Sep70/Pepsin expression in hypopharynx combined with hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance increases diagnostic sensitivity of laryngopharyngeal reflux

Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease: Updated examination of mechanisms, pathophysiology, treatment, and association with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) is an inflammatory condition in the laryngopharynx and upper aerodigestive tract mucosa caused by reflux of stomach contents beyond the esophagus. LPRD commonly presents with sym-ptoms such as hoarseness, cough, sore throat, a feeling of throat obstruction, excessive throat mucus. This complex condition is thought to involve both reflux and reflex mechanisms, but a clear understanding of its molecular mechanisms is still lacking. Currently, there is no standardized diagnosis or treatment protocol. Therapeutic strategies for LPRD mainly include lifestyle modifications, proton pump inhibitors and endoscopic surgery. This paper seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature regarding the mechanisms, patho-physiology and treatment of LPRD. We also provide an in-depth exploration of the association between LPRD and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Effects of acids, pepsin, bile acids, and trypsin on laryngopharyngeal reflux diseases: physiopathology and therapeutic targets

PURPOSE

Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) is a general term for the reflux of gastroduodenal contents into the laryngopharynx, oropharynx and even the nasopharynx, causing a series of symptoms and signs. Currently, little is known regarding the physiopathology of LPRD, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the drugs of choice for treatment. Although acid reflux plays a critical role in LPRD, PPIs fail to relieve symptoms in up to 40% of patients with LPRD. The influence of other reflux substances on LPRD, including pepsin, bile acid, and trypsin, has received increasing attention. Clarification of the substances involved in LPRD is the basis for LPRD treatment.

METHODS

A review of the effects of acids, pepsin, bile acids, and trypsin on laryngopharyngeal reflux diseases was conducted in PubMed.

RESULTS

Different reflux substances have different effects on LPRD, which will cause various symptoms, inflammatory diseases and neoplastic diseases of the laryngopharynx. For LPRD caused by different reflux substances, 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance combined with pH-metry (MII-pH), salivary pepsin, bile acid and other tests should be established so that different drugs and treatment courses can be used to provide patients with more personalized treatment plans.

CONCLUSION

This article summarizes the research progress of different reflux substances on the pathogenesis, detection index and treatment of LPRD and lays a theoretical foundation to develop target drugs and clinical diagnosis and treatment.

[Effect of proton pump inhibitort on salivary pepsin concentration in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux]

Objective:To investigate the effect of proton pump inhibitor（PPI） treatment on salivary pepsin concentration in laryngopharyngeal reflux（LPR）. Methods:152 patients with suspected LPR complaining non-specific symptoms such as foreign body sensation, dry throat, phlegm and other non-specific symptoms were enrolled， in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from August 2019 to December 2020. According to the scores of reflux symptom index（RSI） and reflux finding score（RFS）, all the patients were divided into LPR （+） group and LPR （-） group, RSI （+） group and RSI （-） group, RFS （+） group and RFS （-） group . Patients in the LPR （+） group were reassessed after 1 month of PPI treatment. Saliva samples were collected from all the patients at initial diagnosis and follow-up diagnosis after treatment. The salivary pepsin concentration was determined by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay （ELISA）. The differences of RSI, RFS scores and salivary pepsin concentrations before and after treatment were compared. Results:The median concentration of salivary pepsin in LPR （+） group was significantly higher than that in LPR （-） group, and （73.01 ng/mL vs 25.66 ng/mL, P<0.01）, the median concentration of salivary pepsin in RFS （+） group were significantly higher than that in RFS （-） group（78.00 ng/mL vs 35.79 ng/mL, P<0.01） Furthermore, the median scores of RSI （11.00 vs 7.00, P<0.05） and RFS （9.00 vs 7.00, P<0.01） of LPR （+） patients notably decreased after PPI treatment for 1 month, and the salivary pepsin median concentration was memorably lower than that before treatment（53.60 ng/mL vs 46.49 ng/mL, P<0.05）. Meanwhile, the scores of symptoms such as pharyngeal paraesthesia, heartburn, chest pain, stomachache, and the scores of signs such as false vocal fold, erythema or congestion, vocal fold edema, posterior commissure hypertrophy and thick endolaryngeal mucus were conspicuously lower after treatment than those before treatment（P<0.05）. Conclusion:After 1 month of PPI treatment, the scores of partial symptoms and signs, and the salivary pepsin concentrations of LPR patients decreased significantly, suggesting that pepsin plays an important role in the pathogenesis of LPR, and pepsin may be closely related to the symptoms and signs such as pharyngeal paraesthesia and vocal fold edema.

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Assessment and Diagnostic Accuracy Evaluation of the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) Scale: Psychometric Properties using Optimal Scaling Techniques

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the psychometric properties of the reflux symptom index (RSI) as short screening approach for the diagnostic of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in patients with confirmed diagnosed regarding the 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH).

METHODS

From January 2017 to December 2018, 56 patients with LPR symptoms and 71 healthy individuals (control group) were prospectively enrolled. The LPR diagnosis was confirmed through MII-pH results. All subjects (n = 127) fulfilled RSI and the Reflux Finding Score (RFS) was performed through flexible fiberoptic endoscopy. The sensitivity and the specificity of RSI was assessed by ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 15 LPR patients (26.8%) of the clinical group met MII-pH diagnostic criteria. Among subjects classified as positive for MII- pH diagnoses, RSI and RFS mean scores were respectively 20 (SD ± 10.5) and 7.1 (SD ± 2.5), values not significantly different compared to the negative MII-pH group. The metric analysis of the items led to the realization of a binary recoding of the score. Both versions had similar psychometric properties, α was 0.840 for RSI original version and 0.836 for RSI binary version. High and comparable area under curve (AUC) values indicate a good ability of both scales to discriminate between individuals with and without LPR pathology diagnosis. Based on balanced sensitivity and specificity, the optimal cut-off scores for LPR pathology were ≥ 5 for RSI binary version and ≥ 15 for RSI original version. Both version overestimated LPR prevalence. The original version had more sensitivity and the RSI Binary version had more specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

It would be necessary to think about modifying the original RSI in order to improve its sensitivity and specificity (RSI binary version, adding or changing some items), or to introduce new scores in order to better frame the probably affected of LPR patient.

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux and Atypical Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Laryngopharyngeal reflux and atypical manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease have a high economic and social burden in the United States. There is increasing research supporting the reflex theory and hypersensitivity syndrome underlying this disease pathophysiology. Novel diagnostic biomarkers have gained more traction in the search for a more reliable diagnostic tool, but further research is needed. Current standard-of-care treatment relies on proton pump inhibitor therapy. Antireflux surgery is usually not recommended. Neuromodulators and treatments targeting specific neuronal receptors are discussed. A diagnostic algorithm is proposed for the evaluation of laryngeal symptoms suspected to be related to extraesophageal reflux disease.