter distal latency. Supra-junctional ballooning was associated with higher IRP.

CONCLUSIONS

BE screening using two additional novel findings to diagnose EMDs could be useful in general practice.

Resource utilization and variation among practitioners for evaluating voice hoarseness secondary to suspected reflux disease: A retrospective chart review

The purpose of this study was to assess the variation in resource utilization for the diagnosis and treatment of dysphonia or hoarseness in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPRD) and/or gastroesophageal reflux (GERD). Secondary data was collected from a single-institution database of charts from patients evaluated between October 1, 2011 and March 31, 2020. This study was conducted as a retrospective chart review. Key outcome variables included demographic data, initial specialty visit, date of first symptom evaluation to final follow-up visit, additional procedural evaluation, and final diagnosis as attributed by the diagnosing physician. Inclusion criteria included patients ≥18 older referred to providers for suspected LPRD/GERD with a primary complaint of voice changes or hoarseness and appeared for follow-up. A total of 134 subjects were included for analysis. Data analysis included descriptive and univariate analysis, chi-square test of independence, independent means t test, and 1-way analysis of variance. Most patients (88) received some form of procedural evaluation in addition to clinical evaluation. The most frequent was videostroboscopy (59). Patients who first visited a gastroenterologist were more likely to undergo esophageal pH-monitoring (n = 14, P < .001) and manometry (n = 10, P < .001). Patients referred to speech-language pathology were very likely to undergo videostroboscopic evaluation (n = 7, P < .001). The prevailing final diagnosis as attributed by the diagnosing physician was confirmed to be of non-reflux etiology (49) or due to GERD alone (34). LPRD only was the least frequent diagnosis (10). Our results demonstrate that there is significant variation in the number and type of diagnostic tests based on the type of practitioner initially seen by the patient. Additionally, of patients thought to have voice change or hoarseness because of LPRD and/or GERD, more than a third had a non-reflux cause of their symptoms. Further research should identify beneficial patterns in resource utilization and further diagnostic utility of diagnostic procedures for more accurate diagnosis.

Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Symptoms and Signs in Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) of symptoms and signs of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective controlled.

SETTING

University medical center.

METHODS

Patients presenting with LPR symptoms and signs were consecutively included after diagnosis confirmation through 24-hour hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring. Healthy individuals were recruited to compose a control group. Symptoms and signs were evaluated with the reflux symptom score and reflux sign assessment. The SE, SP, PPV, and NPV of symptoms and signs were assessed.

RESULTS

The study included 403 patients with LPR and 144 healthy individuals. Throat clearing, globus sensation, heartburn, and excess throat mucus were symptoms with the highest SE (67.5%-69.7%), SP (12.5%-20.8%), and NPV (48.3%-49.2%). The combination of throat clearing, heartburn, globus sensation, and excess throat mucus led to a high SE (96.0%) and NPV (85.2%). Anterior pillar erythema, tongue tonsil hypertrophy, and posterior commissure hypertrophy resulted in the highest SE (75.5%-83.5%). The highest SP was found for uvula erythema/edema, epiglottis erythema, and interarytenoid granulatory tissue (97.1%-97.2%). The association of nonendoscopic signs (anterior pillar erythema, uvula erythema/edema, and coated tongue) had an SE and SP of 80.1% and 47.2%, respectively. The association of throat clearing, heartburn, globus, anterior pillar erythema, and uvula erythema/edema had the highest SE (98.8%), SP (33.3%), PPV (94.3%), and NPV (70.6%).

CONCLUSION

LPR symptoms and signs reported low SP and NPV. The SE, SP, PPV, and NPV may be maximized with the association of throat clearing, heartburn, globus sensation, anterior pillar erythema, and uvula erythema/edema.

Best Practices in Treatment of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: A Multidisciplinary Modified Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common otolaryngologic diagnosis. Treatment of presumed LPR remains challenging, and limited frameworks exist to guide treatment.

METHODS

Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methods, a modified Delphi approach identified consensus statements to guide LPR treatment. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a four-round iterative process. Accepted measures reached scores with ≥ 80% agreement in the 7-9 range (on a 9-point Likert scale) across all four categories.

RESULTS

Fifteen experts rated 36 proposed initial statements. In round one, 10 (27.8%) statements were rated as valid. In round two, 8 statements were modified based on panel suggestions, and experts subsequently rated 5 of these statements as valid. Round three's discussion refined statements not yet accepted, and in round four, additional voting identified 2 additional statements as valid. In total, 17 (47.2%) best practice statements reached consensus, touching on topics as varied as role of empiric treatment, medication use, lifestyle modifications, and indications for laryngoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Using a well-tested methodology, best practice statements in the treatment of LPR were identified. The statements serve to guide physicians on LPR treatment considerations.

ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues to be among the most common diseases seen by gastroenterologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians. Our understanding of the varied presentations of GERD, enhancements in diagnostic testing, and approach to patient management have evolved. During this time, scrutiny of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has increased considerably. Although PPIs remain the medical treatment of choice for GERD, multiple publications have raised questions about adverse events, raising doubts about the safety of long-term use and increasing concern about overprescribing of PPIs. New data regarding the potential for surgical and endoscopic interventions have emerged. In this new document, we provide updated, evidence-based recommendations and practical guidance for the evaluation and management of GERD, including pharmacologic, lifestyle, surgical, and endoscopic management. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to evaluate the evidence and the strength of recommendations. Key concepts and suggestions that as of this writing do not have sufficient evidence to grade are also provided.

Effects of acids, pepsin, bile acids, and trypsin on laryngopharyngeal reflux diseases: physiopathology and therapeutic targets

PURPOSE

Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) is a general term for the reflux of gastroduodenal contents into the laryngopharynx, oropharynx and even the nasopharynx, causing a series of symptoms and signs. Currently, little is known regarding the physiopathology of LPRD, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the drugs of choice for treatment. Although acid reflux plays a critical role in LPRD, PPIs fail to relieve symptoms in up to 40% of patients with LPRD. The influence of other reflux substances on LPRD, including pepsin, bile acid, and trypsin, has received increasing attention. Clarification of the substances involved in LPRD is the basis for LPRD treatment.

METHODS

A review of the effects of acids, pepsin, bile acids, and trypsin on laryngopharyngeal reflux diseases was conducted in PubMed.

RESULTS

Different reflux substances have different effects on LPRD, which will cause various symptoms, inflammatory diseases and neoplastic diseases of the laryngopharynx. For LPRD caused by different reflux substances, 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance combined with pH-metry (MII-pH), salivary pepsin, bile acid and other tests should be established so that different drugs and treatment courses can be used to provide patients with more personalized treatment plans.

CONCLUSION

This article summarizes the research progress of different reflux substances on the pathogenesis, detection index and treatment of LPRD and lays a theoretical foundation to develop target drugs and clinical diagnosis and treatment.

How to Understand and Treat Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is frustrating, as symptoms are nonspecific and diagnosis is often unclear. Two main approaches to diagnosis are empiric treatment trials and objective reflux testing. Initial empiric trial of Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) twice daily for 2-3 months is convenient, but risks overtreatment and delayed diagnosis if patient complaints are not from LPR. Dietary modifications, H2-antagonists, alginates, and fundoplication are other possible LPR treatments. If objective diagnosis is desired or patients' symptoms are refractory to empiric treatment, pH testing with/without impedance should be considered. Additionally, evaluation for non-reflux etiologies of complaints should be performed, including laryngoscopy or videostroboscopy.

How I Approach Laryngopharyngoesophageal Reflux (LPR)

The purpose of this article is to review the cornerstone and most recent literature regarding laryngopharynoesophageal reflux (LPR) including epidemiological characteristics, pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, and management. The role of pepsin in the pathophysiology of LPR is highlighted in addition to new diagnostic modalities and pharmacologic therapies that target pepsin.

Using RSI and RFS scores to differentiate between reflux-related and other causes of chronic laryngitis

OBJECTIVE

To establish if the Reflux Symptom Index (RFI) and the Reflux Finding Score (RFC) can help establish the differential diagnosis in patients with distinct causes of chronic laryngopharyngitis.

METHODS

A group of 102 adult patients with chronic laryngopharyngitis (Group A - 37 patients with allergic rhinitis; Group B - 22 patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA); Group C - 43 patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux (LPR)) were prospectively studied. Chronic laryngitis was diagnosed based on suggestive symptoms and videolaryngoscopic signs (RSI ≥ 13 and RFS ≥ 7). Allergies were confirmed by a positive serum RAST, OSA was diagnosed with a positive polysomnography, and LPR with a positive impedance-PH study. Discriminant function analysis was used to determine if the combination of RSI and RFS scores could differentiate between groups.

RESULTS

Patients with respiratory allergies and those with LPR showed similar and significantly higher RSI scores when compared to that of patients with OSA (p < 0.001); Patients with OSA and those with LPR showed similar and significantly higher RFS scores when compared to that of patients with Respiratory Allergies (OSA vs. Allergies p < 0.001; LPR vs. Allergies p < 0.002). The combination of both scores held a higher probability of diagnosing OSA (72.73%) and Allergies (64.86%) than diagnosing LPR (51.16%).

CONCLUSIONS

RSI and RFS are not specific for reflux laryngitis and are more likely to induce a false diagnosis if not used with diligence.

Onigiri esophagography as a screening test for esophageal motility disorders

Background/Aims

No screening test for esophageal motility disorder (EMD) has been established, the objective of this study is to examine the potential usefulness of our newly developed “Onigiri esophagography” combined with an obstruction level (OL) classification system in screening for EMD.

Methods

A total of 102 patients with suspected EMDs who underwent both high-resolution manometry (HRM) and Onigiri esophagography between April 2017 and January 2019 were examined. The EMD diagnosis was performed based on the Chicago classification version 3.0 by HRM. Onigiri esophagography was performed using a liquid medium (barium sulfate) followed by a solid medium, which consisted of an Onigiri (a Japanese rice ball) with barium powder. The extent of medium obstruction was assessed by the OL classification, which was defined in a stepwise fashion from OL0 (no obstruction) to OL4 (severe obstruction).

Results

The patients with OL0 (32.3%), OL1 (50.0%), OL2 (88.0%), OL3 (100.0%), and OL4 (100.0%) were diagnosed EMDs by HRM. The area under the curve, as determined by a receiver operating characteristic analysis, for the OL classification was 0.86. Using the cutoff value of OL1, the sensitivity and specificity were 87.3% and 61.3%, respectively, while using a cutoff value of OL2, the sensitivity and specificity were 73.2% and 90.3%, respectively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Onigiri esophagography combined with the OL classification system can be used as a screening test for EMDs with a cutoff value of OL1.

Impact of subspecialty training on management of laryngopharyngeal reflux: results of a worldwide survey

OBJECTIVE

To study the management of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) among the subspecialties of practicing otolaryngology-head and neck surgeons and their trainees.

METHODS

A survey was sent to over 8000 otolaryngologists (OTOHNS) over 65 countries, utilizing membership lists of participating otolaryngological societies. The outcomes were answers to questions regarding LPR knowledge and practice patterns, and included queries about its definition, prevalence, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 824 respondents, 658 practiced in one specific otolaryngologic subspecialty. The symptoms and findings thought to be the most related to LPR varied significantly between subspecialists. Extra-laryngeal findings were considered less by laryngologists while more experienced OTOHNS did not often consider digestive complaints. Compared with colleagues, otologists, rhinologists and laryngologists were less aware of the involvement of LPR in otological, rhinological and laryngological disorders, respectively. Irrespective of subspecialty, OTOHNS consider symptoms and signs and a positive response to empirical therapeutic trial to establish a LPR diagnosis. Awareness regarding the usefulness of impedance pH-studies is low in all groups. The therapeutic approach significantly varies between groups, although all were in agreement for the treatment duration. The management of non-responder patients demonstrated significant differences among laryngologists who performed additional examinations. The majority of participants (37.1%) admitted to being less than knowledgeable about LPR management.

CONCLUSIONS

LPR knowledge and management vary significantly across otolaryngology subspecialties. International guidelines on LPR management appear necessary to improve knowledge and management of LPR across all subspecialties of otolaryngology.

Prediction of effectiveness of potassium-competitive acid blocker and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor on abnormal sensation in the throat: use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Purpose

To determine patients with abnormal sensation in the throat (AST) who would respond to potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) or serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) treatment.

Methods

AST patients were randomly divided into two groups. Thirty-one and 21 patients received P-CAB and SNRI treatment, respectively. GETS-J, the Japanese version of Glasgow Edinburgh Throat Scales (GETS), consisted of three subscales of throat symptoms (globus sensation, pain/swelling of the throat, and dysphagia) and somatic distress due to the disease, Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (FSSG), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were used before and after treatments. Responders to treatments were defined as those who showed 50% or more decrease in symptom scores or somatic distress.

Results

Pre-treatment GETS-J pain/swelling scores and FSSG acid reflux scores were higher in P-CAB responders and decreased after treatment. Receiver operating characteristic curve for pain/swelling subscale had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.792 to predict P-CAB responders and a score of 11 provided the best combination of sensitivity (62.5%) and specificity (80%). Somatic distress and HADS anxiety scores, but no other GETS-J symptom scores, decreased after SNRI treatment. Pre-treatment globus scores were lower in SNRI responders. AUC value for globus subscale to predict SNRI responders was 0.741 and a score of 6.5 provided the best combination of sensitivity (70%) and specificity (73%).

Conclusions

Pain/swelling is a characteristic symptom in AST patients who respond to P-CAB treatment. SNRI treatment would be effective for somatic distress in cases with mild symptoms.

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A State-of-the-Art Algorithm Management for Primary Care Physicians

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common disease in the general population with acute or chronic symptoms. LPR is often misdiagnosed in primary care because of the lack of typical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and findings on endoscopy. Depending on the physician's specialty and experience, LPR may be over- or under-diagnosed. Management of LPR is potentially entirely feasible in primary care as long as General Practitioners (GPs) are aware of certain "red flags" that will prompt referral to a Gastroenterologist or an Otolaryngologist. The use of patient-reported outcome questionnaires and the consideration of some easy ways to diagnose LPR without special instrumentation oropharyngeal findings may help the GP to diagnose and often manage LPR. In this review, we provide a practical algorithm for LPR management for GPs and other specialists that cannot perform fiberoptic examination. In this algorithm, physicians have to exclude some confounding conditions such as allergy or other causes of pharyngolaryngitis and "red flags". They may prescribe an empirical treatment based on diet and behavioral changes with or without medication, depending on the symptom severity. Proton pump inhibitors and alginates remain a popular choice in order to protect the upper aerodigestive tract mucosa from acid, weakly acid and alkaline pharyngeal reflux events.

What is the truth about proton pump inhibitors?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores the recent evidence and established scientific literature surrounding proton pump inhibitors in the context of laryngology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Proton pump inhibitors are often associated with gastroenterology; however, they also have a place in laryngology. Several laryngopharyngeal disorders are treated with proton pump inhibitors, though limited evidence regarding effectiveness, dosing and length of treatment exists. With the recent influx of articles reporting possible adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors, the appropriate prescribing of them has come under scrutiny. These reported risks include cancer, stroke, myocardial infarction, kidney disease and cognitive decline. It should be noted though that many of these studies by nature, are fraught with potential confounding. Regardless, clinicians ought to be aware of any risks associated with treatment regimens and prescribe the optimal dosage and duration.

SUMMARY

Proton pump inhibitor treatment should be dose-appropriate and for a limited duration. Concerning potential adverse effects, the limitations of retrospective cohort studies must be taken into consideration when reviewing the evidence.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Clinical Use of Esophageal Physiologic Testing

Esophageal symptoms are common and may indicate the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), structural processes, motor dysfunction, behavioral conditions, or functional disorders. Esophageal physiologic tests are often performed when initial endoscopic evaluation is unrevealing, especially when symptoms persist despite empiric management. Commonly used esophageal physiologic tests include esophageal manometry, ambulatory reflux monitoring, and barium esophagram. Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) has recently been approved for the evaluation of esophageal pressure and dimensions using volumetric distension of a catheter-mounted balloon and as an adjunctive test for the evaluation of symptoms suggestive of motor dysfunction. Targeted utilization of esophageal physiologic tests can lead to definitive diagnosis of esophageal disorders but can also help rule out organic disorders while making a diagnosis of functional esophageal disorders. Esophageal physiologic tests can evaluate obstructive symptoms (dysphagia and regurgitation), typical and atypical GERD symptoms, and behavioral symptoms (belching and rumination). Certain parameters from esophageal physiologic tests can help guide the management of GERD and predict outcomes. In this ACG clinical guideline, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process to describe performance characteristics and clinical value of esophageal physiologic tests and provide recommendations for their utilization in routine clinical practice.

Alternatives to Acid Suppression Treatment for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

OBJECTIVE

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and associated symptoms can be refractory to treatment with acid suppressing medication. We investigated the role and evidence for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for LPR in this systematic review.

REVIEW METHODS

Complementary and alternative treatment was defined in this systematic review as any non-acid suppressing medication, treatment, or therapy. A literature search was performed by two authors in consultation with a medical librarian using controlled vocabulary for "complementary and alternative medicine" and "laryngopharyngeal reflux" in the databases PubMed and EMBASE, with supplemental searches with Google Scholar.

RESULTS

Twenty articles were included in this review for the modalities: alginate, diet modification, prokinetics, respiratory retraining, voice therapy, rikkunshito (RKT), hypnotherapy, and sleep positioning. The studies were analyzed for bias based on the Cochrane criteria for RCTs and Methodological Index for non-RCT (MINORS) criteria for all other studies. For each modality a level of evidence was assigned to the current body of evidence using the GRADE approach.

CONCLUSION

There is mixed evidence with a high degree of bias and heterogeneity between studies for the modalities presented in the paper. Based on this review, an anti-reflux diet is recommended for all patients and there is some low-quality evidence to support alkaline water. For patients with predominant vocal symptoms there is evidence that supports voice therapy. There is insufficient evidence to recommend prokinetics at this time. For patients with predominant globus symptoms, alginate, RKT, and relaxation strategies may be used in conjunction with acid suppressing medications for symptom relief.

Proximal reflux: biochemical mediators, markers, therapeutic targets, and clinical correlations

Airway reflux is implicated in the pathophysiology of a wide range of adult and pediatric upper and lower airway diseases. However, the diagnosis of proximal reflux-associated disease remains challenging due to evolving clinical criteria and institutional and regional variances in diagnostic practices. Evidence suggests that nonacidic contents of reflux may serve as both pathologic mediators of and biomarkers for reflux in the upper airway. Furthermore, they offer potential pharmaceutical and surgical intervention targets and are the focus of novel clinical diagnostic tools currently under investigation.

Examining Referral Patterns between Otolaryngology and Gastroenterology: A Window into Potential Inter-Specialty Knowledge Gaps

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine referral patterns between otolaryngology and gastroenterology in order to delineate areas of clinical overlap, as well as to identify areas that might benefit from improved inter-specialty communication and collaboration.

METHODS

Montefiore's Clinical Looking Glass tool was used to define parameters for electronic medical record data extraction from 2015 to 2018. Two cohorts were generated, one representing referrals placed by gastroenterology to otolaryngology and a second representing referrals placed by otolaryngology to gastroenterology. The ICD-10 codes in both cohorts were reviewed and 13 distinct "reason for referral" categories were defined. The rates of referral for each category were then calculated for each of the referral cohorts.

RESULTS

Otolaryngology referred to gastroenterology at a greater rate than gastroenterology referred to otolaryngology, despite seeing fewer total patients than gastroenterology. For referrals from gastroenterology to otolaryngology, the three most frequent referral reasons were oral cavity/oropharyngeal pathology (28.3%), dysphagia (28.3%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease/laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (GERD/LPRD) (11.3%). For referrals from otolaryngology to gastroenterology, the three most frequent referral reasons were GERD/LPRD (61.7%), dysphagia (18.6%), and esophageal pathology (5.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

GERD/LPRD was more frequently referred out by otolaryngology than it was by gastroenterology, suggesting the need for further characterization of the discrepancy in management of a disease commonly treated by both specialties. The discrepant rates of referral for dysphagia also suggest a need to better understand what factors contribute to the differences in management of another clinical condition commonly assessed by both specialties.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Is empirical treatment a reasonable strategy for laryngopharyngeal reflux? A contemporary review

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis and treatment of presumed laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) remain controversial. Empiric medication trials remain widespread for suspected LPR despite emerging evidence against proton pump inhibitor (PPI) safety and for pepsin as a mediator of LPR symptoms. Ongoing concerns exist related to inaccurate diagnosis, the cost and morbidity of potentially unnecessary PPI prescriptions, and availability and interpretation of objective reflux testing.

OBJECTIVES

To review contemporary evidence that does and does not support empiric medication trials for presumed LPR.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched for literature about benefits, limitations and alternatives to empiric medication trial for LPR, in order to present both sides of this debate and identify best practices.

RESULTS

The majority of physicians perform prolonged empiric medication trial with PPIs for patients with suspected LPR. Because symptoms and signs of LPR are non-specific, empiric medication trials require exclusion of other conditions that can mimic LPR. Following a PPI empiric medication trial, over one-third of patients remain non-responders. The use of hypopharyngeal-oesophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) has benefits and limitations in objective diagnosis of LPR.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of PPIs for single-agent empiric medication trial does not account for possible non-responders with non-acid or mixed LPR. If LPR diagnosis remains uncertain, alginates can be added to PPI trials. HEMII-pH testing upfront is ideal for patients with suspected LPR, but not always practical; it is indicated when PPI and alginate empiric medication trials have failed or when comorbidities confuse the diagnosis. A more comprehensive, combination therapy empiric medication trial regimen may be needed.

Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Reflux Finding Score

INTRODUCTION

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) poses a diagnostic challenge. Clinical diagnosis, based on suggestive symptoms and laryngoscopic signs of inflammation, should be acceptable, as long as diligent differential diagnosis is sought. In order to minimize subjectivity, a number of diagnostic instruments have been proposed, being the most common the Reflux Symptom Index and the Reflux Finding Score (RFS). The latter has been translated into several languages including Portuguese, but it still has not been properly validated in this language.

OBJECTIVE

To validate the Brazilian Portuguese version of the RFS.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

For validity and internal consistency, 172 adults were studied (106 with LPR and 66 healthy controls). Flexible transnasal laryngoscopy images were randomly examined twice by each of the two experienced otolaryngologists with a 72-hour interval. Strict exclusion criteria were applied to avoid other possible known causes of chronic laryngitis. For assessment of reproducibility and temporal stability, a random sample of 108 subjects (53 patients and 55 controls) were tested and retested.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference was observed in the mean RFS between patients with LPR (10.26 ± 3.58) and controls (5.52 ± 1.34) (P < 0.001). The interclass correlation coefficient comparing test and retest for both raters was high (R1 = 0.956; R2 =  0.948).

CONCLUSION

The Brazilian Portuguese version of the RFS proved to be a reliable and reproducible instrument for the diagnosis of LPR with a sensitivity of 82.08%, a specificity of 93.94%, a positive predictive value of 95.60%, and a negative predictive value was 76.54%.

Does the Reflux Symptom Index Predict Increased Pharyngeal Events on HEMII-pH Testing and Correlate with General Quality of Life?

OBJECTIVES

To determine the ability of the reflux symptom index (RSI) to predict objective impedance and pH-probe testing, and to examine the relationship between disease-specific and general health status in patients diagnosed with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

METHODS

Adults presenting to a tertiary care academic center with a primary voice complaint completed the RSI and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-item global health instrument (PROMIS). An RSI score ≥13 was considered abnormal. Objective testing for LPR was performed using hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance catheter with dual pH (HEMII-pH) testing; a positive test was defined as more than one pharyngeal impedance events over 24 hours. Spearman rho analyses were applied, and the sensitivity and specificity of the RSI to detect HEMII-pH findings were determined.

RESULTS

One hundred four patients underwent HEMII-pH testing. Mean scores were 16.7 (95%CI 15.1-18.3) for RSI. Sixty-three (60.6%) patients were diagnosed with LPR by HEMII-pH testing. RSI scores were moderately correlated with PROMIS physical (Spearman rho 0.43, P < 0.0001), social (Spearman rho 0.33, P < 0.0001) and mental health (Spearman rho 0.33, P < 0.0001) scores. The RSI has a sensitivity and specificity of 66.7% and 31.7%, respectively, for detecting pharyngeal events on HEMII-pH testing.

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate sensitivity and lack of specificity of the RSI for detecting increased pharyngeal reflux events. Reflux-specific and general health status instruments are correlated. Further investigation could assess the diagnostic ability of RSI compared proximal reflux events on HEMII-pH, as well as whether health status instruments can be used to detect clinically meaningful change in the LPR population.

Treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease: A systematic review

BACKGROUNG

For a long time, laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) has been treated by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with an uncertain success rate.

AIM

To shed light the current therapeutic strategies used for LPRD in order to analysis the rationale in the LPRD treatment.

METHODS

Three authors conducted a PubMed search to identify papers published between January 1990 and February 2019 about the treatment of LPRD. Clinical prospective or retrospective studies had to explore the impact of medical treatment(s) on the clinical presentation of suspected or confirmed LPRD. The criteria for considering studies for the review were based on the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome framework.

RESULTS

The search identified 1355 relevant papers, of which 76 studies met the inclusion criteria, accounting for 6457 patients. A total of 64 studies consisted of empirical therapeutic trials and 12 were studies where authors formally identified LPRD with pH-monitoring or multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH). The main therapeutic scheme consisted of once or twice daily PPIs for a duration ranged from 4 to 24 wk. The most used PPIs were omeprazole, esomeprazole, rabeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole with a success rate ranging from 18% to 87%. Other composite treatments have been prescribed including PPIs, alginate, prokinetics, and H₂ Receptor antagonists.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the development of MII-pH and the identification of LPRD subtypes (acid, nonacid, mixed), future studies are needed to improve the LPRD treatment considering all subtypes of reflux.

The management of suspected or confirmed laryngopharyngeal reflux patients with recalcitrant symptoms: A contemporary review

OBJECTIVE

To summarise current knowledge about the prevalence, aetiology and management of recalcitrant laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients-those who do not respond to anti-reflux medical treatment.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines to identify studies that reported success of anti-reflux medical treatment with emphasis on studies that attempted to be rigorous in defining a population of LPR patients and which subsequently explored the characteristics of non-responder patients (ie aetiology of resistance; differential diagnoses; management and treatment). Three investigators screened publications for eligibility from PubMED, Cochrane Library and Scopus and excluded studies based on predetermined criteria. Design, diagnostic method, exclusion criteria, treatment characteristics, follow-up and quality of outcome assessment were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 139 articles screened, 45 met the inclusion criteria. The definition of non-responder patients varied substantially from one study to another and often did not include laryngopharyngeal signs. The reported success rate of conventional therapeutic trials ranged from 17% to 87% and depended on diagnostic criteria, treatment scheme, definition of treatment failure and treatment outcomes that varied substantially between studies. The management of non-responders differed between studies with a few differential diagnoses reported. No study considered the profile of reflux (acidic, weakly acid, non-acid or mixed) or addressed personalised treatment with the addition of alginate or magaldrate, low acid diet, or other interventions that have emerging evidence of efficacy.

CONCLUSION

To date, there is no standardised management of LPR patients who do not respond to traditional treatment approached. A diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm is proposed to improve the management of these patients. Future studies will be necessary to confirm the efficacy of this algorithm through large cohort studies of non-responder LPR patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2a.

Vocal Tract Discomfort and Dysphonia in Patients Undergoing Empiric Therapeutic Trial with Proton Pump Inhibitor for Suspected Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

INTRODUCTION

the aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation among dysphonic and vocal tract discomfort symptoms in patients who underwent empiric therapeutic trial with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for a suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 34 patients with suspected LPR were enrolled in this study. All of them were evaluated using the reflux finding score, the reflux symptom Index (RSI), the vocal tract discomfort scale (VTDS), and the voice symptom scale (VoiSS) before and after the PPI treatment.

RESULTS

A significant difference was found between pretreatment and posttreatment reflux finding score, RSI, VTDS, and VoiSS scores. Significant correlations among RSI, VTDS, and VoiSS before the PPI treatment were found.

CONCLUSION

PPI treatment determined a significant improvement of symptoms related to dysphonia and vocal tract discomfort in patients with suspected LPR, in addition, significant correlations among the RSI, VTDS, and VoiSS scores were demonstrated thus suggesting that LPR might influence the response of questionnaires not specifically developed in order to assess the complains in LPR patient.