Predictors of outcome in an open label, therapeutic trial of high-dose omeprazole in laryngitis

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux is implicated in some cases of laryngitis. There are no established predictors of response to acid suppression therapy in suspected reflux laryngitis. AIM: In a population with laryngitis, the aim is to determine whether (a) omeprazole 20 mg tds (3 months) improves symptoms and laryngitis, and (b) the outcome in response to potent acid suppression can be predicted by esophageal and/or pharyngeal parameters during ambulatory pH monitoring or by other pretreatment variables. METHODS: From the 70 consecutive patients with laryngitis screened, 20 patients met the inclusion criteria (dysphonia >3 months; laryngoscopically demonstrated laryngitis); and 50 patients were excluded because of one or more criteria indicating alternative causes for laryngeal injury. The primary outcome measure was improvement of at least one level in a 4-point laryngitis grading at 3 months. Twenty-four-hour dual, pharyngo-esophageal pH monitoring was performed at baseline. Secondary outcomes (symptom questionnaire; computerized voice analysis) were measured at baseline, and at 6 and 12 wk. RESULTS: Response rates at 6 and 12 wk were 47% and 63%, respectively. GERD symptoms (heartburn (p= 0.03) and regurgitation (p= 0.0001)) improved. However, neither baseline GERD symptoms nor endoscopic findings predicted laryngoscopic or symptomatic response. Neither baseline laryngitis grade (p= 0.46) nor esophageal acid exposure on pH testing (p= 0.3) predicted outcome. Four of 20 patients demonstrated pharyngeal regurgitation on pH testing, all four of whom responded to potent acid suppression (p= 0.2). Computerized voice measures were not predictive of outcome, although fundamental frequency (Fo) was inversely related to baseline laryngoscopic grade. CONCLUSION: In a carefully defined population of patients with laryngitis (a) 63% have a laryngoscopic response to 3 months of potent acid suppression without significant improvement in laryngeal symptoms; (b) neither voice measures, esophageal acid exposure time, symptoms nor severity of laryngitis predict outcome; and (c) although numbers were small, all patients with a positive pharyngeal pH study responded to therapy and pharyngeal pH-metry may prove useful; (4) available evidence supports an empiric trial of high-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPI), for at least 12 wk, as the initial diagnostic step for suspected reflux laryngitis.     

Lansoprazole treatment of patients with chronic idiopathic laryngitis: a placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: Previous uncontrolled studies suggested a therapeutic benefit for treating gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) among patients with laryngitis. The present study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of gastric acid suppression among patients with laryngitis in the United States. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with idiopathic chronic laryngitis were randomized to receive either lansoprazole 30 mg p.o. b.i.d. or a matching placebo for 3 months. Before randomization, all patients underwent upper endoscopy, dual probe ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH-metry, and laryngoscopy, as well as completing a symptom questionnaire for GERD and laryngitis. The primary outcome of treatment was the complete resolution of laryngeal symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients with symptoms and signs of chronic laryngitis were enrolled, 20 of whom completed the study. At baseline, there were no significant differences between the two groups with regards to GERD symptoms, erosive esophagitis, proximal and distal esophageal pH-metry, or laryngeal signs and symptoms. In an intention-to-treat analysis, six patients in the lansoprazole group (50%) and only one patient (10%) in the placebo group achieved a complete symptomatic response, p = 0.04. Apart from receiving lansoprazole, there were no significant differences between responders and nonresponders in any of baseline esophageal or laryngeal signs and symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical treatment with lansoprazole is efficacious in relieving symptoms of laryngitis compared to placebo. Such treatment can be considered as a first-line option in managing patients with idiopathic chronic laryngitis.     

Determinants of Long-Term Outcome of Patients with Reflux-Related Ear, Nose, and Throat Symptoms

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is present in up to 75% of patients with chronic refractory ear, nose, and throat (ENT) symptoms, and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy induces symptom relief in the majority of these patients. It has been suggested that endoscopic findings and quantification of esophageal acid exposure may help to predict the long-term outcome of medical therapy, but prospective studies that confirm this hypothesis are lacking. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship of endoscopic findings and quantification of reflux with long-term outcome in patients with reflux-related ENT symptoms. One hundred six consecutive patients with chronic refractory unexplained ENT symptoms underwent upper GI endoscopy, 24-hr dual-channel esophageal pH and Bilitec (n = 35) monitoring, and esophageal manometry. Subsequently, all were treated with omeprazole, 20 mg b.i.d., and patients were followed at 2-week intervals until symptom relief. Four weeks later, omeprazole therapy was gradually decreased and the lowest effective omeprazole maintenance dose, if any, was determined. Eighty-one patients (49 men; mean age, 50) experienced a clear or excellent therapeutic response after, on average, 4 weeks of omeprazole, 20 mg b.i.d. In 36 patients (44%; group A), PPI treatment could be stopped completely, 27 patients (33%; group B) required a maintenance dose of omeprazole, 20 mg/day, and 18 patients (22%; group C) required maintenance with omeprazole, 40 mg/day. The prevalence of reflux esophagitis was significantly lower in group A patients, who also had significantly lower distal esophageal acid exposure, proximal esophageal acid exposure, and esophageal duodenogastroesophageal reflux exposure compared to groups B and C. Multivariate analysis identified the presence of esophagitis and pathological distal esophageal acid exposure as risk factors for the need of maintenance therapy. In patients with reflux-related ENT symptoms, initial findings on upper GI endoscopy and 24-hr pH-metry help to predict the need for maintenance therapy.     

Is the Proton Pump Inhibitor Test Helpful in Patients with Laryngeal Symptoms?

Background and Objectives

The association of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and laryngeal symptoms is not clear. We aimed to examine the symptomatic and endoscopic relations between GERD and laryngeal symptoms and also to evaluate the response to a 2-week proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial.

Methods

Seventy-two patients experiencing persistent laryngeal symptoms ≥2/week were enrolled. The laryngeal symptoms using the 1-week laryngeal symptom score (LSS) and the typical reflux symptoms including heartburn and acid regurgitation were assessed. Transnasal-esophagogastroduodenoscopy (TN-EGD) and ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring were performed. The patients were classified into a GERD group and a non-GERD group. The GERD group was defined as the cases of the presence of typical reflux symptoms and/or reflux esophagitis and/or pathologic acid exposure. Patients were treated with 30 mg of lansoprazole bid for 14 days.

Results

Thirty-nine patients (54 %) were diagnosed with GERD on the basis of typical reflux symptoms, EGD, and/or pH testing. There was no significant association between the LSS and the presence of typical reflux symptoms. Also, the presence of laryngitis was not significantly related to reflux esophagitis. The 2-week PPI trial showed no significant difference in the improvement in laryngeal symptoms between the GERD and non-GERD groups.

Conclusions

There was no significant symptomatic and endoscopic association between GERD and laryngeal symptoms. Therefore, GERD does not appear to be the sole cause of these symptoms. Additionally, a 2-week PPI trial is not long enough to be a diagnostic tool in patients with laryngeal symptoms.     

Multimodality evaluation of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms who have failed empiric proton pump inhibitor therapy

Patients with symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), such as chest pain, heartburn, regurgitation, and dysphagia, are typically treated initially with a course of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The evaluation of patients who have either not responded at all or partially and inadequately responded to such therapy requires a more detailed history and may involve an endoscopy and esophageal biopsies, followed by esophageal manometry, ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring, and gastric emptying scanning. To assess the merits of a multimodality ‘structural’ and ‘functional’ assessment of the esophagus in patients who have inadequately controlled GERD symptoms despite using empiric PPI, a retrospective cohort study of patients without any response or with poor symptomatic control to empiric PPI (>2 months duration) who were referred to an Esophageal Studies Unit was conducted. Patients were studied using symptom questionnaires, endoscopy (+ or – for erosive disease, or Barrett's metaplasia) and multilevel esophageal biopsies (eosinophilia, metaplasia), esophageal motility (aperistalsis, dysmotility), 24‐hour ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring (+ if % total time pH < 4 > 5%), and gastric emptying scanning (+ if >10% retention at 4 hours and >70% at 2 hours). Over 3 years, 275 patients (147 men and 128 women) aged 16–89 years underwent complete multimodality testing. Forty percent (n= 109) had nonerosive reflux disease (esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD]–, biopsy–, pH+); 19.3% (n= 53) had erosive esophagitis (EGD+); 5.5% (n= 15) Barrett's esophagus (EGD+, metaplasia+); 5.5% (n= 15) eosinophilic esophagitis (biopsy+); 2.5% (n= 7) had achalasia and 5.8% (n= 16) other dysmotility (motility+, pH–); 16% (n= 44) had functional heartburn (EGD–, pH–), and 5.8% (n= 16) had gastroparesis (gastric scan+). Cumulative symptom scores for chest pain, heartburn, regurgitation, and dysphagia were similar among the groups (mean range 1.1–1.35 on a 0–3 scale). Multimodality evaluation changed the diagnosis of GERD in 34.5% of cases and led to or guided alternative therapies in 42%. Overlap diagnoses were frequent: 10/15 (67%) of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis, 12/16 (75%) of patients with gastroparesis, and 11/23 (48%) of patients with achalasia or dysmotility had concomitant pathologic acid reflux by pH studies. Patients with persistent GERD symptoms despite empiric PPI therapy benefit from multimodality evaluation that may change the diagnosis and guide therapy in more than one third of such cases. Because symptoms are not specific and overlap diagnoses are frequent and multifaceted, objective evidence‐driven therapies should be considered in such patients.     

The utility of endoscopy in the management of patients with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms

Objective: The utility of endoscopy in the management of patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is unclear. The purpose of this prospective study was to assess the impact of endoscopy on the subsequent management of patients with uncomplicated reflux symptoms.
Methods: A total of 742 patients underwent endoscopy for symptoms of GERD. Endoscopists recorded the therapy before endoscopy, the findings of endoscopy, and the treatment recommendations after endoscopy.
Results: There was no difference in pre-endoscopy therapy or grade of esophagitis in subjects undergoing endoscopy for failed therapy versus GERD symptoms alone. After endoscopy, the most common strategy for patients taking omeprazole was to maintain or increase the dose. For those taking an H₂ blocker before endoscopy, the most common outcome was to switch the patient to omeprazole, independent of the grade of esophagitis.
Conclusion: Most patients undergoing endoscopy for symptoms of GERD were switched to omeprazole regardless of the endoscopic findings. No esophageal cancer was identified and the incidence of Barrett's esophagus was low. It appears that endoscopy itself did not change the management of patients receiving H₂-blocker therapy. A trial of a proton pump inhibitor before endoscopy should be considered.     

Esophageal pH and bile monitoring for detecting duodenogastroesophageal reflux and evaluating the effectiveness of treatment

OBJECTIVE: To study methods of diagnosing duo­denogastroesophageal reflux (DGER) and to evaluate the role of bile reflux in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Simultaneous 24‐h esophageal mucosal bilirubin level and pH monitoring were performed in 20 healthy subjects and 52 patients with symptoms suggesting gastroesophageal reflux. Data were gathered by using an ambulatory duodenogastric reflux monitoring system (Bilitec 2000) and an ambulatory pH recorder (Digitrapper MKIII). An absorbance value of ≥0.14 was designated as the threshold value for the presence of bile reflux. Patients suffering from mixed pathological reflux of acid and bile were treated with hydrotalcite and cisapride for 4 weeks, then the monitoring was repeated. RESULTS: No pathological acid reflux was found in the 20 healthy subjects. Based on findings from 24‐h esophageal pH monitoring, 47 of 52 patients (including 12 with esophagitis) were found to have patho­logical reflux. The total fraction of time with bile reflux was greater in the patients (n = 52) than in the healthy subjects (n = 20; 2.67 ± 3.23%vs 0.47 ± 0.71%; P < 0.05) and was greater in the patients with esophagitis (n = 12) than in the patients without esophagitis (n = 35; 5.41 ± 4.93%vs 1.68 ± 1.76%; P < 0.05). Of the 47 patients with GERD, 15 (32%) had abnormal mixed acid and bile reflux. Eight of the 15 patients with esophagitis were found to have mixed reflux and only four of 32 had acid reflux only (P < 0.05). After treatment with hydrotalcite and cisapride, the total fraction of time with acid and bile reflux in the 15 patients with mixed reflux decreased significantly (P < 0.05). Esophagitis was cured in seven of eight patients. CONCLUSION: The ambulatory duodenogastric reflux monitoring system is a useful tool for detecting DGER and evaluating the efficacy of treatment. Approximately 32% (15/47 cases) of patients with GERD were found to have DGER. Bile reflux may play a significant role in causing esophageal mucosal damage in patients suffering from GERD.     

Failure of Initial 24-Hour Esophageal pH Monitoring to Predict Refractoriness and Intractability in Reflux Esophagitis

Prolonged esophageal pH monitoring is considered to be the most sensitive and specific test for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the role of pH monitoring in predicting the clinical and endoscopic response of reflux esophagitis is not well defined. In this study, 106 patients with moderate to severe symptoms of GERD and esophagitis (grades 0-IV) by endoscopy were initially studied by ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring, and their clinical response to standard H2 antagonist therapy was monitored at 8 wk. Refractory patients were defined as those who failed to heal and/or had intractable reflux symptoms after 8 wk of H2 antagonist therapy, and who required continuous therapy with higher doses of H2 antagonists, addition of prokinetic agents, or omeprazole. There was a positive correlation (r = 0.89) between endoscopic severity of esophagitis upon entry into the study and refractoriness to standard medical therapy. However, there were no differences in the various pH parameters analyzed between the 58 patients who responded and the 48 patients who were refractory to medical therapy, regardless of the endoscopic grading of their esophagitis. We conclude that 24-h ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring does not predict refractoriness of reflux esophagitis to standard therapy. The decision for more aggressive methods of treatment probably requires assessment of symptomatic and endoscopic response after 8 week standard H2 antagonist therapy.     

Proximal esophageal pH-metry in patients with 'reflux laryngitis'

Fiberoptic laryngoscopic examinations were performed on 40 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, 25 of whom had persistent laryngeal symptoms (dysphonia, cough, globus sensation, frequent throat clearing, or sore throat) and 15 without laryngeal symptoms who served as disease controls. Ten patients with laryngeal symptoms but none of the controls had laryngoscopic findings consistent with reflux laryngitis. Dual-site ambulatory pH recordings were obtained with the pH electrodes spaced 15 cm apart and with the proximal sensor positioned just distal to the upper esophageal sphincter. Patients in the three groups (disease controls: group 1; patients with symptoms but without laryngoscopic findings: group 2; and patients with both laryngeal symptoms and findings: group 3) were comparable in terms of age, smoking habit, the presence of esophagitis, and distal esophageal acid exposure. Proximal esophageal acid exposure was, however, significantly increased in groups 2 and 3, and nocturnal proximal esophageal acidification occurred in over half of these patients but in none of the group 1 patients. We conclude that the subset of reflux patients who experience laryngeal symptoms show significantly more proximal esophageal acid exposure (especially nocturnally) and often have laryngoscopic findings of posterior laryngitis not observed in control reflux patients.     

胃食管反流病食管外症状-咽喉炎的临床研究

目的 探讨胃食管反流病表现为咽喉炎患者24 h食管pH变化,并评价质子泵抑制剂（PPI）及选择性5-HT4受体部分激动剂的治疗效果.方法 对76例经内镜检查无食管糜烂等表现的顽固性慢性咽喉炎患者行食管测压及双通道24 h食管pH检测后,随机予PPI（奥美拉唑）或选择性5-HT4受体部分激动剂（替加色罗）治疗2周,比较治疗前后食管pH改变及临床症状评分改变.结果 76例患者中,38例食管pH异常（占50%）,其中18例经奥美拉唑治疗后,食管pH改变差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,临床症状亦有显著改善（P＜0.01）.19例经替加色罗治疗后,临床症状有显著改善（P＜0.01）,但食管pH无显著改变.38例食管pH正常,其中18例予奥美拉唑治疗,17例予替加色罗治疗,经2周治疗后,临床症状改善差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.食管pH异常或正常患者食管测压结果差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.结论 部分胃食管反流病可表现为难治性慢性咽喉炎,予PPI（奥美拉唑）或选择性5-HT4受体部分激动剂（替加色罗）治疗后,可显著改善症状.     

Manifestations of Gastroesophageal Reflux and Response to Omeprazole Therapy in Patients with Chronic Posterior Laryngitis: An Evaluation Based on Clinical Practice

Our aims were to describe clinical characteristics of patients with chronic posterior laryngitis and to predict the response to omeprazole therapy. Ninety-one patients with posterior laryngitis were evaluated by a questionnaire, esophageal manometry and pH recording, and endoscopy. Patients were treated with omeprazole, 20 mg twice daily for 3 months. Therapy was continued another 3 months if necessary. Clinical manifestations of reflux occurred in 84 (92%) patients, abnormal acid reflux in 53 (65%) cases, and esophagitis in 6 of 50 (12%). After 3 months of therapy significant improvement occurred in 30 of 70 patients (41%). Continuing therapy for 3 more months increased the response to 65% (45 of 69 cases). Response to therapy was associated with lower age and lower duration of laryngeal symptoms, but a consistent prediction of the response could not be made. In conclusion, patients with posterior laryngitis frequently present with manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux. Response to therapy can not be predicted with certainty.     

Comparison of the effects of omeprazole and famotidine in treatment of upper abdominal symptoms in patients with reflux esophagitis

Purpose  The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) with H₂ receptor antagonist (H₂RA) in treatment of upper abdominal symptoms. Methods  This was a multi-center, open study conducted at 102 hospitals in Japan. Patients with reflux esophagitis received famotidine 10 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, then omeprazole 10 mg once daily for 2 weeks. Thereafter, patients were switched to famotidine 10 mg twice daily for a third 2-weekperiod, provided those with a medical condition agreed to continue the study. Patients evaluated the treatment response to each gastrointestinal symptom using a predefined patient questionnaire and gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS). Results  161 patients entered the study, of whom 8 were excluded from all analyses due to lack of participation following entry. Overall symptom improvement rate (n = 130) at week 4, after the 2-week omeprazole treatment, was 75.4% and this was significantly higher than that after the first 2-week famotidine treatment (41.5%) at week 2. In patients (n = 36) who completed 6 weeks of treatment, 2-week omeprazole treatment at week 4 showed a significantly higher overall symptom improvement rate compared with both the first 2-week and third 2-week famotidine treatments. Conclusions  Omeprazole was superior to famotidine for treatment of upper abdominal symptoms in patients with reflux esophagitis, which suggested that gastric acid might be a cause not only of reflux symptoms, but also of ulcer symptoms and dysmotility symptoms such as epigastric pain and feeling of fullness in reflux esophagitis.     

半夏泻心汤联合奥美拉唑治疗胃食管反流病的疗效分析

目的探讨半夏泻心汤联合奥美拉唑治疗胃食管反流病的临床疗效。 方法统计2015年1月至10月新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院诊治的胃食管反流病患者的病案资料共172例,其中反流性食管炎A级74例,B级47例,C级39例,D级12例,合并胆汁反流者23例,合并食管裂孔疝者46例(Ⅰ型32例;Ⅱ型9例;Ⅲ型4例,Ⅳ型1例)。给予半夏泻心汤联合奥美拉唑治疗,统计上述患者治疗前、后1个月食管24 h pH监测、食管测压、GERD Q量表评分及相关并发症等,回顾性分析半夏泻心汤联合奥美拉唑治疗胃食管反流病的临床疗效。 结果本组患者住院期间无死亡,无严重并发症出现,治疗后患者反流症状均较治疗前明显改善,反流时间(1.40±1.10)h、反流次数(29.83±19.71)次、酸反流时间百分比(6.47%±2.79%)及DeMeester评分(7.28±4.38)分较治疗前(分别为2.04±1.91、120.40±82.72、9.90±4.27、28.23±12.16)分明显降低,治疗后GERD Q量表评分(7.18±1.33)分较术前(10.91±2.02)分明显减低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗后食管下括约肌压力[静息呼吸最小值(7.24±6.86)mmHg、静息呼吸平均值(12.91±6.89)mmHg]较治疗前[分别为(0.70±0.15)mmHg、(7.33±2.72)mmHg]明显提高,残余压[平均值(8.16±3.82)mmHg、最大值(16.10±12.05)mmHg]较治疗前[分别为(4.36±1.77)mmHg、(7.49±5.15)mmHg]明显提高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗后无效吞咽(7.25%±1.04%)较治疗前(6.36%±3.26%)无明显变化,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访中位数6个月。 结论半夏泻心汤联合奥美拉唑治疗胃食管反流病疗效确切,并发症少,值得临床推广。     

Comparison of patients of chronic laryngitis with and without troublesome reflux symptoms

Background and Aim: Little is known about the difference between patients of chronic laryngitis with and without troublesome reflux symptoms. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and response to acid suppression between patients of chronic laryngitis with and without troublesome reflux symptoms. Methods: Consecutive patients with chronic laryngitis were enrolled. The frequency and severity of reflux and laryngeal symptoms were scored. All the patients underwent laryngoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and 24‐h multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring before receiving rabeprazole 10 mg b.i.d. for 3 months. Mild typical reflux symptoms (heartburn or regurgitation) occurring ≥ 2 days/week or moderate/severe symptoms occurring ≥ 1 day/week were defined as troublesome reflux symptoms. Results: Compared to patients without troublesome reflux symptoms, those with troublesome reflux symptoms were older and had more episodes of acid and liquid gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and acid and weakly acidic laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). They also had higher percentages of both bolus exposure time and acid exposure time of GER and LPR. Patients with troublesome reflux symptoms responded to acid suppression more often at 12 weeks (67.3% vs 20.9%, P < 0.001) and more rapidly (40.8% vs 14.0%, 3 weeks after the start of acid suppression; P = 0.004) compared to those without. Conclusion: Difference in reflux profile of GER and LPR between patients with and without troublesome reflux symptoms could partly explain the discrepancy of response to acid suppression among patients with chronic laryngitis. Acid suppression therapy may provide limited therapeutic benefits to patients of chronic laryngitis without troublesome reflux symptoms.     

The clinical characteristics of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with laryngeal symptoms who are referred to gastroenterology

The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has increased recently in Asia‐Pacific countries. However, little is known about its prevalence and clinical characteristics in GERD patients with atypical symptoms in Asia. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics of GERD in patients who had laryngeal symptoms in Korea. Data were gathered retrospectively from patients who presented with atypical symptoms, such as throat discomfort, globus pharyngeus, hoarseness, and chronic cough. They underwent a 24‐hour ambulatory intraesophageal pH monitoring and filled in a validated reflux questionnaire. Overall, 128 patients (36 men and 92 women) with laryngeal symptoms were included. Of these 128, 43 patients (34%) had erosive esophagitis or pathological reflux from 24‐hour ambulatory pH monitoring, and 24 (19%) had a positive Bernstein test or positive symptom index from 24‐hour pH monitoring. Sixty‐one patients (48%) had no evidence of reflux esophagitis on upper endoscopy and pathological acid reflux on 24‐hour pH monitoring. Fifty‐six patients (44%) had weekly heartburn or regurgitation. Typical symptoms and dyspepsia were significantly more common in patients with GERD who had laryngeal symptoms than non‐GERD. Fifty‐two percent of patients had laryngeal symptoms that were associated with GERD. The presence of typical reflux symptoms and dyspepsia are risk factors for GERD in patients who present with laryngeal symptoms.     

Selection of Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease for Antireflux Surgery Based on Esophageal Manometry

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is caused by a mechanically defective lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and may be worsened by impaired esophageal peristalsis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of medical treatment depending on the function of the LES and esophageal peristalsis. We studied 128 GERD patients with mild esophagitis. Group 1 (N = 26) consisted of patients with a normal LES and normal esophageal peristalsis. Group 2 (N = 63) comprised patients with a defective LES but normal peristalsis. Patients of group 3 (N = 39) had a defective LES as well as impaired esophageal peristalsis. The patients were continuously treated with omeprazole. Clinical evaluation and endoscopy were repeated after 3, 6, and 12 months. Recurrence of GERD was diagnosed if there was relapse of heartburn and/or esophagitis. The recurrence rate was 7.7% in group 1, 38.1% in group 2 (P < 0.05) and 79.5% in group 3 (P < 0.05). In conclusion, in GERD patients with a mechanically defective LES, especially in those with deteriorated esophageal peristalsis, antireflux surgery should be considered since medical therapy reveals a high recurrence rate.     

Long-term outcomes of patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease treated with vonoprazan

Objective: The novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, vonoprazan, provides rapid and effective acid suppression. The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) treated with vonoprazan.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 55 patients with symptomatic GERD treated with vonoprazan who have been followed for more than one year. The effectiveness of vonoprazan on gastrointestinal symptoms was evaluated using the Izumo scale, a self-reported questionnaire reflecting quality of life related to various abdominal symptoms.

Results: These 55 patients with symptomatic GERD had non-erosive reflux disease (n?=?30) or erosive esophagitis (n?=?25). Vonoprazan (10?mg) for one month improved GERD symptoms in 89% (responders) and the improvement was maintained at one year in 82% without additional treatment. One-year maintenance therapy resulted in sustained resolution of GERD symptoms in 47%. Of the 49 responders, nine patients had relapse of GERD symptoms and dose escalation of vonoprazan improved the symptoms in six patients. Postprandial distress and the presence of erosive esophagitis before starting vonoprazan were identified as significant negative and positive predictors of sustained resolution of GERD symptoms for one year, respectively. Epigastric pain, postprandial distress, constipation and diarrhea were significantly improved at one-month and maintained at one year. After one-year of treatment, the endoscopic healing rate of erosive esophagitis was 95%.

Conclusion: One-year treatment with vonoprazan significantly improves GERD symptoms and endoscopic healing of erosive esophagitis is satisfactory. The long-term use of vonoprazan is effective and useful to control GERD.     

Laryngopharyngeal reflux in patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has been extensively studied in patients with laryngeal signs and symptoms, gastroesophageal reflux being identified in approximately 50%. Few studies have investigated the incidence and significance of LPR in GERD patients. Two-hundred and seventy-six consecutive patients referred with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux had dual probe 24 h pH, esophageal manometry, GERD and ENT questionnaires. LPR was defined as at least three pharyngeal reflux events less than pH 5.0 with corresponding esophageal reflux, but excluding meal periods. Fourty-two percent of patients were positive for LPR on 24 h pH monitoring and 91.3% corresponded with an abnormal esophageal acid score. Distal esophageal acid exposure was significantly greater (P < 0.001) in patients with LPR but symptoms of GERD and regurgitation scores showed no significant differences between patients with positive and negative LPR on 24 h pH. There was no significant difference between the incidence of LPR in patients with or without laryngeal symptoms. There is a high incidence of LPR in patients with GERD but its significance for laryngeal symptoms is tenuous. Fixed distance dual probe pH monitoring allows documentation of conventional esophageal reflux and LPR.     

Esophageal Histology Does Not Provide Additional Useful Information Over Clinical Assessment in Identifying Reflux Patients Presenting for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

We prospectively evaluated the value of histology in identifying gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in consecutive patients enrolled for upper endoscopy. GERD was defined as heartburn occurring at least weekly. Macroscopic esophagitis was graded and an esophageal biopsy was taken 2 cm above the gastroesophageal junction. Histological esophagitis was identified by: (1) basal cell hyperplasia >15%, (2) increased papillary length >66%, and (3) infiltration by leukocytes/eosinophils. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of histological esophagitis in patients with and without typical reflux symptoms, with and without endoscopic changes, or both were evaluated. Of 178 patients, reflux symptoms were present in 59% (N = 105) and esophageal erosions in 19% (N = 34); 75 patients had reflux symptoms but no erosions. While the specificity of histology was adequate (78%), it was insensitive (30%). The positive and negative predictive values were 67% and 44%, respectively. No single individual parameter was better than any other. Thus, histology appears to be of no additional value in identifying GERD.     

Maintenance therapy for erosive esophagitis in children after healing by omeprazole: is it advisable?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of acid-suppressive maintenance therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in children, after the healing of reflux esophagitis. METHODS: Forty-eight children (median age 105 months, range 32-170) with erosive reflux esophagitis were initially treated with omeprazole 1.4 mg/kg/day for 3 months. Patients in endoscopic remission were assigned in a randomized, blinded manner by means of a computer-generated list to three groups of 6-month maintenance treatment: group A (omeprazole at half the starting dose, once daily before breakfast), group B (ranitidine 10 mg/kg/day, divided in two doses), and group C (no treatment). Endoscopic, histological, and symptomatic scores were evaluated at: T0, enrollment; T1, assessment for remission at 3 months after enrollment (healing phase); T2, assessment for effective maintenance at 12 months after T0 (3 months after the completion of the maintenance phase). Relapse was defined as the recurrence of macroscopic esophageal lesions. After the completion of the maintenance phase, patients without macroscopic esophagitis relapse were followed up for GERD symptoms for a further period of 30 months. RESULTS: Of 48 initially treated patients, 46 (94%) healed and entered the maintenance study. For all patients, in comparison to T0, the histological, endoscopic, and symptomatic scores were significantly reduced both at T1 and T2 (P<0.0001, for each). No significant difference was found in these three scores, comparing group A, B, and C at T1 and T2. A relapse occurred in one patient only, who presented with macroscopic esophageal lesions at T2. Three months after the completion of the maintenance phase, 12 (26%) patients complained of symptoms sufficiently mild to discontinue GERD therapy, excluding the patient who showed macroscopic esophagitis relapse. Three of 44 (6.8%) patients reported very mild GERD symptoms within a period of 30 months after maintenance discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Our pediatric population showed a low rate of erosive esophagitis relapse and GERD symptom recurrence long term after healing with omeprazole, irrespective of the maintenance therapy.