Diagnosing Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Comparison between 24-hour pH-Impedance Testing and Pharyngeal Probe (Restech) Testing, with Introduction of the Sataloff Score

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.

Association between oropharyngeal ph-monitoring, pepsin saliva concentration and degree of apnea-hypopnea index of obstructive sleep apnea

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) through oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and pepsin saliva measurements.

DESIGN

Prospective uncontrolled study.

METHODS

Patients with sleep disturbances and reflux symptoms underwent polysomnography, 24-h oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and saliva pepsin collections. The prevalence of LPR was investigated in OSA patients according to oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and pepsin measurements. A correlation analysis was performed between pH-monitoring findings, pepsin saliva levels, reflux symptom score-12 (RSS-12), reflux sign assessment (RSA), Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pichot and arousal findings.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients completed the evaluations. LPR was detected in 34/37 (92%) and 29/34 (85%) patients at the oropharyngeal-pH monitoring and pepsin test, respectively. OSA was detected in 30 patients (81%). Among them, LPR was detected in 28/30 (93%) cases. Pharyngeal reflux events mainly occurred nighttime/supine in OSA patients. Both Ryan score and supine reflux time at pH < 6.5 were significantly associated with BMI and the RSA sub- and total scores (p < 0.02). Tongue-base hypertrophy score was positively associated with the number of micro-arousals (p = 0.027); the supine percent of pH < 6.5 (p = 0.030); morning (p = 0.030) and bedtime pepsin saliva measurements (p = 0.037). The bedtime pepsin saliva level was significantly associated with Ryan Score (p = 0.047); AHI (p = 0.017) and the sleep saturation < 90% time (p = 0.040). The saliva level of the morning pepsin was associated with a shortest paradoxical sleep phase (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

OSA patients may have high prevalence of pharyngeal reflux events at the oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and high pepsin saliva measurements. Oropharyngeal pH-monitoring should be useful for the correlation between reflux and sleep findings in OSA patients. Future large cohort controlled studies are needed to determine the prevalence of LPR in OSA and healthy individuals.

A Comparison Between W Score and RYAN Score in Diagnosing Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic value of the W score in differentiating laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) patients from the normal population by pharyngeal pH (Dx-pH) monitoring, compared with the RYAN score.

METHODS

One hundred and eight patients with suspected LPRD and complete follow-up results after more than 8 weeks of anti-reflux therapy were enrolled from the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Gastroenterology and Respiratory Medicine of seven hospitals. Their Dx-pH monitoring data before treatment were reanalyzed to obtain the W score in addition to the RYAN score and then the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were compared and evaluated with reference to the result of anti-reflux therapy.

RESULTS

In eighty-seven (80.6%) cases, anti-reflux therapy was effective, and in 21 patients (19.4%), therapy was ineffective. Twenty-seven patients (25.0%) had a positive RYAN score. The W score was positive in 79 (73.1%) patients. There were 52 patients who had a negative RYAN score, but a positive W score. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the RYAN score were 28.7%, 90.5%, 92.6%, and 23.5%, respectively (kappa = 0.092, P = 0.068), whereas those of the W score for LPRD was 83.9%, 71.4%, 92.4%, and 51.7%, respectively (kappa = 0.484, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

W score is much more sensitive for the diagnosis of LPRD. Prospective studies with larger patient populations are necessary to validate and improve diagnostic efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1800014931.

Increased Sensitivity of Cough Reflex is Not the Mechanism of Cough Attributed to Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

OBJECTIVES

In laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients acid reaches laryngopharyngeal area and stimulates/sensitizes respiratory nerve terminals mediating cough. We addressed several hypothesis: if stimulation of respiratory nerves is responsible for coughing then acidic LPR should correlate with coughing and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment should reduce both LPR and coughing. If sensitization of respiratory nerves is responsible for coughing then cough sensitivity should correlate with coughing and PPI should reduce both coughing and cough sensitivity.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS

In this prospective single center study, patients with positive reflux symptom index (RSI > 13) and/or reflux finding score (RFS > 7) and ≥1 LPR episode/24 hours were enrolled. We evaluated LPR by dual channel 24-hour pH/impedance. We determined number of LPR events with pH drop at levels 6.0, 5.5, 5.0, 4.5, and 4.0. Cough reflex sensitivity was determined as lowest capsaicin concentration causing at least 2/5 coughs (C2/C5) by single breath capsaicin inhalation challenge. For statistical analysis C2/C5 values were -log transformed. Troublesome coughing was evaluated on the scale 0-5.

RESULTS

We enrolled 27 LPR patients. The number of LPR events with pH 6.0, 5.5, 5.0, 4.5, and 4.0 was 14[8-23],4[2-6],1[1-3],1[0-2] and 0[0-1], respectively. There was no correlation between number of LPR episodes at any pH level and coughing (Pearson range -0.34 to 0.21, P = NS). There was no correlation between cough reflex sensitivity C2/C5 and coughing (R = -0.29 to 0.34, P = NS). Of patients that completed PPI treatment, 11 had RSI normalized (18.36 ± 2.75 vs. 7 ± 1.35, P < 0.01). There was no change in cough reflex sensitivity in PPI-responders. C2 threshold was 1.41 ± 0.19 vs. 1.2 ± 0.19 (P = 0.11) before and after PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

No correlation between cough sensitivity and coughing and no change in cough sensitivity despite improvement of coughing by PPI argue that an increased cough reflex sensitivity is not mechanism of cough in LPR. We identified no simple relationship between LPR and coughing suggesting that this relationship is more complex.

Laryngopharyngeal reflux induced sleep-related laryngospasm

BACKGROUND

Sleep-related laryngospasm (SRL) has been defined as the sustained closure of the vocal cords during sleep. Studies have suggested that it is a rare manifestation of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Difficulties in diagnosing SRL and LPR have led to the condition being under-recognised in the clinical setting.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine if LPR was the cause of the SRL symptoms seen in our patients.

METHODS

A retrospective chart assessment of patients with SRL. Patients with risk factors for LPR were identified. These included smoking status, alcohol intake, a history of dyspepsia or history of gastroesophageal reflux disease, a history of late-night eating and a history of eating spicy or fatty foods before bed. A clinical diagnosis based on the history and response to management was made for the diagnosis of LPR. All were advised to refrain from late meals and those with signs of nasopharyngitis were commenced on proton pump inhibitor therapy.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients (mean age ± SD: 57.21 ± 15.18) were included in the study. All had at least one risk factor for LPR. Ten (52.6%) had signs of nasopharyngitis on nasendoscopy. Following treatment, 17 (89.5%) reported no further SRL symptoms at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

SRL is a largely unknown and under-diagnosed condition. We believe this study provides supportive evidence for the causal relationship between LPR and SRL.

The role of pH-impedance monitoring in swallowing disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current evidence about the usefulness and the place of pH study in the management of patients with swallowing disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) are found in approximately 30% of patients with esophageal or oropharyngeal dysphagia. Patients with suspected GERD may benefit from gastrointestinal endoscopy and proton pump inhibitors according to guidelines. The diagnosis of LPR in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia is more controversial because there are no gold standard and diagnostic guidelines. The clinical diagnosis based on empirical therapeutic trial is a reasonable first-line strategy, but many dysphagic patients should not respond to treatment. These patients require hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH), which is the most effective examination providing important information on GERD and LPR features. At the HEMII-pH, GERD patients often report upright (daytime) and supine (nighttime) liquid acid esophageal events with significant esophageal distal acid exposure time. LPR patients have more frequently upright (daytime) gaseous weakly acid or nonacid pharyngeal reflux events without distal esophageal acid exposure abnormalities in many times. The features of reflux at the HEMII-pH may indicate a personalized treatment for dysphagic patients combining proton pump inhibitors, alginate/magaldrate or gastroprokinetic in cases of esophageal dysmotility.

SUMMARY

GERD and LPR are prevalent causes of dysphagia. The large number of reflux patients who do not respond to empirical treatment makes important the awareness of otolaryngologists about pH-impedance monitoring indication, features, and interpretation.

Association of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease and Refractory Chronic Rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

The current study was conducted to explore the association between laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) and refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (RCRS), and to reveal the potential role of LPRD in the development of RCRS.

METHODS

A total of 104 patients diagnosed as chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and hospitalized, as well as 50 healthy participants were enrolled into this study. Among patients enrolled, 53 were RCRS and 51 were CRS. All participants were assessed with reflux symptom index (RSI) and reflux finding score (RFS). Patients with RSI >13 and/or RFS >7 were diagnosed as LPRD. In addition, pepsin in the nasal secretions from the middle meatus tract complex at fasting in the morning was analyzed using ELISA. Patients with pepsin concentration of >75 ng/ml was considered as positive, and confirmed as LPRD.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age, sex, height, and weight among RCRS, CRS, and control groups. The positive rates of RSI and RFS scores were 39.6% in the RCRS and 52.9% in the CRS, respectively, which were significantly higher than that of the control group (14.0%, P < 0.05), respectively. Significantly higher positive rate of pepsin assay was also observed for RCRS(43.4%) and CRS(64.7%) when compared with the control group (18.0%, P < 0.05). The positive rate of pepsin assay was strongly associated with the positive rate of RSI or RFS (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present findings have important implications that RSI and RFS score was highly associated with pepsin assay result in the patients with RCRS or CRS. We confirmed the importance of RSI and RFS scoring system as well as pepsin test, which may offer insight for clinical screening for LPRD among CRS patients.

Clinical Update Findings about pH-Impedance Monitoring Features in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patients

Purpose: The diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is commonly based on non-specific symptoms and findings and a positive response to an empirical therapeutic trial. The therapeutic response is, however, unpredictable, and many patients need pH-impedance monitoring to confirm the diagnosis. Methods: A review of the recent literature was conducted in PubMED, Scopus, and Embase about the pH-study features of LPR patients. A summary of last evidence was proposed. Results: The awareness of otolaryngologists about indications and interpretation of pH-impedance monitoring is low. The hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) is the most reliable examination determining the type and composition of hypopharyngeal reflux events (HRE) and the LPR features. The use of HEMII-pH is important to confirm the diagnosis in selected patients because non-specificity of symptoms and findings. There are no international consensus guidelines for the LPR diagnosis at the HEMII-pH. However, most studies supported the occurrence of >1 acid/weakly acid/nonacid HRE as diagnostic threshold. HREs are more frequently gaseous, weakly/nonacid compared with reflux events of gastroesophageal reflux. HREs occurred as daytime and upright, which does not support the value of double proton pump inhibitors or bedtime alginate. Oropharyngeal pH-monitoring is another approach reporting different sensitivity and specificity outcomes from HEMII-pH. The use of Ryan score for the LPR diagnosis at the oropharyngeal pH monitoring may be controversial regarding the low consideration of alkaline HREs. Conclusions: The awareness of otolaryngologists about HEMII-pH indication, features, and interpretation is an important issue regarding the high prevalence of LPR in outpatients consulting in otolaryngology. The HEMII-pH findings may indicate a more personalized treatment considering type and occurrence time of HREs.