Unmet needs in treating laryngo-pharyngeal reflux disease: where do we go from here?

Role of alveolar nitric oxide in gastroesophageal reflux-associated cough: prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measured at multiple exhalation flow rates can be used as a biomarker to differentiate central and peripheral airway inflammation. However, the role of alveolar nitric oxide (CaNO) indicating peripheral airway inflammation remains unclear in gastroesophageal reflux-associated cough (GERC).

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to characterize the changes in alveolar nitric oxide (CaNO) and determine its clinical implication in GERC.

DESIGN

This is a single-center prospective observational study.

METHODS

FeNOs at exhalation flow rates of 50 and 200 ml/s were measured in 102 patients with GERC and 134 patients with other causes of chronic cough (non-GERC). CaNO was calculated based on a two-compartment model and the factors associated with CaNO were analyzed. The effect of anti-reflux therapy on CaNO was examined in 26 GERC patients with elevated CaNO.

RESULTS

CaNO was significantly elevated in GERC compared with that in non-GERC (4.6 ± 4.4 ppb versus 2.8 ± 2.3 ppb, p < 0.001). GERC patients with high CaNO (>5 ppb) had more proximal reflux events (24 ± 15 versus 9 ± 9 episodes, p = 0.001) and a higher level of pepsin (984.8 ± 492.5 versus 634.5 ± 626.4 pg/ml, p = 0.002) in sputum supernatant than those with normal CaNO. More GERC patients with high CaNO required intensified anti-reflux therapy (χ2 = 3.963, p = 0.046), as predicted by a sensitivity of 41.7% and specificity of 83.3%. Cough relief paralleled a significant improvement in CaNO (8.3 ± 3.0 versus 4.8 ± 2.6 ppb, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Peripheral airway inflammation can be assessed by CaNO measurement in GERC. High CaNO indicates potential micro-aspiration and may predict a necessity for intensified anti-reflux therapy.

Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease management for recurrent laryngeal contact granuloma: A case report

BACKGROUND

Laryngeal contact granuloma (LCG) is difficult to treat and frequently associated with high persistence and recurrence, despite the availability of both surgical and pharmacological treatment options. An appropriate strategy is therefore needed to help patients with multiple recurrences of LCG to potentially avoid unnecess-ary surgery.

CASE SUMMARY

We describe the case of a 34-year-old male patient with recurrent LCG in which a good response was achieved through successful management of laryngophar-yngeal reflux disease using a combination pharmacotherapeutic regimen consisting of anti-reflux therapy, pepsin secretion inhibition, bile acid neutralization, and lifestyle modifications. This patient underwent surgery to excise the granuloma, then relapsed, underwent a second surgery, which was followed by a second recurrence. The granuloma then disappeared after 9 mo of combined treatment with ilaprazole enteric-coated capsules (10 mg qd), mosapride tablets (5 mg tid) and compound digestive enzyme capsules (2 tablets). The drug regimen was discontinued after one year, and no recurrence of the lesion has been reported during the one-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

We report a combination of pharmacotherapeutics and lifestyle modifications for the management of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease to address recurring LCG.

The Impact of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux on Patient-reported Measures of Chronic Rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the impact of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) on quality-of-life outcomes captured by Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and patients with symptoms of LPR.

METHODS

In a retrospective chart review, SNOT-22 and RSI scores were analyzed in patients seen at a tertiary care center with CRS, LPR, or both CRS and LPR. SNOT-22 items were grouped into sleep, nasal, otologic, and emotional symptom subdomains.

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients (36 with CRS alone, 60 with LPR alone, and 42 with both CRS and LPR) were included. Compared to patients with CRS alone, those with CRS and LPR (CRS+LPR) had higher SNOT-22 total (50.54 ± 19.53 vs 35.31 ± 20.20, P < .001), sleep (19.61 ± 9.31 vs 14.42 ± 10.34, P < .022), nasal (17.38 ± 7.49 vs 11.11 ± 8.52, P < .001), otologic subdomains (9.17 ± 5.07 vs 5.53 ± 5.14, P < .002), and RSI (22.06 ± 9.42 vs 10.75 ± 8.43, P < .003). Patients with LPR alone had higher RSI compared to those with CRS (18.48 ± 9.77 vs 10.75 ± 8.43, P < .037). RSI and SNOT-22 scores were positively correlated irrespective of patient group (R = 0.289, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Compared to patients with CRS or LPR alone, those with CRS+LPR demonstrated higher RSI and total and subdomain SNOT-22 scores. Patients with LPR alone had elevated SNOT-22 despite absent endoscopic evidence of sinusitis.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Hoarseness (Dysphonia) (Update)

Objective

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on treating patients who present with dysphonia, which is characterized by altered vocal quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication and/or quality of life. Dysphonia affects nearly one-third of the population at some point in its life. This guideline applies to all age groups evaluated in a setting where dysphonia would be identified or managed. It is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and treat patients with dysphonia.

Purpose

The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve the quality of care for patients with dysphonia, based on current best evidence. Expert consensus to fill evidence gaps, when used, is explicitly stated and supported with a detailed evidence profile for transparency. Specific objectives of the guideline are to reduce inappropriate variations in care, produce optimal health outcomes, and minimize harm. For this guideline update, the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of advanced practice nursing, bronchoesophagology, consumer advocacy, family medicine, geriatric medicine, internal medicine, laryngology, neurology, otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, pediatrics, professional voice, pulmonology, and speech-language pathology.

Action Statements

The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (1) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination to identify factors where expedited laryngeal evaluation is indicated. These include, but are not limited to, recent surgical procedures involving the head, neck, or chest; recent endotracheal intubation; presence of concomitant neck mass; respiratory distress or stridor; history of tobacco abuse; and whether the patient is a professional voice user. (2) Clinicians should advocate voice therapy for patients with dysphonia from a cause amenable to voice therapy. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following KASs: (1) Clinicians should identify dysphonia in a patient with altered voice quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces quality of life (QOL). (2) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination for underlying causes of dysphonia and factors that modify management. (3) Clinicians should perform laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform laryngoscopy, when dysphonia fails to resolve or improve within 4 weeks or irrespective of duration if a serious underlying cause is suspected. (4) Clinicians should perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, before prescribing voice therapy and document/communicate the results to the speech-language pathologist (SLP). (5) Clinicians should advocate for surgery as a therapeutic option for patients with dysphonia with conditions amenable to surgical intervention, such as suspected malignancy, symptomatic benign vocal fold lesions that do not respond to conservative management, or glottic insufficiency. (6) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of dysphonia caused by spasmodic dysphonia and other types of laryngeal dystonia. (7) Clinicians should inform patients with dysphonia about control/preventive measures. (8) Clinicians should document resolution, improvement or worsened symptoms of dysphonia, or change in QOL of patients with dysphonia after treatment or observation. The guideline update group made a strong recommendation against 1 action: (1) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe antibiotics to treat dysphonia. The guideline update group made recommendations against other actions: (1) Clinicians should not obtain computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with a primary voice complaint prior to visualization of the larynx. (2) Clinicians should not prescribe antireflux medications to treat isolated dysphonia, based on symptoms alone attributed to suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), without visualization of the larynx. (3) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe corticosteroids for patients with dysphonia prior to visualization of the larynx. The policy level for the following recommendation about laryngoscopy at any time was an option: (1) Clinicians may perform diagnostic laryngoscopy at any time in a patient with dysphonia.

Disclaimer

This clinical practice guideline is not intended as an exhaustive source of guidance for managing dysphonia (hoarseness). Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. The guideline is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and it may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem. Differences from Prior Guideline (1) Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include the role of patient preferences, confidence in the evidence, differences of opinion, quality improvement opportunities, and any exclusion to which the action statement does not apply (2) Inclusion of 3 new guidelines, 16 new systematic reviews, and 4 new randomized controlled trials (3) Inclusion of a consumer advocate on the guideline update group (4) Changes to 9 KASs from the original guideline (5) New KAS 3 (escalation of care) and KAS 13 (outcomes) (6) Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs for patients with dysphonia