White-line: A new finding in laryngopharyngeal reflux objective evaluation

Why the SAFE-S Strategy for Trachoma? Are Musca sorbens or Scatophaga stercoraria Really the Culprit?-A Brief Historical Review from an Italian Point of View

The biological history of Chlamydia trachomatis is intertwined with the evolution of the man. Infecting Elemental Bodies (EBs), having penetrated mucosal epithelial cells, wrap themselves in a cloak (ĸλαμις) of glycogen that ensures their obligatory intracellular survival and protects this differentiation into Reticulate Bodies (RBs) that feed on cellular ATP. Multiple chemokines and cytokines are involved under the direction of IL-6 in the florid phase and IL-17A in the scar phase. The WHO has successfully identified the SAFE strategy against trachoma (Surgery, Antibiotics, Facial cleansing, Environment) as the blueprint to eliminate the disease by 2020. Recently, interest has been increasingly focused on changing sexual attitudes in different areas of the world, leaving Musca sorbens, Scatophaga stercoraria, and stepsisters fairly blameless, but extolling the role of Chlamydia trachomatis in apparently "sterile" chronic prostatitis or conjunctivitis or, less frequently, in oropharyngitis and proctitis. The addition of an S (SAFE-S) standing for "sexual behavior" was then proposed to also attract the interest and attention not only of Ophthalmologists and Obstetricians/Gynecologists, Urologists/Andrologists, and the School Authorities for information on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, but also of Social Physicians and Pediatricians. This means that sexually transmitted infections should be screened in asymptomatic patients with risky sexual behavior or sexual contact with people diagnosed with a transmitted infection.

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.

Assessment and Diagnostic Accuracy Evaluation of the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) Scale: Psychometric Properties using Optimal Scaling Techniques

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the psychometric properties of the reflux symptom index (RSI) as short screening approach for the diagnostic of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in patients with confirmed diagnosed regarding the 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH).

METHODS

From January 2017 to December 2018, 56 patients with LPR symptoms and 71 healthy individuals (control group) were prospectively enrolled. The LPR diagnosis was confirmed through MII-pH results. All subjects (n = 127) fulfilled RSI and the Reflux Finding Score (RFS) was performed through flexible fiberoptic endoscopy. The sensitivity and the specificity of RSI was assessed by ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 15 LPR patients (26.8%) of the clinical group met MII-pH diagnostic criteria. Among subjects classified as positive for MII- pH diagnoses, RSI and RFS mean scores were respectively 20 (SD ± 10.5) and 7.1 (SD ± 2.5), values not significantly different compared to the negative MII-pH group. The metric analysis of the items led to the realization of a binary recoding of the score. Both versions had similar psychometric properties, α was 0.840 for RSI original version and 0.836 for RSI binary version. High and comparable area under curve (AUC) values indicate a good ability of both scales to discriminate between individuals with and without LPR pathology diagnosis. Based on balanced sensitivity and specificity, the optimal cut-off scores for LPR pathology were ≥ 5 for RSI binary version and ≥ 15 for RSI original version. Both version overestimated LPR prevalence. The original version had more sensitivity and the RSI Binary version had more specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

It would be necessary to think about modifying the original RSI in order to improve its sensitivity and specificity (RSI binary version, adding or changing some items), or to introduce new scores in order to better frame the probably affected of LPR patient.