Pepsin and oropharyngeal pH monitoring to diagnose patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux

The Consistency Between Symptom Scales and Multi-time Point Salivary Pepsin Test for Diagnosing Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the screening diagnostic value of reflux symptom index (RSI) and reflux symptom score (RSS) for laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD).

METHODS

Fifty-two patients hospitalized in the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital between October 2022 and April 2023 were enrolled in the study. These patients completed the RSS, RSI scales, as well as underwent the multi-time point salivary pepsin test (MTPSPT). Cohen's kappa test and receiver operating characteristic analysis were utilized to assess and compare the diagnostic values of the RSI and RSS.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients, comprising 37 males and 15 females, with a mean age of 44 ± 12 years, were enrolled in the study. The Kappa values between RSS, RSI, and MTPSPT were found to be 0.403 (P < 0.05) and 0.192 (P < 0.05), respectively. When considering MTPSPT as the diagnostic criterion, the sensitivity and specificity of RSS were determined to be 76.70% and 76.90%, respectively, while those of RSI were 41.10% and 42.30%. Additionally, the negative predictive values for RSS and RSI stood at 77.70% and 64.70%, respectively, and their positive predictive values were 94.20% and 57.10%. Furthermore, the area under the curves (AUC) for RSS and RSI were calculated to be 0.677 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.464-0.742) and 0.609 (95% CI: 0.533-0.800), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RSS had a better concordance with multi-time point salivary pepsin test results and AUC values when screening for LPRD.

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.

Review article: Diagnosis and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux

BACKGROUND

Laryngopharyngeal reflux has classically referred to gastroesophageal reflux leading to chronic laryngeal symptoms such as throat clearing, dysphonia, cough, globus sensation, sore throat or mucus in the throat. Current lack of clear diagnostic criteria significantly impairs practitioners' ability to identify and manage laryngopharyngeal reflux.

AIMS

To discuss current evidence-based diagnostic and management strategies in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux.

METHODS

We selected studies primarily based on current guidelines for gastroesophageal reflux disease and laryngopharyngeal reflux, and through PubMed searches.

RESULTS

We assess the current diagnostic modalities that can be used to determine if laryngopharyngeal reflux is the cause of a patient's laryngeal symptoms, as well as review some of the common treatments that have been used for these patients. In addition, we note that the lack of a clear diagnostic gold-standard, as well as specific diagnostic criteria, significantly limit clinicians' ability to determine adequate therapies for these patients. Finally, we identify areas of future research that are needed to better manage these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic laryngeal symptoms are complex due to the heterogenous nature of symptom pathology, inconsistent definitions and variable response to therapies. Further outcomes data are critically needed to help elucidate ideal diagnostic workup and therapeutic management for these challenging patients.

Latin American consensus on diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can be challenging given varying symptom presentations, and complex multifactorial pathophysiology. The gold standard for GERD diagnosis is esophageal acid exposure time (AET) measured by pH-metry. A variety of additional diagnostic tools are available. The goal of this consensus was to assess the individual merits of GERD diagnostic tools based on current evidence, and provide consensus recommendations following discussion and voting by experts.

METHODS

This consensus was developed by 15 experts from nine countries, based on a systematic search of the literature, using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation) methodology to assess the quality and strength of the evidence, and provide recommendations regarding the diagnostic utility of different GERD diagnosis tools, using AET as the reference standard.

KEY RESULTS

A proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial is appropriate for patients with heartburn and no alarm symptoms, but nor for patients with regurgitation, chest pain, or extraesophageal presentations. Severe erosive esophagitis and abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI are clearly indicative of GERD. Esophagram, esophageal biopsies, laryngoscopy, and pharyngeal pH monitoring are not recommended to diagnose GERD. Patients with PPI-refractory symptoms and normal endoscopy require reflux monitoring by pH or pH-impedance to confirm or exclude GERD, and identify treatment failure mechanisms. GERD confounders need to be considered in some patients, pH-impedance can identify supragrastric belching, impedance-manometry can diagnose rumination.

CONCLUSIONS

Erosive esophagitis on endoscopy and abnormal pH or pH-impedance monitoring are the most appropriate methods to establish a diagnosis of GERD. Other tools may add useful complementary information.

Diagnostic Value of Fasting and Bedtime Saliva Pepsin Measurements in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

BACKGROUND

The pepsin test is an emerging non-invasive diagnostic approach for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of multiple salivary pepsin tests for detecting LPR.

METHODS

Patients with suspected LPR and asymptomatic individuals were consecutively recruited from January 2020 to November 2022. Patients benefited from hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) and fasting and bedtime saliva collections to measure oral pepsin. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated considering fasting, bedtime, and the highest values of the pepsin tests at ≥16, ≥36, ≥45, and ≥100 ng/mL cutoffs.

RESULTS

The pepsin test was adequately performed in 147 LPR patients and 32 controls. The pepsin tests were 81.6%, 74.8%, and 61.5% sensitive at cutoffs of ≥16, ≥45, and ≥100 ng/mL, respectively. The PPVs were 93.0%, 94.0%, and 94.8%, respectively. The highest specificity (81.8%) was found for the fasting pepsin test at a cutoff of 100 ng/mL. The highest sensitivity (81.6%) was found by considering the highest measured pepsin test at the ≥16 ng/mL threshold. The measurement of fasting saliva pepsin was associated with the highest sensitivity and specificity value. At ≥16 ng/mL, 27 patients had negative findings, indicating that 18.4% (27/147) of the true positive cases were missed by considering the highest pepsin test. The receiver operating characteristic curve reported that a cutoff of 21.5 was 76.9% sensitive and 62.5% specific, while the PPV and NPV were 91.1% and 38.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The consideration of the highest concentration of the fasting and bedtime saliva pepsin collections at a cutoff of 21.5 was associated with the best detection rate and sensitivity of the pepsin tests.

Inhaled fosamprenavir for laryngopharyngeal reflux: Toxicology and fluid dynamics modeling

Objectives

Approximately 25% of Americans suffer from laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), a disease for which no effective medical therapy exists. Pepsin is a predominant source of damage during LPR and a key therapeutic target. Fosamprenavir (FOS) inhibits pepsin and prevents damage in an LPR mouse model. Inhaled FOS protects at a lower dose than oral; however, the safety of inhaled FOS is unknown and there are no inhalers for laryngopharyngeal delivery. A pre-Good Lab Practice (GLP) study of inhaled FOS was performed to assess safety and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling used to predict the optimal particle size for a laryngopharyngeal dry powder inhaler (DPI).

Methods

Aerosolized FOS, amprenavir (APR), or air (control) were provided 5 days/week for 4 weeks (n = 6) in an LPR mouse model. Organs (nasal cavity, larynx, esophagus, trachea, lung, liver, heart, and kidney) were assessed by a pathologist and bronchoalveolar lavage cytokines and plasma cardiotoxicity markers were assessed by Luminex assay. CFD simulations were conducted in a model of a healthy 49-year-old female.

Results

No significant increase was observed in histologic lesions, cytokines, or cardiotoxicity markers in FOS or APR groups relative to the control. CFD predicted that laryngopharyngeal deposition was maximized with aerodynamic diameters of 8.1-11.5 μm for inhalation rates of 30-60 L/min.

Conclusions

A 4-week pre-GLP study supports the safety of inhaled FOS. A formal GLP assessment is underway to support a phase I clinical trial of an FOS DPI for LPR.

Level of Evidence

NA.

The Relation Between Endoscopic and Subjective Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Signs, Vocal Tract Discomfort, Voice Handicap, and Voice Disorder Type: Same Yet Different?

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the relation between subjective voice-related symptoms and endoscopic findings in patients with different etiology of voice disorder and vocally healthy subjects with and without laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

METHODS

The study involved 149 participants (106 female, 43 male) including 125 with various voice disorders (functional, structural, and neurogenic) and 24 vocally healthy individuals. For self-rating the German versions of the Voice Handicap Index (VHI), Vocal Tract Discomfort (VTD) Scale, and Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) were applied, while endoscopic evaluations utilized the Reflux Finding Score (RFS) and Reflux Sign Assessment (RSA). Statistical analyses incorporated ANOVA with Bonferroni posthoc tests to identify group variations. Correlations between VTD Scale, VHI, RSI, RFS, and RSA were evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. To examine test sensitivity and specificity for the VTD Scale and RSA, we performed a receiver operating characteristics analysis. Youden's-Index was applied to determine the cut-off-value with best discriminatory abilities. The diagnosis of LPR was assumed when the criteria of RFS > 7 AND RSI > 13 was met.

RESULTS

Significant differences for all voice diagnosis groups and vocally healthy individuals for RFS and all three self-rating questionnaires were found. Moreover, there was significant correlation between VTD Scale and VHI and RSI as well as RSI and RFS, which was moderate, negative in the group of persons with LPR. However, there was no significant difference for RSA results between the vocally healthy or any diagnosis group.

CONCLUSION

Thus, the RFS may be more suitable to predict reflux and voice-related symptoms. The VTD Scale is a useful instrument in screening voice disorders but also LPR and can therefore be used as a tool for decision-making when transferring to a specialist.

Salivary pepsin as an independent predictor of treatment response for laryngopharyngeal reflux: prospective cohort study with multivariate analysis

To analyze the predictive value of salivary pepsin for treatment outcomes in laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) using multivariate analysis that includes various associated factors. This prospective cohort study was conducted between August 2020 and August 2022. Patients with LPR who had symptoms lasting more than 1 month and a reflux symptom index (RSI) of 14 or higher were enrolled. The participants received a 2-month regimen of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatment and lifestyle modification. Salivary pepsin was checked using fasting saliva before treatment. Salivary pepsin was detected more frequently in the good treatment response group (61.1%), compared to 14.3% in the poor response group. Similarly, patients with higher compliance to lifestyle modifications (> 90%) had a higher chance of a good response (91.7%) compared to those with lower compliance, who had a 53.8% chance of a good response. Other clinical factors have no significant association with treatment response. In multivariate analysis, both pretreatment salivary pepsin and higher compliance with lifestyle modification were found to be independent factors for treatment response (OR 14.457, CI 1.075 ~ 194.37 for both). This study found that positive salivary pepsin and strict lifestyle modification are independent predictors of treatment outcomes in LPR.

Personalized Treatments Based on Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patient Profiles: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

To review the current findings of the literature on the existence of several profiles of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients and to propose personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

METHODS

A state-of-the art review of the literature was conducted using the PubMED, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. The information related to epidemiology, demographics, clinical presentations, diagnostic approaches, and therapeutic responses were extracted to identify outcomes that may influence the clinical and therapeutic courses of LPR.

RESULTS

The clinical presentation and therapeutic courses of LPR may be influenced by gender, age, weight, comorbidities, dietary habits and culture, anxiety, stress, and saliva enzyme profile. The clinical expression of reflux, including laryngopharyngeal, respiratory, nasal, and eye symptoms, and the hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring profile of patients are important issues to improve in patient management. The use of more personalized therapeutic strategies appears to be associated with better symptom relief and cures over the long-term. The role of pepsin in LPR physiology is well-established but the lack of information about the role of other gastrointestinal enzymes in the development of LPR-related mucosa inflammation limits the development of future enzyme-based personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

CONCLUSION

Laryngopharyngeal reflux is a challenging ear, nose, and throat condition associated with poor therapeutic responses and a long-term burden in Western countries. Artificial intelligence should be used for developing personalized therapeutic strategies based on patient features.

A combined treatment for patients with dry eye and associated laryngopharyngeal reflux: a real-life approach

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of administering a combined therapy in patients with dry eye syndrome (DES) and associated laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

METHODS

The study was retrospective, open, observational, and conducted in a real-life setting. Patients had pathological symptom assessment in dry eye (SANDE) and reflux symptom index (RSI) at baseline. Patients were re-assessed after 1mo and at the end of treatment. The treatment consisted of a three-month course based on the combined therapy: Gastroftal eye drops, one drop three times a day, and Gastroftal tablets, two tablets after lunch and two tablets after dinner. Tear break-up-time (TBUT) test, Schirmer test, RSI, and SANDE questionnaire were evaluated.

RESULTS

The study included 253 patients. The mean age was 58±11.19y. TBUT test score and Schirmer's test significantly increased (both P<0.001) after 1mo and at the end of treatment. The RSI score and SANDE scores significantly decreased (both P<0.001) after 1mo and at the end of treatment.

CONCLUSION

The current, retrospective, and open study shows that combined therapy using Gastroftal eye drops and tablets could represent a valuable option in managing patients with DES associated with LPR.

Prethyroidectomy voice and swallowing disorders and the possible role of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate voice and swallowing function before thyroid surgery and to explore the possible role of thyroid enlargement and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of patients who underwent hemi- or total thyroidectomy (n = 118) and compared the results with patients of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 110). All subjects underwent videolaryngostroboscopy, filled in subjective evaluations of voice, swallowing and reflux complaints. Acoustic voice analysis (AVA), maximum phonation time (MPT) and perceptual voice evaluation were conducted.

RESULTS

We found no difference in voice quality between study and control group, neither in subjective complaints nor in AVA or perceptual evaluation. We did find indicative signs of minor laryngeal changes in thyroid group. Swallowing Impairment Score (SIS) revealed worse swallowing function in thyroid patients (p = 0.0006). Comparison of Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) scores revealed that thyroid group patients have higher values compared to control group (p = 0.006). Nevertheless, Reflux Finding Score (RFS) showed identical scores in both groups (p = 0.220). In thyroid group there was a strong positive correlation between RSI and SIS (ρ = 0.641), but no correlation between RFS and SIS (ρ = -0.002). In addition, we found a weak positive correlation between thyroid weight and RFS (ρ = 0.379).

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in laryngeal area caused by thyroid disorders do not lead to subjective but indicate slight objective disturbances in voice quality. We detected a decline in swallowing quality within thyroid patients. Higher RSI scores and a positive correlation between RFS and thyroid weight, indicate a possible role of thyroid gland in LPR.

Pepsin concentration in oral lavage fluid of rabbit reflux model constructed by dilating the lower esophageal sphincter

The aim of this study was to explore the changes in pH and pepsin concentrations in oral lavage fluid of rabbit reflux model. A total of 18 New Zealand rabbits were randomly divided into two groups. The lower esophageal sphincters (LESs) of the rabbits in the experimental group (EG) were dilated by balloon after the LESs were localized by manometry. The pH levels of the throat and the lower esophagus were monitored 1 week before and 2 weeks after inflation. Oral lavage fluid was collected 1 week before, and 2 and 8 weeks after inflation. The pH monitoring showed that the percentage of reflux time, the number of reflux events, and the longest time of reflux after the dilation (AE) in the EG were significantly higher than before the dilation (P < 0.01). The pepsin concentrations at 2 and 8 weeks AE in the EG were significantly higher than that before and that in the control group (P < 0.05). Based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the best diagnostic threshold value was 30.3 ng/ml. The reflux model constructed by balloon inflation of the LES in rabbits is characterized by a decrease in throat pH and an increase in salivary pepsin concentration.

Clinical relevance of salivary pepsin detection in diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease subtypes

Background

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is heterogeneous with a varied symptom spectrum and reflux profiles. Its definite diagnosis often requires invasive tools including endoscopy or reflux monitoring. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of salivary pepsin detection as a non-invasive screening tool to diagnose GERD of different subtypes.

Methods

A total of 77 patients with suspected GERD symptoms and 12 asymptomatic controls were analysed. All participants performed symptom evaluation, upper endoscopy, esophageal manometry, and 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-dual pH probe monitoring. Saliva was self-collected across three different time points: at early fasting, postprandially, and at symptom occurrence. Salivary pepsin levels were measured via Peptest. The optimal threshold of salivary pepsin for diagnosing distal or proximal reflux was determined according to a receiver-operating characteristic curve.

Results

The average salivary pepsin concentration of suspected GERD patients was significantly higher than that of controls (100.63 [68.46, 141.38] vs 67.90 [31.60, 115.06] ng/mL, P = 0.044), although no difference was found among patients with different symptom spectrums. The distal reflux group had a higher average pepsin concentration than non-reflux patients (170.54 [106.31, 262.76] vs 91.13 [63.35, 127.63] ng/mL, P = 0.043), while no difference was observed between the distal reflux group and the proximal reflux group. The optimal cut-off value of salivary pepsin concentration for diagnosing pathological distal reflux was 157.10 ng/mL, which was higher than that for diagnosing pathological proximal reflux (122.65 ng/mL). The salivary pepsin concentration was significantly correlated with distal and proximal reflux parameters.

Conclusions

Salivary pepsin measurement can help in identifying true GERD with pathological distal reflux or proximal reflux, regardless of different symptom spectrums. A higher threshold should be applied for diagnosing distal reflux than for proximal reflux.

Effect of trans-nasal humidified rapid insufflation ventilatory exchange on reflux and microaspiration in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy during induction of general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Reflux aspiration is a rare but serious complication during induction of anesthesia. The primary aim of this study is to compare the incidence of reflux and microaspiration in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy during induction of general anesthesia using either a facemask or trans-nasal humidified rapid insufflation ventilatory exchange.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, randomized, controlled trial. Thirty patients were allocated to either a facemask or a trans-nasal humidified rapid insufflation ventilatory exchange (THRIVE) group. Pre-oxygenation for 5 min with a facemask or THRIVE, positive pressure ventilation for 2 min or THRIVE for 2 min after anesthesia induction was followed. Before endotracheal intubation, the secretion above and below the glottis was collected to measure pepsin content and analyze blood gas. The ELISA assay for supra- and subglottic human pepsin content was used to detect the presence of reflux and microaspiration. The primary outcome was the incidence of reflux and microaspiration. Secondary outcomes were apnea time, PaO2 before tracheal intubation, and the end-expiratory carbon dioxide partial pressure.

Results

Patients in the THRIVE group had a significantly longer apnea time (379.55 ± 94.12 s) compared to patients in the facemask group (172.96 ± 58.87 s; p < 0.001). There were no differences observed in PaO2 between the groups. A significant difference in gastric insufflation, reflux, and microaspiration was observed between the groups. Gastric insufflation was 6.9% in the THRIVE group vs. 28.57% kPa in the facemask group (p = 0.041); reflux was 10.34% in the THRIVE group vs. 32.14% kPa in the facemask group (p = 0.044); and microaspiration was 0% in the THRIVE group vs. 17.86% kPa in the facemask group (p = 0.023).

Conclusion

The application of THRIVE during induction of general anesthesia reduced the incidence of reflux and microaspiration while ensuring oxygenation and prolonged apnea time in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. THRIVE may be an optimal way to administer oxygen during the induction of general anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients.

Clinical trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, No: ChiCTR2100054086, https://www.chictr.org.cn/indexEN.html.

Diagnostic Value of Pepsin Measurements in Dysphonia Attributed to Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the diagnostic value of pepsin test in detecting laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in patients with suspected LPR-induced dysphonia.

METHODS

Dysphonic and non-dysphonic patients with LPR at the 24-hour hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) were recruited from January 2019 to November 2022. Patients collected saliva/sputum samples to measure pepsin concentrations. Symptoms and findings were studied through reflux symptom score (RSS) and reflux sign assessment (RSA). Voice quality was assessed with maximum phonation time, GRBAS, voice handicap index (VHI), and acoustic parameters at baseline and 3-month post-treatment. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of pepsin tests for dysphonia-related to LPR were calculated at ≥16 ng/mL cutoff. The relationship between HEMII-pH, clinical features, voice quality outcomes, and pepsin measurement was investigated.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients with LPR at the HEMII-pH completed the evaluations accounting for 30 patients consulting for dysphonia. Dysphonic patients reported higher RSS than non-dysphonic patients. RSS, RSA, laryngeal findings, VHI, and grade of dysphonia significantly improved from baseline to 3-month posttreatment. Pepsin test detected LPR in 73% of dysphonic cases. The pepsin test was 73.3 sensitive and 18.9 specific when considering the highest pepsin level of morning, postlunch, and postdinner sputum collections. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV varied regarding the time of sputum collections. There was a strong significant association between the concentration of the morning pepsin test and the severity of laryngeal RSA score (P = 0.018). The morning pepsin saliva test concentration was predictive of the 3-month otolaryngological RSS (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Pepsin test is a sensitive but poorly specific diagnostic approach for patients with dysphonia attributed to LPR. Multiple pepsin measurements may increase the sensitivity and predictive value of pepsin test. Future large-cohort studies are needed to investigate the accuracy of pepsin test in this population.

Amprenavir inhibits pepsin-mediated laryngeal epithelial disruption and E-cadherin cleavage in vitro

Background

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) causes chronic cough, throat clearing, hoarseness, and dysphagia and can promote laryngeal carcinogenesis. More than 20% of the US population suffers from LPR and there is no effective medical therapy. Pepsin is a predominant source of damage during LPR which disrupts laryngeal barrier function potentially via E-cadherin cleavage proteolysis and downstream matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) dysregulation. Fosamprenavir (FDA-approved HIV therapeutic and prodrug of amprenavir) is a pepsin-inhibiting LPR therapeutic candidate shown to rescue damage in an LPR mouse model. This study aimed to examine amprenavir protection against laryngeal monolayer disruption and related E-cadherin proteolysis and MMP dysregulation in vitro.

Methods

Laryngeal (TVC HPV) cells were exposed to buffered saline, pH 7.4 or pH 4 ± 1 mg/mL pepsin ± amprenavir (10-60 min). Analysis was performed by microscopy, Western blot, and real time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).

Results

Amprenavir (1 μM) rescued pepsin acid-mediated cell dissociation (p < .05). Pepsin acid caused E-cadherin cleavage indicative of regulated intramembrane proteolysis (RIP) and increased MMP-1,3,7,9,14 24-h postexposure (p < .05). Acid alone did not cause cell dissociation or E-cadherin cleavage. Amprenavir (10 μM) protected against E-cadherin cleavage and MMP-1,9,14 induction (p < .05).

Conclusions

Amprenavir, at serum concentrations achievable provided the manufacturer's recommended dose of fosamprenavir for HIV, protects against pepsin-mediated cell dissociation, E-cadherin cleavage, and MMP dysregulation thought to contribute to barrier dysfunction and related symptoms during LPR. Fosamprenavir to amprenavir conversion by laryngeal epithelia, serum and saliva, and relative drug efficacies in an LPR mouse model are under investigation to inform development of inhaled formulations for LPR.

Is magnetic sphincter augmentation indicated in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux?

Up to 30% of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) suffer from laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) with symptoms, as chronic cough, laryngitis, or asthma. Besides life-style modifications and medical acid suppression, laparoscopic fundoplication is an established treatment option. Treatment-related side effects after laparoscopic fundoplication have to be weighted against LPR symptom control in 30-85% of patients after surgery. Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is described as an effective alternative to fundoplication for surgical treatment of GERD. However, evidence on the efficacy of MSA in patients with LPR is very limited. Preliminary data on the results of MSA treating LPR symptoms in patients with acid and weakly acid reflux are promising; showing comparable results to laparoscopic fundoplication by providing the potential of decrease side effects.

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.

Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation for suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux disease

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) combined with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy on symptoms and signs of patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD).

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled study. Seventy patients with reflux symptom index (RSI) > 13 and reflux finding score (RFS) > 7 were recruited and received PPI alone (control group) or TEAS combined with PPI (experimental group) for 12 weeks. Patients in the experimental group received TEAS at Tiantu (RN22), Renying (ST9), and Neiguan (PC6) once a day, five times a week. RSI, RFS, throat pain visual analog score (VAS), and LPR-health-related quality-of-life (LPR-HRQL) scores were evaluated at baseline and after 4 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

The decreases in total RSI and RFS, along with several subscores, were significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group after 12 weeks (P < 0.05). The throat pain VAS and LPR-HRQL scores decreased significantly at 4 and 12 weeks after treatment in both groups, with significant differences between the groups (P < 0.001). No severe adverse events occurred, and the rates of adverse events were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with PPI alone, TEAS combined with PPI showed a significantly greater improvement in symptoms, signs, and quality of life in the treatment of LPRD without increasing the occurrence of adverse effects. Therefore, TEAS could serve as a useful and safe treatment method for LPRD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2100046755.

Submucosal Clustered Brownish Microvessels Based on NBI Endoscopy: A Characteristic of LPR

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the characteristics of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) by using narrow band imaging (NBI) endoscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective study.

SETTING

A large-volume practice with tertiary care providers.

METHODS

A total of 67 patients with suspected LPR who underwent 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring were included from June 2020 to March 2022. Manifestations of NBI endoscopy included submucosal clustered brownish microvessels (CBMs), spotted brownish microvessels, and no special microvessels; the latter 2 formed the non-CBM group. The manifestations of all patients and their changes were observed after 8 weeks of proton pump inhibitor and symptomatic treatment for patients with LPR, and symptomatic treatment for patients without LPR.

RESULTS

According to the results of 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring, the incidence of submucosal CBMs was significantly higher in patients with LPR (30 cases) than in those without LPR (37 cases, P < .001), particularly in the posterior cricoid area (P < .001). Besides Reflux Finding Score, the incidence of signs such as subglottic edema and vocal fold edema was significantly higher in the CBM group than the non-CBM group (P < .05). Finally, 22 patients with LPR (91.7%) and only 2 patients without LPR (28.6%) underwent a transformation from CBMs to spotted brownish microvessels after continuous medication for 8 weeks in the CBM group (χ² = 15.916, P < .001), while no significant change was observed in patients with or without LPR in the non-CBM group (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Submucosal CBMs in the posterior cricoid area under NBI endoscopy may be a characteristic of LPR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Pediatric Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in the Last Decade: What Is New and Where to Next?

BACKGROUND

Laryngopharyngeal reflux may affect people of any age; still, most of the accumulated knowledge concerns adults, and evidence regarding pediatric populations remains relatively restricted. This study aims to review the most recent and emerging aspects of pediatric laryngopharyngeal reflux from the last ten years. It also attempts to identify gaps in knowledge and highlight discrepancies that future research should urgently address.

METHODS

An electronic search of the MEDLINE database was conducted, limited to January 2012 through December 2021. Non-English language articles, case reports, and studies that concerned a purely or predominantly adult population were excluded. The information from the articles with the most relevant contribution was initially categorized by theme and subsequently synthesized into a narrative form.

RESULTS

86 articles were included, of which 27 were review articles, eight were surveys, and 51 were original articles. Our review systematically maps the research done in the last decade and provides an updated overview and the current state-of-the-art in this subject.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite discrepancies and heterogeneity in accumulating research, evidence gathered so far endorses a need for refining an escalating multiparameter diagnostic approach. A step-wise therapeutic plan appears to be the most reasonable management approach, starting with behavioral changes for mild to moderate, uncomplicated cases and escalating to personalized pharmacotherapy options for severe or nonresponsive cases. Surgical options could be considered in the most severe cases when potentially life-threatening symptoms persist despite maximal medical therapy. Over the past decade, the amount of available evidence has been gradually increasing; however, its strength remains low. Several aspects remain markedly under-addressed, and further adequately powered, multicenter, controlled studies with uniformity in diagnostic procedures and criteria are urgently needed.

[Consistency analysis of pepsin immunohistochemistry and pepsin test box in the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux]

Objective:To analyze the consistency of pepsin assay kit, pepsin IHC, reflux symptom index（RSI） and reflux finding score（RFS） in the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease（LPRD）. Methods:The clinical data of 61 inpatients with laryngeal diseases who were admitted to the Department of Otolaryngology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University from May 2020 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The RSI and RFS scores, the Formwitz score of pepsin immunohistochemistry, and the results of pepsin detection kit were recorded. ICC group correlation coefficient and Kappa consistency analysis was used for three detection methods. Results:Among 61 patients, 30 cases were positive and 31 cases were negative for the pepsin test kit, with a positive rate of 49.18%. The positive rate of pepsin immunohistochemistry was 45.90%（28/61）, and the diagnostic agreement rate between the two was 70.49%. The consistency between them was high（κ=0.409）. The positive rate of RSI and RFS in diagnosing LPRD was 62.30%（38/61）, and the consistency rate was 73.77% with pepsin detection kit. The consistency between them was high（κ=0.486）. Taking pepsin IHC as the reference standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of pepsin detection kit were 71.43%（20/28）, 69.70%（23/33）, 66.67%（20/30） and 74.19%（23/31）, respectively. Using RSI and RFS scales as reference criteria, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of pepsin detection kit were 89.29%（25/28）, 60.61%（20/33）, 65.79%（25/38） and 86.96%（20/23）, respectively. Analysis of correlation coefficient within ICC group: ICC value was 0.628, 95% confidence interval（0.497-0.741）, the three methods have good consistency. Conclusion:The RSI and RFS scale scores were in good agreement with the pepsin test kit, and the pepsin test kit was also in good agreement with pepsin immunohistochemistry. As a non-invasive diagnostic technique, the pepsin test kit can be widely used in the diagnosis of pharyngeal reflux in combination with pepsin immunohistochemistry and RSI and RFS scale.

Oral and Inhaled Fosamprenavir Reverses Pepsin-Induced Damage in a Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Mouse Model

OBJECTIVE

More than 20% of the US population suffers from laryngopharyngeal reflux. Although dietary/lifestyle modifications and alginates provide benefit to some, there is no gold standard medical therapy. Increasing evidence suggests that pepsin is partly, if not wholly, responsible for damage and inflammation caused by laryngopharyngeal reflux. A treatment specifically targeting pepsin would be amenable to local, inhaled delivery, and could prove effective for endoscopic signs and symptoms associated with nonacid reflux. The aim herein was to identify small molecule inhibitors of pepsin and test their efficacy to prevent pepsin-mediated laryngeal damage in vivo.

METHODS

Drug and pepsin binding and inhibition were screened by high-throughput assays and crystallography. A mouse model of laryngopharyngeal reflux (mechanical laryngeal injury once weekly for 2 weeks and pH 7 solvent/pepsin instillation 3 days/week for 4 weeks) was provided inhibitor by gavage or aerosol (fosamprenavir or darunavir; 5 days/week for 4 weeks; n = 3). Larynges were collected for histopathologic analysis.

RESULTS

HIV protease inhibitors amprenavir, ritonavir, saquinavir, and darunavir bound and inhibited pepsin with IC50 in the low micromolar range. Gavage and aerosol fosamprenavir prevented pepsin-mediated laryngeal damage (i.e., reactive epithelia, increased intraepithelial inflammatory cells, and cell apoptosis). Darunavir gavage elicited mild reactivity and no discernable protection; aerosol protected against apoptosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Fosamprenavir and darunavir, FDA-approved therapies for HIV/AIDS, bind and inhibit pepsin, abrogating pepsin-mediated laryngeal damage in a laryngopharyngeal reflux mouse model. These drugs target a foreign virus, making them ideal to repurpose. Reformulation for local inhaled delivery could further improve outcomes and limit side effects.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA. Laryngoscope, 133:S1-S11, 2023.

The diagnostic value of pepsin concentration in saliva for laryngopharyngeal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE

To explore the diagnostic efficacy of pepsin concentration in saliva for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) disease.

METHODS

In this study, we recruited 40 participants with abnormal sensation of throat into the study who visited our hospital from March 2020 to December 2020. The 24 h multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring (24 h MII-pH), reflux symptom index (RSI) and reflux finding score (RFS), pepsin concentration in saliva were collected. The Cohen's kappa test and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed to determine and compare the sensitivity and specificity of five diagnostic methods: RSI; RFS, pepsin concentration, RSI + RFS, RSI + RFS + pepsin concentration.

RESULTS

The area under the curve (AUC) of RSI, RFS, pepsin concentration, RSI + RFS, RSI + RFS + pepsin concentration were 0.767, 0.733, 0.870, 0.750,0.867, respectively. That is, the pepsin concentration has maximum AUC (the cutoff point is 219.47 (ng/mL); the sensitivity and 1-specificity is 0.300, 0.933, respectively.). The positive predictive value was 90.3% (28/31), and the negative predictive value was 77.8% (7/9). The Cohen's kappa coefficients of the five diagnostic subgroups were: RSI 0.486 (95% CI 0.207-0.764, P = 0.001); RFS 0.333 (95% CI 0.021-0.644, P = 0.032); RSI + RFS: 0.517 (95% CI 0.205-0.829, P = 0.001); pepsin concentration: 0.699 (95% CI 0.379-0.931, P = 0.001); RSI + RFS + pepsin concentration: 0.500 (95% CI 0.181-0.819, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The pepsin concentration has the maximum AUC area and highest consistency with the 24 h MII-pH. Therefore, it has certain value in the screening and diagnosis of diseases related to LPR disease.

Diagnostic utility of salivary pepsin in laryngopharyngeal reflux: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Salivary pepsin has emerged as a biomarker for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux (LPR), which, however, has been questioned for its efficacy due to a lack of supporting medical data. Therefore, this study analyzed the diagnostic value of salivary pepsin for LPR and assessed a better cutoff value.

METHODS

Studies were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from their receptions to October 1, 2021. Then, RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0 were utilized to summarize the diagnostic indexes for further meta-analysis. Data were separately extracted by two reviewers according to the trial data extraction form of the Cochrane Handbook. The risk of bias in Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies matched the criteria and were subjected to meta-analysis. The results revealed a pooled sensitivity of 61% (95% CI 50%-71%), a pooled specificity of 67% (95% CI 48%-81%), a positive likelihood ratio of 2 (95% CI 1.2-2.8), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.58 (95% CI 0.47‒0.72), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.67 (95% CI 0.63‒0.71). Subgroup analyses indicated that the cutoff value of pepsin at 50 ng/mL had a higher degree of diagnostic accuracy than that of pepsin at 16 ng/mL in cohort studies.

CONCLUSION

The review demonstrated low diagnostic performance of salivary pepsin for LPR and that the cutoff value of 50 ng/mL pepsin had superior diagnostic accuracy. Nevertheless, the diagnostic value may vary dependent on the utilized diagnostic criteria. Therefore, additional research is needed on the improved way of identifying salivary pepsin in the diagnosis of LPR, and also longer-term and more rigorous RCTs are warranted to further assess the effectiveness of salivary pepsin.

Optimal Timing of the Salivary Pepsin Test for the Diagnosis of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the optimal time point for diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) through combining 24-h hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (24-h HEMII-pH) monitoring and the multi-time point salivary pepsin test (MTPSPT).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective uncontrolled trial.

METHOD

Patients with and without LPR symptoms were included as the test group and the control group, respectively. The patients in the test group underwent 24-h HEMII-pH and MTPSPT. The results of 24-h HEMII-pH were used as a diagnostic criterion for LPR, and the diagnostic value of salivary pepsin tests performed at different time points was compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients were included. Based on 24-h HEMII-pH, the positive rate of LPR in the test group of patients was 84.00%. In the control group, only one person (3.57%) had a positive salivary pepsin test result. The area under the curve (AUC) of the MTPSPT was 0.827. In addition, we separately calculated the AUC of the combined salivary pepsin test at different time points, and found good diagnostic value (AUC = 0.799) when the test was combined with the waking, 1 and 2 h after breakfast and lunch, and 1 h after dinner tests. However, when the number of tests were further increased, the diagnostic value did not improve significantly.

CONCLUSION

Salivary pepsin testing combined with waking, 1 h and 2 h after breakfast and lunch, and 1 h after dinner has almost the same diagnostic value as MTPSPT, and testing at these time points can be an effective method for diagnosing LPR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 2022.

Acute, Recurrent, and Chronic Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: The IFOS Classification

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical patterns and disease evolution of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients.

METHODS

Patients with LPR diagnosed by hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance-pH monitoring were prospectively followed in three medical centers. Symptoms and findings were assessed with reflux symptom score (RSS) and reflux sign assessment (RSA). Patients were treated with 3-to 9-month diet and combination of proton pump inhibitors, alginate or magaldrate. Patients were followed for 3 years to determine the clinical evolution of symptoms over time. LPR that did not recur was defined as acute. Recurrent LPR consisted of reflux with one or several recurrences yearly despite successful treatment. Chronic LPR was reflux with a chronic course of symptoms. Predictive indicators of clinical evolution were investigated.

RESULTS

One hundred forty patients and 82 healthy individuals completed the evaluations. Among patients, 41 (29.3%), 57 (40.7%), and 42 (30.0%) had acute, recurrent, or chronic LPR respectively. Baseline quality of life-RSS (QoL-RSS) and RSS total scores were significantly higher in chronic LPR patients. The post-treatment decrease of QoL-RSS and RSS of acute LPR patients were significantly faster as compared to recurrent and chronic patients. QoL-RSS >5 reported adequate sensitivity (94.2) and specificity (75.3). QoL-RSS thresholds defined acute (QoL-RSS = 6-25), recurrent (QoL-RSS = 26-38), and chronic (QoL-RSS > 38) LPR.

CONCLUSION

Baseline QoL-RSS may predict the clinical course of LPR patients: acute, recurrent, or chronic. A novel classification system that groups patients according to the longevity, severity, and therapeutic response of symptoms was proposed: the International Federation of Otorhinolaryngological Societies Classification of LPR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 133:1073-1080, 2023.

Reflux Finding Score Using HD Video Chromoendoscopy: A Diagnostic Adjunct in Suspected Laryngopharyngeal Reflux?

OBJECTIVE

To explore the use of real-time virtual chromoendoscopy (i-scan) in characterizing the mucosal changes present in subjects with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and to compare the inter-rater and intra-rater agreement of Reflux Finding Scores (RFS) from both laryngologists and general otolaryngologists (ORL) observing exams using both white light endoscopy (WLE) and i-scan.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study that included 66 subjects: 46 symptomatic and 20 asymptomatic of suspected LPR based on the reflux symptom index (RSI). Subjects underwent flexible video laryngoscopic evaluation of the larynx utilising both WLE and i-scan during one continuous exam. Subjects also underwent 24-hour oropharyngeal pH-monitoring (Dx-pH). Two laryngologists and two general otolaryngologists evaluated the anonymized videos independently using RFS. Dx-pH results were interpreted using the pH graph, report and RYAN score. Subjects were then designated into one of three groups: no reflux, acid reflux and alkaline reflux.

RESULTS

For the symptomatic group, no mucosal irregularities or early mucosal lesions were observed except in one subject who had granulation tissue. The mean RFS using WLE and i-scan were, respectively: 11.8 (SD 6.1) and 11.3 (SD 5.6) in symptomatic and 7.3 (SD 5.7) and 7.3 (SD 5.2) in asymptomatic group. The inter-rater agreement of RFS using WLE and i-scan for both groups were good with intraclass correlation, ICC of 0.84 and 0.88 (laryngologists); and 0.85 and 0.81 (ORL). The intra-rater agreement among all four raters were good to excellent and similar for both WLE and i-scan (ICC of 0.80 to 0.99). 47 of 66 subjects had evidence of LPR on Dx-pH results which more specifically showed 39 subjects had "acid reflux" and 8 had "alkaline reflux". Sixteen subjects demonstrated a positive RYAN score but showed none were significantly correlated with their RFS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports the first utilization of real-time video chromoendoscopy with i-scan technology through high-definition flexible endoscopes to attempt to characterize laryngopharyngeal findings in patients suspected of having LPR. Both general otolaryngologists and laryngologists were equally capable of reliably calculating the RFS using both WLE and i-scan, however no significant improvement in agreement or change in RFS was found when i-scan technology was employed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2.

Does hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux have to be 24 h?

PURPOSE

To investigate the diagnostic value of combined multi-timepoint salivary pepsin testing (MTPSPT) and hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and whether an appropriate reduction in the duration of HEMII-pH would affect the accuracy of diagnosis of LPR.

METHODS

Recruited patients were studied with both MTPSPT and HEMII-pH. The diagnosis of LPR was based on the occurrence of > 1 reflux event and/or positive results on any of the MTPSPT. The diagnostic value of combined diagnosis was studied through combining a breakdown of the 24-h HEMII-pH finding and the results of the MTPSPT. The diagnostic value was expressed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).

RESULTS

Based on 24-h HEMII-pH and MTPSPT, the positive rate of LPR was 83.33% and 74.69%, respectively. According to the combined diagnosis, the positive rate of LPR was 90.74%. The sensitivity and specificity of the combined diagnosis both were 89.51% and 100%, when the HEMII-pH intervals were 7 a.m.-6 p.m. and 7 a.m.-7 p.m., respectively. However, when the monitoring time was extended to 8 p.m. and bedtime, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the combined diagnosis both were 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of MTPSPT and HEMII-pH increased the sensitivity and accuracy of diagnosis of LPR. For patients with positive MTPSPT results, the duration of HEMII-pH can be appropriately shortened to reduce patient sufferings.

The effects of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy on salivary pepsin concentration in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of Helicobacter pylori (HP) eradication therapy on salivary pepsin concentration in laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients with HP infection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 477 patients with suspected LPR were enrolled from June 2020 to September 2021. Reflux symptom index, reflux finding score, the positive rates and disintegrations per minute values of HP infection detected by ¹⁴C urea breath test and salivary pepsin concentrations analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were compared in LPR patients and non-LPR patients with or without HP infection. HP-positive patients were treated with HP eradication therapy while HP-negative patients with PPI therapy.

RESULTS

The scores of nagging cough (0.88 vs. 0.50, P = 0.035), erythema or hyperemia (1.93 vs. 1.78, P = 0.035) and vocal fold edema (1.04 vs. 0.85, P = 0.025) were higher in the LPR (+) Hp (+) subgroup than in LPR (+) Hp (-) subgroup. The concentrations of salivary pepsin in the Hp (+) subgroup were higher than in the Hp (-) subgroup either in LPR patients (75.24 ng/ml vs. 61.39 ng/ml, P = 0.005) or the non-LPR patients (78.42 ng/ml vs. 48.96 ng/ml, P = 0.024). Compared to baseline (before treatment), scores of nagging cough (0.35 vs. 0.84, P = 0.019) and erythema or hyperemia (1.50 vs. 1.83, P = 0.039) and the concentrations of salivary pepsin (44.35 ng/ml vs. 74.15 ng/ml, P = 0.017) in LPR patients with HP infection decreased after HP treatment; yet, this was not observed for the LPR patients without HP infection treated with PPI only (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HP infection may aggravate the symptoms and signs of LPR patients, partly by increasing their salivary pepsin concentration.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Liquid Biomarkers in Airway Diseases: Toward Point-of-Care Applications

Background

Liquid biomarkers have shown increasing utility in the clinical management of airway diseases. Salivary and blood samples are particularly amenable to point-of-care (POC) testing due to simple specimen collection and processing. However, very few POC tests have successfully progressed to clinical application due to the uncertainty and unpredictability surrounding their diagnostic accuracy.

Objective

To review liquid biomarkers of airway diseases with well-established diagnostic accuracies and discuss their prospects for future POC applications.

Methodology

A literature review of publications indexed in Medline or Embase was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of liquid biomarkers for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), and COVID-19.

Results

Of 3,628 studies, 71 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Sputum and blood eosinophils were the most frequently investigated biomarkers for the management of asthma and COPD. Salivary pepsin was the only biomarker with a well-documented accuracy for the diagnosis of LPR. Inflammatory blood biomarkers (e.g., CRP, D-dimers, ferritin) were found to be useful to predict the severity, complications, and mortality related to COVID-19 infection.

Conclusion

Multiple liquid biomarkers have well-established diagnostic accuracies and are thus amenable to POC testing in clinical settings.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease and salivary pepsin in patients with heterotopic gastric mucosa in the upper esophagus

BACKGROUND

Heterotopic gastric mucosa in the upper esophagus (HGMUE) is reported to be related to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study investigated the prevalence of GERD and the use of salivary pepsin to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux, especially proximal reflux, in HGMUE patients.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-three HGMUE patients and 50 healthy volunteers were studied. All subjects took a reflux symptom index questionnaire (RSI); underwent endoscopy, barium esophagogram, high-resolution manometry (HRM), and 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH-metry (MII-pH); and salivary pepsin test.

RESULTS

Ninety-five (62.1%) HGMUE patients but no control subjects were diagnosed with GERD. The salivary pepsin concentration, RSI score, DeMeester score, acid exposure time (AET), total reflux episodes, proximal acidic reflux episodes, and proximal weakly acidic reflux episodes were significantly higher in the HGMUE group than in the control group (P < 0.05). The salivary pepsin test showed a sensitivity of 85.9% and specificity of 56.9% for diagnosing GERD using the optimal cut-off value of 75 ng/mL. One hundred and seven (69.9%) and 46 (30.1%) HGMUE patients were categorized as pepsin (+) and pepsin (-), respectively when 75 ng/mL was used as a cut-off value. Male sex, RSI, AET, and proximal acid reflux episodes were positive predictive factors for the occurrence of pepsin (+) in HGMUE patients.

CONCLUSIONS

GERD, especially GERD with proximal acid reflux and related symptoms, was common in HGMUE patients. The salivary pepsin test could be an additional useful test for testing reflux in HGMUE patients, but it will not replace the MII-pH.

Fasting salivary pepsin level as a reliable non-invasive method of screening for laryngopharyngeal reflux in Egyptian patients

Background

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is caused by the regurgitation of gastric contents above the upper esophageal sphincter. Diagnostic gold standard tests like multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) and 24-h dual-probe pH-metry are invasive and expensive which limits their accessibility especially in resource-limited settings. Since pepsin is only produced in the stomach, detecting pepsin in the laryngopharynx would make it a specific marker for reflux.

Therefore, in this study, we measured fasting salivary pepsin in patients with symptoms suggestive of LPR. We aimed to confirm the role of fasting salivary pepsin as a non-invasive diagnostic tool of LPR, to detect a cut-off value for it in Egyptian patients and to study predictors of changes in its level.

Methods

We conducted a prospective case control study at the gastroenterology clinic in Ain Shams University Hospitals. After testing with esophageal pH-metry, 25 symptomatic patients with confirmed LPR and 25 healthy controls were enrolled in the study. Patients diagnosed with organic upper gastrointestinal disorders, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, malignancy or organ failure were excluded. Patients on PPI were advised to stop 2 weeks before testing. All patients were tested for fasting salivary pepsin levels, esophageal pH-metry, and indirect laryngoscopy in addition to routine laboratory parameters.

Results

Out of the 25 LPR patients, 16% of patients had laryngoscope abnormality in the form of mucosal hyperemia and inflammation, and the average percentage of time pH < 4 in esophageal pH-metry testing was 29.14 ± 39.5%.

Comparative study between the 2 groups revealed a significant increase in salivary pepsin in LPR group compared to control group (p < 0.001). By using ROC-curve analysis, salivary pepsin at a cut-off point > 5 ng/ml diagnosed patients with LPR, with fair (77.9%) accuracy, sensitivity = 100% and specificity = 56% (p = 0.0001) while pH-metry (% Time pH < 4) at a cut-off point > 14% diagnosed patients with LPR, with good (87%) accuracy, sensitivity = 80%, and specificity = 100% (p < 0.0001)

Conclusion

Fasting salivary pepsin level at a cut-off value of > 5 ng/ml is a reliable, non-invasive method for detection of LPR especially in resource-limited settings.

Multitime point pepsin testing can double the rate of the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux

OBJECTIVE

To study the value of multitime point salivary pepsin testing (MTPSPT) for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective noncontrolled.

METHODS

For patients who met the enrollment criteria, the reflux symptom index (RSI) and reflux finding score (RFS) were calculated and salivary pepsin testing was performed. The pepsin test was performed every hour from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. by collecting fresh saliva samples. A single positive test result was needed for the diagnosis of LPR. The consistency in the diagnosis of LPR between the two methods was compared with the weighted Cohen's kappa statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients were included. The kappa value between the two methods was 0.566 (p = .00). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of MTPSPT were 76.43%, 85.94%, 92.24%, and 62.5%, respectively. We also compared a single pepsin measure at 7 a.m. with the screening results based on the RSI and RFS, and found a much lower kappa agreement value (0.223, p = .00). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and false-negative rate of pepsin testing at 7 a.m. (fasting) were 37.86%, 92.18%, 91.38%, 40.41%, and 58.57%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of the result of a single salivary pepsin test in the morning yields a relatively higher rate of missed diagnosis of LPR, and multitime point testing through a day increased the accuracy and sensitivity of detection of LPR twofold compared to a single morning fasting sample.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

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.

Salivary peptest for laryngopharyngeal reflux and gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A rapid lateral flow test (Peptest) to detect pepsin in saliva/sputum has been considered as a valuable method for diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the utility of Peptest for diagnosis of LPR and GERD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochran Library (from January 1980 to 26 January 2020) were searched for pepsin in saliva for LPR/GERD diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve data were summarized to examine the accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 16 articles that included 2401 patients and 897 controls were analyzed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of GERD/LPR with Peptest were 62% (95% confidence interval [CI] 49%-73%) and 74% (95% CI 50%-90%), respectively. The summarized diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve were 5.0 (95% CI 2-19) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.66-0.74), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Peptest shows moderate diagnostic value for LPR and GERD. More studies with standard protocols should be done to verify its usefulness.

The Impact of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux on Occurrence and Clinical Course of Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has been proposed both as a trigger for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) onset and as a factor favoring an aggressive clinical course.

STUDY DESIGN

In this prospective study, 106 participants were recruited within a period of 24 months at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Cervicofacial Surgery, University Medical Centre Ljubljana.

METHODS

This study compared a group of RRP patients (N = 36) with a group of LPR patients (N = 28) and a group of healthy participants (N = 42) based on Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), Reflux Finding Scores (RFS), and saliva analyses (pH, pepsin concentration, bile acid concentration, and pepsin enzymatic activity).

RESULTS

The RRP group compared to the LPR group showed a statistically significant difference only in RSI and RFS scores, while the RRP group compared to healthy controls showed significantly higher values in all tested parameters (RSI score, RFS, saliva pH, pepsin concentration, bile acids concentration, pepsin enzymatic activity).

CONCLUSIONS

LPR is common in RRP patients and significantly more prevalent compared to healthy controls. Our results show that saliva analyses are a better office-based tool than RSI questionnaires and RFS scores for diagnosing LPR in RRP patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Association of Pepsin With Inflammatory Signaling and Effusion Viscosity in Pediatric Otitis Media

OBJECTIVE

Otitis media (OM) is a common inflammatory disease spectrum. Cytokine signaling, neutrophil activity, and mucin hypersecretion during recurrent and chronic OM contribute to persistent, viscous middle ear (ME) effusions, hearing loss, and potential for developmental delay. Extraesophageal reflux (EER), specifically pepsin, triggers inflammatory signaling in respiratory mucosa and is associated with OM. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of pepsin with ME inflammatory signaling and the outcomes and examine causality in vitro.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

ME fluid (MEF) and preoperative audiometric data were collected from 30 pediatric subjects undergoing tympanostomy tube placement for recurrent OM or OM with effusion. MEF viscosity was characterized by the surgeon. Pepsin, inflammatory molecules, and mucin were assayed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). ME epithelial primary culture was exposed to 0.1 to 1 mg/ml pepsin at pH 5, 6, and 7 for 30 minutes, and cytokine expression was assayed via qPCR.

RESULTS

Pepsin was observed in the MEF of 77% of patients (range 71-2,734 ng/ml). Pepsin correlated with effusion viscosity, interleukins -6 and -8, neutrophil elastase, and mucin 5B (P < .05). Pepsin-negative MEF was more frequently absent of interleukin 8 or mucin 5B (P < .05). Weak acid was generally insufficient to elicit cytokine expression in ME cells in vitro, however, pepsin induced IL6, IL8, and TNF at pH 7 (P < .05) and weak acid (pH 6) facilitated a response at lower pepsin concentration.

CONCLUSIONS

Pepsin may contribute to inflammatory signaling, persistent viscous effusion, and poorer OM outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Are Multiple Tests Necessary for Salivary Pepsin Detection in the Diagnosis of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the necessity of multiple salivary pepsin tests within a day when diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary hospitals.

METHODS

A total of 138 patients with signs and/or symptoms associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux were included. Salivary pepsin was detected on the day of 24-hour pH monitoring, and the results of salivary pepsin detected once in the morning and multiple times in 1 day were compared with the results of pH monitoring.

RESULTS

Among the 138 patients, pH monitoring results were positive in 112. Salivary pepsin was positive in 47 cases in the morning, which was not consistent with the results of pH monitoring (kappa value = 0.117). With the pH monitoring results as the standard, the salivary pepsin detected once in the morning had a sensitivity of 38.4% (43/112) and a specificity of 84.6% (22/26) for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux. When salivary pepsin was detected multiple times per day, 102 patients tested positive. The consistency with pH monitoring was moderate (kappa value = 0.587). The sensitivity was 86.6% (97/112), and the specificity was 80.8% (21/26). Of the 97 patients with positive results from pH monitoring and salivary pepsin detected multiple times a day, 54 had negative findings for a single detection in the morning, indicating that 55.7% (54/97) of the true positive cases were missed.

CONCLUSION

Although a single detection of salivary pepsin in the morning is more economical, the sensitivity is too low, and it is necessary to detect it multiple times a day.

Diagnostic Value of the PeptestTM in Detecting Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

BACKGROUND

The Peptest^TM is a non-invasive diagnostic test for measuring the pepsin concentration in saliva, which is thought to correlate with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of the Peptest in detecting LPR based on 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring using several hypopharyngeal reflux episodes as criterion for LPR.

METHODS

Patients with suspected LPR were examined with the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), Reflux Finding Score (RFS), fasting Peptest, and MII-pH monitoring. We calculated the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Peptest, RSI, and RFS based on the threshold of one and six hypopharyngeal reflux episodes.

RESULTS

Altogether, the data from 46 patients were analyzed. When one hypopharyngeal reflux episode was used as a diagnostic threshold for LPR, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were, respectively, as follows: 35%, 33%, 100%, 100%, and 3%, for the Peptest; 39%, 40%, 0%, 95%, and 0%, for the RSI; and 57%, 58%, 0%, 96%, and 0%, for the RFS. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Peptest for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were 46%, 27%, 63%, 40.0%, and 48%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A positive Peptest is highly supportive of a pathological LPR diagnosis. However, a negative test could not exclude LPR.

Involvement of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in Ocular Diseases: A State-of-the-Art Review

BACKGROUND

Laryngopharyngeal reflux-associated symptoms embrace a wide variety of head and neck manifestations. Its participation in eye disorders has recently been postulated, and there is currently no consensus in this regard. The aim of this manuscript is to review the role of reflux in the development of ocular signs and symptoms, and its physio-pathological mechanisms.

METHODS

A systematic approach based on the preferred reporting Items for a systematic review and meta-analysis checklist with a modified population, intervention, comparison, and outcome framework was used to structure the review process of studies that evaluated the possible association, with clear diagnostic methods, of laryngopharyngeal reflux and ocular signs and symptoms. Search was conducted in different indexed databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Scielo and Web of Science) and through the meta-searcher Trip Database with the keywords: reflux, laryngitis, laryngopharyngeal, gastroesophageal, ocular, eye, symptoms, signs, conjunctivitis, keratitis, dacryocystitis, dry eye.

RESULTS

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, in which the primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction and the ocular surface disease were evaluated. The local increase of eye pepsin concentration (>2.5 ng/mL) may affect ocular surface though its direct proteolytic activity and the local expression of proinflammatory cytokines. The H. Pylori, with a similar mechanism to reach the lacrimonasal duct, would be associated with the release of proinflammatory and vasoactive substances that would lead to a mucosa injury and chronic inflammation. Ocular Surface Disease Index seems to correlate directly with the reflux severity, with cut-off of 41.67 score as predictor for disease.

DISCUSSION

The role of laryngopharyngeal reflux in the development of ocular disorders has not yet been demonstrated and data are limited and heterogeneous. It seems theoretically conceivable that pepsin may reach lachrymal duct area through hypopharyngeal-nasal gaseous reflux events. Future studies using objective testing for diagnosis and pepsin detection into the tear and nasal mucosa are needed in order to explore this potential relationship.

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

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is defined as backflow of gastral or gastroduodenal content into the upper aerodigestive tract and characterized by a variety of unspecific symptoms such as chronic cough, globus sensation, or mucus hypersecretion. Due to the lack of a gold standard and the heterogeneity of studies, the diagnosis of LPR is still problematic and challenging. However, in patients with characteristic symptoms and endoscopic findings, with an increased reflux symptom index, a pathologic reflux finding score (RFS), pathologic 24 h esophageal or oropharyngeal pH monitoring, and without any other underlying condition, the diagnosis of LPR is probable. In the following review, we critically discuss the abovementioned methods as well as more recent tools such as measurements of pepsin concentrations in the saliva for diagnosis of LPR.

Salivary pepsin A detection related to gastro-oesophageal reflux episodes in children undergoing impedance probe monitoring

AIM

Gastro-oesophageal reflux is routinely diagnosed with invasive intraluminal impedance pH probe monitoring. This study aimed to determine whether gastric pepsin A detected in saliva of children correlates with gastro-oesophageal reflux.

METHODS

Patients undergoing probe monitoring were prospectively recruited between 2014 and 2016 at a paediatric hospital. Standard impedance and demographic data were obtained from electronic medical records. Salivary samples were collected during impedance and measured for gastric pepsin A with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Impedance probe and pepsin data were analysed and compared for correlation.

RESULTS

From 52 enrolled subjects, 28 males and 24 females with mean age 8.0 ± 5.9 and range 0.58-18.0 years, 417 salivary samples were collected. Positive pepsin was found in 14% of samples and 48% patients. The sensitivity of pepsin A in predicting an abnormal impedance was 43% and specificity, 50%. Among pepsin A positive samples, 72% corresponded with a gastro-oesophageal reflux episode. Pepsin peak levels significantly correlated with acidic reflux.

CONCLUSION

Pepsin A was presented in saliva of children undergoing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease investigation. Positive pepsin A was associated with a gastro-oesophageal reflux episode, and its peak value correlated with acidic reflux. Salivary pepsin as a marker for gastro-oesophageal reflux needs further investigation.

Evidence of Pepsin-Related Ocular Surface Damage and Dry Eye (PROD Syndrome) in Patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

Background: patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) showed detectable levels of tear pepsin that explain the nasolacrimal obstruction. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with LPR show ocular surface changes and to investigate the relationship between lacrimal pepsin concentration and ocular alterations. Methods: Fifty patients with positive endoscopic signs for LPR and an equal or higher score of 13 and 7 for Reflux Symptom Index and Reflux Finding Score were enrolled. Twenty healthy patients with no reflux disease and dry eye were included as the control group. After evaluation of ocular discomfort symptoms, the tear break-up time test, corneal staining, and tear sampling were performed. Tear pepsin levels were measured using Pep-test^TM kit. Results: Patients with LPR showed ocular surface changes including epithelial damage (48%) and impairment of lacrimal function (72%). Tear pepsin levels were detectable in 32 out of 50 (64%) patients with LPR (mean ± SD: 55.4 ± 67.5 ng/mL) and in none of the control subjects. Most of the LPR patients complained of ocular discomfort symptoms, including itching (38%), redness (56%), or foreign body sensation (40%). Tear pepsin levels were significantly correlated with the severity of LPR disease and with ocular surface changes. Conclusions: A multidisciplinary approach, including ophthalmological evaluation, should be considered in order to improve the management of patients with LPR.

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.