A study with pharyngeal and esophageal 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring in patients with laryngopharyngeal symptoms refractory to proton pump inhibitors

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.

Practical multidisciplinary framework for the assessment and management of patients with unexplained chronic aerodigestive symptoms

OBJECTIVE

Patients experiencing unexplained chronic throat symptoms (UCTS) are frequently referred to gastroenterology and otolaryngology outpatient departments for investigation. Often despite extensive investigations, an identifiable structural abnormality to account for the symptoms is not found. The objective of this article is to provide a concise appraisal of the evidence-base for current approaches to the assessment and management of UCTS, their clinical outcomes, and related healthcare utilisation.

DESIGN

This multidisciplinary review critically examines the current understanding of aetiological theories and pathophysiological drivers in UCTS and summarises the evidence base underpinning various diagnostic and management approaches.

RESULTS

The evidence gathered from the review suggests that single-specialty approaches to UCTS inadequately capture the substantial heterogeneity and pervasive overlaps among clinical features and biopsychosocial factors and suggests a more unified approach is needed.

CONCLUSION

Drawing on contemporary insights from the gastrointestinal literature for disorders of gut-brain interaction, this article proposes a refreshed interdisciplinary approach characterised by a positive diagnosis framework and patient-centred therapeutic model. The overarching aim of this approach is to improve patient outcomes and foster collaborative research efforts.

A perspective on the clinical relevance of weak or nonacid reflux

BACKGROUND

Advances in ambulatory esophageal reflux monitoring that incorporated impedance electrodes to pH catheters have resulted in better characterization of retrograde bolus flow in the esophagus. With pH-impedance monitoring, in addition to acid reflux episodes identified by pH drops below 4.0, weakly acid reflux (WAR, pH 4-7) and nonacid reflux (NAR, pH >7.0) are also recognized, although both may be included under the umbrella term NAR. However, despite identification of ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring, data on clinical relevance and prognostic value of NAR are limited. The Lyon Consensus, an international expert review that defines conclusive metrics for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), identifies NAR as "supportive" but not conclusive for GERD.

PURPOSE

This review provides perspectives on whether NAR fulfills three criteria for clinical relevance: whether NAR sufficiently explains pathogenesis of symptoms, whether it is associated with meaningful manifestations of GERD, and whether it can predict treatment efficacy.

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.

Predictors of Early and Late Response to Esomezol and Lifestyle Modification in Adults With Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: A Prospective, Multicenter, Open-Label Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess predictors of the response to varying durations of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and lifestyle modification treatment for laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD).

METHODS

Between October 2014 and June 2016, a prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-cohort, intention-to-treat, observational study was conducted at eight referral hospitals across the Republic of Korea to examine predictors of early and late response to treatment in adult patients (age ≥19 years) with LPRD. Participants underwent standard treatment (PPI [Esomezol] and lifestyle modification) for 3 months. Response to treatment was defined as greater than 50% improvement in reflux symptom index score. The primary outcome was potential predictors of treatment response at 1 and 3 months. The secondary outcome was potential predictors distinguishing early from late responders.

RESULTS

In total, 394 patients were enrolled. Improved sleep habits was a positive predictor (odds ratio [OR], 1.785; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-3.007; P=0.029), while initial alcohol consumption (OR, 0.587; 95% CI, 0.355-0.969; P=0.037) and past medication history (OR, 0.438; 95% CI, 0.215-0.891; P=0.005) were negative predictors of response after 1 month of treatment. High pre-reflux finding score was a positive predictor (OR, 1.187; 95% CI, 1.049- 1.344; P=0.007), while male sex (OR, 0.516; 95% CI, 0.269-0.987; P=0.046), higher depression score (OR, 0.867; 95% CI, 0.784-0.958; P=0.005), and past thyroid hormone medication history (OR, 0.161; 95% CI, 0.033-0.788; P=0.024) were negative predictors of response after 3 months of treatment. Past medication history (OR, 0.438; 95% CI, 0.215-0.891; P=0.023) was the only negative predictor for early responders compared to late responders.

CONCLUSION

Adult patients with LPRD and a history of prior medication use may require longer treatment durations to achieve a therapeutic response. Future research should explore the incorporation of diverse treatment approaches to improve treatment outcomes for patients exhibiting negative prognostic indicators.

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.

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.

Functional gastrointestinal disorders. Overlap syndrome Clinical guidelines of the Russian Scientific Medical Society of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterological Scientific Society of Russia

.

24-Hour Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance-pH in Proton Pump Inhibitor Nonresponders vs Responders in Patients With Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of reflux in proton pump inhibitor (PPI) nonresponders vs responders in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) by using 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

A tertiary care otolaryngology clinic.

METHODS

Patients with typical LPR symptoms showing >1 proximal reflux episode were considered to have LPR and investigated prospectively. Patients were prescribed high-dose PPI twice daily and followed up for at least 2 months. Patients with LPR showing a ≥50% decrease in the follow-up reflux symptom index score during treatment periods as compared with pretreatment were defined as responders; others were defined as nonresponders. Various parameters in 24-hour MII-pH monitoring between nonresponders and responders with LPR were compared with Student's t test and receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were diagnosed with LPR and categorized as nonresponders (n = 19) and responders (n = 61). Proximal all reflux time and proximal longest reflux time in various MII parameters were higher in responders than in nonresponders (P = .0040 and .0216, respectively). Proximal all reflux time >0.000517% was a better cutoff value to predict responders with LPR as compared with the proximal longest reflux time >0.61 minutes (sensitivity + specificity: 1.317 vs 1.291).

CONCLUSION

Proximal all reflux time in various 24-hour MII-pH monitoring parameters can be helpful to predict the response to PPI therapy in patients with LPR. These findings will help establish a personalized therapeutic scheme for patients with LPR.

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.

Surgical Treatment for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review

Importance

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a prevalent disease that is usually treated with diet, lifestyle modifications, and proton pump inhibitor therapy. However, nearly 10% to 30% of patients do not achieve adequate acid suppression even with high doses of proton pump inhibitors. For these patients with resistant disease, fundoplication may be recommended but the success rate of fundoplication surgery on laryngopharyngeal symptoms and findings remains uncertain.

Objective

To determine whether fundoplication is associated with control of signs and symptoms in patients with LPR.

Evidence Review

A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline to identify studies published between 1990 and 2018 about the efficacy of fundoplication on clinical outcomes of LPR. Three investigators screened publications for eligibility and exclusion based on predetermined criteria. Study design, patient characteristics, diagnostic method, exclusion criteria, treatment characteristics, follow-up, and quality of the outcome assessment were evaluated.

Findings

Of the 266 studies identified, 34 met the inclusion criteria, accounting for 2190 patients with LPR (1270 women and 920 men; mean [SD] age at the time of surgery, 49.3 [6.3] years). A weighted mean of 83.0% of patients (95% CI, 79.7%-86.3%) experienced improvement and a weighted mean of 67.0% of patients (95% CI, 64.1%-69.9%) experienced a disappearance of symptoms, but there is a high level of methodological heterogeneity among studies according to diagnostic method, exclusion criteria, and outcomes used to assess the efficacy of fundoplication. A pH study without impedance study was used in most studies but with various inclusion criteria. According to results of an a priori assessment, the clinical outcomes used were overall poor, excluding many symptoms and findings associated with LPR.

Conclusion and Relevance

The reported studies of fundoplication in LPR disease have important heterogeneity in method of diagnosis, exclusion criteria, symptoms, and signs assessed as therapeutic outcomes; therefore, this systematic review was nonconclusive regarding whether surgery for LPR disease is associated with effective control of sight and symptoms. Otolaryngologists, gastroenterologists, and surgeons must establish a diagnostic criterion standard, clear indications for surgery, and future clinical outcomes to precisely assess the effectiveness of treatment.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Functional Heartburn: Expert Review

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: A diagnosis of functional heartburn should be considered when retrosternal burning pain or discomfort persists despite maximal (double-dose) proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy taken appropriately before meals during a 3-month period. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: A diagnosis of functional heartburn requires upper endoscopy with esophageal biopsies to rule out anatomic and mucosal abnormalities, esophageal high-resolution manometry to rule out major motor disorders, and pH monitoring off PPI therapy (or pH-impedance monitoring on therapy in patients with proven gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD]), to document physiologic levels of esophageal acid exposure in the distal esophagus with absence of reflux-symptom association (ie, negative symptom index and symptom association probability). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Overlap of functional heartburn with proven GERD is diagnosed according to Rome IV criteria when heartburn persists despite maximal PPI therapy in patients with history of proven GERD (ie, positive pH study, erosive esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, or esophageal ulcer), and pH impedance testing on PPI therapy demonstrates physiologic acid exposure without reflux-symptom association (ie, negative symptom index and symptom association probability). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: PPIs have no therapeutic value in functional heartburn, the exception being proven GERD that overlaps with functional heartburn. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Neuromodulators, including tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tegaserod, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists have benefit as either primary therapy in functional heartburn or as add-on therapy in functional heartburn that overlaps with proven GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Based on available evidence, acupuncture and hypnotherapy may have benefit as monotherapy in functional heartburn, or as adjunctive therapy combined with other therapeutic modalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Based on available evidence, anti-reflux surgery and endoscopic GERD treatment modalities have no therapeutic benefit in functional heartburn and should not be recommended.

Comprehensive analysis of acidic pharyngeal reflux before and after proton pump inhibitor treatment in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux

OBJECTIVES

The usefulness of pharyngeal pH monitoring in patients with symptoms attributed to laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has been questioned. One problem is the uncertainty whether the pharyngeal pH monitoring captures the aspects of LPR which are responsible for symptoms. We aimed to gain more insight into this problem by performing a comprehensive analysis of acidic pharyngeal reflux before and after the treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients with suspected LPR.

METHODS

We used simultaneous pharyngeal and distal esophageal 24-hour pH/impedance monitoring to establish the gastroesophageal origin of pharyngeal reflux, and an unbiased approach to analysis by evaluating a whole range of pharyngeal reflux acidity (pH < 6, pH < 5.5, pH < 5.0, pH < 4.5 and pH < 4.0).

RESULTS

PPI treatment substantially (by ~50%) improved the symptoms attributed to LPR. In contrast, PPI did not reduce the number of pharyngeal reflux episodes or duration of pharyngeal acid exposure at any pH level. This was also true in a subgroup of patients considered to be good responders to PPI (symptoms improvement by ~75%). Furthermore, good responders did not have more acidic pharyngeal reflux than the patients who were less responsive to PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI treatment did not reduce acidic pharyngeal reflux despite substantially improving the symptoms attributed to LPR. This may be because pharyngeal pH monitoring does not quantitatively capture the aspects of LPR responsible for symptoms or because acid causes the symptoms also by mechanisms other than LPR. Our results argue against the utility of pharyngeal pH monitoring in patients with suspected LPR.

Salivary Pepsin as an Intrinsic Marker for Diagnosis of Sub-types of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-related Disorders

Background/Aims

To determine the value of salivary pepsin in discriminating sub-types of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and GERD-related disorders.

Methods

Overall, 322 patients with different sub-types of GERD and 45 healthy controls (HC) were studied. All patients took Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire (GerdQ) and underwent endoscopy and 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring and manometry. Salivary pepsin concentration (SPC) was detected by using colloidal gold double-antibody immunological sandwich assay. Oral esomeprazole treatment was administrated in the patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) and extra-esophageal symptoms (EES).

Results

Compared to HC, patients with erosive esophagitis, NERD, EES, EES plus typical GERD symptoms, or Barrett’s esophagus had a higher prevalence of saliva and SPC (all P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the positive rate for pepsin in patients with functional heartburn or GERD with anxiety and depression, compared to HC. After esomeprazole treatment, the positive rate and SPC were significantly reduced in NERD (both P < 0.001) and in EES (P = 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Of the 64 NERD patients, 71.9% (n = 46) were positive for salivary pepsin, which was significantly higher than the rate (43.8%, n = 28) of pathological acid reflux as detected by 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Salivary pepsin has an important significance for the diagnosis of GERD and GERD-related disorders. Salivary pepsin and 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring may complement with each other to improve the diagnostic efficiency.

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.

The management of suspected or confirmed laryngopharyngeal reflux patients with recalcitrant symptoms: A contemporary review

OBJECTIVE

To summarise current knowledge about the prevalence, aetiology and management of recalcitrant laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients-those who do not respond to anti-reflux medical treatment.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines to identify studies that reported success of anti-reflux medical treatment with emphasis on studies that attempted to be rigorous in defining a population of LPR patients and which subsequently explored the characteristics of non-responder patients (ie aetiology of resistance; differential diagnoses; management and treatment). Three investigators screened publications for eligibility from PubMED, Cochrane Library and Scopus and excluded studies based on predetermined criteria. Design, diagnostic method, exclusion criteria, treatment characteristics, follow-up and quality of outcome assessment were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 139 articles screened, 45 met the inclusion criteria. The definition of non-responder patients varied substantially from one study to another and often did not include laryngopharyngeal signs. The reported success rate of conventional therapeutic trials ranged from 17% to 87% and depended on diagnostic criteria, treatment scheme, definition of treatment failure and treatment outcomes that varied substantially between studies. The management of non-responders differed between studies with a few differential diagnoses reported. No study considered the profile of reflux (acidic, weakly acid, non-acid or mixed) or addressed personalised treatment with the addition of alginate or magaldrate, low acid diet, or other interventions that have emerging evidence of efficacy.

CONCLUSION

To date, there is no standardised management of LPR patients who do not respond to traditional treatment approached. A diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm is proposed to improve the management of these patients. Future studies will be necessary to confirm the efficacy of this algorithm through large cohort studies of non-responder LPR patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2a.

Acidic Pharyngeal Reflux Does Not Correlate with Symptoms and Laryngeal Injury Attributed to Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

BACKGROUND

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is suspected when the symptoms are attributed to the penetration of acidic gastroesophageal reflux (GER) into the larynx. However, the relationships between the intensity of LPR and symptoms and laryngeal injury have not been elucidated. Several factors confound the study of LPR, namely pH is monitored in the pharynx (pharyngeal reflux) but the pharyngeal acidity (pH) required to induce laryngeal injury is unknown, the GER origin of pharyngeal acid is not always established, and a recent treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPI) confounds the analysis.

AIMS

We aimed to limit these confounding factors to analyze the relationship between LPR and symptoms and laryngeal injury.

METHODS

We used dual pharyngeal and distal esophageal 24-h pH/impedance monitoring to establish GER origin of pharyngeal reflux, we used an unbiased approach to analysis by evaluating a whole range of acidity (pH < 6, pH < 5.5, pH < 5.0, pH < 4.5 and pH < 4.0) in patients with suspected LPR without PPI for  > 30 days.

RESULTS

Pharyngeal reflux was (median[IQR]) 14[8-20.5] and 4[1.5-6.5] pharyngeal reflux episodes with pH < 6.0 and pH < 5.5, respectively. Pharyngeal reflux with pH < 5.0 was rare. Comprehensive analysis did not reveal any correlation between symptoms (reflux symptom index) or laryngeal injury (reflux finding score) and the number of pharyngeal reflux episodes or duration of pharyngeal acid exposure at any pH level.

CONCLUSION

Unbiased comprehensive approach did not reveal any relationship between acidic pharyngeal reflux and the symptoms or laryngeal injury attributed to LPR. Limited clinical usefulness of pharyngeal monitoring reported by others is unlikely due to confounding factors.

Evaluation and Management of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: State of the Art Review

OBJECTIVE

To review the current literature about the epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature on LPR epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment was conducted. Using the PRISMA statement, 3 authors selected relevant publications to provide a critical analysis of the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The important heterogeneity across studies in LPR diagnosis continues to make it difficult to summarize a single body of thought. Controversies persist concerning epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment. No recent epidemiologic study exists regarding prevalence and incidence with the use of objective diagnostic tools. There is no survey that evaluates the prevalence of symptoms and signs on a large number of patients with confirmed LPR. Regarding diagnosis, an increasing number of authors used multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring, although there is no consensus regarding standardization of the diagnostic criteria. The efficiency of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy remains poorly demonstrated and misevaluated by incomplete clinical tools that do not take into consideration many symptoms and extralaryngeal findings. Despite the recent advances in knowledge about nonacid LPR, treatment protocols based on PPIs do not seem to have evolved.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The development of multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring and pepsin and bile salt detection should be considered for the establishment of a multiparameter diagnostic approach. LPR treatment should evolve to a more personalized regimen, including diet, PPIs, alginate, and magaldrate according to individual patient characteristics. Multicenter international studies with a standardized protocol could improve scientific knowledge about LPR.

Clinical outcomes of laryngopharyngeal reflux treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the therapeutic benefit of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) over placebo in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and to analyze the epidemiological factors of heterogeneity in the literature.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted to identify articles published between 1990 and 2018 about clinical trials describing the efficiency of medical treatment(s) on LPR. First, a meta-analysis of placebo randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPIs versus placebo was conducted according to diet. The heterogeneity, response to PPIs, and evolution of clinical scores were analyzed for aggregate results. Second, a systematic review of diagnosis methods, clinical outcome of treatment, and therapeutic regimens was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

RESULTS

The search identified 1,140 relevant publications, of which 72 studies met the inclusion criteria for a total of 5,781 patients. Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The combined relative risk was 1.31 in favor of PPIs and increased to 1.42 when patients did not receive diet recommendations. Randomized controlled trials were characterized by a significant heterogeneity due to discrepancies in clinical therapeutic outcomes, diagnosis methods (lack of gold standard diagnostic tools), and therapeutic scheme. The epidemiological analysis of all articles supports the existence of these discrepancies in the entire literature. In particular, many symptoms and signs commonly encountered in LPR are not assessed in the treatment effectiveness. The lack of diagnosis precision and variability of inclusion criteria particularly create bias in all reported and included articles.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis supports a mild superiority of PPIs over placebo and the importance of diet as additional treatment but demonstrates the heterogeneity between studies, limiting the elaboration of clear conclusions. International recommendations are proposed for the development of future trials. Laryngoscope, 129:1174-1187, 2019.

Throat Clearing, Frequently Reported, But is it GERD Related?

GOALS

To identify the association of throat clearing (TC) with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) during objective reflux monitoring in a large number of patients studied in our esophageal testing laboratory.

BACKGROUND

TC is frequently reported and considered to be an atypical symptom of GERD. Atypical GERD symptoms have been widely investigated and empirically treated with proton pump inhibitors.

STUDY

We reviewed ambulatory impedance-pH studies of 186 patients referred for evaluation of possible GERD from January 2011 to December 2015 to evaluate the symptom association (SA) of TC with both an abnormal number of reflux episodes and also abnormal esophageal acid exposure (EAE). Patients were divided into 2 groups; group 1: TC is the only reported symptom, group 2: TC is one of the symptoms. All patients were studied off proton pump inhibitors therapy.

RESULTS

Group 1 where TC was the only symptom in 27/186 (14.5%) patients. There was no significant difference in positive SA between this group (6/27; 22%) and group 2 (43/159; 27%) (Z score P=0.59). There was also no significant association between SA and abnormal EAE whether TC was the only presenting symptom (χ, P=0.7) or one of the reported symptoms (χ, P=0.10). None of the 6/27 had abnormal EAE.

CONCLUSION

Although TC is often considered a possible GERD-related symptom, we found a low probability of objective association. TC is not likely to be the only presenting symptom, and if it happens, it is unlikely to be associated with GERD. Perhaps, TC should not be considered as a GERD symptom, even as an atypical one.

Extraesophageal Symptoms and Diseases Attributed to GERD: Where is the Pendulum Swinging Now?

The purpose of this review is to outline the recent developments in the field of extraesophageal reflux disease and provide clinically relevant recommendations. The recommendations outlined in this review are based on expert opinion and on relevant publications from PubMed and EMbase. The Clinical Practice Updates Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association proposes the following recommendations: Best Practice Advice 1: The role of a gastroenterologist in patients referred for evaluation of suspected extra esophageal symptom is to assess for gastroesophageal etiologies that could contribute to the presenting symptoms. Best Practice Advice 2: Non-GI evaluations by ENT, pulmonary and/or allergy are essential and often should be performed initially in most patients as the cause of the extraesophageal symptom is commonly multifactorial or not esophageal in origin. Best Practice Advice 3: Empiric therapy with aggressive acid suppression for 6-8 weeks with special focus on response of the extraesophageal symptoms can help in assessing association between reflux and extraesophageal symptoms. Best Practice Advice 4: No single testing methodology exists to definitively identify reflux as the etiology for the suspected extra esophageal symptoms. Best Practice Advice 5: Constellation of patient presentation, diagnostic test results and response to therapy should be employed in the determination of reflux as a possible etiology in extra esophageal symptoms. Best Practice Advice 6: Testing may need to be off or on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy depending on patients' presenting demographics and symptoms in assessing the likelihood of abnormal gastroesophageal reflux. A. On therapy testing may be considered in those with high probability of baseline reflux (those with previous esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus or abnormal pH). B. Off therapy testing may be considered in those with low probability of baseline reflux with the goal of identifying moderate to severe reflux at baseline. Best Practice Advice 7: Lack of response to aggressive acid suppressive therapy combined with normal pH testing off therapy or impedance-pH testing on therapy significantly reduces the likelihood that reflux is a contributing etiology in presenting extraesophageal symptoms. Best Practice Advice 8: Surgical fundoplication is discouraged in those with extra esophageal reflux symptoms unresponsive to aggressive PPI therapy. Best Practice Advice 9: Fundoplication should only be considered in those with a mechanical defect (e.g., hiatal hernia), moderate to severe reflux at baseline off PPI therapy who have continued reflux despite PPI therapy and have failed more conservative non-GI treatments.

Expert consensus document: Advances in the physiological assessment and diagnosis of GERD

GERD is a common condition worldwide. Key mechanisms of disease include abnormal oesophagogastric junction structure and function, and impaired oesophageal clearance. A therapeutic trial of acid-suppressive PPI therapy is often the initial management, with endoscopy performed in the setting of alarm symptoms and to exclude other conditions. If symptoms persist and endoscopy does not reveal evidence of GERD, oesophageal function tests are performed, including oesophageal manometry and ambulatory reflux monitoring. However, reflux episodes can be physiological, and some findings on endoscopy and manometry can be encountered in asymptomatic individuals without GERD symptoms. The diagnosis of GERD on the basis of functional oesophageal testing has been previously reported, but no updated expert recommendations on indications and the interpretation of oesophageal function testing in GERD has been made since the Porto consensus over a decade ago. In this Consensus Statement, we aim to describe modern oesophageal physiological tests and their analysis with an emphasis on establishing indications and consensus on interpretation parameters of oesophageal function testing for the evaluation of GERD in clinical practice. This document reflects the collective conclusions of the international GERD working group, incorporating existing data with expert consensus opinion.

High-resolution manometry in patients with and without globus pharyngeus and/or symptoms of laryngopharyngeal reflux

Background

Globus pharyngeus is common and has a low cure rate. Its etiology is complex and reported to be associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, some patients with globus do not exhibit any reflux symptoms or respond to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatments. The purpose of this study was to clarify the related risk factors of these patients with a final objective of improving the curative effect.

Methods

Forty two patients afflicted with globus pharyngeus (G group) and 38 patients without globus pharyngeus (NG group) were included in this study. According to the laryngopharyngeal Reflux Symptom Index and the response to PPIs treatments, the patients were further divided into reflux groups (G-R, NG-R) and non-reflux groups (G-NR, NG-NR). High Resolution Manometry (HRM) was performed to assess esophageal motility. Questionnaires, including categories such as life exposure factors, were conducted.

Results

a) The average resting and residual pressures of the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) in the G-NR group was higher than in the NG-NR and NG-R groups (P < 0.05). b) The average resting and residual pressures of the lower esophageal sphincter showed no differences between the G-NR group and the NG-NR group (P > 0.05). c) The esophageal distal contractile integral score of the G-NR group was not different from the NG-NR group (P > 0.05). d) Compared to the NG-NR group, the G-NR group showed higher incidence of stress, smoking, drinking, high salt and anxiety (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Globus pharyngeus without LPR may occur due to high UES pressure. Stress, smoking, alcoholic drinking, high salt and anxiety may be its risk factors.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12876-017-0666-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.