The lower esophageal sphincter

The lower esophageal sphincters (LES) together with the crural diaphragm are the major antireflux barriers protecting the esophagus from reflux of gastric content. However, reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus is a normal phenomenon in healthy individuals occurring primarily during episodes of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR), defined as LES relaxation in the absence of a swallow. Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation is also the dominant mechanism of pathologic reflux in gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) patients. Frequency of TLESR does not differ significantly between healthy individuals and those with GERD, but TLESRs are more likely to be associated with acid reflux in GERD patients. Understanding the mechanisms responsible for elicitation of a TLESR, using recently introduced novel technology is an area of intense interest. Pharmacologic and non‐pharmacologic manipulation of receptors involved in the control of TLESR has recently emerged as a potential target for GERD therapy.     

High‐resolution esophageal pressure topography is superior to conventional sleeve manometry for the detection of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations associated with a reflux event

Background Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs) are the main mechanism underlying gastro‐esophageal reflux and are detected during manometric studies using well defined criteria. Recently, high‐resolution esophageal pressure topography (HREPT) has been introduced and is now considered as the new standard to study esophageal and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) function. In this study we performed a head‐to‐head comparison between HREPT and conventional sleeve manometry for the detection of TLESRs. Methods A setup with two synchronized MMS‐solar systems was used. A solid state HREPT catheter, a water‐perfused sleeve catheter, and a multi intraluminal impedance pH (MII‐pH) catheter were introduced in 10 healthy volunteers (M6F4, age 19–56). Subjects were studied 0.5 h before and 3 h after ingestion of a standardized meal. Tracings were blinded and analyzed by the three authors according to the TLESR criteria. Key Results In the HREPT mode 156 TLESRs were scored, vs 143 during sleeve manometry (P = 0.10). Hundred and twenty‐three TLESRs were scored by both techniques. Of all TLESRs (177), 138 were associated with reflux (78%). High‐resolution esophageal pressure topography detected significantly more TLESRs associated with a reflux event (132 vs 119, P = 0.015) resulting in a sensitivity for detection of TLESRs with reflux of 96% compared to 86% respectively. Analysis of the discordant TLESRs associated with reflux showed that TLESRs were missed by sleeve manometry due to low basal LES pressure (N = 5), unstable pharyngeal signal (N = 4), and residual sleeve pressure >2 mmHg (N = 10). Conclusions & Inferences The HREPT is superior to sleeve manometry for the detection of TLESRs associated with reflux. However, rigid HREPT criteria are awaited.     

Localization of mGluR5, GABAB, GABAA, and cannabinoid receptors on the vago-vagal reflex pathway responsible for transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation in humans: an immunohistochemical study

Background Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs) are the predominant mechanisms underlying gastro‐esophageal reflux. TLESRs are mediated by a vago‐vagal reflex, which can be blocked by interaction with metabotropic Glutamate Receptor 5 (mGluR5), γ‐aminobutyric acid type B (GABA_B), γ‐aminobutyric acid type A (GABA_A), and cannabinoid (CB) receptors. However, the distribution of these receptors in the neural pathway underlying the triggering of TLESRs has not been evaluated in humans. Methods Using immunohistochemistry, we investigated the distribution of mGluR5, GABA_A, GABA_B, CB1, and CB2 receptors in the human nodose ganglion, the brain stem, and the myenteric plexus of the esophagus. Key Results MGluR5, GABA_B, CB1, and CB2 receptors are abundantly expressed in neurons of the myenteric plexus of the LES, nodose ganglion cell bodies and nerve fibers, the dorsal motor nucleus, and nucleus of the solitary tract in the brain stem. GABA_A receptors are expressed in the same regions except in the nodose ganglion and myenteric plexus of the LES. Conclusions & Inferences Human mGluR5, GABA_A,B, and CB_1,2 receptors are abundantly expressed along the vago‐vagal neural pathway and involved in the triggering of TLESRs. These findings are not only in line with the central side effects observed during treatment with reflux inhibitors such as GABA_B receptor agonists and mGluR5 antagonists, but also suggest that peripherally acting compounds may be effective.     

Increase of weakly acidic gas esophagopharyngeal reflux (EPR) and swallowing‐induced acidic/weakly acidic EPR in patients with chronic cough responding to proton pump inhibitors

Background Gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD)‐related chronic cough (CC) may have multifactorial causes. To clarify the characteristics of esophagopharyngeal reflux (EPR) events in CC patients whose cough was apparently influenced by gastro‐esophageal reflux (GER), we studied patients with CC clearly responding to full‐dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (CC patients). Methods Ten CC patients, 10 GERD patients, and 10 healthy controls underwent 24‐h ambulatory pharyngo‐esophageal impedance and pH monitoring. Weakly acidic reflux was defined as a decrease of pH by >1 unit with a nadir pH >4. In six CC patients, monitoring was repeated after 8 weeks of PPI therapy. The number of each EPR event and the symptom association probability (SAP) were calculated. Symptoms were evaluated by a validated GERD symptom questionnaire. Key Results Weakly acidic gas EPR and swallowing‐induced acidic/weakly acidic EPR only occurred in CC patients, and the numbers of such events was significantly higher in the CC group than in the other two groups (P < 0.05, respectively). Symptom association probability analysis revealed a positive association between GER and cough in three CC patients. Proton pump inhibitor therapy abolished swallowing‐induced acidic/weakly acidic EPR, reduced weakly acidic gas EPR, and improved symptoms (all P < 0.05). Conclusions & Inferences Most patients with CC responding to PPI therapy had weakly acidic gas EPR and swallowing‐induced acidic/weakly acidic EPR. A direct effect of acidic mist or liquid refluxing into the pharynx may contribute to chronic cough, while cough may also arise indirectly from reflux via a vago‐vagal reflex in some patients.     

Poor effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in non‐erosive reflux disease: the truth in the end!

Despite acid secretion being normal in the majority of patients with gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD) or Barrett’s esophagus, acid inhibition represents the mainstay of treatment for both these conditions, with the aim of reducing the aggressive nature of the refluxate toward the esophageal mucosa. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) represent, therefore, the first choice medical treatment for GERD, in that they are able to provide an 80–85% healing rate for esophageal lesions, a 56–76% symptom relief and also reduce the incidence of complications, such as strictures as well as dysplasia and adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. According to a widely quoted systematic review, compared to patients with erosive esophagitis, patients with non‐erosive reflux disease (i.e., NERD) display a reduced symptom relief with PPIs, with about 20% reduction of therapeutic gain. In this issue of NeuroGastroenterology & Motility, Weijenborg et al. address for the first time the PPI efficacy in subpopulations of patients with NERD. The study shows clearly that, when the diagnosis is accurately made by including a functional test, NERD patients respond to PPI therapy in a similar way to those with erosive disease. Although not as frequent as previously suggested, however, PPI‐refractory heartburn does exist. Some 20% (range: 15–27%) of correctly diagnosed and appropriately treated patients do not respond to PPI treatment at standard doses. Although the pathophysiology underlying PPI failure in GERD is complex and likely multifactorial, acid (be it the sole component of refluxate or not) still remains a major causative factor. A better and more predictable form of acid suppression should therefore be pursued.     

Effect of lateral positioning on gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and underlying mechanisms in GER disease (GERD) patients and healthy controls

Background Posture has been shown to influence the number of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESRs) and gastroesophageal reflux (GER), however, the physiology explaining the influence of right lateral position (RLP), and left lateral position (LLP) is not clear. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of RLP and LLP on TLESRs and GERD after a meal in GER disease (GERD) patients and healthy controls (HC) while monitoring gastric distension and emptying. Methods Ten GERD patients and 10 HC were studied for 90 min (30 min test meal infusion, 30 min postprandial in either RLP or LLP (randomly assigned) and 30 min in alternate position). The study was repeated on a separate day in reverse position order. TLESRs, GER, and gastric emptying rate were recorded using manometry, multichannel intraluminal impedance, and ¹³C‐octanoate breath tests. Gastric distension was visualized by five serial gastric volume scintigraphy scans during the first 30 min. Key Results Gastroesophageal reflux, (GER) disease patients had increased numbers of TLESRs in RLP compared to LLP in the first postprandial hour [5 (4–14) and 4.5 (2–6), respectively, P = 0.046] whereas the number of TLESRs was not different in RLP and LLP [4 (2–4) and 4 (3–6), respectively, P = 0.7] in HC. Numbers of GER increased similar to TLESRs in GERD patients. In GERD patients, gastric emptying reached peak ¹³CO₂ excretion faster and proximal gastric distension was more pronounced. Conclusions & Inferences In GERD patients, TLESRs, GER, distension of proximal stomach, and gastric emptying are increased in RLP compared to LLP. This effect is not seen in HC.     

Efficacy,tolerability and pharmacokinetics of a modified release formulation of ADX10059, a negative allosteric modulator of metabotropic glutamate receptor 5: an esophageal pH‐impedance study in healthy subjects

Background Animal studies show metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 inhibition reduces transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations and increases lower esophageal sphincter tone. A preliminary, single‐day study, demonstrated oral ADX10059 reduced 24‐h esophageal acid exposure and clinical symptoms in gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients, but had suboptimal tolerability, ascribable to the compound’s rapid absorption. This study evaluated ADX10059 modified‐release (MR) formulation pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and pharmacodynamics. Methods Randomized, double‐blind placebo‐controlled study. Three groups of eight healthy, male subjects received placebo (n = 2) or ADX10059 (n = 6) 50, 125 or 250 mg b.i.d. for 6 days. Esophageal pH‐impedance was performed on day 1 and day 6 of treatment, for 1‐h fasting and for 4 h post refluxogenic meal. Treatment effect was determined by Kruskall–Wallis test and placebo comparison by Wilcoxon rank sum. Key Results Following placebo, reflux episodes increased from day 1 to day 6. Significant treatment effect was seen for total esophageal acid exposure (P = 0.048) and postprandial number of weakly acidic reflux episodes (P = 0.041). Significant differences from placebo were seen for 125 mg b.i.d.; 250 mg b.i.d. was not more effective than 125 mg b.i.d. Twice daily ADX10059 MR gave satisfactory 24‐h exposure and good tolerability. Conclusions & Inferences ADX10059 decreased reflux episodes in healthy subjects. The MR formulation is suitable for longer‐term treatment to evaluate symptom control in GERD patients.     

Patients with refractory reflux symptoms: What do they have and how should they be managed?

With the widespread use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), the frontier of treating reflux disease has shifted from refractory esophagitis to PPI‐refractory symptoms. However, symptoms are inherently less specific than mucosal disease and, as noted by Herregods et al. in their contribution appearing in this issue of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms often do not have GERD. This review discusses potential etiologies for PPI‐refractory symptoms. Three major concepts are explored: subendoscopic esophagitis, weakly acidic reflux events, and alternative explanations for persistent symptoms. With respect to subendoscopic esophagitis and unsuppressed reflux, ample evidence exists that these are present in PPI‐refractory patients. The problem is that these findings are also often present in substantial numbers of individuals with a satisfactory response to PPI therapy. Hence, the emphasis shifts to determinants of symptom perception. The major conclusion of the review is that psychogenic factors such as hyperalgesia, allodynia, hypervigilance, and heightened anxiety are the most plausible explanations as the dominant determinants of PPI‐refractory symptoms.     

Concomitant irritable bowel syndrome is associated with failure of step‐down on‐demand proton pump inhibitor treatment in patients with gastro‐esophageal reflux disease

Background The predictors for treatment failure of on‐demand proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients are unclear. We studied the efficacy and predictors for treatment failure of step‐down on‐demand PPI therapy in patients with non‐erosive reflux disease (NERD) and those with low grade erosive esophagitis. Methods Consecutive symptomatic GERD patients who had positive esophageal pH studies and complete symptom resolution with initial treatment of esomeprazole were given step‐down on‐demand esomeprazole for 26 weeks. Patients with esophagitis of Los Angeles (LA) grade C or above and recent use of PPI were excluded. Treatment failure was defined as an inadequate relief of reflux symptoms using global symptom assessment. Potential predictors of treatment failure were determined using multivariate analysis. Key Results One hundred and sixty three NERD and 102 esophagitis patients were studied. The 26‐week probability of treatment failure was 36.2% (95% CI: 23.9–46.5%) in NERD group and 20.1% (95% CI: 10.9–28.3%) in esophagitis group, respectively (P = 0.021). Irritable bowel syndrome (adjusted HR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5–3.8, P = 0.01), in addition to daily reflux symptom (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.9–4.2, P = 0.001) and concomitant dyspepsia (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.8, P = 0.04), were independent predictors for treatment failure. Conclusions & Inferences Compared to patients with esophagitis, NERD patients have higher failure rate of on‐demand PPI therapy. Concomitant irritable bowel syndrome, in addition to daily reflux symptom and dyspepsia, is associated with the failure of on‐demand PPI in these patients.     

Kinetics of transient hiatus hernia during transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations and swallows in healthy subjects

Background Proximal displacement of the gastro‐esophageal junction (GEJ) is present in hiatus hernia but also occurs transiently during transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs) and swallows. Using a novel magnetic‐based technique we have performed detailed examination of the GEJ movement during TLESRs and swallows in healthy subjects. Methods In 12 subjects, a magnet was endoscopically clipped to the GEJ and combined assembly of Hall‐Effect locator probe and 36 channel high‐resolution manometer passed nasally. After a test meal the subjects were studied for 90 min. Key Results The median amplitude of proximal movement of GEJ during TLESRs was 4.3 cm (1.6–8.8 cm) and this was substantially greater than during swallowing at 1.2 cm (0.4–2.7 cm), P = 0.002. With both TLESRs and swallows proximal GEJ movement coincided with lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxation and return to its original position occurred 4 s after return of LES tone. Kinetic modeling of the movement of the GEJ during TLESRs indicated two return phases with the initial return phase having the greater velocity (0.9 cm s^?1) and being strongly correlated with amplitude of proximal movement (r = 0.8, P < 0.001). Conclusions & Inferences The marked proximal GEJ migration during TLESRs represents very severe herniation of the GEJ. The rapid initial return of the GEJ following TLESRs when the crural diaphragm is relaxed and its correlation with amplitude suggest it is due to elastic recoil of the phreno‐esophageal ligament. The marked stretching of the phreno‐esophageal ligament during TLESRs may contribute to its weakening and development of established hiatus hernia.     

Objective definition and detection of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation revisited: is there room for improvement?

Background The advent of drugs that inhibit transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) necessitates accurate identification and scoring. We assessed the intra‐ and inter‐assessor variability of the existing objective criteria for TLESR, improving them where necessary. Methods Two 3‐h postprandial esophageal manometric and pH recordings were performed in 20 healthy volunteers. Each recording was duplicated. The recordings were analyzed by five experienced observers for TLESRs based on their expert opinion. TLESRs were also analyzed for the presence of the original four criteria as well as inhibition of the crural diaphragm (ID), a prominent after‐contraction (AC), acid reflux and an esophageal common cavity. Key Results The overall inter‐ and intra‐observer agreements for TLESRs scored, according to observer’s expert opinion, were 59% (range 56–67%) and 74% (60–89%), respectively. When TLESRs were restricted to those fulfilling the original criteria, these agreements fell to 46% (40–53%) and 60% (44–67%), respectively. Cleaning the recordings by removal of technically flawed sections improved agreements by 5%. Inclusion of additional criteria (ID and AC) resulted in inter‐ and intra‐observer agreements of 62% (52–70%) and 69% (53–79%), respectively. A consensus analysis performed collectively by three observers and based on the new criteria (original ± ID and AC) resulted in 84% agreement between the paired recordings. Conclusions & Inferences The original criteria for the definition of TLESRs allows for substantial inter‐ and intra‐observer variability, which can be reduced by incorporation of additional objective criteria. However, the highest level of intra‐observer agreement can be achieved by consensus analysis.     

Increasing body weight enhances prevalence and proximal extent of reflux in GERD patients ‘on’ and ‘off’ PPI therapy

Background Increased body weight is associated with higher intragastric pressure. Proximal extent of reflux is a determinant of symptoms in patients with gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD). We aimed to investigate the association between body mass index (BMI) and abdominal circumference on the incidence and proximal extent of reflux. Methods A total of 95 patients [37 men, age 51(16–82) years] with typical and/or atypical GERD symptoms underwent 24 h impedance‐pH monitoring. Forty‐nine patients were studied ‘off’ and 46 ‘on’ proton pump inhibitors (PPI) treatment. Reflux was classified as acid (pH < 4) or weakly acidic (pH 4–7). Proximal extent was defined as the number of reflux events reaching ≥15 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter. Body mass index and abdominal circumference (cm) were assessed. Key Results In patients ‘off’ PPI, there was a correlation between BMI and esophageal acid exposure (ρ = 0.53, P < 0.001), volume exposure (ρ = 0.48, P < 0.001), total number of reflux events (ρ = 0.47, P < 0.001) and number of acid reflux events (ρ = 0.49, P < 0.001). In patients ‘on’ PPI there was a correlation between BMI and esophageal acid exposure (ρ = 0.32, P = 0.03), volume exposure (ρ = 0.46, P < 0.01) and total number of reflux events (ρ = 0.33, P = 0.03). Similar correlations were found between abdominal circumference and reflux. A correlation between BMI and proximal extent of reflux was present in patients ‘off’ PPI (ρ = 0.32, P = 0.03). In patients ‘on’ PPI, we found a correlation between abdominal circumference and proximal extent (ρ = 0.31, P = 0.03). Conclusions & Inferences Body mass index and abdominal circumference may contribute to GER and its proximal extent, in patients ‘on and ‘off’ PPI. Further studies investigating the role of weight reduction in the control of GERD symptoms are warranted.     

The added value of quantitative analysis of on-therapy impedance-pH parameters in distinguishing refractory non-erosive reflux disease from functional heartburn

Background By analysis of symptom‐reflux association, endoscopy‐negative refractory heartburn can be related to acid/non‐acid refluxes with impedance‐pH monitoring. Unfortunately, patients frequently do not report symptoms during the test. We aimed to assess the contribution of quantitative analysis of impedance‐pH parameters added to symptom‐reflux association in evaluating patients with endoscopy‐negative heartburn refractory to high‐dose proton pump inhibitor therapy. Methods The symptom association probability (SAP), the symptom index (SI), the esophageal acid exposure time and the number of distal and proximal refluxes were assessed at on‐therapy impedance‐pH monitoring. Relationships with hiatal hernia and manometric findings were also evaluated. Key Results Eighty patients were prospectively studied. Refractory heartburn was more frequently related to reflux by a positive SAP/SI and/or abnormal impedance‐pH parameters (52/80 cases) (65%) than by a positive SAP/SI only (38/80 cases) (47%) (P = 0.038). In patients with refractory non‐erosive reflux disease (NERD) defined by a positive SAP/SI and/or abnormal impedance‐pH parameters, the prevalence of hiatal hernia was significantly higher (56%vs 21%, P = 0.007) and the mean lower esophageal sphincter tone was significantly lower (18.7 vs 25.8 mmHg, P = 0.005) than in those (35%) with reflux‐unrelated, i.e., functional heartburn (FH). On the contrary, no significant difference was observed subdividing patients according to a positive SAP/SI only. Conclusions & Inferences Quantitative analysis of impedance‐pH parameters added to symptom‐reflux association allows a subdivision of refractory‐heartburn patients into refractory NERD and FH which is substantiated by pathophysiological findings and which restricts the diagnosis of FH to one third of cases.     

The effect of baclofen on nocturnal gastroesophageal reflux and measures of sleep quality: a randomized, cross-over trial

Background Baclofen, a GABA_b agonist, has been shown to reduce episodes of gastroesophageal reflux (GER). To determine if baclofen would significantly reduce reflux during sleep, and also improve objective and subjective measures of sleep. Methods Twenty‐one individuals with complaints of nighttime heartburn at least twice a week and a Carlsson GERD score of at least 5 were studied. Patients underwent polysomnography (PSG) and simultaneous esophageal pH monitoring on two occasions separated by approximately 1 week in a cross‐over design. The night of each polysomnographic study, patients consumed a refluxogenic meal. Baclofen (40 mg) or placebo was given in random order 90 min prior to the start of the PSG. Key Results Baclofen significantly reduced the number of reflux events compared with placebo. Upright and recumbent acid contact times were both reduced by baclofen vs placebo, but the differences were not significant. Regarding sleep outcomes, several variables were significantly improved by baclofen. Total sleep time and sleep efficiency increased, and wake after sleep onset decreased in the baclofen condition compared with placebo. Proportion of Stage 1 sleep was also significantly decreased on baclofen. Conclusions & Inferences In addition to reducing the number of reflux events during sleep, baclofen significantly improved several measures of sleep in patients with documented GER and sleep disturbances. Baclofen could therefore be considered as a useful adjunct therapy to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients with nighttime heartburn and sleep disturbance who continue to have heartburn and/or sleep complaints despite PPI therapy.     

Effect of proximal gastric volume on hiatal hernia

Background Spatial separation of the diaphragm and the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) occurs frequently and intermittently in patients with a sliding hiatus hernia and favors gastro‐esophageal reflux. This can be studied with high‐resolution manometry. Although fundic accommodation is associated with a lower basal LES pressure, its effect on esophagogastric junction configuration and hiatal hernia is unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between proximal gastric volume, the presence of a hiatal hernia profile and acid reflux. Methods Twenty gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients were studied and compared to 20 healthy controls. High‐resolution manometry and pH recording were performed for 1 h before and 2 h following meal ingestion (500 mL per 300 kcal). Volume of the proximal stomach was assessed with three‐dimensional ultrasonography before and every 15 min after meal ingestion. Key Results During fasting, the hernia profile [2 separate high‐pressure zones (HPZs) at manometry] was present for 31.9 ± 4.9 min h^?1 (53.2%) in GERD patients, and 8.7 ± 3.3 min h^?1 (14.5%) in controls (P < 0.001). In GERD patients, the presence of hernia profile decreased during the first postprandial hour to 15.9 ± 4.2 min h^?1, 26.5%, P < 0.01 whilst this phenomenon was not observed in controls. The rate of transition between the two profiles was 5.7 ± 1.1 per hour in GERD patients and 2.5 ± 1.0 per hour in controls (P < 0.001). The pre and postprandial acid reflux rate in GERD patients during the hernia profile (6.4 ± 1.1 per hour and 18.4 ± 4.3 per hour respectively) was significantly higher than during reduced hernia (2.1 ± 0.6 per hour; P < 0.05 and 3.8 ± 0.9 per hour; P < 0.05). A similar difference was found in controls. Furthermore, an inverse correlation was found between fundic volume and the time the hernia profile was present (r = ?0.45; P < 0.05) in GERD patients, but not in controls. Conclusions & Inferences (i) In GERD patients a postprandial increase in proximal gastric volume is accompanied by a decrease in hernia prevalence, which can be explained by a reduction of the intra‐thoracic part of the stomach. (ii) A temporal hernia profile also occurs in healthy subjects. (iii) During the hernia profile, acid reflux is more prevalent, especially after meal ingestion.     

Reflux monitoring in children

Recently, multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) monitoring was added to the repertoire of tests to evaluate the (patho)physiology of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in children. Its advantage above the sole monitoring of the esophageal pH lies in the ability of the detection of both acid and nonacid GER and to discern between liquid and gas GER. Currently, combined 24 h pH‐MII monitoring is recommended for evaluation of gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD) and its relation to symptoms in infants and children, despite the lack of reference values in these age groups. There is new evidence in the current issue of this Journal supporting the role of pH‐MII monitoring for the evaluation of children presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms suggestive of GERD and the prediction of the presence of reflux esophagitis. However, several issues should be taken into account when performing pH‐MII clinically.     

Platelet‐activating factor and distinct chemokines are elevated in mucosal biopsies of erosive compared with non‐erosive reflux disease patients and controls

Background A distinction between symptomatic non‐erosive reflux disease (NERD) and erosive esophagitis (EE) patients is supported by the presence of inflammatory response in the mucosa of EE patients, leading to a damage of mucosal integrity. To explore the underlying mechanism of this difference, we assessed inflammatory mediators in mucosal biopsies from EE and NERD patients and compared them with controls. Methods Nineteen NERD patients, 15 EE patients, and 16 healthy subjects underwent endoscopy after a 3‐week washout from PPI or H₂ antagonists. Biopsies obtained from the distal esophagus were examined by quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and multiplex enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay for selected chemokines and lyso‐PAF acetyltransferase (LysoPAF‐AT), the enzyme responsible for production of platelet‐activating factor (PAF). Key Results Expression of LysoPAF‐AT and multiple chemokines was significantly increased in mucosal biopsies derived from EE patients, when compared with NERD patients and healthy controls. Upregulated chemokines included interleukin 8, eotaxin‐1, ‐2, and ‐3, macrophage inflammatory protein‐1α (MIP‐1α), and monocyte chemoattractant protein‐1 (MCP‐1). LysoPAF‐AT and the chemokine profile in NERD patients were comparable with healthy controls. Conclusions & Inferences Levels of selected cytokines and Lyso‐PAF AT were significantly higher in the esophageal mucosa of EE patients compared with NERD and control patients. This difference may explain the distinct inflammatory response occurring in EE patients’ mucosa. In contrast, as no significant differences existed between the levels of all mediators in NERD and control subjects, an inflammatory response does not appear to play a major role in the pathogenesis of the abnormalities found in NERD patients.     

The role of pain modulators in esophageal disorders – no pain no gain

Pain modulators have been primarily used for the management of functional esophageal disorders. Recently, these drugs have also been used for the management of other esophageal disorders, such as non‐erosive reflux disease, the hypersensitive esophagus, and heartburn that is not responsive to proton pump inhibitor treatment. Several etiologies have been identified in patients with functional esophageal disorders, and these include esophageal hypersensitivity due to peripheral and/or central sensitisation, altered central processing of peripheral stimuli, altered autonomic activity, and psychological comorbidity such as depression and anxiety. Different antidepressants have been used as pain modulators and have demonstrated a beneficial effect on patients with the aforementioned esophageal disorders. Tricyclic antidepressants are the most commonly used class of drugs in clinical practice. Other antidepressants that have been used, some with more clinical success than others, include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin‐norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and trazodone. Other medications that have been used as pain modulators in esophageal disorders include adenosine antagonists, serotonin agonists, antiepileptics, and medications that ameliorate peripheral neuropathy. The mechanism by which many of the pain modulators confer their visceral analgesic effect remains to be fully elucidated. Regardless, their role and value in treating esophageal disorders have markedly increased in the last decade.     

PPI therapy is equally effective in well-defined non-erosive reflux disease and in reflux esophagitis: a meta-analysis

Background Symptomatic response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with non‐erosive reflux disease (NERD) is often reported as lower than in patients with erosive reflux disease (ERD). However, the definition of NERD differs across clinical trials. This meta‐analysis aims to estimate the rate of symptom relief in response to PPI in NERD patients. Methods MEDLINE (1966–2010), Cochrane Comprehensive Trial Register (1997–2010) and EMBASE (1985–2010) databases were searched and manual searches from studies’ references were performed. Randomized clinical trials were selected that included patients with heartburn, and analyzed the effect of short‐term PPI treatment. The primary outcome of selected studies was defined as complete or partial heartburn relief. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality of selected articles. Random effects models and meta‐regression were used to combine and analyze results. Key Results The pooled estimate of complete relief of heartburn after 4 weeks of PPI therapy in patients with ERD was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69–0.74) (32 studies), vs 0.50 (0.43–0.57) (eight studies) in empirically treated patients, 0.49 (0.44–0.55) (12 studies) in patients defined as non‐erosive by negative endoscopy, and 0.73 (0.69–0.77) (two studies) in patients defined as non‐erosive by both negative endoscopy and a positive pH‐test. Conclusions & Inferences In well‐defined NERD patients, the estimated complete symptom response rate after PPI therapy is comparable to the response rate in patients with ERD. The previously reported low response rate in studies with patients classified as NERD is likely the result of inclusion of patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms that do not have reflux disease.