Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux on Posttreatment Symptoms and Hypopharyngeal pH

Clinical Update Findings about pH-Impedance Monitoring Features in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patients

Purpose: The diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is commonly based on non-specific symptoms and findings and a positive response to an empirical therapeutic trial. The therapeutic response is, however, unpredictable, and many patients need pH-impedance monitoring to confirm the diagnosis. Methods: A review of the recent literature was conducted in PubMED, Scopus, and Embase about the pH-study features of LPR patients. A summary of last evidence was proposed. Results: The awareness of otolaryngologists about indications and interpretation of pH-impedance monitoring is low. The hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) is the most reliable examination determining the type and composition of hypopharyngeal reflux events (HRE) and the LPR features. The use of HEMII-pH is important to confirm the diagnosis in selected patients because non-specificity of symptoms and findings. There are no international consensus guidelines for the LPR diagnosis at the HEMII-pH. However, most studies supported the occurrence of >1 acid/weakly acid/nonacid HRE as diagnostic threshold. HREs are more frequently gaseous, weakly/nonacid compared with reflux events of gastroesophageal reflux. HREs occurred as daytime and upright, which does not support the value of double proton pump inhibitors or bedtime alginate. Oropharyngeal pH-monitoring is another approach reporting different sensitivity and specificity outcomes from HEMII-pH. The use of Ryan score for the LPR diagnosis at the oropharyngeal pH monitoring may be controversial regarding the low consideration of alkaline HREs. Conclusions: The awareness of otolaryngologists about HEMII-pH indication, features, and interpretation is an important issue regarding the high prevalence of LPR in outpatients consulting in otolaryngology. The HEMII-pH findings may indicate a more personalized treatment considering type and occurrence time of HREs.

Evaluation of the Reflux Symptom Index and the Endolaryngeal Findings Scale after Treatment in Individuals with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

Introduction  Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a prevalent condition in outpatients visiting the otorhinolaryngological clinic, with many controversies regarding its diagnosis and follow-up. Therefore, there is a need for clinical instruments that can diagnose individuals and monitor the results of their treatment. Objective  To evaluate the applicability of the scores translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese: Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Endolaryngeal Reflux Findings Scale (ERFS), as instruments for post-treatment follow-up of LPR. Method  A total of 35 individuals with atypical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease and with an objective diagnosis of LPR, confirmed by high digestive endoscopy and 24-hour esophageal pH-metry dual probe test were submitted to the RSI and ERFS questionnaires, used in the pre- and post-treatment of 90 days with a Proton Pump Inhibitor. Result  The evaluation of RSI and ERFS in the pre- and post-treatment showed a reduction in the results of the two scores, with a higher drop in the RSI ( p  < 0.001) than in the ERFS ( p  = 0.014). Although there was an improvement in the values in 23.9% of the individuals in the ERFS, there was no change in the category ( p  = 0.057), different from the RSI ( p  < 0.001), where there was a 67.4% improvement in values, as well as change in category (score went from positive to negative). There was a correlation between RSI and ERFS, moderate in the pretreatment and strong in the post-treatment. Conclusion  The RSI and ERFS scores, when translated and adapted for Brazilian Portuguese and applied simultaneously, can be considered a good tool for post-treatment LPR follow-up.

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.

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.

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.

The Changing Impact of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Clinical Practice

Objectives:

The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) database was utilized to understand evolving national trends in diagnosis and management of reflux.

Methods:

The NAMCS database was queried for visits related to gastroesophageal reflux diagnosis and management. Analysis performed for time periods 1998-2001, 2002-2005, and 2006-2009 was weighted to provide national estimates of care. Results were compared to previously reported time periods from 1990 to 2001 to evaluate patterns in overall visits, age and ethnicity of patients, provider type, and prescriptions provided.

Results:

The number of ambulatory visits for reflux increased from 8 684 000 in 1998-2001 to 15 750 000 in 2006-2009. Visits increased across each time period for internal medicine, family, and gastroenterology physicians. Among otolaryngologists, absolute visits increased from 1998-2001 to 2002-2005 but decreased in 2006-2009; difference between these time periods did not reach statistical significance. From 1998-2001 to 2006-2009, reflux medication use increased 233%, with continuing trends toward increased proton pump inhibitor use.

Conclusions:

Reflux visits have increased across all demographic subgroups studied. Knowledge of these trends may inform further paradigm shifts in diagnosis and management of reflux.