Vegetal and Animal Food Proteins Have a Different Impact in the First Postprandial Hour of Impedance-pH Analysis in Patients with Heartburn

Diets including Animal Food Are Associated with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a clinical condition with a prevalence of up to 25% in Western countries. Typical GERD symptoms include heartburn and retrosternal regurgitation. Lifestyle modifications, including diet, are considered a first-line therapeutic approach. To evaluate the impact of life habits on GERD in this cross-sectional study, we used data collected through an online survey from 1146 participants. GERD was defined according to the Montreal Consensus. For all participants, clinical and lifestyle characteristics were recorded. Overall, 723 participants (63.1%) consumed a diet including animal food (non-vegans), and 423 participants (36.9%) were vegans. The prevalence of GERD was 11% (CI 95%, 9-14%) in non-vegans and 6% (CI 95%, 4-8%) in vegans. In the multivariate analysis, after adjusting for confounding factors, subjects on a non-vegan diet were associated with a two-fold increase in the prevalence of GERD compared to vegans (OR = 1.96, CI 95%, 1.22-3.17, p = 0.006). BMI and smoking habits were also significantly associated with GERD. This study shows that an animal food-based diet (meat, fish, poultry, dairy, and eggs) is associated with an increased risk of GERD compared to a vegan diet. These findings might inform the lifestyle management of patients with GERD-related symptoms.

The Role of a Plant-Only (Vegan) Diet in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Online Survey of the Italian General Population

The relationship between food and the pathophysiological mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is unclear. There are few data on the impact of dietary habits on GERD symptoms and on the incidence of GERD in subjects undergoing plant-based diets. In this study, we investigated the association between diet and GERD, using data collected through an online survey of the Italian general population. In total, 1077 subjects participated in the study. GERD was defined according to the Montreal Consensus. For all subjects age, gender, body mass index (BMI), marital status, education, occupation, alcohol consumption, and smoking habits were recorded. All participants also completed the SF-36 questionnaire on Quality of Life. A total of 402 subjects (37.3%) were vegans and 675 (62.7%) non-vegans. The prevalence of GERD in the total population was 9%. Subjects with GERD-related symptoms recorded a worse quality of life according to SF-36 analysis (p < 0.05 for all dimensions). In multivariate analysis, after adjusting for confounders, participants undergoing a vegan diet had a significantly lower risk of GERD (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.28-0.81, p = 0.006). These findings should be taken into account to inform the lifestyle management of GERD.

[Current possibilities and challenges in the treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux]

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is characterized by backflow of gastric or gastroduodenal content and gases into the upper aerodigestive tract, which can damage the mucus membranes of the larynx and pharynx. It is associated with a variety of symptoms such as retrosternal burning and acid regurgitation, or other unspecific symptoms such as hoarseness, globus sensation, chronic cough, or mucus hypersecretion. Due to the lack of data and the heterogeneity of studies, diagnosis of LPR is problematic and challenging, as recently discussed. Moreover, the different therapeutic approaches are also discussed controversially in the face of the poor evidence base, and include pharmacologic and conservative dietary measures. Hence, in the following review, the available options for treatment of LPR are critically discussed and summarized for daily clinical use.

What is the efficacy of dietary, nutraceutical, and probiotic interventions for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatments for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) symptoms include pharmaceutical, surgical, dietary, and lifestyle behaviors; however, dietary interventions lack evidence synthesis.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the effect of dietary, probiotic, and nutraceutical interventions on GERD symptoms, with or without pharmaceutical therapy, in adults with a history of GERD or functional dyspepsia compared to no intervention, placebo, or usual care?

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA. The search strategy was implemented in MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Embase on the 28th October 2020 and updated to 27th July 2021. Intervention studies were eligible if they evaluated the effect of a dietary, nutraceutical, or probiotic intervention on GERD symptoms in adults with a history of GERD or functional dyspepsia. The internal validity of studies was assessed using the Academy Quality Criteria Checklist; Review Manager software was used to perform meta-analysis; and certainty in the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

6,608 study records were retrieved from the search, with 21 studies (n = 24 highly heterogenous intervention groups) included (n = 10 restrictive dietary interventions; n = 3 non-restrictive dietary interventions; n = 8 nutraceutical interventions; and n = 3 probiotic interventions). GERD symptoms were clinically and statistically improved by a test-based elimination diet (n = 1 study), low nickel diet (n = 1 study), probiotic yoghurt (n = 1 study), psyllium husk (n = 1 study), prickly pear and olive leaf extract supplement (n = 1 study), and melatonin, amino acid and b-group vitamin supplement (n = 1 study) according to qualitative synthesis. Ginger-containing supplements could be meta-analyzed, and improved incidence of GERD symptom alleviation (n = 2 studies, OR: 7.50 [95%CI: 3.62-15.54], GRADE: high). No clinically and/or statistically significant effects were found for the remaining n = 16 highly heterogenous interventions.

CONCLUSION

Evidence to guide the dietary management of GERD symptoms is limited in scope, quality, and feasibility. Based on the limited evidence available, dietary GERD management should be long-term, individualized, and consider both dietary restrictions and/or additions.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42021224082.

How I Approach Laryngopharyngoesophageal Reflux (LPR)

The purpose of this article is to review the cornerstone and most recent literature regarding laryngopharynoesophageal reflux (LPR) including epidemiological characteristics, pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, and management. The role of pepsin in the pathophysiology of LPR is highlighted in addition to new diagnostic modalities and pharmacologic therapies that target pepsin.

Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Management Update

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most frequent gastrointestinal disorders. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective in healing lesions and improving symptoms in most cases, although up to 40% of GERD patients do not respond adequately to PPI therapy. Refractory GERD (rGERD) is one of the most challenging problems, given its impact on the quality of life and consumption of health care resources. The definition of rGERD is a controversial topic as it has not been unequivocally established. Indeed, some patients unresponsive to PPIs who experience symptoms potentially related to GERD may not have GERD; in this case the definition could be replaced with “reflux-like PPI-refractory symptoms.” Patients with persistent reflux-like symptoms should undergo a diagnostic workup aimed at finding objective evidence of GERD through endoscopic and pH-impedance investigations. The management strategies regarding rGERD, apart from a careful check of patient's compliance with PPIs, a possible change in the timing of their administration and the choice of a PPI with a different metabolic pathway, include other pharmacologic treatments. These include histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), alginates, antacids and mucosal protective agents, potassium competitive acid blockers (PCABs), prokinetics, gamma aminobutyric acid-B (GABA-B) receptor agonists and metabotropic glutamate receptor-5 (mGluR5) antagonists, and pain modulators. If there is no benefit from medical therapy, but there is objective evidence of GERD, invasive antireflux options should be evaluated after having carefully explained the risks and benefits to the patient. The most widely performed invasive antireflux option remains laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS), even if other, less invasive, interventions have been suggested in the last few decades, including endoscopic transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF), magnetic sphincter augmentation (LINX) or radiofrequency therapy (Stretta). Due to the different mechanisms underlying rGERD, the most effective strategy can vary, and it should be tailored to each patient. The aim of this paper is to review the different management options available to successfully deal with rGERD.

Elimination of Dietary Triggers Is Successful in Treating Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

BACKGROUND

The relationship between aliments and pathophysiological abnormalities leading to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms elicitation is unclear. Nevertheless, patients often report symptoms after ingestion of specific foods.

AIMS

To identify in primary care setting the presence of foods able to trigger GERD symptoms, and evaluate whether a consequent specific food elimination diet may result in clinical improvement.

METHODS

Diagnosis of GERD and quantification of reflux symptoms were done according to GERD-Q questionnaire (positive when > 8). During clinical data collection, patients were asked to report aliments associated with their symptoms. Also, a precompiled list of additional foods was administered to them. Then, patients were requested to eliminate the specific foods identified, and to come back for follow-up visit after 2 weeks when GERD-Q questionnaire and clinical data collection were repeated.

RESULTS

One-hundred GERD (mean GERD-Q score 11.6) patients (54 females, mean age 48.7 years) were enrolled. Eighty-five patients reported at least one triggering food, mostly spicy foods (62%), chocolate (55%), pizza (55%), tomato (52%), and fried foods (52%). At follow-up visit, the diagnosis of GERD was confirmed in only 55 patients, and the mean GERD-Q score decreased to 8.9. Heartburn reporting decreased from 93 to 44% of patients, while regurgitation decreased from 72 to 28%. About half of the patients agreed to continue with only dietary recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with GERD can identify at least one food triggering their symptoms. An approach based on abstention from identified food may be effective in the short term.

Reflux Esophagitis and Fatigue: Are They Related?

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic, recurrent disease. Reflux esophagitis can interfere with sleep via acid reflux, which can cause daytime sleepiness or fatigue. However, little is known about the association between reflux esophagitis and fatigue. Objectives: We evaluated the association between fatigue and reflux esophagitis in subjects seen at health check-ups. Methods: Consecutive patients who were scheduled for screening endoscopies were enrolled prospectively at the Comprehensive Medical Examination Center of St. Vincent Hospital and Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital, Korea. Three validated questionnaires were used to assess fatigue, daytime hypersomnolence, anxiety, and depression: the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory—Korean version (MFI-K), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Results: We investigated 497 consecutive eligible subjects. The reflux esophagitis and symptomatic GERD groups comprised 103 (20.7%) and 92 (18.5%) subjects, respectively. The MFI-K total, ESS, HADS-anxiety, and HADS-depression scores did not differ between the esophagitis and non-esophagitis groups (50.0 ± 11.5 vs. 49.7 ± 10.9, p = 0.661; 6.2 ± 2.8 vs. 6.1 ± 3.1, p = 0.987; 5.8 ± 3.1 vs. 5.2 ± 3.2, p = 0.060; 6.2 ± 3.6 vs. 6.0 ± 3.3, p = 0.561). However, the MFI-K total, ESS, HADS-anxiety, and HADS-depression scores were higher in the symptomatic group than in the non-symptomatic group (54.7 ± 12.7 vs. 48.6 ± 10.3, p < 0.001; 7.1 ± 3.5 vs. 5.9 ± 2.9, p = 0.002; 6.4 ± 3.3 vs. 5.1 ± 3.1, p < 0.001; 7.5 ± 4.0 vs. 5.7 ± 3.1, p < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis showed that the MFI-K total was correlated with GERD symptoms (p = 0.021), women (p = 0.001), anxiety (p < 0.001), and depression (p < 0.001). Conclusion: There was no statistically significant association in which reflux esophagitis could cause daytime sleepiness, fatigue, anxiety, or depression. However, fatigue was associated with GERD symptoms, women, anxiety, and depression. Further studies should clarify the association between fatigue and reflux esophagitis.

Dietary Patterns in Runners with Gastrointestinal Disorders

Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and reflux frequently experience gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS), potentially enhanced by high-intensity running. Food avoidances, food choices, and GIS in runners with IBS/IBD (n = 53) and reflux (n = 37) were evaluated using a reliability and validity tested questionnaire. Comparisons to a control group of runners (n = 375) were made using a Fisher’s Exact test. Runners with IBS/IBD experienced the greatest amount of exercise-induced GIS followed by those with reflux. Commonly reported GIS were stomach pain/cramps (77%; 53%), bloating (52%; 50%), intestinal pain/cramps (58%; 33%), and diarrhea (58%; 39%) in IBS/IBD and reflux groups respectively. In the pre-race meal, those with IBS/IBD frequently avoided milk products (53%), legumes (37%), and meat (31%); whereas, runners with reflux avoided milk (38%), meat (36%), and high-fibre foods (33%). When considering food choices pre-race, runners with IBS/IBD chose grains containing gluten (40%), high fermentable oligo-, di-, mono-saccharides and polyols (FODMAP) fruits (38%), and water (38%). Runners with reflux chose water (51%), grains containing gluten (37%), and eggs (31%). In conclusion, while many runners with IBS/IBD and reflux are avoiding trigger foods in their pre-race meals, they are also consuming potentially aggravating foods, suggesting nutrition advice may be warranted.

Bile reflux in patients with nerd is associated with more severe heartburn and lower values of mean nocturnal baseline impedance and chemical clearance

BACKGROUND

Mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) and postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index are novel impedance-based markers of reflux, but the effect of bile reflux on these metrics is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate bile reflux, MNBI, and PSPW index in patients with endoscopy-negative GERD partially responsive to PPI therapy.

METHODS

All patients underwent off-PPI endoscopy, esophageal manometry, multichannel intraluminal impedance pH (MII-pH), and bile reflux monitoring. Abnormal esophageal acid exposure time (AET) was required for inclusion. Symptom intensity (using 10-cm visual analog scales), and conventional and novel MII-pH metrics were compared between patients with and without abnormal bile reflux.

KEY RESULTS

We evaluated 42 NERD patients (29 males, mean age: 53.4 ± 13. years), mean AET 6.1 ± 2%, of which 21 had abnormal bile reflux (Group A, 10.2 ± 4.9%), and 21 had normal bile reflux (Group B, 0.4 ± 0.1%, P < .05 compared with Group A). Heartburn reporting on PPI was higher in Group A (7.2 ± 2.1 vs 5.8 ± 0.9; P = .002), but AET, number of reflux events (acidic and weakly acidic), did not differ between the two groups. However, both PSPW index and MNBI were lower in Group A (P < .001). A strong inverse linear correlation was found between bile reflux and both MNBI (Pearson's test; R = -0.714; P < .001) and PSPW index (R = -0.722; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Compared to acid reflux alone, the presence of bile in an acidic esophageal environment is associated with more severe heartburn, lesser relief from PPI therapy, higher impairment of esophageal mucosal integrity and less effective chemical clearance.

Intra-Esophageal pH Monitoring on Two Consecutive Days in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms

Background

The best method to measure the frequency and duration of gastroesophageal reflux is 24-h pH or 24-h pH/impedance monitoring. However, the detection of reflux can vary when measured on different days. Our aim was to evaluate the possibility that the severity of gastroesophageal reflux is different even under similar conditions on two consecutive days.

Methods

We performed a 48-h pH monitoring in 12 subjects, aged 25 - 63 years, who complaint of heartburn and regurgitation, ten with esophagitis and two with non-erosive disease. The pH measurement was conducted at 5 cm from the lower esophageal sphincter. The patients stayed at the Clinical Investigation Ward of the hospital for 48 h. On each day, they consumed a 2,000 calorie diet. The results obtained on the first day were compared with those on the second day.

Results

Mean reflux index in the upright position was different between the two days. Results of the pH-monitoring within the 2 h after the meal revealed differences in the number of acidic reflux and reflux index episodes. Three patients had abnormal DeMeester score on one day and normal score on the other day. Considering the upper limit of 6.0% of the test duration with esophageal pH < 4 as indicative of gastroesophageal reflux disease, two patients showed abnormal results on one day and normal results on the other day.

Conclusions

The 24-h pH monitoring, performed on two consecutive days under similar conditions, can lead to different diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease in symptomatic patients.