Relationship between extralaryngeal endoscopic findings, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) response, and pH measures in suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux

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.

Good clinical practice recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. An expert review from the Asociación Mexicana de Gastroenterología

INTRODUCTION

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is very prevalent in the general population, with a broad spectrum of clinical manifestations, requiring accurate diagnosis and treatment.

AIM

The aim of this expert review is to establish good clinical practice recommendations for the diagnosis and personalized treatment of GERD.

METHODS

The good clinical practice recommendations were produced by a group of experts in GERD, members of the Asociación Mexicana de Gastroenterología (AMG), after carrying out an extensive review of the published literature and discussing each recommendation at a face-to-face meeting. This document does not aim to be a clinical practice guideline with the methodology such a document requires.

RESULTS

Fifteen experts on GERD formulated 27 good clinical practice recommendations for recognizing the symptoms and complications of GERD, the rational use of diagnostic tests and medical treatment, the identification and management of refractory GERD, the overlap with functional disorders, endoscopic and surgical treatment, and GERD in the pregnant woman, older adult, and the obese patient.

CONCLUSIONS

An accurate diagnosis of GERD is currently possible, enabling the prescription of a personalized treatment in patients with this condition. The goal of the good clinical practice recommendations by the group of experts from the AMG presented in this document is to aid both the general practitioner and specialist in the process of accurate diagnosis and treatment, in the patient with GERD.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

DESCRIPTION

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

METHODS

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Validation and Reliability of Polish Version of the Reflux Symptoms Index and Reflux Finding Score

(1) Background: To confirm the credibility, consistency, and replicability of the Polish versions of the Reflux Symptoms Index (PL-RSI) and the Reflux Finding Score (PL-RFS). (2) Methods: The translation followed the WHO recommendations. The study group included 100 volunteers (age 15−87) with hoarseness and pharyngolaryngeal complaints. The control group comprised 55 healthy volunteers (age 20−75). Study participants completed the PL-RSI; then, two independent otolaryngologists completed the PL-RFS based on pharyngeal videostroboscopy. Questionnaires were repeated after 7 days, with no treatment before the second round. Additionally, patients underwent 24 h pH-metry. The control group had a single round of questionnaires followed by pH-metry. (3) Results: The PL-RSI is consistent, reliable (Cronbach’s alpha 0.77−0.83; test−retest reliability 0.83), and significantly correlated with other patient-filled tools (p < 0.001). The PL-RFS intra-rater reliability is 0.84−0.91, and inter-rater is 0.88. Both questionnaires strongly correlate with pH-metry (PL-RSI upright Ryan Score 0.35, PL-RFS—0.60). Both clearly distinguish (i) healthy from persons with voice disorders, but without acid LPR (p < 0.0001), and (ii) within patient group between subjects with and without acid LPR (p = 0.0002). (4) Conclusions: The PL-RSI and PL-RFS are reliable and can be recommended to Polish-speaking otolaryngologists. Our findings confirm the role of country-specific factors in RSI results and that practitioners should always use a proper control group.

Gastrointestinal function testing model using a new laryngopharyngeal pH probe (Restech) in patients after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

There is no established correlation between 24-h esophageal pH-metry (Eso-pH) and the new laryngopharyngeal pH-monitoring system (Restech) as only small case series exist. Eso-pH was not designed to detect laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and Restech may detect LPR better. We have previously published a dataset using the two techniques in a large patient collective with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Anatomically, patients after esophagectomy were reported to represent an ideal human reflux model as no reflux barrier exists.

AIM

To use a human reflux model to examine our previously published correlation in these patients.

METHODS

Patients after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy underwent our routine follow-up program with surveillance endoscopies, computed tomography scans and further exams following surgery. Only patients with a complete check-up program and reflux symptoms were offered inclusion into this prospective study and evaluated using Restech and simultaneous Eso-pH. Subsequently, the relationship between the two techniques was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 43 patients from May 2016 - November 2018 were included. All patients presented with mainly typical reflux symptoms such as heartburn (74%), regurgitation (84%), chest pain (58%), and dysphagia (47%). Extraesophageal symptoms such as cough, hoarseness, asthma symptoms, and globus sensation were also present. Esophageal 24-hour pH-metry was abnormal in 88% of patients with a mean DeMeester Score of 229.45 [range 26.4-319.5]. Restech evaluation was abnormal in 61% of cases in this highly selective patient cohort. All patients with abnormal supine LPR were also abnormal for supine esophageal reflux measured by conventional Eso-pH.

CONCLUSION

Patients following esophagectomy and reconstruction with gastric interposition can ideally serve as a human reflux model. Interestingly, laryngopharyngeal reflux phases occur mainly in the upright position. In this human volume-reflux model, results of simultaneous esophageal and laryngopharyngeal (Restech) pH-metry showed 100% correlation as being explicable by one of our reflux scenarios.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Clinical Use of Esophageal Physiologic Testing

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

Changes of Laryngeal and Extralaryngeal Symptoms and Findings in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patients

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To assess the evolution of laryngeal and extralaryngeal symptoms and findings of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) throughout a 3-month to 9-month treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective Controlled Study.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-seven LPR patients and 123 healthy individuals were enrolled from four European hospitals. Patients were managed with a 3-month personalized treatment considering the LPR characteristics at the impedance-pH monitoring. Regarding the clinical therapeutic response, treatment was adapted for 3 to 6 additional months. Symptoms and findings were assessed throughout the therapeutic course with the Reflux Symptom Score (RSS) and the short version of the Reflux Sign Assessment (sRSA). The relationship between patient and reflux characteristics, symptoms, and findings was assessed.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-one LPR patients completed the study. LPR patients exhibited more laryngeal and extralaryngeal symptoms and findings than healthy individuals. RSS significantly improved from baseline to 6 weeks posttreatment and continued to improve from 3 months to 6 months posttreatment. sRSA significantly improved from baseline to 3 months posttreatment. No further improvement was noted at 6 months posttreatment for pharyngeal and oral findings. Laryngeal findings continued to improve from 3 months to 6 months posttreatment. There was a significant association between patient stress level and RSS (P = .045). At 3 months posttreatment, 28.1% of patients had high or complete response, whereas 47.1% required 6 months or 9 months of treatment. Overall, 24.8% of patients had an LPR chronic course.

CONCLUSIONS

Laryngeal and extralaryngeal symptoms and findings significantly improved throughout treatment in LPR patients. The improvement of laryngeal findings was slower. Regarding the low prevalence of some digestive or otolaryngological symptoms, a short version of the RSS could be developed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 131:1332-1342, 2021.

Software improvement for evaluation of laryngopharyngeal pH testing (Restech) – a comparison between DataView 3 and 4

BACKGROUND

When gastroesophageal reflux contents reach above the upper esophageal sphincter, patients may, in addition to typical reflux symptoms, present with atypical, extraesophageal symptoms related to laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Surgical treatment of LPR has shown to lead to 70% symptom improvement, however no gold standard for the diagnosis of LPR exists. In 2007, the Restech Dx-pH was released as a valid method to measure acid exposure above the upper esophageal sphincter. Recently, a new software update was introduced for analysis of measured pH data and calculation of composite scores. The effect of the changes applied to the new software version have not yet been analyzed.

AIM

To compare results generated by DataView 3 to the most recently released DataView 4.

METHODS

All patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms were seen in a specialized surgical outpatient clinic for gastrointestinal function testing. Retrospective chart review was performed of all patients presenting with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease and extraesophageal reflux symptoms, who underwent laryngopharyngeal pH monitoring using the Restech Dx-pH system (Respiratory Technology Corp., Houston, TX, United States) and simultaneous esophageal pH monitoring. DataView 3 and DataView 4 were used to evaluate Restech studies obtained. Diary entries such as mealtimes, supine and upright periods, and symptoms were entered manually to ensure accuracy and precise conversion of data between both software versions. Paired t test was performed for statistical analysis of results.

RESULTS

A total of 174 patients (63.8% female) met inclusion criteria, all suffering from extraesophageal reflux symptoms as well as typical gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Mean RYAN score upright was 48.77 in DataView 3 compared to 22.17 in DataView 4, showing a significant difference (^aP = 0.0001). Similar results were shown for supine period (mean RYAN Score DataView 3 5.29 vs 1.42 in DataView 4, ^cP = 0.0001). For upright periods 80 patients showed a decrease of value of the RYAN score with a mean of -58.9 (mean 51.1% decrease). For supine position 25 patients showed a decrease of value of the RYAN score with a mean of -15.13 [range (-153.44)–(-0.01)], which equals a mean decrease of value of 44.5%. Ten patients showed no oropharyngeal acid exposure in DataView 3, but mild/moderate (n = 7) or severe (n = 3) acid exposure in DataView 4. Correlation with positive esophageal pH measurement was improved in all 10 patients.

CONCLUSION

Results of both software versions cannot be compared to each other. However, our data suggests that DataView 4 may be an improvement of the Restech pH measurement in the evaluation of LPR.

Stretta procedure versus proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of nonerosive reflux disease: A 6-month follow-up

To compare the Stretta procedure with proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of nonerosive reflux disease (NERD).From July 2018 to April 2019, patients diagnosed with NERD and referred for treatment were enrolled. They were treated with either Stretta procedure or proton pump inhibitor (PPI) medication and followed-up for 6 months. The symptom control, quality of life, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, 24-hour pH parameters, PPI usage and satisfaction rate were evaluated. The complications were assessed. The outcomes of the 2 groups were analyzed and compared.Twenty-eight patients in the Stretta group and 21 patients in the PPI group completed the 6-month follow-up. No severe adverse events occurred in both groups. Both interventions were effective in improvement of symptom and quality of life. The symptom score improvement was significantly superior in the Stretta group compared to the PPI group (6.3 ± 3.4 vs 8.5 ± 4.1, P = .03). LES pressure increased significantly in the Stretta group compared to the PPI group (14.2 ± 4.4 mm Hg vs 10.0 ± 4.0 mm Hg, P < .01). Although both interventions improved 24-hour pH parameters, including number of acid episodes (P = .27), acid exposure time (P = .39), and DeMeester score (P = .28), no difference was found between the 2 groups. Complete PPI cessation rate (82% vs 52%, P = .03) as well as satisfaction rate (89% vs 57%, P = .02) was much higher in Stretta group than those in the PPI groupThe Stretta procedure was safe and effective in the short term for the management of NERD. The Stretta procedure resulted in higher LES pressure and achieved better improvement of symptom control and PPI cessation than did PPI in the short term.

Treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease: A systematic review

BACKGROUNG

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Association between laryngopharyngeal reflux disease and autonomic nerve dysfunction

PURPOSE

To assess autonomic nerve function in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) and determine the correlation between LPRD and autonomic nerve dysfunction.

METHODS

Patients with suspected LPRD who visited our outpatient department were assessed using the reflux symptom index (RSI) and reflux finding score (RFS) scales. Eighty-one suspected LPRD patients with RSI > 13 and RFS > 7 were examined using 5-min short-range heart rate variability, and all were given proton pump inhibitor diagnostic treatment.

RESULTS

The root mean square of successive R-R intervals, high-frequency (HF) power, standardized HF, and HF % were significantly lower in the case group than in the control group (p < 0.05); however, the low frequency (LF)/HF ratio was significantly higher in the case group (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the standard deviation of the average normal-to-normal interval, total power, LF power, and LF % between the two groups (p > 0.05). RSI, RFS, and disease duration were negatively correlated with HF power (r = - 0.89, -0.77, and -0.315, respectively; p < 0.05). The LF/HF ratio and disease duration were positively correlated (r = 0.315, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Autonomic nerve dysfunction was observed in our patients with LPRD. LPRD severity was significantly correlated with autonomic nerve dysfunction and negatively correlated with vagal nerve function.