Review article: test and treat or treat and test in reflux disease?

Assessment of the Acute Effects of Carbonated Beverage Consumption on Symptoms and Objective Markers of Gastric Reflux

Previous studies have suggested that carbonated beverages may cause gastro-oesophageal reflux. Pepsin (the major enzyme secreted by the stomach) has been suggested to be an objective, acute marker of a reflux event. This pilot study aimed to investigate whether intake of carbonated beverages could affect pepsin concentration in saliva or reflux symptoms. This was assessed by a randomised, crossover trial where participants consumed 330 mL of beverage (carbonated cola, degassed cola or water) at separate visits. Saliva samples and symptom questionnaires were collected at baseline and over the 30 min postprandial period. Pepsin was detected in all saliva samples. No difference was found in the salivary pepsin concentrations between treatments at all time points. There were significantly higher scores (p > 0.05) for feelings of fullness, heartburn, urge to belch and frequency of belches after ingestion of carbonated cola than degassed cola and water. The ingestion of carbonated beverages did not appear to increase postprandial pepsin concentration in saliva compared to other beverages but did evoke higher levels of reflux-related symptoms such as fullness, heartburn and belching. This suggests carbonated beverages may cause symptoms associated with reflux but do not drive detectable levels of gastric juice to reach the oral cavity.

[The Mexican consensus on gastroesophageal reflux disease. Part I]

BACKGROUND

The changes, advances, and new discoveries regarding different aspects of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have made it necessary to update the Mexican Consensus published in 2002.

AIMS

To elaborate a new Mexican Consensus on GERD.

METHODS

The general project coordinators selected six GERD experts to carry out an extensive review of the literature for the purpose of elaborating statements on the principal aspects of GERD. These were then placed under the consideration of specialists in the study of this disease. Definitive approval by all participants was reached using the modified Delphi method with three rounds of anonymous and iterative voting. The following scale was employed: A- in complete agreement; B- in agreement, but with minor concerns; C- in agreement, but with major concerns; D- in disagreement, but with major concerns; E- in disagreement, but with minor concerns; or F- in complete disagreement. Consensus was declared when 67.00% or more of the participants concurred on a category of agreement (A, B, or C).

RESULTS

A consensus was reached on 160 of the statements upon completion of the voting rounds, with 90.00% concurrence for the majority of them.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2011 Mexican Consensus on Gastroesophageal Disease is a practical and up-to-date consultation tool, providing the opinion of Mexican experts on all the new information available about this disease. It allows there to be homogeneity in diagnostic and therapeutic criteria, all of which serves to benefit our patients.

Value of the GerdQ in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease

AIM: To evaluate the value of the gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) questionnaire (GerdQ) in the diagnosis of GERD.

METHODS: The GerdQ was used to investigate reflux-related symptoms, including heartburn, reflux, non-cardiac chest pain, nausea, sleep disturbance, and medicine taking (over-the-counter drugs). Each symptom was scored according to the frequency (four scales). The highest score for one patient was 18. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and the proton pump inhibitor test were used as the comparative diagnostic standard to determine the threshold value of GerdQ scores for diagnosis of GERD.

RESULTS: A total of 97 patients with reflux-related symptoms were administered the questionnaire, including 47 males and 50 females. Taking 9 as the GerdQ threshold score for GERD, we obtained the maximal Youden index. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.727. The true positive diagnostic rate, true negative diagnostic rate, sensitivity and specificity were 86.76%, 48.27%, 79.73% and 61.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: The GerdQ is a useful tool for screening and initial diagnosis of GERD.

Management strategy for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a comparison between empirical treatment with esomeprazole and endoscopy-oriented treatment

OBJECTIVES

Whether patients with typical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and without alarm features should be treated empirically or undergo endoscopy first is a debated issue. In this study, our aim was to assess the efficacy, and to compare the direct costs and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL), of two treatment strategies (empirical vs endoscopy-oriented treatment) in a large population of patients with GERD.

METHODS

In total, 612 patients were randomized to either empirical treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily (od) (group 1, N = 309) or endoscopy and treatment according to endoscopic findings (group 2, N = 303, esomeprazole 40 mg od in patients with reflux esophagitis and esomeprazole 20 mg od in patients without esophagitis) for 4 wk, followed by esomeprazole 20 mg od maintenance treatment in both groups. Direct costs and HRQL were analyzed in both treatment arms.

RESULTS

At the end of the acute treatment phase (week 4), 267 patients in group 1 (86.4%) and 265 patients in group 2 (87.5%) were considered responders to treatment (intention-to-treat analysis, P= 0.878). Empirical treatment proved to be cost-effective by saving 38.72 euros per treated patient. At the end of the maintenance phase (week 24), a similar proportion of patients responded to treatment in the two groups (71.8%vs 68.3%, P= 0.389). HRQL improved from baseline to week 24 in both groups (difference between study groups not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with GERD, empirical treatment with esomeprazole proved to be cost-effective compared with endoscopy-oriented treatment, and did not negatively affect patient HRQL. These results should be taken into account in the management of GERD patients in clinical practice.

Endoscopy in GERD: Boondoggle, Diagnostic Test, or Risk Management Tool?

The role of endoscopy in reflux disease is debated. Diagnostic certainty is attractive to patients and physicians, to affirm health and to ensure the absence of serious disease, but it is expensive and the majority of patients will have no endoscopic abnormalities. Empirical treatment with acid suppression in patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is now widely practiced in primary care in many countries but in others, endoscopy is mandatory to receive approval from the payors for proton pump inhibitor therapy. In patients with dysphagia, endoscopy has a role in ruling out an obstructing lesion. A "once-in-a-lifetime" endoscopy has been proposed as a way to improve our ability to diagnose Barrett's esophagus, but cost-models suggest that this strategy is not cost-effective if current surveillance guidelines are followed after the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus is made. The role of routine endoscopic examination in GERD is therefore questionable and needs better definition in carefully designed trials.

Diagnostic value of potent acid inhibition in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is defined as 'Chronic symptoms or mucosal damage produced by abnormal reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus'. The Genval Workshop Report defines that GORD exists when the frequency of heartburn is equal to or greater than 2 days/week and that it is one of the most common gastrointestinal conditions in the general population. Endoscopy is the most recommendable exploratory procedure in a patient with symptoms of GORD, fundamentally heartburn and regurgitation. However, 50-75% of the patients with symptoms compatible with GORD have normal endoscopy. Thus, endoscopy does not appear to be indispensable in a large group of patients with GORD. Endoscopy is therefore the gold standard for the diagnosis of reflux oesophagitis (histopathological changes in the oesophageal mucosa), but there is no gold standard for the diagnosis of non-erosive GORD. Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring has come to be considered the most sensitive and specific test in the diagnosis of GORD, but a significant proportion of patients (about 25%) have symptoms compatible with GORD and have 24-h pH monitoring results that can be considered normal. Besides, demonstrating the presence of acid reflux alone does not prove that it is the cause of suspected GORD-related signs or symptoms. Therefore, despite 'positive' pH studies, there is a significant number of patients failing to respond to therapy, mainly ear, nose and throat complaints, supposed as manifestations of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Despite 24-h oesophageal pH testing being an excellent diagnostic tool, it has no utility in routine clinical settings and hence its availability should be limited to tertiary care settings. With the demonstration that antisecretory treatment with high doses of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for 1 week or 2 weeks achieves significant improvement or even remission of the symptoms of GORD, it not surprising that it has been proposed as a diagnostic test for the disease. For patients with symptoms compatible with GORD without alarm symptoms or other suspected complications of GORD, a short course of empiric PPI therapy gives valuable information about the presence of GORD. The PPI test is a simple, sensitive and cost-effective tool, but it has insufficient specificity for use as an objective criterion alone. The use of PPIs both as a diagnostic test (1-2 weeks) and as a diagnostic-therapeutic test (1-4 months) has a moderate usefulness and may be used especially in those environments in which there are difficulties in performing the objective test.

The effect of a therapeutic trial of high-dose rabeprazole on symptom response of patients with non-cardiac chest pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic trials with high-dose lansoprazole and omeprazole have been shown to be sensitive clinical tools for diagnosing patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-related non-cardiac chest pain.

AIM

To determine the clinical value of a therapeutic trial of high-dose rabeprazole over 7 days in detecting patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-related non-cardiac chest pain.

METHODS

Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Patients referred by a cardiologist after a comprehensive cardiac work-up were enrolled into the study. Oesophageal mucosal disease was determined by upper endoscopy and 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring assessed acid exposure. Patients were then randomized to either placebo or rabeprazole 20 mg am and 20 mg pm for 7 days. After a washout period of 1 week, patients crossed over to the other arm of the study for an additional 7 days. Patients completed a daily diary assessing severity and frequency of chest pain throughout the baseline, treatment and wash-out periods. The rabeprazole therapeutic trial was considered as a diagnostic tool, if chest pain scores improved > or =50% from baseline.

RESULTS

Of the 35 patients enrolled, 16 (46%) were diagnosed as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-positive and 19 (54%) as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-negative. Of the gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-positive patients, 12 of 16 (75%) had a significant symptom improvement on rabeprazole when compared with 3 of 16 (19%) on placebo (P = 0.029). Of the gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-negative group, only two of 19 (11%) improved significantly on the medication and four of 19 (21%) on placebo (P = 0.6599). The calculated sensitivity and specificity of the rabeprazole therapeutic trial was 75% and 90%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A rabeprazole therapeutic trial is highly sensitive and specific for diagnosing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-related non-cardiac chest pain patients.

Review article: how valuable are proton-pump inhibitors in establishing a diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease?

Diagnostic studies for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (endoscopy, pH testing) have significant limitations. A short trial of acid suppression with a proton-pump inhibitor is often used in clinical practice as a diagnostic test for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. If there is a significant improvement in symptoms, the patient is considered to have gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Several studies have evaluated the administration of proton-pump inhibitors as a diagnostic test for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. A recent meta-analysis found that response to a proton-pump inhibitor had limited value as a diagnostic test. Likelihood ratios for a positive test ranged from 0.45 to 1.86. The positive predictive value of the test ranged from 0.17 to 0.90 and the negative predictive value from 0.17 to 1, depending on the gold standard against which comparisons were made. These results may be explained by the inadequacy of the gold standard against which the proton-pump inhibitor test is compared or by the inability of acid suppression to differentiate between gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease or dyspepsia. Although a trial of acid suppression may have pragmatic value in clinical practice, the proton-pump inhibitor test is not an accurate test for the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

The effect of an empirical trial of high-dose lansoprazole on symptom response of patients with non-cardiac chest pain--a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Empirical trial with high-dose omeprazole has been shown to be a sensitive tool for diagnosing patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-related non-cardiac chest pain.

AIM

To determine the clinical value of an empirical trial of high-dose lansoprazole in detecting patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-related non-cardiac chest pain.

METHODS

Patients who were referred by a cardiologist after a comprehensive evaluation, with at least three episodes per week of unexplained chest pain as the predominant symptom, were enrolled into the study. Oesophageal mucosal disease was determined by upper endoscopy followed by 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring to assess acid exposure. Patients were then randomized to either placebo or lansoprazole 60 mg am and 30 mg pm for 7 days. After a washout period of 1 week, patients crossed over to the other arm of the study for an additional 7 days. Patients completed a daily diary assessing severity and frequency of chest pain as the predominant symptom throughout the baseline treatment and washout periods. The lansoprazole empirical trial was considered diagnostic if chest pain score improved > or =50% than baseline.

RESULTS

Of the 40 patients with non-cardiac chest pain that were enrolled, 18 (45%) had erosive oesophagitis and/or abnormal pH test (gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-positive) and 22 (55%) had both tests negative (gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-negative). Of the gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-positive patients, 14 (78%) had significantly higher symptom improvement on lansoprazole than on placebo (22%) (P = 0.0143). Of the gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-negative group, two (9.1%) markedly improved on the medication and eight (36.3%) on placebo (P = 0.75). The sensitivity and specificity of the lansoprazole empirical trial was 78 and 80%, respectively. By day 2, 12 (85.7%) of the gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-related non-cardiac chest pain responders had either complete or almost complete symptom resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

The lansoprazole empirical trial is highly sensitive and specific for diagnosing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-related non-cardiac chest pain patients. The trial enables diagnosing most of the responders within the first 2 days and thus a shorter duration of therapy may be considered in a subset of non-cardiac chest pain patients.