Pharyngeal pH alone is not reliable for the detection of pharyngeal reflux events: A study with oesophageal and pharyngeal pH-impedance monitoring

Applying Lyon consensus criteria in the work-up of patients with extra-oesophageal symptoms - A multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) based on otolaryngologist's assessment of laryngoscopic findings remains contentious in terms of sensitivity and specificity.

AIMS

To evaluate GERD prevalence, applying Lyon 2.0 Consensus criteria, in patients with extra-oesophageal symptoms undergoing laryngoscopic examination and impedance-pH monitoring.

METHODS

In this retrospective assessment, we included 470 patients with extra-oesophageal symptoms, either isolated or combined with typical symptoms, who had been referred to six tertiary Italian Gastroenterology Units between January and December 2020. Of these, 274 underwent 24-h impedance-pH monitoring and laryngoscopy off PPI therapy. GERD diagnosis followed Lyon Consensus 2.0 criteria, incorporating mean nocturnal baseline impedance when pH-impedance monitoring was inconclusive.

RESULTS

Laryngoscopic examination revealed pathological findings (predominantly posterior laryngitis) in 71.2% (195/274). GERD was diagnosed in 29.2% (80/274) via impedance-pH monitoring. The prevalence of GERD in patients with positive or negative laryngoscopy was similar (32.3% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.075). No significant difference in proximal reflux occurrences was noted between positive and negative laryngoscopy groups (33.3% vs. 24.1%, p = 0.133). Laryngoscopy demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 78.8% and 32.0%, respectively, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 32.3% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 28.4%. In contrast, a threshold of four concurrent laryngoscopic signs, identified in only eight patients, demonstrated a PPV of 93.8% and a NPV of 73.6% (sensitivity 25.4%, specificity 99.2%).

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the limited diagnostic accuracy of laryngoscopy, emphasising the necessity of impedance-pH monitoring for confirming GERD diagnoses using Lyon 2.0 criteria in patients with suspected extra-oesophageal symptoms.

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.

Validation of Pharyngeal Acid Reflux Episodes Using Hypopharyngeal Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance-pH

Background/Aims

Hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (HMII-pH) technology incorporating 2 trans-upper esophageal sphincter impedance channels has been developed to detect pharyngeal reflux. We used the HMII-pH technique to validate the candidate pharyngeal acid reflux (PAR) episodes based on the dual-pH tracings and determined the interobserver reproducibility.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study in tertiary centers in Taiwan. Ninety patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux and 28 healthy volunteers underwent HMII-pH test when off acid suppressants. Candidate PAR episodes were characterized by pharyngeal pH drops of at least 2 units and reaching a nadir pH of 5 within 30 seconds during esophageal acidification. Two experts manually independently identified candidate PAR episodes based on the dual-pH tracings. By reviewing the HMII-pH tracings, HMII-pH-proven PAR episodes were subsequently confirmed. The consensus reviews of HMII-pH-proven PAR episodes were considered to be the reference standard diagnosis. The interobserver reproducibility was assessed.

Results

A total of 105 candidate PAR episodes were identified. Among them 84 (80.0%; 95% CI, 71.0-87.0%) were HMII-pH-proven PAR episodes (82 in 16 patients and 2 in 1 healthy subject). Patients tended to have more HMII-pH-proven PAR episodes than healthy controls (median and percentile values [25th, 75th, and 95th percentiles]: 0 [0, 0, 3] vs 0 [0, 0, 0], P = 0.067). The concordance rate in diagnosing HMII-pH-proven PAR episodes between 2 independent observers was 92.2%.

Conclusion

Our preliminary data showed that 80.0% (71.0-87.0%) of the proposed candidate PAR episodes were HMII-pH-proven PAR episodes, among which the interobserver reproducibility was good.

Laryngopharyngeal symptoms and oesophageal disorder: The role of heterotopic gastric mucosa in upper oesophagus

BACKGROUND

Heterotopic gastric mucosa in the upper oesophagus (HGMUE) was considered as geneogenous manifestation. However, its clinical characteristics may be beyond our knowledge if we focus on its extra-oesophageal presentation. So the aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between HGMUE and laryngopharyngeal symptoms.

METHOD

Eight hundred and eleven patients who had gastric endoscopy examination were enrolled in this study and the cervical oesophagus was examined for the patch during withdrawal of the endoscope. Questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD-Q) and Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) were completed by all the patients. Pathology feature and therapeutic effect of HGMUE patients were evaluated.

RESULT

About 34.53% of the patients undergoing the gastroduodenoscopy had laryngopharyngeal (LP) symptoms. The relevance rate of HGMUE in LP(+) group (10.69%) was higher than that in LP(-) group (2%). The LP symptoms were related to the histological type and expression of H+-K+-ATPase in the histological sample of HGMUE patients. The positive rate of H+-K+-ATPase was 100% in LP(+) group, and that in LP(-) group was 28.6%. PPI therapy was effective for improving the LP symptoms in HGMUE patients. The RSI score in LP(+) patients decreased from 8.12 ± 1.46 at baseline to 4 ± 0.74 at the end of 8 weeks after treatment of PPI.

CONCLUSION

HGMUE was an important cause of LP symptoms in patients, especially in those who had no evidence of GERD. The mechanism of HGMUE-induced LP symptoms was due to its location and the function of acid secretion according to the endoscopic finding and histologic characteristics.

The role of pH-impedance monitoring in swallowing disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current evidence about the usefulness and the place of pH study in the management of patients with swallowing disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) are found in approximately 30% of patients with esophageal or oropharyngeal dysphagia. Patients with suspected GERD may benefit from gastrointestinal endoscopy and proton pump inhibitors according to guidelines. The diagnosis of LPR in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia is more controversial because there are no gold standard and diagnostic guidelines. The clinical diagnosis based on empirical therapeutic trial is a reasonable first-line strategy, but many dysphagic patients should not respond to treatment. These patients require hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH), which is the most effective examination providing important information on GERD and LPR features. At the HEMII-pH, GERD patients often report upright (daytime) and supine (nighttime) liquid acid esophageal events with significant esophageal distal acid exposure time. LPR patients have more frequently upright (daytime) gaseous weakly acid or nonacid pharyngeal reflux events without distal esophageal acid exposure abnormalities in many times. The features of reflux at the HEMII-pH may indicate a personalized treatment for dysphagic patients combining proton pump inhibitors, alginate/magaldrate or gastroprokinetic in cases of esophageal dysmotility.

SUMMARY

GERD and LPR are prevalent causes of dysphagia. The large number of reflux patients who do not respond to empirical treatment makes important the awareness of otolaryngologists about pH-impedance monitoring indication, features, and interpretation.

Reflux Finding Score Using HD Video Chromoendoscopy: A Diagnostic Adjunct in Suspected Laryngopharyngeal Reflux?

OBJECTIVE

To explore the use of real-time virtual chromoendoscopy (i-scan) in characterizing the mucosal changes present in subjects with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and to compare the inter-rater and intra-rater agreement of Reflux Finding Scores (RFS) from both laryngologists and general otolaryngologists (ORL) observing exams using both white light endoscopy (WLE) and i-scan.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study that included 66 subjects: 46 symptomatic and 20 asymptomatic of suspected LPR based on the reflux symptom index (RSI). Subjects underwent flexible video laryngoscopic evaluation of the larynx utilising both WLE and i-scan during one continuous exam. Subjects also underwent 24-hour oropharyngeal pH-monitoring (Dx-pH). Two laryngologists and two general otolaryngologists evaluated the anonymized videos independently using RFS. Dx-pH results were interpreted using the pH graph, report and RYAN score. Subjects were then designated into one of three groups: no reflux, acid reflux and alkaline reflux.

RESULTS

For the symptomatic group, no mucosal irregularities or early mucosal lesions were observed except in one subject who had granulation tissue. The mean RFS using WLE and i-scan were, respectively: 11.8 (SD 6.1) and 11.3 (SD 5.6) in symptomatic and 7.3 (SD 5.7) and 7.3 (SD 5.2) in asymptomatic group. The inter-rater agreement of RFS using WLE and i-scan for both groups were good with intraclass correlation, ICC of 0.84 and 0.88 (laryngologists); and 0.85 and 0.81 (ORL). The intra-rater agreement among all four raters were good to excellent and similar for both WLE and i-scan (ICC of 0.80 to 0.99). 47 of 66 subjects had evidence of LPR on Dx-pH results which more specifically showed 39 subjects had "acid reflux" and 8 had "alkaline reflux". Sixteen subjects demonstrated a positive RYAN score but showed none were significantly correlated with their RFS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports the first utilization of real-time video chromoendoscopy with i-scan technology through high-definition flexible endoscopes to attempt to characterize laryngopharyngeal findings in patients suspected of having LPR. Both general otolaryngologists and laryngologists were equally capable of reliably calculating the RFS using both WLE and i-scan, however no significant improvement in agreement or change in RFS was found when i-scan technology was employed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2.

Association of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease and Refractory Chronic Rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

The current study was conducted to explore the association between laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) and refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (RCRS), and to reveal the potential role of LPRD in the development of RCRS.

METHODS

A total of 104 patients diagnosed as chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and hospitalized, as well as 50 healthy participants were enrolled into this study. Among patients enrolled, 53 were RCRS and 51 were CRS. All participants were assessed with reflux symptom index (RSI) and reflux finding score (RFS). Patients with RSI >13 and/or RFS >7 were diagnosed as LPRD. In addition, pepsin in the nasal secretions from the middle meatus tract complex at fasting in the morning was analyzed using ELISA. Patients with pepsin concentration of >75 ng/ml was considered as positive, and confirmed as LPRD.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age, sex, height, and weight among RCRS, CRS, and control groups. The positive rates of RSI and RFS scores were 39.6% in the RCRS and 52.9% in the CRS, respectively, which were significantly higher than that of the control group (14.0%, P < 0.05), respectively. Significantly higher positive rate of pepsin assay was also observed for RCRS(43.4%) and CRS(64.7%) when compared with the control group (18.0%, P < 0.05). The positive rate of pepsin assay was strongly associated with the positive rate of RSI or RFS (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present findings have important implications that RSI and RFS score was highly associated with pepsin assay result in the patients with RCRS or CRS. We confirmed the importance of RSI and RFS scoring system as well as pepsin test, which may offer insight for clinical screening for LPRD among CRS patients.

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.

Clinical practice guidelines for esophageal ambulatory reflux monitoring in Chinese adults

Esophageal ambulatory reflux monitoring is the current gold standard for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In order to facilitate standardized procedure and improve diagnostic accuracy, clinical guidelines for ambulatory esophageal reflux monitoring were developed based on thorough literature search and working group conference by experts in gastrointestinal motility. Indications, contraindications, methodology, and reporting of ambulatory esophageal reflux monitoring were discussed in these clinical guidelines.

ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues to be among the most common diseases seen by gastroenterologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians. Our understanding of the varied presentations of GERD, enhancements in diagnostic testing, and approach to patient management have evolved. During this time, scrutiny of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has increased considerably. Although PPIs remain the medical treatment of choice for GERD, multiple publications have raised questions about adverse events, raising doubts about the safety of long-term use and increasing concern about overprescribing of PPIs. New data regarding the potential for surgical and endoscopic interventions have emerged. In this new document, we provide updated, evidence-based recommendations and practical guidance for the evaluation and management of GERD, including pharmacologic, lifestyle, surgical, and endoscopic management. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to evaluate the evidence and the strength of recommendations. Key concepts and suggestions that as of this writing do not have sufficient evidence to grade are also provided.

ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues to be among the most common diseases seen by gastroenterologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians. Our understanding of the varied presentations of GERD, enhancements in diagnostic testing, and approach to patient management have evolved. During this time, scrutiny of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has increased considerably. Although PPIs remain the medical treatment of choice for GERD, multiple publications have raised questions about adverse events, raising doubts about the safety of long-term use and increasing concern about overprescribing of PPIs. New data regarding the potential for surgical and endoscopic interventions have emerged. In this new document, we provide updated, evidence-based recommendations and practical guidance for the evaluation and management of GERD, including pharmacologic, lifestyle, surgical, and endoscopic management. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to evaluate the evidence and the strength of recommendations. Key concepts and suggestions that as of this writing do not have sufficient evidence to grade are also provided.

Impaired Proximal Esophageal Contractility Predicts Pharyngeal Reflux in Patients With Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Symptoms

OBJECTIVES

The pathophysiology of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) remains incompletely understood. Proximal esophageal motor dysfunction may impair bolus clearance, increasing the risk of pharyngeal refluxate exposure. We aimed to evaluate the association of proximal esophageal contractility with objective reflux metrics.

METHODS

We evaluated adults with LPR symptoms undergoing high-resolution manometry (HRM) and combined hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH testing at a tertiary center between March 2018 and August 2019. Routine parameters per Chicago classification were obtained on HRM. Proximal esophageal contractility was evaluated using proximal contractile integral (PCI), which quantifies contractile pressure >20 mm Hg for the region spanning the distal margin of the upper esophageal sphincter and transition zone. Univariate (Kendall correlation and Student t test) and multivariable (general linear regression and logistic regression) analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We enrolled 138 patients (66.7% women, mean age 57.1 years) in this study. Lower PCI was associated with an elevated risk of increased pharyngeal reflux (adjusted odds ratio 0.83 per 100 mm Hg-s-cm change in PCI, 95% confidence interval: 0.69-0.98), with a trend toward increased bolus exposure time and total reflux events, after multivariable adjustment. The relationship between PCI and pharyngeal reflux was strongest among participants without a primary motility disorder on HRM (adjusted odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.85, P interaction = 0.04). Among continuously expressed reflux parameters, lower PCI was significantly associated with more distal acid reflux events (β = -0.0094, P = 0.03) and total reflux events (β = -0.0172, P = 0.05), after adjusting for confounders.

DISCUSSION

Reduced proximal esophageal contractility as assessed by decreased PCI on HRM independently predicted increased pharyngeal reflux in patients with LPR symptoms, particularly among those without a coexisting motility disorder.

Normative Ambulatory Reflux Monitoring Metrics for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Systematic Review of 720 Healthy Individuals

OBJECTIVES

To review the normative data for acid, weakly acid, and nonacid proximal esophageal (PRE) and hypopharyngeal reflux (HRE) events in diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) using ambulatory reflux monitoring.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus.

REVIEW METHODS

A literature search was conducted about the normative data for PRE and HRE on multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH), hypopharyngeal-esophageal MII-pH (HEMII-pH), or oropharyngeal pH monitoring using PICOTS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, timing, and setting) and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statements. Outcomes reviewed included device characteristics, impedance/pH sensor placements, study duration, number/average and percentiles of PRE or HRE occurrence, and the event characteristics (pH, composition, and position).

RESULTS

Of 154 identified studies, 18 met criteria for analysis, including 720 healthy individuals. HEMII-pH, MII-pH, and oropharyngeal pH monitoring were used in 7, 6, and 5 studies, respectively. The definition and inclusion/exclusion criteria of healthy individuals varied substantially across studies, with 6 studies considering only digestive symptoms to exclude potential LPR patients. Substantial heterogeneity across studies was noted, including impedance/pH sensor placements/configurations and definitions of composition (liquid, gas, mixed) and type (acid, weakly acid, nonacid) of PRE/HRE. The 95th percentile thresholds were 10 to 73 events for PRE, 0 to 10 events for HRE on HEMII-pH, and 40 to 128 for events with pH <6.0 on oropharyngeal pH monitoring. Most HREs were nonacid and occurred upright. The mean HRE among healthy individuals was 1.

CONCLUSION

The low number of studies and the heterogeneity in inclusion criteria, definitions, and characterization of PRE and HRE limit the establishment of consensual normative criteria for LPR on ambulatory reflux monitoring. Future large multicenter studies are needed.

Evaluation of Oropharyngeal pH-Monitoring in the Assessment of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

BACKGROUND

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a prevalent disorder. The aim of the present retrospective cohort study was to evaluate oropharyngeal pH-monitoring using a novel scoring system for LPR.

METHODS

In a total of 180 consecutive patients with possible LPR, reflux symptom index (RSI), reflux finding score (RFS), oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and transnasal esophagoscopy were carried out for further investigation.

RESULTS

In our series, 99 (55%) patients had severe LPR, 29 (16%) cases presented with moderate and 23 (13%) with mild severity, 9 (5%) subjects revealed neutral values, and 7 (4%) individuals were alkaline, while 13 (7%) patients had no LPR. In detecting LPR, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of oropharyngeal pH-monitoring was 95%, 93% and 94%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Oropharyngeal pH-monitoring is a reliable tool in the assessment of LPR, but the pH graphs have to be precisely analyzed and interpreted in context with other validated diagnostic tests.

Simultaneous Evaluation of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux and Swallowing Function Using Hypopharyngeal Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance Measurements in Neurologically Impaired Patients

Background/Aims

This study aims to evaluate the presence of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and to investigate the use of hypopharyngeal baseline impedance (BI) for assessing swallowing dysfunction and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) using hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH (HMII-pH) monitoring in neurologically impaired patients (NIPs).

Methods

The study population in this retrospective study comprised 20 NIPs (mean age, 36.1 ± 15.0 years; age range, 13-64 years) who underwent multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH (MII-pH), HMII-pH, and laryngoscopy using the Hyodo scoring method from December 2016 to April 2019. The MII-pH and HMM-pH parameters were compared in the NIPs, whereas hypopharyngeal BI values were compared between NIPs with ≥ 5 and < 5 in Hyodo scores. Correlations between the hypopharyngeal BI values and the Hyodo score were analyzed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. A receiver operator characteristic curve was created to determine the optimum cut-off of hypopharyngeal BI value to discriminate SD.

Results

Three NIPs were diagnosed with pathological LPR and GERD by the HMII-pH monitoring. No significant differences in parameters were observed between MII-pH and HMII-pH monitoring. The correlation analysis demonstrated a significant negative correlation between the hypopharyngeal BI values and Hyodo scores. The optimal cutoff value for hypopharyngeal BI was 1552 Ω.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the usefulness of HMII-pH monitoring in identifying NIP with pathological LPR. Considering the difficulties in performing examinations in NIPs, HMII-pH monitoring may be a potentially useful technique for the simultaneous evaluation of swallowing dysfunction, LPR, and GERD in NIP.

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

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is defined as backflow of gastral or gastroduodenal content into the upper aerodigestive tract and characterized by a variety of unspecific symptoms such as chronic cough, globus sensation, or mucus hypersecretion. Due to the lack of a gold standard and the heterogeneity of studies, the diagnosis of LPR is still problematic and challenging. However, in patients with characteristic symptoms and endoscopic findings, with an increased reflux symptom index, a pathologic reflux finding score (RFS), pathologic 24 h esophageal or oropharyngeal pH monitoring, and without any other underlying condition, the diagnosis of LPR is probable. In the following review, we critically discuss the abovementioned methods as well as more recent tools such as measurements of pepsin concentrations in the saliva for diagnosis of LPR.

[Conservative Therapy of Reflux Disease and its Limits]

Gastrooesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is common. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are regarded as first line therapy for all clinical manifestations. However, their efficacy is inadequate for at least 30% of patients and they are occasionally poorly tolerated. Moreover, some patients would prefer an alternative therapy. Alginate cause mechanical reflux inhibition by forming a gelatinous layer in the so-called acid pocket, an acid reservoir that forms on the surface of the chyme in the gastric corpus immediately after food intake. They may be used an alternative to treat the symptoms of uncomplicated GORD and as an add-on to PPIs if these do not improve symptoms adequately. If the reflux symptoms persist or if reflux oesophagitis does not heal, differentiated diagnostic testing must be performed, using endoscopy and functional analysis. Extraoesophageal manifestations of GORD include cough, compulsive clearing of the throat, problems with the voice and globus sensation. These often do not respond to antireflux therapy. Recent data indicate that these are complex hypersensitivity syndromes and that reflux is only one of several possible triggers.

A novel scoring system for evaluating laryngopharyngeal reflux

OBJECTIVE

Although laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common condition in daily practice, no gold standard exists for its diagnosis. The objective of this study was to establish a simple and reliable scoring system for evaluating LPR consisting of both subjective and objective criteria.

METHODS

This retrospective study includes 124 patients presenting with symptoms of LPR. In all patients, reflux symptom index (RSI), reflux finding score (RFS), oropharyngeal pH monitoring (PHM) and transnasal oesophagoscopy (TNE) were performed and rated in a special scoring system.

RESULTS

A Horvath Score of 4-5 for severe LPR was found in 76 patients (61%), a score of 2-3 for non-severe LPR in 38 patients (31%) and a score of 0-1 for non-existing LPR in 10 patients (8%) by combining the 4 validated diagnostic methods.

CONCLUSION

The proposed scoring system qualifies as a simple and reliable tool for evaluating LPR in daily practice, directly impacting patient management.

Extraesophageal syndrome of gastroesophageal reflux: relationships with lung disease and transplantation outcome

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is prevalent and may be associated with both esophageal and extraesophageal syndromes, which include various pulmonary conditions. GERD may lead to pulmonary complications through the "reflux" (aspiration) or "reflex" (refluxate-triggered, vagally mediated airway spasm) mechanisms. While GERD may cause or worsen pulmonary disorders, changes in respiratory mechanics due to lung disease may also increase reflux. Typical esophageal symptoms are frequently absent and objective assessment with reflux monitoring is often needed for diagnosis. Impedance monitoring should be considered in addition to traditional pH study due to the involvement of both acidic and weakly acidic/nonacidic reflux. Antireflux therapy may improve outcomes of some pulmonary complications of GERD, although careful selection of a candidate is paramount to successful outcomes. Further research is needed to identify the optimal testing strategy and patient phenotypes that would benefit from antireflux therapy to improve pulmonary outcomes.

Pepsin and oropharyngeal pH monitoring to diagnose patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of salivary pepsin with oropharyngeal pH monitoring using the Restech measurement system (Dx‐pH) for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

Study Design

Prospective cohort study.

Methods

Seventy patients with primary symptoms related to LPR underwent gastroscopy, high‐resolution manometry, pH throughout 24‐hour monitoring (MII‐pH), and barium esophagography between October 2015 and May 2018. In addition, an ear, nose, and throat examination was performed, including assessment of Belafsky Reflux Finding Score (RFS). Clinical symptoms were evaluated with the Belafsky Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). Simultaneous to MII‐pH, pepsin determination and Dx‐pH were performed.

Results

Of 70 patients, 41 (58.6%) subjects with a pathological DeMeester score showed higher mean values of pepsin (mean value: 216 ng/mL, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 172 to 260), compared to patients with a normal DeMeester score (mean value: 161 ng/mL, 95% CI: 115 to 207). Salivary pepsin showed a specificity of 86.2% and sensitivity of 41.5% for diagnosing LPR using the optimal cutoff value of 216 ng/mL. Furthermore, a significant correlation between the values of salivary pepsin and the RSI score was seen in patients with pathological results in MII‐pH (r = 0.344; P = 0.046).

However, elevated Dx‐pH measurements showed no significant correlation with either MII‐pH, RSI score, RFS score, or GIQLI score, or with the results of pepsin measurement.

Conclusion

Pepsin measurement in saliva could be an alternative tool to assist office‐based diagnosis of LPR, whereas Dx‐pH does not seem to be an adequate test.

Level of Evidence

2B Laryngoscope, 130:1780–1786, 2020

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for oesophageal manometry and oesophageal reflux monitoring

These guidelines on oesophageal manometry and gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring supersede those produced in 2006. Since 2006 there have been significant technological advances, in particular, the development of high resolution manometry (HRM) and oesophageal impedance monitoring. The guidelines were developed by a guideline development group of patients and representatives of all the relevant professional groups using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A systematic literature search was performed and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and decide on the strength of the recommendations made. Key strong recommendations are made regarding the benefit of: (i) HRM over standard manometry in the investigation of dysphagia and, in particular, in characterising achalasia, (ii) adjunctive testing with larger volumes of water or solids during HRM, (iii) oesophageal manometry prior to antireflux surgery, (iv) pH/impedance monitoring in patients with reflux symptoms not responding to high dose proton pump inhibitors and (v) pH monitoring in all patients with reflux symptoms responsive to proton pump inhibitors in whom surgery is planned, but combined pH/impedance monitoring in those not responsive to proton pump inhibitors in whom surgery is planned. This work has been endorsed by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the oesophageal section of the BSG.

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.

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.

Classification of esophageal motor findings in gastro-esophageal reflux disease: Conclusions from an international consensus group

BACKGROUND

High-resolution manometry (HRM) has resulted in new revelations regarding the pathophysiology of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). The impact of new HRM motor paradigms on reflux burden needs further definition, leading to a modern approach to motor testing in GERD.

METHODS

Focused literature searches were conducted, evaluating pathophysiology of GERD with emphasis on HRM. The results were discussed with an international group of experts to develop a consensus on the role of HRM in GERD. A proposed classification system for esophageal motor abnormalities associated with GERD was generated.

KEY RESULTS

Physiologic gastro-esophageal reflux is inherent in all humans, resulting from transient lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxations that allow venting of gastric air in the form of a belch. In pathological gastro-esophageal reflux, transient LES relaxations are accompanied by reflux of gastric contents. Structural disruption of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) barrier, and incomplete clearance of the refluxate can contribute to abnormally high esophageal reflux burden that defines GERD. Esophageal HRM localizes the LES for pH and pH-impedance probe placement, and assesses esophageal body peristaltic performance prior to invasive antireflux therapies and antireflux surgery. Furthermore, HRM can assess EGJ and esophageal body mechanisms contributing to reflux, and exclude conditions that mimic GERD.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Structural and motor EGJ and esophageal processes contribute to the pathophysiology of GERD. A classification scheme is proposed incorporating EGJ and esophageal motor findings, and contraction reserve on provocative tests during HRM.

Facts and Fantasies on Extraesophageal Reflux: A Gastroenterologist Perspective

Gastroesophageal reflux disease encompasses a wide spectrum of disorders related to the reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus. Extraesophageal reflux (EER) may be suspected in patients with unexplained chronic cough, pharyngolaryngeal symptoms, and asthma. For physicians, suspected EER is challenging as there is currently no tool that can reliably make a definitive diagnosis. Endoscopic signs are not specific, pharyngeal and proximal reflux monitoring are not reliable, and if distal pH or pH-impedance monitoring can identify patients with abnormal reflux, they cannot predict the response to therapy. Controlled randomized trials have failed to reliably demonstrate any benefit of high-dose proton-pump inhibitors over placebo in patients with laryngeal symptoms, chronic cough, and asthma. Overall, the role of gastroesophageal reflux has been largely overestimated in patients with suspected EER. Especially when proton-pump inhibitors failed to improve symptoms, other diagnosis should be considered, such as functional laryngeal disorders which are probably much more prevalent in these patients than pathologic gastroesophageal reflux.

Ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: Update of the Porto consensus and recommendations from an international consensus group

BACKGROUND

An international group of experts evaluated and revised recommendations for ambulatory reflux monitoring for the diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

Literature search was focused on indications and technical recommendations for GERD testing and phenotypes definitions. Statements were proposed and discussed during several structured meetings.

KEY RESULTS

Reflux testing should be performed after cessation of acid suppressive medication in patients with a low likelihood of GERD. In this setting, testing can be either catheter-based or wireless pH-monitoring or pH-impedance monitoring. In patients with a high probability of GERD (esophagitis grade C and D, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, peptic stricture, previous positive pH monitoring) and persistent symptoms, pH-impedance monitoring should be performed on treatment. Recommendations are provided for data acquisition and analysis. Esophageal acid exposure is considered as pathological if acid exposure time (AET) is greater than 6% on pH testing. Number of reflux episodes and baseline impedance are exploratory metrics that may complement AET. Positive symptom reflux association is defined as symptom index (SI) >50% or symptom association probability (SAP) >95%. A positive symptom-reflux association in the absence of pathological AET defines hypersensitivity to reflux.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

The consensus group determined that grade C or D esophagitis, peptic stricture, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, and esophageal acid exposure greater >6% are sufficient to define pathological GERD. Further testing should be considered when none of these criteria are fulfilled.

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

BACKGROUND

The role of gastroesophageal reflux in chronic laryngeal symptoms is difficult to establish. The aim of this study was to characterize pharyngeal and esophageal pH-impedance reflux patterns in a group of patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux and to determine predictive factors of response to proton pump inhibitors.

METHODS

Patients with chronic pharyngolaryngeal symptoms were evaluated with a symptom score questionnaire, laryngoscopy, and 24-hour pharyngeal and esophageal pH-impedance monitoring at baseline and after 8-week treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg b.i.d. Response to treatment was defined by a diminution of more than 50% of the score for the primary symptom. Reflux patterns and baseline impedance values were compared to those obtained in 46 healthy subjects.

KEY RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included (17 women, median age 54 years), all previously refractory to antisecretory therapy. Symptom scores were 46 (32-62) and 40 (27-76) off and on therapy, respectively (P=.1). There was no significant difference between patients and controls for pH-impedance reflux parameters and baseline values off and on therapy in distal and proximal esophagus and in the pharynx. Median numbers of pharyngeal reflux were 0 and 0 off and on therapy, respectively. Only two patients were responders to treatment, both with excessive distal reflux but no pharyngeal reflux. Only one patient had abnormal pharyngeal reflux but did not respond to proton pump inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux refractory to therapy do not exhibit abnormal pharyngeal or esophageal pH-impedance reflux. In these patients, laryngopharyngeal reflux is unlikely.

Pharyngeal pH monitoring in gastrectomy patients - what do we really measure?

AIM

Diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has dramatically increased over the last years. For diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux, a newly designed pharyngeal probe (Dx-pH) was recently introduced. It is also recommended to guide therapy decision in antireflux surgery. However, diagnostic results are questionable. Therefore, we establish a reliable reference group with asymptomatic patients after total gastrectomy and, thus, complete extinction of gastric acid production.

METHODS

Pharyngeal pH monitoring was performed in 10 consecutive patients with history of total gastrectomy. All patients were off proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and followed a non-acid diet during the complete measurement period.

RESULTS

All procedures were performed without any complication. Six of the 10 asymptomatic gastrectomy patients (60%) had pathological results derived from the validated reference values (Ryan score) in pharyngeal pH monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Pathological pH values assessed by the Dx-pH device, usually interpreted as pathological aerosolized acidic gastroesophageal and/or laryngopharyngeal reflux, are obviously dissociated from gastric acid production. Further studies are required to determine diagnostic value of the new system. Therefore, the pharyngeal pH monitoring system seems currently not to be useful to guide any diagnostic or therapeutic decisions, in particular if surgical therapy is considered.

Dental erosions and other extra-oesophageal symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: Evidence, treatment response and areas of uncertainty

Extra-oesophageal symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) are often studied, but remain a subject of debate. It has been clearly shown that there is a relationship between the extra-oesophageal symptoms chronic cough, asthma, laryngitis and dental erosion and GORD. Literature is abundant concerning reflux-related cough and reflux-related asthma, but much less is known about reflux-related dental erosions. The prevalence of dental erosion in GORD and vice versa, the prevalence of GORD in patients with dental erosion is high but the exact mechanism of reflux-induced tooth wear erosion is still under review.

Influence of upper airway abnormalities on the control of severe asthma: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

A better understanding of severe uncontrolled asthma (UA) in the upper airways is needed. The aims of this study were to assess the prevalence of upper airway abnormalities and their associations with UA.

METHODS

An observational study enrolled individuals with severe asthma. Sociodemographic and clinical questionnaires regarding asthma, rhinosinusitis, and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) were administered. Skin-prick tests and fiber optic nasolaryngoscopies were also performed. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed, using a multiple Poisson regression model to obtain adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) and to identify the clinical profiles associated with the highest and lowest percentages of the dependent variable, lack of asthma control.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 64 participants who were divided into 2 groups according to asthma control. Thus, group I comprised 27 individuals with severe controlled asthma (CA), and group II consisted of 37 individuals with UA. Women represented 87.5% of the study population. The median age was 54 years, and 86% of the sample had rhinosinusitis. Relevant associations were detected between UA and hyposmia (PR = 2.04), hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (PR = 1.45), arytenoids hyperemia (PR = 1.45), LPR (PR = 1.37), a positive family history of asthma (PR = 1.35), onset of asthma at age 10 years or older (PR = 0.59), and swelling of the vocal cords (PR = 0.54).

CONCLUSION

This study found a very high prevalence of rhinosinusitis in patients with severe asthma as well as associations between UA and hyposmia, hypersensitivity to NSAIDs, arytenoids hyperemia, and LPR. Clinical profiles prone to UA were identified.