Saliva Pepsin Concentration of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patients Is Influenced by Meals Consumed Before the Samples

Predictive Value of Laryngeal Mucosa Pepsin in Therapeutic Response of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To investigate the predictive capability of pepsin level in the laryngeal mucosa to the therapeutic effect of proton-pump inhibitors in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), so as to verify whether it can be referred to as a biomarker of LPR.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case study.

METHODS

Sixty patients with clinical empiric LPR were enrolled, with an reflux symptom index (RSI) ≥ 13 and an reflux finding score (RFS) > 7 as screening criteria. Biopsy specimens from the interarytenoid mucosa were obtained under topical anesthesia for pepsin immunohistochemical staining. Two parameters were observed in these patients with different pepsin levels after the administration of esomeprazole for 12 weeks: the RSI and the RFS.

RESULTS

Among the 60 cases, 35 cases were negative or weakly positive for pepsin (Pepsin(-) group), and 25 cases were moderately positive or strongly positive for pepsin (Pepsin(+) group). After therapy, the RSI significantly decreased from 17.00 (15.00, 19.00) to 6.00 (5.00, 11.00) in the Pepsin(+) group (Z = -4.38, P < 0.01), but no difference was found in the RFS (T = 1.48, P > 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the RSI (T = 2.01, P > 0.05) or the RFS (T = 2.01, P > 0.05) in the Pepsin(-) group either before or after therapy. An improvement in the RSI ≥ 50% was taken as the standard of effective therapy. The effective rate in the Pepsin(+) group was 72.0% (18/25), while it was 14.3% (5/35) in the Pepsin(-) group. There was a significant difference in the effective rate between the two groups (χ2 = 20.55, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Proton-pump inhibitors exhibited better effects in patients with higher pepsin levels in the laryngeal mucosa. Laryngeal mucosa pepsin may serve as an ideal indicator to screen patients suitable for proton-pump inhibitor therapy and a reliable biomarker to identify patients with LPR.

The reflux symptom score has good screening value for laryngopharyngeal reflux

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the consistency between the reflux symptom score (RSS) and the multitemporal salivary pepsin test in screening for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and the screening value of the RSS for LPR by simultaneously administering daytime multitemporal salivary pepsin test and RSS to patients.

METHODS

This was a single-center prospective observational study. All included patients underwent simultaneous daytime multitemporal salivary pepsin testing and RSS. A participant was considered to have LPR when one or more positive salivary pepsin test results or RSS score > 13 were obtained. The consistency between the multitemporal salivary pepsin test and the RSS was compared by the weighted Cohen's kappa statistic. The screening value of the RSS for LPR was investigated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 67 patients were included. The positivity rate of LPR was 71.64% according to the results of the multitemporal salivary pepsin test. According to RSS, the positive rate of LPR was 70.15%. The weighted Kappa value between the multitemporal salivary pepsin test and the RSS was 0.675 (p < 0.001). The area under curve of RSS screening for LPR was 0.843 (p < 0.01), and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of RSS screening for LPR were 89.58%, 78.95%, 91.49%, and 75%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is a good consistency between the RSS and the multitemporal salivary pepsin test, and the RSS has a good screening value for LPR, which can be applied to screen for LPR in otolaryngologic patients.

Digestive Biomarkers of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Preliminary Prospective Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the digestive enzymes and biomarkers in the saliva of patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and asymptomatic individuals.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective controlled study.

SETTING

Multicenter study.

METHODS

Patients with LPR at the hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) and asymptomatic individuals were consecutively recruited from January 2020 to April 2023 from 2 University Hospitals. The saliva of patients (off PPIs) and asymptomatic individuals was collected to measure pH, elastase, bile salts, cholesterol, gastric, and pancreatic lipases. Anxiety, symptoms, and findings were studied through perceived stress scale (PSS), reflux symptom score (RSS), and reflux sign assessment (RSA).

RESULTS

Sixty-seven LPR patients and 57 asymptomatic individuals completed the evaluations. LPR patients reported higher PSS, RSS, and RSA than asymptomatic individuals. The mean saliva pH was more alkaline in LPR patients (7.23: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.08, 7.38) compared to controls (6.13; 95% CI: 5.95, 6.31; P = .001). The mean concentration of elastase was higher in patients (51.65 µg/mL; 95% CI: 44.47, 58.83 µg/mL) versus asymptomatic individuals (25.18 µg/mL; 95% CI: 21.64, 28.72 µg/mL; P = .001). The saliva cholesterol reported higher concentration in healthy individuals (3.43 mg/dL; 95% CI: 3.21, 3.65 mg/dL) compared to patients (1.16 mg/dL; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.27 mg/dL; P = .001). The saliva pH, and elastase concentration were significantly associated with the baseline RSS, while saliva cholesterol was negatively associated with the severity of RSS and RSA.

CONCLUSION

Cholesterol, bile salts, and elastase are biomarkers of LPR and should be considered to develop future non-invasive saliva device for the detection of LPR.

Review article: Diagnosis and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux

BACKGROUND

Laryngopharyngeal reflux has classically referred to gastroesophageal reflux leading to chronic laryngeal symptoms such as throat clearing, dysphonia, cough, globus sensation, sore throat or mucus in the throat. Current lack of clear diagnostic criteria significantly impairs practitioners' ability to identify and manage laryngopharyngeal reflux.

AIMS

To discuss current evidence-based diagnostic and management strategies in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux.

METHODS

We selected studies primarily based on current guidelines for gastroesophageal reflux disease and laryngopharyngeal reflux, and through PubMed searches.

RESULTS

We assess the current diagnostic modalities that can be used to determine if laryngopharyngeal reflux is the cause of a patient's laryngeal symptoms, as well as review some of the common treatments that have been used for these patients. In addition, we note that the lack of a clear diagnostic gold-standard, as well as specific diagnostic criteria, significantly limit clinicians' ability to determine adequate therapies for these patients. Finally, we identify areas of future research that are needed to better manage these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic laryngeal symptoms are complex due to the heterogenous nature of symptom pathology, inconsistent definitions and variable response to therapies. Further outcomes data are critically needed to help elucidate ideal diagnostic workup and therapeutic management for these challenging patients.

Variability and accuracy of multiple saliva pepsin measurements in laryngopharyngeal reflux patients

OBJECTIVE

To study the variability and diagnostic value of multiple salivary pepsin measurements in the detection of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

METHODS

Patients with LPR symptoms were consecutively recruited from December 2019 to Augustus 2022. Twenty-one asymptomatic individuals completed the study. The diagnostic was confirmed with hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH). Patients collected three saliva samples during the 24-h testing period. Symptoms and findings were studied with reflux symptom score-12 and reflux sign assessment. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of pepsin measurements were calculated considering morning, post-lunch and post-dinner samples. The consistency and relationship between HEMII-pH, pepsin measurements, and clinical features were investigated.

RESULTS

Morning, post-lunch and post-dinner saliva pepsin concentrations were measured in 42 patients. Pepsin measurements were 64.9%, 59.5%, and 59.0% sensitive for morning, post-lunch and post-dinner collections at cutoff ≥ 16 ng/mL. Considering the highest concentration of the three pepsin saliva collections, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and PPV were 70.5%, 73.0%; 66.7% and 78.9%, respectively. Morning pepsin measurements reported higher consistency, sensitivity, and specificity than post-dinner and post-lunch pepsin measurements.

CONCLUSION

The collection of several saliva pepsin samples improves the detection rate of LPR. In case of high clinical LPR suspicion and negative pepsin test, a HEMII-pH study could provide further diagnostic information.

Clinical relevance of salivary pepsin detection in diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease subtypes

Background

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is heterogeneous with a varied symptom spectrum and reflux profiles. Its definite diagnosis often requires invasive tools including endoscopy or reflux monitoring. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of salivary pepsin detection as a non-invasive screening tool to diagnose GERD of different subtypes.

Methods

A total of 77 patients with suspected GERD symptoms and 12 asymptomatic controls were analysed. All participants performed symptom evaluation, upper endoscopy, esophageal manometry, and 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-dual pH probe monitoring. Saliva was self-collected across three different time points: at early fasting, postprandially, and at symptom occurrence. Salivary pepsin levels were measured via Peptest. The optimal threshold of salivary pepsin for diagnosing distal or proximal reflux was determined according to a receiver-operating characteristic curve.

Results

The average salivary pepsin concentration of suspected GERD patients was significantly higher than that of controls (100.63 [68.46, 141.38] vs 67.90 [31.60, 115.06] ng/mL, P = 0.044), although no difference was found among patients with different symptom spectrums. The distal reflux group had a higher average pepsin concentration than non-reflux patients (170.54 [106.31, 262.76] vs 91.13 [63.35, 127.63] ng/mL, P = 0.043), while no difference was observed between the distal reflux group and the proximal reflux group. The optimal cut-off value of salivary pepsin concentration for diagnosing pathological distal reflux was 157.10 ng/mL, which was higher than that for diagnosing pathological proximal reflux (122.65 ng/mL). The salivary pepsin concentration was significantly correlated with distal and proximal reflux parameters.

Conclusions

Salivary pepsin measurement can help in identifying true GERD with pathological distal reflux or proximal reflux, regardless of different symptom spectrums. A higher threshold should be applied for diagnosing distal reflux than for proximal reflux.

Diagnostic Value of Pepsin Measurements in Dysphonia Attributed to Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the diagnostic value of pepsin test in detecting laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in patients with suspected LPR-induced dysphonia.

METHODS

Dysphonic and non-dysphonic patients with LPR at the 24-hour hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) were recruited from January 2019 to November 2022. Patients collected saliva/sputum samples to measure pepsin concentrations. Symptoms and findings were studied through reflux symptom score (RSS) and reflux sign assessment (RSA). Voice quality was assessed with maximum phonation time, GRBAS, voice handicap index (VHI), and acoustic parameters at baseline and 3-month post-treatment. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of pepsin tests for dysphonia-related to LPR were calculated at ≥16 ng/mL cutoff. The relationship between HEMII-pH, clinical features, voice quality outcomes, and pepsin measurement was investigated.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients with LPR at the HEMII-pH completed the evaluations accounting for 30 patients consulting for dysphonia. Dysphonic patients reported higher RSS than non-dysphonic patients. RSS, RSA, laryngeal findings, VHI, and grade of dysphonia significantly improved from baseline to 3-month posttreatment. Pepsin test detected LPR in 73% of dysphonic cases. The pepsin test was 73.3 sensitive and 18.9 specific when considering the highest pepsin level of morning, postlunch, and postdinner sputum collections. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV varied regarding the time of sputum collections. There was a strong significant association between the concentration of the morning pepsin test and the severity of laryngeal RSA score (P = 0.018). The morning pepsin saliva test concentration was predictive of the 3-month otolaryngological RSS (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Pepsin test is a sensitive but poorly specific diagnostic approach for patients with dysphonia attributed to LPR. Multiple pepsin measurements may increase the sensitivity and predictive value of pepsin test. Future large-cohort studies are needed to investigate the accuracy of pepsin test in this population.

Saliva pepsin measurements in the detection of gastroesophageal reflux disease in laryngopharyngeal reflux patients: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To study the diagnostic value of salivary pepsin measurement (Peptest) for detecting gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients.

METHODS

Patients with reflux symptoms were consecutively recruited from January 2020 to November 2022. Patients benefited from hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH), fasting and bedtime saliva collections to measure pepsin. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were evaluated for GERD and LPR patients considering the highest values of pepsin tests at ≥ 16, ≥ 75, and ≥ 216 ng/mL cutoffs. The relationship between HEMII-pH, endoscopic and clinical findings, and pepsin measurements was studied.

RESULTS

Saliva was collected in 109 LPR patients and 30 individuals with both LPR and GERD. The total number of pharyngeal reflux events was significantly higher in GERD-LPR patients compared with LPR patients (p = 0.008). The mean fasting and bedtime pepsin saliva concentrations were similar between groups. The sensitivity of Peptest in LPR patients was 30.5%, 70.2%, and 84.0% at cutoffs ≥ 16, ≥ 75 and ≥ 216 ng/mL. In GERD-LPR group, Peptest was 80.0%, 70.0%, and 30.0% sensitive. At cutoff 16 ng/mL, Peptest reported PPV of 20.7% and 94.8% in LPR-GERD and LPR groups, respectively. NPV were 73.9% and 8.7% in GERD-LPR and LPR groups, respectively. The consistency analysis between Peptest and HEMII-pH was not significant. Peptest was significantly associated with the number of acid pharyngeal reflux events (r_s = 0.182; p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Pepsin saliva measurements appear to be not a reliable diagnostic tool for the detection of GERD in LPR patients. Future studies are needed to determine the place of Peptest in laryngopharyngeal reflux and gastroesophageal reflux diseases.

There is a Good Consistency Between Reflux Symptom Score-12 and Reflux Symptom Index in Chinese Population

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the consistency between the Reflux Symptom Score-12 (RSS-12) and Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) in Chinese people.

METHODS

Patients with symptoms of LPR from the outpatient otorhinolaryngology-head and neck surgery clinic were included. All included patients completed the RSS-12 and RSI. The patient with RSS-12>11 or RSI>13 suggested possible LPR. For the patients with RSI >13 or RSS-12>11, they were treated using diet recommendations and were prescribed a twice-daily pantoprazole for 12 weeks. The consistency between the RSS-12 and RSI was compared with the weighted Cohen's kappa statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 258 patients were included. The mean scores for RSS-12 and RSI were 13.21±17.31 and 12.86±6.15, respectively. The positive rate of LPR was 17.44% based on the RSI, and 24.42% based on the RSS-12. The kappa value between the RSS-12 and RSI was 0.736 (P < 0.001). Following 12 weeks of treatment, there was a significant reduction in both RSI and RSS-12. Based on the RSI, 73% of patients had a good treatment response, whereas according to the RSS-12, 85% of patients had a good treatment response.

CONCLUSION

There is a good consistency between RSS-12 and RSI, meaning that the RSS-12 is a feasible LPR initial screening tool. The RSS-12 provides a more comprehensive evaluation of reflux symptoms and treatment effect than RSI in patients with LPR.

Optimal Timing of the Salivary Pepsin Test for the Diagnosis of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the optimal time point for diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) through combining 24-h hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (24-h HEMII-pH) monitoring and the multi-time point salivary pepsin test (MTPSPT).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective uncontrolled trial.

METHOD

Patients with and without LPR symptoms were included as the test group and the control group, respectively. The patients in the test group underwent 24-h HEMII-pH and MTPSPT. The results of 24-h HEMII-pH were used as a diagnostic criterion for LPR, and the diagnostic value of salivary pepsin tests performed at different time points was compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients were included. Based on 24-h HEMII-pH, the positive rate of LPR in the test group of patients was 84.00%. In the control group, only one person (3.57%) had a positive salivary pepsin test result. The area under the curve (AUC) of the MTPSPT was 0.827. In addition, we separately calculated the AUC of the combined salivary pepsin test at different time points, and found good diagnostic value (AUC = 0.799) when the test was combined with the waking, 1 and 2 h after breakfast and lunch, and 1 h after dinner tests. However, when the number of tests were further increased, the diagnostic value did not improve significantly.

CONCLUSION

Salivary pepsin testing combined with waking, 1 h and 2 h after breakfast and lunch, and 1 h after dinner has almost the same diagnostic value as MTPSPT, and testing at these time points can be an effective method for diagnosing LPR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 2022.

The Profiles of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in Patients With Different Vocal Fold Lesions

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the profiles of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and the relationship between hypopharyngeal-proximal reflux episodes (HREs) and the positive rate of salivary pepsin testing in patients with vocal fold lesions (VFLs).

METHODS

The enrolled patients were divided into vocal fold cancer group (VFCG), vocal fold leukoplakia group (VFLG), benign vocal fold lesion group (BVFLG) and control group (CG). Patients benefited from multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH) and multi-time point salivary pepsin testing (MTPSPT). The LPR profiles of patients with VFLs were studied by analyzing the MII-pH findings. The relationship between HREs and positive rate of MTPSPT was investigated through the nonparametric test.

RESULTS

177 patients were included. According to 24 h MII-pH, the occurrence of HREs tended to increase after meals. 55.75%, 63.98%, 66.82% and 55.77% of the HREs in the VFCG, VFLG, BVFLG and CG occurred within 3 h after meals, respectively. The overall positive rate of MTPSPT was higher in the VFCG than the remaining groups. In the VFCG, there was a significant correlation between overall positive results of MTPSPT and HREs occurring within 3 h after meals.

CONCLUSION

In the Chinese population, the occurrence of HREs tend to more frequently after meals in patients with VFLs, and most HREs occur within 3 h after meals. By analyzing the 24h MII-pH findings, we can develop a more individualized anti-reflux therapeutic strategy for LPR patients.

Do Otolaryngologists Over- or Underestimate Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Symptoms and Findings in Clinical Practice? A Comparison Study between the True Prevalence and the Otolaryngologist-Estimated Prevalence of Symptoms and Findings

Purpose: To investigate the prevalence of symptoms and signs of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and to compare them with the otolaryngologist-estimated prevalence of the most common LPR-related symptoms and signs. Methods: The prevalence of LPR symptoms and signs was determined through the clinical data of 403 patients with a positive LPR diagnosis on hypopharyngeal−esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance pH monitoring. The otolaryngologist-estimated prevalence was assessed through an international survey investigating the thoughts of 824 otolaryngologists toward LPR symptom and sign prevalence. The determination of potential over- or underestimation of LPR symptoms and findings was investigated through a data comparison between the ‘true’ prevalence and the ‘estimated prevalence’ of symptoms and findings by otolaryngologists. Results: The prevalence of breathing difficulties, coated tongue, and ventricular band inflammation was adequately evaluated by otolaryngologists. The prevalence of hoarseness, throat pain, odynophagia, dysphagia, throat clearing, globus sensation, excess throat mucus, tongue burning, heartburn, regurgitations, halitosis, cough after eating or lying down, and troublesome cough was overestimated by otolaryngologists (p < 0.01), while the prevalence of chest pain was underestimated as an LPR symptom. Most laryngeal signs, e.g., arytenoid/laryngeal erythema, inter-arytenoid granulation, posterior commissure hypertrophy, retrocricoid edema/erythema, and endolaryngeal sticky mucus, were overestimated (p < 0.01). The occurrence of anterior pillar erythema and tongue tonsil hypertrophy was underestimated by participants. Conclusion: Most laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms and laryngeal signs were overestimated by otolaryngologists, while some non-laryngeal findings were underestimated. Future studies are needed to better understand the reasons for this phenomenon and to improve the awareness of otolaryngologists toward the most and least prevalent reflux symptoms and signs.

Are Multiple Tests Necessary for Salivary Pepsin Detection in the Diagnosis of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the necessity of multiple salivary pepsin tests within a day when diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary hospitals.

METHODS

A total of 138 patients with signs and/or symptoms associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux were included. Salivary pepsin was detected on the day of 24-hour pH monitoring, and the results of salivary pepsin detected once in the morning and multiple times in 1 day were compared with the results of pH monitoring.

RESULTS

Among the 138 patients, pH monitoring results were positive in 112. Salivary pepsin was positive in 47 cases in the morning, which was not consistent with the results of pH monitoring (kappa value = 0.117). With the pH monitoring results as the standard, the salivary pepsin detected once in the morning had a sensitivity of 38.4% (43/112) and a specificity of 84.6% (22/26) for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux. When salivary pepsin was detected multiple times per day, 102 patients tested positive. The consistency with pH monitoring was moderate (kappa value = 0.587). The sensitivity was 86.6% (97/112), and the specificity was 80.8% (21/26). Of the 97 patients with positive results from pH monitoring and salivary pepsin detected multiple times a day, 54 had negative findings for a single detection in the morning, indicating that 55.7% (54/97) of the true positive cases were missed.

CONCLUSION

Although a single detection of salivary pepsin in the morning is more economical, the sensitivity is too low, and it is necessary to detect it multiple times a day.

Diagnostic Value of the PeptestTM in Detecting Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

BACKGROUND

The Peptest^TM is a non-invasive diagnostic test for measuring the pepsin concentration in saliva, which is thought to correlate with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of the Peptest in detecting LPR based on 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring using several hypopharyngeal reflux episodes as criterion for LPR.

METHODS

Patients with suspected LPR were examined with the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), Reflux Finding Score (RFS), fasting Peptest, and MII-pH monitoring. We calculated the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Peptest, RSI, and RFS based on the threshold of one and six hypopharyngeal reflux episodes.

RESULTS

Altogether, the data from 46 patients were analyzed. When one hypopharyngeal reflux episode was used as a diagnostic threshold for LPR, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were, respectively, as follows: 35%, 33%, 100%, 100%, and 3%, for the Peptest; 39%, 40%, 0%, 95%, and 0%, for the RSI; and 57%, 58%, 0%, 96%, and 0%, for the RFS. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Peptest for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were 46%, 27%, 63%, 40.0%, and 48%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A positive Peptest is highly supportive of a pathological LPR diagnosis. However, a negative test could not exclude LPR.

Prevalence and Features of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in Patients with Primary Burning Mouth Syndrome

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To investigate the prevalence and features of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in patients with primary burning mouth syndrome (BMS).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective uncontrolled study.

METHODS

Patients who visited our Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck and Maxillofacial surgery with BMS were prospectively recruited from September 2018 to September 2020. Patients benefited from dental, maxillofacial, otolaryngological examinations, and hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance pH-monitoring (HEMII-pH). Oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal findings and symptoms were rated with Reflux Sign Assessment (RSA) and Reflux Symptom Score-12 (RSS-12). Patients were treated with a combination of diet, pantoprazole, and alginate.

RESULTS

From the 81 included patients, 76 reported >1 pharyngeal reflux events (93.8%), accounting for 35 (46.1%), 24 (31.6%), and 17 (22.3%) acid, mixed, and nonacid LPR, respectively. Thirty-two patients had both LPR and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Thirty-eight patients benefited from pepsin saliva measurement, which was positive in 86.8% of cases. The mean scores of mouth/tongue burning, RSS-12, and RSA significantly improved from pre- to post-treatment (P < .004). At 3-month post-treatment, 62.5% of patients reported an improvement of mouth/tongue burning score. Patients with both GERD and LPR reported higher baseline RSS-12 and RSA scores.

CONCLUSION

Acid, weakly acid, and nonacid LPR may be involved in the development of BMS. The use of an appropriate treatment considering the reflux features is associated with an improvement of symptoms and findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A State-of-the-Art Algorithm Management for Primary Care Physicians

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common disease in the general population with acute or chronic symptoms. LPR is often misdiagnosed in primary care because of the lack of typical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and findings on endoscopy. Depending on the physician's specialty and experience, LPR may be over- or under-diagnosed. Management of LPR is potentially entirely feasible in primary care as long as General Practitioners (GPs) are aware of certain "red flags" that will prompt referral to a Gastroenterologist or an Otolaryngologist. The use of patient-reported outcome questionnaires and the consideration of some easy ways to diagnose LPR without special instrumentation oropharyngeal findings may help the GP to diagnose and often manage LPR. In this review, we provide a practical algorithm for LPR management for GPs and other specialists that cannot perform fiberoptic examination. In this algorithm, physicians have to exclude some confounding conditions such as allergy or other causes of pharyngolaryngitis and "red flags". They may prescribe an empirical treatment based on diet and behavioral changes with or without medication, depending on the symptom severity. Proton pump inhibitors and alginates remain a popular choice in order to protect the upper aerodigestive tract mucosa from acid, weakly acid and alkaline pharyngeal reflux events.