Comparison of Three Methods Used in the Diagnosis of Extraesophageal Reflux in Children with Chronic Otitis Media with Effusion

Predictive Value of Laryngeal Mucosa Pepsin in Therapeutic Response of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To investigate the predictive capability of pepsin level in the laryngeal mucosa to the therapeutic effect of proton-pump inhibitors in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), so as to verify whether it can be referred to as a biomarker of LPR.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case study.

METHODS

Sixty patients with clinical empiric LPR were enrolled, with an reflux symptom index (RSI) ≥ 13 and an reflux finding score (RFS) > 7 as screening criteria. Biopsy specimens from the interarytenoid mucosa were obtained under topical anesthesia for pepsin immunohistochemical staining. Two parameters were observed in these patients with different pepsin levels after the administration of esomeprazole for 12 weeks: the RSI and the RFS.

RESULTS

Among the 60 cases, 35 cases were negative or weakly positive for pepsin (Pepsin(-) group), and 25 cases were moderately positive or strongly positive for pepsin (Pepsin(+) group). After therapy, the RSI significantly decreased from 17.00 (15.00, 19.00) to 6.00 (5.00, 11.00) in the Pepsin(+) group (Z = -4.38, P < 0.01), but no difference was found in the RFS (T = 1.48, P > 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the RSI (T = 2.01, P > 0.05) or the RFS (T = 2.01, P > 0.05) in the Pepsin(-) group either before or after therapy. An improvement in the RSI ≥ 50% was taken as the standard of effective therapy. The effective rate in the Pepsin(+) group was 72.0% (18/25), while it was 14.3% (5/35) in the Pepsin(-) group. There was a significant difference in the effective rate between the two groups (χ2 = 20.55, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Proton-pump inhibitors exhibited better effects in patients with higher pepsin levels in the laryngeal mucosa. Laryngeal mucosa pepsin may serve as an ideal indicator to screen patients suitable for proton-pump inhibitor therapy and a reliable biomarker to identify patients with LPR.

Salivary peptest for laryngopharyngeal reflux and gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A rapid lateral flow test (Peptest) to detect pepsin in saliva/sputum has been considered as a valuable method for diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the utility of Peptest for diagnosis of LPR and GERD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochran Library (from January 1980 to 26 January 2020) were searched for pepsin in saliva for LPR/GERD diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve data were summarized to examine the accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 16 articles that included 2401 patients and 897 controls were analyzed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of GERD/LPR with Peptest were 62% (95% confidence interval [CI] 49%-73%) and 74% (95% CI 50%-90%), respectively. The summarized diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve were 5.0 (95% CI 2-19) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.66-0.74), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Peptest shows moderate diagnostic value for LPR and GERD. More studies with standard protocols should be done to verify its usefulness.

Studies of salivary pepsin in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is difficult to diagnose without invasive testing. Peptest (RD Biomed, Hull, UK) is a recently marketed diagnostic tool which aims to quantify salivary pepsin as a marker of reflux, providing a rapid alternative to invasive procedures.

AIM

To evaluate optimal timing for sampling, and to evaluate the accuracy of Peptest against an independent measure.

METHODS

Thirty diagnosed GERD patients (12 female, mean age 49 [range 20-72]) and 20 asymptomatic subjects (14 female, mean age 56 [range 21-56]) were subject to diurnal saliva sampling, with additional samples for 60 minutes following self-reported reflux symptoms and triggering of a proximal reflux alarm. Saliva samples were split and were analysed by both Peptest and ELISA with operators for each blinded to sample identity.

RESULTS

Salivary pepsin was detectable in most patients and most volunteers. Peptest scores were significantly lower for patients than controls (P < 0.005). ELISA scores showed no difference between patients and controls. There was no effect of diurnal sampling time (P = 0.75) or time after symptoms (P = 0.76) on Peptest readout. There was no correlation between Peptest and Pepsin ELISA (P = 0.55); Bland-Altman analysis suggested no agreement between the tests (P = 0.414). Receiver-operator curve suggests that neither Peptest (P = 0.3328) nor pepsin (P = 0.4476) is useful for predicting GERD.

CONCLUSION

Salivary pepsin is not a reliable tool for the diagnosis of GERD.

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Is a Potential Risk Factor for Juvenile-Onset Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis

Introduction

Human papillomavirus (HPV) causes juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (JORRP). Although HPV is common in children, the prevalence of JORRP is low. It is likely that other factors contribute to the pathogenesis of JORRP, during either activation or reactivation of a latent HPV infection. There is evidence that laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) might be such a risk factor for adult-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. This study investigated if LPR might also be a risk factor for JORRP.

Materials and Methods

Children with JORRP of the larynx that required microlaryngoscopy at a tertiary referral hospital were included in this prospective case-series study from November 2015 to November 2017. Using immunohistochemistry, HPV infection and pepsin associated with LPR were diagnosed from laryngeal biopsies.

Results

Eleven children (aged 4-14 years) were analyzed. No patient had a history of immunodeficiency or tobacco smoke exposure. All patients underwent at least three previous surgeries due to JORRP and had been vaccinated against HPV in the past. Five children were treated using antivirotics and immunomodulators. The only known maternal risk factor was that three mothers were primiparous. All 11 samples were infected with HPV (type 6 or 11). Pathologic LPR was diagnosed in 5/11 children (45.5%).

Conclusion

LPR may be a risk factor for JORRP, contributing to its development by activating or reactivating a latent HPV infection. Results are in accordance with those from our previous study in adults.

Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring should be used to diagnose reflux-related otitis media with effusion in children

AIM

This study investigated the diagnostic usefulness of combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH) in children with suspected reflux-related otitis media with effusion (OME) as existing data were scarce.

METHODS

This was a prospective study that included children up to seven years of age who underwent MII-pH due to OME lasting more than three months. The study was conducted in the Children's Hospital Zagreb, Croatia, from January 2014 to August 2016.

RESULTS

The study comprised 63 children (63% male) with a mean age of 4.7 years. Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) disease was detected by impedance in 22 (35%) of the children and by pH-metry in nine (14%). In children with OME, MII-pH found a median number of 24 proximal GER episodes, of which a median of nine was acidic and a median of 11 was weakly acidic. There was a significant positive correlation between the number of GER episodes and the presence of eosinophils in nasal swabs.

CONCLUSION

Both acidic and weakly acidic refluxes seemed to play a significant role in the pathogenesis of OME. Localised nasal eosinophilia may serve as a marker of extraoesophageal reflux in children with suspected reflux-related OME.

Comparison of Impedance and Pepsin Detection in the Laryngeal Mucosa to Determine Impedance Values that Indicate Pathological Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

OBJECTIVE

Recently, a 24-h impedance was used to detect laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, not every case of LPR is pathological. Thus, pathological pharyngeal impedance values need to be clearly established to diagnose pathological LPR. The aim of our study was to establish pathological 24-h pharyngoesophageal impedance/pH values for the diagnosis of LPR.

METHODS

The study was conducted in a tertiary care setting. A total of 30 patients who were referred to microlaryngoscopy for a laryngeal pathology that might be caused by LPR were included in this prospective study. All patients were off proton-pump inhibitor therapy. The 24-h pharyngoesophageal impedance-pH monitoring was performed 1 day before surgery. A biopsy of laryngeal tissue was obtained during microlaryngoscopy and was analyzed by immunohistochemistry to detect pepsin. The patients were divided into two groups: pepsin negative and pepsin positive (which indicated pathological LPR). The results of 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-dual-channel pH monitoring were compared between the groups. The number of LPR episodes in the pepsin-positive group was analyzed to establish a cutoff value for pathological LPR.

RESULTS

There were 18 participants in the pepsin-negative group and 12 in the pepsin-positive group. The median total pharyngeal refluxes detected were two (0-5) in the pepsin-negative group and 14 (6-39) in the pepsin-positive group (P<0.001), although the groups were otherwise homogeneous. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of all types of refluxes between groups. Six or more pharyngeal refluxes were the cutoff for the presence of pepsin in the laryngeal mucosa and, thereby, for the diagnosis of relevant/pathological LPR.

CONCLUSION

Six or more pharyngeal reflux episodes registered during the 24-h impedance/pH monitoring seem to be the cutoff for diagnosing pathological LPR. Therefore, it is possible to suggest establishing this value as the pathological impedance value indicating pathological LPR. These results must be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size.