Evaluation of omeprazole as a cost-effective diagnostic test for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Proton Pump Inhibitor Test in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Noncardiac Chest Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Response to a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is currently accepted as a first step in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, information on the diagnostic performance of the PPI test is limited.

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the PPI test in GERD and noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) and to assess the test performance in erosive reflux disease (ERD) and nonerosive reflux disease (NERD).

METHODS

Web of Science, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and MEDLINE were searched for studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of the PPI test in adult patients with typical GERD and NCCP who underwent evaluation using an accepted reference standard, from January 1, 1950, through February 1, 2021. Subgroup analyses were performed, and the risk of bias was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (GERD=11, NCCP=8) involving 1691 patients were included. In GERD, the PPI test had 79% pooled sensitivity [95% confidence interval (CI), 72%-84%], and 45% pooled specificity (95% CI, 40%-49%). In NCCP, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 79% (95% CI, 69%-86%) and 79% (95% CI, 69%-86%), respectively. In ERD, the PPI test had 76% pooled sensitivity (95% CI, 66%-84%) and 30% pooled specificity (95% CI, 8%-67%). In NERD, the PPI test had 79% pooled sensitivity (95% CI, 70%-86%) and 50% pooled specificity (95% CI, 39%-61%).

CONCLUSIONS

The PPI test was sensitive in GERD but with suboptimal specificity. The test performed better in GERD-related NCCP. Diagnostic accuracy was comparable in ERD and NERD.

Assessing different diagnostic tests for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to assess the diagnostic characteristics of the gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GERDQ), proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) test, baseline impedance, mucosal impedance, dilated intercellular spaces (DIS), salivary pepsin, esophageal pH/pH impedance monitoring and endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register database (from inception to 10 April 2018) for studies assessing the diagnostic characteristics of the GERDQ, PPI test, baseline impedance, mucosal impedance, DIS, or salivary pepsin and esophageal pH/pH impedance monitoring/endoscopy in patients with GERD. Direct pairwise comparison and a NMA using Bayesian methods under random effects were performed. We also assessed the ranking probability.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies were identified. The NMA found no significant difference among the baseline impedance, mucosal impedance, and esophageal pH/pH impedance monitoring and endoscopy in terms of both sensitivity and specificity. It was also demonstrated that the salivary pepsin detected by the Peptest device had comparable specificity to esophageal pH/pH impedance monitoring and endoscopy. Results of ranking probability indicated that esophageal pH/pH impedance monitoring and endoscopy had highest sensitivity and specificity, followed by mucosal impedance and baseline impedance, whereas GERDQ had the lowest sensitivity and PPI test had the lowest specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and NMA of studies of patients with GERD, we found that baseline impedance and mucosal impedance have relatively high diagnostic performance, similar to esophageal pH/pH impedance monitoring and endoscopy.

Diagnosis and Management of Functional Chest Pain in the Rome IV Era

Functional chest pain accounts for about a third of the patients with noncardiac chest pain. It is a very common functional esophageal disorder that remains even today a management challenge to the practicing physician. Based on the definition offered by the Rome IV criteria, diagnosis of functional chest pain requires a negative workup of noncardiac chest pain patients that includes, proton pump inhibitor test or empirical proton pump inhibitor trial, endoscopy with esophageal mucosal biopsies, reflux testing, and esophageal manometry. The mainstay of treatment are neuromodulators that are primarily composed of anti-depressants. Alternative medicine and psychological interventions may be provided alone or in combination with other therapeutic modalities.

Exploratory Research on Latent Esophageal Motility Disorders in Dysphagia Patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

High-resolution manometry (HRM) has been applied to assess esophageal motility disorders. However, the frequency and types of motility disorders in patients with dysphagia, which are frequently seen in clinical practice, are not clear. We evaluated latent esophageal motility disorders associated with dysphagia.

METHODS

The study included patients without erosive esophageal mucosal damage and with dysphagia symptoms refractory to at least 8 weeks of standard-dose proton pump inhibitors. After enrolment, HRM was used to evaluate for esophageal motility disorder based on the Chicago classification.

RESULTS

Esophageal motility disorder was found in 58 of 100 patients and was classified based on the causes: achalasia (13%), esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (16%), distal esophageal spasms (3%), weak peristalsis (14%), frequently failed peristalsis (5%), and hypertensive peristalsis (7%).

CONCLUSION

Primary esophageal motility disorder was found in approximately 50% of cases in dysphagia patients. Therefore, esophageal motility disorder is not an uncommon condition and should be sought for in order to elucidate precisely the cause of dysphagia.

Limited ability of the proton-pump inhibitor test to identify patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The efficacy of proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy often is assessed to determine whether patients' symptoms are acid-related and if patients have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), although the accuracy of this approach is questionable. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the PPI test, in conjunction with other tests, for the diagnosis of GERD.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the DIAMOND study, a multinational trial that compared the ability of the reflux disease questionnaire with that of symptom-based clinical diagnosis to identify GERD in primary care patients with frequent upper-gastrointestinal symptoms. Patients (n = 308) were given placebo and further evaluated by endoscopy, wireless esophageal pH-metry, and symptom association monitoring. Those with GERD (n = 197) were identified based on the presence of reflux esophagitis, esophageal pH level less than 4 for more than 5.5% of 24 hours, or positive results from symptom association monitoring (or a positive result from the PPI test in patients with borderline levels of esophageal acidity). All patients then were given single-blind therapy with esomeprazole (40 mg once daily) for 2 weeks and symptoms were recorded daily.

RESULTS

A positive response to the PPI test was observed in 69% of patients with GERD and in 51% of those without GERD. Response to placebo did not influence the diagnostic ability of the subsequent PPI test. More patients with reflux esophagitis had a positive result from the PPI test than patients without GERD (57% vs 35%; P = .002) or patients with GERD but no esophagitis. A clinical diagnosis by the primary care physician of an acid-related disease was not associated with response to PPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

In a well-characterized population of primary care patients with frequent upper-gastrointestinal symptoms of any type, the PPI test has limited ability to identify patients with GERD, diagnosed by current standard tests. (ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT00291746.).

Noncardiac chest pain: diagnostic evaluation

Noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) is a common and challenging clinical problem. It is estimated that more than 70 million Americans (23% of the population) suffer from this condition yearly. Patients with NCCP represent a diagnostic dilemma. Their chest pain is often indistinguishable from cardiac pain leading to extensive and expensive evaluations. Once coronary artery disease and other cardiac and pulmonary sources of chest pain are excluded, patients are frequently referred to gastroenterologists to look primarily for esophageal sources of pain. A variety of diagnostic tests are available to the practicing clinician to identify the origin of pain, including ambulatory pH testing, esophageal motility, upper endoscopy, provocative testing and even therapeutic trials.

Diagnosing GORD in Respiratory Medicine

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is increasing in prevalence and is highly associated with several lung diseases such as asthma and COPD. Current diagnostic methods are imperfect, being insensitive, non-specific, expensive, or invasive. An accurate diagnosis of GORD can aid effective treatment and have significant clinical impact. Novel methods such as exhaled breath condensate analysis and electronic nose technology have the potential to improve the accuracy of diagnosing GORD.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease management according to contemporary international guidelines: a translational study

AIM

To test the Genval recommendations and the usefulness of a short trial of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in the initial management and maintenance treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients.

METHODS

Five hundred and seventy seven patients with heartburn were recruited. After completing a psychometric tool to assess quality of life (PGWBI) and a previously validated GERD symptom questionnaire (QUID), patients were grouped into those with esophagitis (EE, n = 306) or without mucosal damage (NERD, n = 271) according to endoscopy results. The study started with a 2-wk period of high dose omeprazole (omeprazole test); patients responding to this PPI test entered an acute phase (3 mo) of treatment with any PPI at the standard dose. Finally, those patients with a favorable response to the standard PPI dose were maintained on a half PPI dose for a further 3-mo period.

RESULTS

The test was positive in 519 (89.9%) patients, with a greater response in EE patients (96.4%) compared with NERD patients (82.6%) (P = 0.011). Both the percentage of completely asymptomatic patients, at 3 and 6 mo, and the reduction in heartburn intensity were significantly higher in the EE compared with NERD patients (P < 0.01). Finally, the mean PGWBI score was significantly decreased before and increased after therapy in both subgroups when compared with the mean value in a reference Italian population.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms the validity of the Genval guidelines in the management of GERD patients. In addition, we observed that the overall response to PPI therapy is lower in NERD compared to EE patients.

The proton pump inhibitor test for gastroesophageal reflux disease: optimal cut-off value and duration

BACKGROUND

There is no accepted gold standard for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

AIM

To assess the optimal cut-off value and duration of the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) test in GERD patients with and without oesophagitis.

METHODS

Prospective study of 544 patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy and treated for 2 weeks with PPIs at double dose, and for 3 additional months at standard dose. The status of the patient at end of treatment was used as an independent diagnostic standard, i.e. patients completely asymptomatic were considered as "true" GERD patients.

RESULTS

PPI test was positive in 89.7-97.8% of the patients according to the cut-off or duration of test used. Test sensitivity ranged from 95.5% to 98.8%, whereas specificity did not exceed 36.3%. Positive predictive values ranged from 87% to 80%, negative predictive values ranged from 58% to 70%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The PPI test is a sensitive but poorly specific test in GERD patients. Its optimal duration is 1 week, and the optimal cut-off value is a decrease of heartburn score ≥75%. The diagnostic yield is higher in erosive oesophagitis compared with non-erosive reflux disease patients, similarly to the symptomatic response to 3-month PPI therapy.

The proton pump inhibitor test and the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease

There continues to be significant controversy related to diagnostic testing for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Symptoms of GERD may be associated with physiologic esophageal acid exposure measured by intraesophageal pH monitoring or pH-impedance monitoring, and a significant percentage of patients with abnormal esophageal acid (or weak acid) exposure have no or minimal clinical symptoms of reflux. On the other hand, endoscopic lesions are only present in a minority of GERD patients. In clinical practice, presumptive diagnosis of GERD is reasonably assumed by the substantial reduction or elimination of suspected reflux symptoms during the therapeutic trial of acid reduction therapy, the so-called proton pump inhibitor (PPI) test. We aimed to assess the optimal cutoff value and duration of this test in GERD patients with and without esophagitis. We conducted a prospective study of 544 patients, endoscopically investigated and treated for 2 weeks with PPIs at double dose, and for an additional 3 months at standard dose. The status of the patient at the end of the study was used as an independent diagnostic standard. We found esophagitis present in 55.8% and absent in 44.2% of patients (corresponding to a diagnosis of nonerosive reflux disease [NERD]). The test was positive in 89.7-97.8% of the patients according to the cutoff or duration of the test used. The sensitivity of the PPI test was excellent, ranging from 95.5 to 98.8%, whereas the specificity was poor, not exceeding 36.3%. Erosive esophagitis patients responded more favorably to the PPI test and subsequent PPI therapy compared with NERD patients. In conclusion, the PPI test is a sensitive but less specific test. Its optimal duration is 1 week, and the optimal cutoff value is a decrease of heartburn score of more than 75%. NERD patients respond less satisfactorily to PPIs, even when functional heartburn patients are excluded and only 'true' NERD patients are considered.

The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a highly prevalent condition that imposes a significant economic impact on the US health care system. The utility of commonly used tests for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease has not been adequately reviewed.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken to provide an evidence-based approach to the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. EMBASE (1980-December 2008), OVID MEDLINE, and PubMed, (1966-December 2008) were searched using "gastroesophageal reflux" and "adults" with other terms, including medications, diagnostic tests, symptoms, and epidemiologic terms. Studies were limited to human trials, English language, and full articles.

RESULTS

Heartburn is a reasonably sensitive symptom for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease, although it does not reliably predict esophagitis. Standardized questionnaires have limited specificity, whereas the double-contrast barium swallow has a low sensitivity to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux. The role of esophageal manometry is limited to accurate placement of a pH-measuring device. pH testing has reasonable sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. The sensitivity of upper endoscopy to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux is lower than that of pH tests.

CONCLUSION

The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease remains difficult. In the absence of alarm symptoms, empiric treatment with acid suppression is warranted. pH testing provides valuable information in many patients, although the clinical utility of newer tests needs to be determined. Endoscopy should not be the first test used to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux.

A comparative study of proton-pump inhibitor tests for Chinese reflux patients in relation to the CYP2C19 genotypes

BACKGROUND

The proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) test has been proposed as a valuable tool for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease in Western populations.

GOALS

We aim to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the PPI test using rabeprazole and pantoprazole in a Chinese population with a higher prevalence of poor PPI metabolization.

STUDY

After diagnostic endoscopy, patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms were randomly assigned to a 2-week test with rabeprazole (20 mg b.i.d.) or pantoprazole (40 mg b.i.d.). Therapeutic response was assessed with a 5-grade daily record. Genotypes of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 polymorphism were determined.

RESULTS

Of the 178 patients who completed the study, 92 (51.7%) had erosive esophagitis and 78 (48.3%) were endoscopy-negative reflux disease. On the basis of 50% reduction of symptoms, there was a nonsignificant difference of diagnostic performances between rabeprazole and pantoprazole. For the CYP2C19 genotypes, 138 (87.3%) were determined to be extensive metabolizers (EMs) and 20 (12.7%) were poor metabolizers (PMs). When comparing the EMs and PMs, the diagnostic specificity in the prediction of erosive esophagitis was higher in the EMs (57.6% vs. 20.0%, P=0.040), as was the accuracy (74.6% vs. 50.0%, P=0.023). There were no differences in the sensitivity, positive predictive value, or negative predictive value.

CONCLUSIONS

CYP2C19 genotypic polymorphism was related to a higher possibility of false-positive results for patients who metabolized PPI poorly. High-dose rabeprazole and pantoprazole showed a similar diagnostic performance.

The proton pump inhibitor (PPI) test in GERD: does it still have a role?

The proton pump inhibitor (PPI) test is a short course of high-dose PPI, used to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This diagnostic strategy is commonly used globally, primarily because of its availability, simplicity, and high sensitivity. The PPI test has been proven to be a sensitive tool for diagnosing GERD in noncardiac chest pain patients and in preliminary trials in extraesophageal manifestations of GERD. Several recent meta-analyses reevaluated the value of the PPI test in patients with classic GERD-related symptoms and noncardiac chest pain. Although the results were conflicting, the PPI test remains a popular tool for determining the presence of GERD. Attempts to challenge the PPI test without offering attractive alternatives are unlikely to alter clinical practice.

Stratification and symptom characteristics of non-erosive reflux disease based on acid and duodenogastroesophageal reflux

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The subgroups and symptom characteristics of non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) based on acid and duodenogastroesophageal reflux may be different in Chinese patients to Western patients. This study aimed to explore the stratification and symptom characteristics of patients with NERD.

METHODS

Patients with typical heartburn and/or acid regurgitation symptoms were enrolled. Each patient filled out a questionnaire. An upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed for each patient followed by simultaneous ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH and Bilitec (bilirubin) monitoring. A symptom index (SI) of > or =50% was considered to be positive.

RESULTS

Eighty-two consecutive NERD patients were evaluated. Abnormal (NERD pH+) and normal (NERD pH-) 24-h pH tests were found in 24 (29.3%) and 58 (70.7%) patients, respectively. Among 42 NERD pH- patients who reported heartburn symptoms during monitoring, SI was positive in 19 (45.2%) patients (NE-SI+) and negative in 23 (54.8%) patients (NE-SI-). Pathological duodenogastroesophageal reflux (DGER) was found in 43 (52.4%) patients. No significant differences were noted regarding the prevalence of other upper gastrointestinal symptoms, except for acid regurgitation in NERD pH+ and NERD pH- groups. Additionally, no significant differences were seen in the prevalence of other symptoms, except for chest pain, in groups with pathological and normal DGER.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of NERD patients with pathological acid reflux was somewhat lower than that reported in Western countries. The role of DGER in NERD may be important. It is difficult to differentiate whether NERD patients have pathological acid or bile reflux according to symptoms.

Extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease often presents as heartburn and acid reflux, the so-called "typical" symptoms. However, a subgroup of patients presents a collection of signs and symptoms that are not directly related to esophageal damage. These are known collectively as the extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Principal among such manifestations are bronchospasm, chronic cough and laryngitis, which are classified as atypical symptoms. These manifestations comprise a heterogeneous group. However, some generalizations can be made regarding all of the subgroups. First, although the correlation between gastroesophageal reflux disease and the extraesophageal manifestations has been well established, a cause-and-effect relationship has yet to be definitively elucidated. In addition, the main proposed pathogenic mechanisms of extraesophageal reflux are direct injury of the extraesophageal tissue (caused by contact with gastric acid) and the esophagobronchial reflex, which is mediated by the vagus nerve. Furthermore, gastroesophageal reflux disease might not be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients presenting only the atypical symptoms. In this article, we review the extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease, discussing its epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment. We focus on the most extensively studied and well-established presentations.

Factors influencing the shift of patients from one proton pump inhibitor to another: the effect of direct-to-consumer advertising

BACKGROUND

Switching from one proton pump inhibitor (PPI) to another is common, and may be related to factors other than efficacy and tolerability.

OBJECTIVES

The purposes of this study were to describe the incidence of therapeutic switching among PPI users, quantify direct ambulatory medical costs of switching, and characterize the relationship between product switching and variables hypothesized to influence a switch (eg, direct-to-consumer [DTC] advertising, structure of insurance coverage, disease diagnosis).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of health plans using 1998 data. The subjects were employees and dependents with employer-sponsored health insurance contributing to the Medstat Market-Scan administrative dataset. Using a commercially available database to quantify DTC advertising by marketing area, market-specific expenditures were matched to eligible subjects. Among PPI users, we identified those who switched from one product to another (switchers) and compared their utilization and spending with nonswitchers. We then evaluated the relationship between drug use and variables hypothesized to affect switching: DTC advertising, insurance characteristics, patient diagnosis, diagnostic procedures, comorbidities, age, and sex.

RESULTS

The analysis used data for 396,500 individuals from 47 unique markets that were geographically well distributed, with population density similar to that of the United States overall. The sample was also comparable with US census estimates for age and sex among working adults and their dependents. Only 620 (6.3%) of PPI users switched products during the 1998 calendar year. Annual diagnostic and drug costs were >US $400 higher for switchers than nonswitchers. Subjects in areas with high levels of DTC advertising were 43% more likely to switch from lansoprazole to omeprazole than those in the low-expenditure areas. Additionally, patients paying prescription drug copayments >US $5 were 12% less likely to switch from lansoprazole to omeprazole than patients paying lower copayments.

CONCLUSIONS

In these privately insured patients using PPIs, product switching was associated with increased treatment costs. DTC advertising and patient cost-sharing were important predictors of product switching.

Diagnostic value of the proton pump inhibitor test for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care

AIM

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the proton pump inhibitor test in a primary care population as well as its additional value over reflux history, using the symptom association probability outcome during 24-h oesophageal pH recording as reference test for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

METHODS

Subjects with symptoms suggestive of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease were recruited from primary care. After a 24-h pH recording with calculation of the symptom association probability, subjects started using 40 mg esomeprazole once daily for 13 days. The proton pump inhibitor test was considered positive when the subjects reported adequate symptom suppression. Data are presented as means with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Successful 24-h pH recording was accomplished in 84 of the 90 subjects, while the symptom association probability was calculable in 74. The symptom association probability was positive in 70% of the subjects. The sensitivity of the proton pump inhibitor test was 0.91 (CI 0.78-0.96) and the specificity was 0.26 (CI 0.10-0.49). The mean likelihood ratio was 1.2 (CI 0.9-1.6) with little variation over the 13 consecutive proton pump inhibitor test days. The likelihood ratios of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms were comparable, ranging around 1.

CONCLUSIONS

In primary care patients with reflux symptoms gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is highly prevalent. Under these conditions the additional value of short-term treatment with a proton pump inhibitor for diagnosing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is limited.

An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

In recognition of the high prevalence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and its importance in Latin America, the InterAmerican Association of Gastroenterology and the InterAmerican Society of Digestive Endoscopy organized a Latin-American Consensus on GORD in Cancun, Mexico in September 2004. The main objectives of the consensus meeting were to provide evidence-based guidance with respect to the diagnosis and treatment of GORD, relevant to all countries in the region. The methodology, results and recommendations of the consensus are described in detail.

Laryngeal examination is superior to endoscopy in the diagnosis of the laryngopharyngeal form of gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE

The laryngopharyngeal form of gastroesophageal reflux disease (LF GERD) is a frequent manifestation of supraesophageal GERD. Diagnosis of LF GERD is difficult: most of the common diagnostic methods of GERD have insufficient accuracy in establishing LF GERD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of endoscopic and laryngologic examination in the diagnosis of LF GERD and to create a laryngoscopic reflux index (LRI).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 108 LF GERD patients and 90 controls were investigated. The criteria for LF GERD were: complaints, reflux-laryngitis, and esophagitis (endoscopically or histologically proven). Lesions in four laryngeal regions were evaluated: arytenoids (A), intraarytenoid notch (IAN), vestibular folds (VF), and vocal cords (VC). Three types of mucosal lesions were evaluated on a points basis: alterations of the epithelium, erythema, and edema. Total LRI was calculated by summing-up the indices in the separate laryngeal areas.

RESULTS

The LRI mean value (11.48+/-3.78 points) of LF GERD patients was statistically significantly greater than that (1.64+/-1.93 points) of the controls. The most significant laryngoscopic changes of LF GERD were: mucosal lesions of IAN, mucosal lesions of VC, and edema of VC. A combination of these three findings reliably distinguishes the LF GERD patients from controls in 95.9% of cases. The mucosal lesions of IAN have the greatest importance in diagnosing LF GERD: the odds ratio to LF GERD - 21.32, p<0.001. Endoscopic esophagitis was established in 36 (33.3%) cases. The severity of esophagitis did not correlate with the severity of the laryngeal findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Laryngoscopy is superior to endoscopy in diagnosing LF GERD. Endoscopy has limited value in the diagnosis of LF GERD. Establishing the LRI could be helpful in the differential diagnosis of the disease in the everyday clinical practice.

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.

An update on the available treatments for non-erosive reflux disease

Non-erosive reflux disease is defined as the presence of troublesome reflux symptoms, such as heartburn and regurgitation, in the absence of endoscopically-visible damage of the oesophageal mucosa. In comparison with erosive oesophagitis, non-erosive reflux disease is the most common clinical manifestation of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Pathophysiologically, it is not a homogeneous disease as only approximately two-thirds of patients have truly acid-related symptoms. This explains the fact that patients with non-erosive reflux disease consistently show a poorer response to proton pump inhibitor treatment than patients with erosive oesophagitis. Nevertheless, profound acid inhibition by proton pump inhibitors is the recommended first-line treatment in patients suffering from this condition, both in the initial phase and for long-term care. Non-responders to proton pump inhibitor therapy should be subjected to a thorough examination and treated on an individual basis. Emerging data on the long-term course of reflux disease under routine clinical care have led to the adoption of new therapeutic strategies that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

Lugol chromoendoscopy as a diagnostic tool in so-called endoscopy-negative GERD

BACKGROUND

Esophageal mucosal breaks are found in less than half of patients with typical reflux symptom. Thus, endoscopy appears to be an insensitive test for GERD. Lugol chromoendoscopy has been used to detect early esophageal cancer, which is difficult to recognize by routine observation without dye staining. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of Lugol chromoendoscopy in the diagnosis of so-called endoscopy-negative GERD (ENRD).

METHODS

The study was conducted with 61 patients (21 women; mean age of 59.8 years) with reflux symptoms and 42 controls (15 women; mean age, 65.0 years). In the absence of any esophageal mucosal abnormalities at conventional endoscopy, Lugol's iodine solution was sprayed onto the esophageal surface, followed by evaluation of the staining pattern. When Lugol-unstained streaks were observed at chromoendoscopy, biopsy specimens were obtained from unstained streaks and from adjacent stained mucosa. Histologic evaluation included basal cell hyperplasia, papillary length, and cellular infiltration.

RESULTS

Twenty-two (36%) of 61 patients with reflux, and 4 (10%) of 42 controls had visible esophagitis by conventional endoscopy. Lugol chromoendoscopy was performed in the remaining 39 patients and 38 controls. The entire esophageal mucosa was uniformly stained dark brown in 20 patients with reflux and 37 controls. In the remaining 19 patients with reflux and in one control, several unstained streaks were observed in the distal esophagus (p < 0.0001). Histologically, Lugol-unstained mucosa showed a significantly thicker basal cell layer (30.9% +/- 7.6% vs. 12.3% +/- 4.5% of total epithelial thickness, mean +/- standard deviation [SD], p < 0.01) and longer papillae (57.9% +/- 12.6% vs. 38.1% +/- 12.6% of total epithelial thickness, mean [SD], p < 0.01) compared with stained mucosa. In addition, infiltration of lymphocytes in the epithelium was significantly increased in unstained mucosa than in stained mucosa (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Visible unstained streaks by Lugol chromoendoscopy seem to be indicative of mucosal injury, which was not detectable by conventional endoscopy. Lugol chromoendoscopy is simple and could be useful for the diagnosis of ENRD. This method could be appealing for the endoscopist as it is easy, safe, and can be performed at the same endoscopic session.

Treatment of uncomplicated reflux disease

Uncomplicated reflux disease comprises the non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) and erosive reflux disease (ERD). The objectives of treatment are the adequate control of symptoms with restoration of quality of life, healing of lesions and prevention of relapse. Treatment of NERD consists in the administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for 2-4 wk, although patients with NERD show an overall poorer response to PPI treatment than patients with ERD owing to the fact that patients with NERD do not form a pathophysiologically homogenous group. For long-term management on-demand treatment with a PPI is probably the best option. In patients with ERD, therapy with a standard dose PPI for 4-8 wk is always recommended. Long-term treatment of ERD is applied either intermittently or as continuous maintenance treatment with an attempt to reduce the daily dosage of the PPI (step-down principle). In selected patients requiring long-term PPI treatment, antireflux surgery is an alternative option. In patients with troublesome reflux symptoms and without alarming features empirical PPI therapy is another option for initial management. Therapy should be withdrawn after initial success. In the case of relapse, the long-term care depends on a careful risk assessment and the response to PPI therapy.

Validation of the Reflux Disease Questionnaire for a German population

OBJECTIVE

We describe the validation of a German-language version of the Reflux Disease Questionnaire in what is the first validation study of this patient questionnaire for a non-English speaking population. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is one of the most common diseases in primary care and has a significant negative impact on patients' quality of life. There is no gold standard for diagnosing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, however, so the valid assessment of symptoms is especially important.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 5689 patients (92%) completed the questionnaire both before treatment and after 2 weeks. The results were tested for validity and reliability. Predictive validity was tested in a pilot study of 100 patients. Convergent validity was examined using the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia Questionnaire for the assessment of disease-specific quality of life and the McMaster Overall Treatment Evaluation for the assessment of therapeutic success.

RESULTS

Principal component analysis suggested a three-factor solution with the subscores heartburn, regurgitation, and dyspepsia. The internal consistencies of the subscores were between 0.84 and 0.86. Item difficulty ranged from 0.33 to 0.53, and corrected item-total correlation from 0.66 to 0.72. Effect sizes were between 0.8 and 1.0.

CONCLUSION

The German version of the questionnaire has good psychometric properties and is responsive to changes in health. Thus, we conclude that the German Reflux Disease Questionnaire is suitable for the assessment of heartburn, regurgitation, and treatment response, both in primary care settings and clinical studies.

Is esophageal pH monitoring used appropriately in an open-access system? A prospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the referral patterns and indications for esophageal pH monitoring in an open-access system and to determine whether these indications conform to practice guidelines of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

METHODS

A total of 851 consecutive patients referred for ambulatory pH monitoring to nine open-access gastrointestinal units over a 12-month period received a structured interview. The indication for the examination was decided by the physician performing the procedure, on the basis of the patient's clinical history and main complaint.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty-three (38%) examinations were for indications in accordance with the guidelines. The proportion of appropriate requests in each center ranged from 34% to 47%. This figure was not significantly different in larger gastrointestinal units (more than 150 examinations per year) and smaller ones (35% and 40%; p= 0.14). The proportion of appropriate requests was 45% for gastroenterologists, 38% for surgeons, 32% for other specialists, and 24% for primary care physicians (PCPs) (p < 0.001). The percentage of appropriateness was significantly different between gastrointestinal specialists and PCPs (p < 0.001 vs gastroenterologists, p= 0.015 vs GI surgeons), and between gastroenterologists and other specialists (p= 0.006). The underuse of an empirical trial of acid-suppression therapy in patients with suspected reflux disease and the overuse of this test to confirm a diagnosis in patients with erosive esophagitis and in endoscopy-negative cases with typical symptoms responding completely to antisecretory therapy accounted for most of the referrals, which was not in accordance with the guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

In an open-access system, a high proportion of esophageal pH studies are done for indications not consistent with published guidelines, particularly among the examinations not requested by gastrointestinal specialists. Further education is still needed on the appropriate use of esophageal pH monitoring and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Definition and diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease

With widespread treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection, and that peptic ulcer diseases are no longer considered a chronic illness and are declining in most parts of the world, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) predominates the upper gastrointestinal disease spectrum. GERD is a well-defined condition. More innovative research in GERD in recent years led us to new conceptual frameworks on pathogenesis and novel diagnostic tests. The proton pump inhibitor test has evolved to become the diagnostic test of choice for the investigation of patients with the disease spectrum of GERD. Multi-channel intraluminal impedance with pH sensor allows the detection of pH episodes irrespective of their pH values (acid and nonacid reflux). It is useful to measure gastroesophageal reflux in the postprandial period, and in patients with persistent symptoms while on therapy and those with atypical symptoms.

Pathophysiological characteristics of patients with non-erosive reflux disease differ from those of patients with functional heartburn

BACKGROUND

Patients with endoscopy-negative heartburn can be subdivided into non-erosive reflux disease and functional heartburn on the basis of abnormal and normal, respectively, oesophageal acid exposure. Different pathophysiological characteristics could explain the reportedly low efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in functional heartburn.

AIM

To assess if non-erosive reflux disease and functional heartburn are pathophysiologically distinguishable.

METHODS

Oesophageal manometry and pH-monitoring were performed in 145 patients with endoscopy-negative heartburn, in 72 patients with erosive reflux disease, in 58 patients with complicated reflux disease, and in 60 controls.

RESULTS

Patients with non-erosive reflux disease (84 cases) and functional heartburn (61 cases) differed with regard to the prevalence of hiatal hernia (49% vs. 31%, P = 0.008), the mean lower oesophageal sphincter tone (18.5 vs. 28.4 mmHg, P < 0.05), and the number of upright diurnal acid refluxes lasting more than 5 min (3.6 vs. 0.37, P < 0.05). The results were very close in thenon-erosive reflux disease, erosive reflux disease and complicated reflux disease groups, whilst patients with functional heartburn were indistinguishable from controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathophysiological characteristics typical of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease are found in patients with non-erosive reflux disease but not in patients with functional heartburn. This could explain the reportedly low efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in functional heartburn and suggests considering different management strategies.

Symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis: comparative study of omeprazole, lansoprazole, and rabeprazole

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Rabeprazole has a faster onset of antisecretory activity than omeprazole and lansoprazole. The aim of the present study was to clarify whether there is any difference in the speed of symptom relief in patients with reflux esophagitis following the administration of these three proton pump inhibitors (PPI).

METHODS

Eighty-five patients with erosive reflux esophagitis were randomized to receive 8 weeks of 20 mg of omeprazole (n = 30), 30 mg of lansoprazole (n = 25), or 20 mg of rabeprazole (n = 30) once a morning. Daily changes in heartburn and acid reflux symptoms in the first 7 days of administration were assessed using a six-point scale (0: none, 1: mild, 2: mild-moderate, 3: moderate, 4: moderate-severe, 5: severe).

RESULTS

The mean heartburn score in patients administered rabeprazole decreased more rapidly than those given the other PPI. Complete heartburn remission also occurred more rapidly in patients administered rabeprazole (compared with omeprazole: P = 0.035, compared with lansoprazole: P = 0.038 by log-rank test). No differences were seen in the rate of endoscopic healing of reflux esophagitis at 8 weeks between the three treatment regimens.

CONCLUSION

Rabeprazole may be more effective than omeprazole and lansoprazole for the rapid relief of heartburn symptoms in patients with reflux esophagitis.

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

The role of diagnostic testing in reflux disease is in evolution. There is little question that patients with dysphagia, bleeding or other 'alarm' symptoms, should undergo early endoscopy. A substantial proportion of patients presenting with reflux symptoms have endoscopy negative reflux disease. pH testing is both inconvenient and lacks the sensitivity and specificity required for a 'gold standard'. Empirical trials of therapy using proton pump inhibitors have shown that a trial of treatment may be the most accurate way of diagnosing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and may the optimal strategy from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. On the other hand, the increasing rate of oesophageal adenocarcinoma has raised questions about the possible value of screening endoscopy to determine if Barrett's oesophagus is present. The role of endoscopic testing in the average patient is therefore shifting from a diagnostic modality to one that helps manage risk by identifying Barrett's oesophagus.

One-week esomeprazole treatment: an effective confirmatory test in patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic response to acid inhibition can be used as a guide in diagnosing patients with reflux symptoms. The proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) omeprazole has been used as such a diagnostic tool. Intragastric acid control with esomeprazole is more effective than other PPIs and has the potential to offer an advance in the diagnostic use of PPIs.

METHODS

Patients experiencing heartburn (for > or = 6 months) were studied in this randomized, double-blind, multicenter study. Following a 3-day placebo run-in, 440 patients were randomized to 14 days' treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily (o.d.), esomeprazole 20 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) or placebo. Heartburn symptoms were recorded daily. Endoscopy and 24-h esophageal pH-monitoring were performed to determine the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The esomeprazole treatment test was considered positive if patients' symptoms improved during the treatment period compared with symptoms recorded on Day 0.

RESULTS

63 patients were excluded from the analysis due to lack of symptoms on Day 0 or failure to complete pH-monitoring. The sensitivity of an esomeprazole treatment test in confirming GERD increased during the first days of treatment and stabilized between 79% and 86% after 5 days (both esomeprazole arms). The corresponding figure for the placebo arm was 36%. Specificity was variable (24%-65%) for both active treatment and placebo.

CONCLUSION

A treatment test with esomeprazole 40 mg has a high sensitivity in confirming GERD. Furthermore, the data indicate that 1-week treatment with a once-daily dosage is sufficient to ensure adequate diagnosis.

Symptomatic response to lansoprazole predicts abnormal acid reflux in endoscopy-negative patients with non-cardiac chest pain

AIM

To determine whether symptomatic response to lansoprazole predicts abnormal acid reflux in endoscopy-negative patients with non-cardiac chest pain.

METHODS

Patients who complained of chest pain, but had normal coronary angiography, were asked to undergo upper endoscopy. Those without gastric and oesophageal lesions were recruited for 24-h ambulatory oesophageal pH monitoring, and were randomly given lansoprazole 30 mg or placebo, both daily for 4 weeks. Chest pain symptoms were recorded before and 1 month after treatment on a locally validated questionnaire. The symptom score was calculated by multiplying the severity and frequency of the symptom, and symptom improvement was defined as > 50% reduction in symptom score.

RESULTS

Overall, 68 patients, 36 on lansoprazole and 32 on placebo, completed the trial. The symptom score was reduced significantly in both groups (P < 0.001). In the lansoprazole group, more patients with than without abnormal reflux showed symptom improvement (92% vs. 33%; odds ratio = 22; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-201.8; chi2 = 10.9; P = 0.001), giving a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of 92%, 67%, 58%, 94% and 75%, respectively. In the placebo group, the rates of symptom improvement were similar between those with and without abnormal reflux (33% vs. 35%, P = N.S.).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with lansoprazole is a useful test in diagnosing endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in Chinese patients with non-cardiac chest pain.

Patient-centred endpoints in economic evaluations of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

AIM

To perform a systematic review of the economic literature on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease to evaluate (a) the use of patient-centred effectiveness end-points, or (b) the use of patient-centred economic end-points, and the influence of these end-points on the outcome of the model.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (EMBASE, BIOSIS and Medline) were used, together with a manual search of meeting abstracts for relevant articles. The quality of the studies was determined by the Drummond criteria.

RESULTS

Our initial search identified 179 articles and a manual search revealed 78 abstracts and articles. A total of 47 studies (36 fully published articles and 11 abstracts) met the seven Drummond criteria for inclusion in our evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrates that many of the published economic evaluations available today take the perspective of the third-party payer and focus on pharmaceutical costs relevant to the third-party payer. Our study also demonstrates that there are a number of costs of illness determinations, such that pharmaceutical costs account for only a small proportion of the total costs of managing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Future economic analyses should consider an evaluation of the patient's desire for complete symptom relief by including cost-utility assessments or willingness to pay data.

Patients have treatment preferences: a multicentre, double-blind, crossover study comparing rabeprazole and omeprazole

It is increasingly common practice to change patients from one medication in a drug class to another, often as part of a general formulary change. The underlying assumption and accepted wisdom is that all compounds within a class are identical. To our knowledge, there has been no published investigation into the patients' views on such changes or on the individual medications. These views may be affected by positive side-effects, not normally sought in clinical trials, as well as negative side-effects, which are always reported. The objectives of this study were to determine whether patients whose primary symptoms were already controlled by a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) could distinguish between rabeprazole and omeprazole; to determine the incidence of positive, as well as negative, side-effects; to elicit patients' opinions on changing medication within a class, and on the importance of certain characteristics of medication. The design was a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, crossover trial, set in five general practice research centres in the UK and Ireland. 240 eligible patients were randomised to receive daily treatment, first for 4 weeks with omeprazole 20 mg/day, and then for reverse order. Each phase of 4 weeks was separately assessed by patients through questionnaires and by non-directed questioning about positive and negative side-effects. At the end of the 8 weeks, patients compared the two medications in seven treatment characteristics. Patients were further asked their attitude to changing medication within a class. Data were collected by a web-based electronic data capture system. Results showed that the majority of patients could be switched to another PPI therapy, predictably without noticeable difference in maintenance of primary symptom control. About one-quarter to one-half of patients were able to express a preference for one or other of the treatments dependent on the variable assessed. For 'absence of unwanted side-effects' and 'presence of positive side-effects' a statistically significant difference in favour of rabeprazole was detected (p = 0.0467 and p = 0.0188, respectively). In terms of the total treatment preference score, the primary outcome variable, there was no statistically significant difference between the two PPIs (p = 0.0754). This finding is mainly attributable to the two PPIs providing similar relief of primary mask the findings for the other variables assessed. However, there were numerically more patients (10 vs. 3) who reported 'marked' positive side-effects on rabeprazole. On direct questioning, patients indicated that tablets (rabeprazole) were more easily swallowed than capsules (omeprazole) (p < 0.0001), but less easily handled than capsules (p = 0.0003). These analyses may however have been confounded by the fact that the omeprazole medication had to be over-encapsulated to allow blinding for this double-dummy, blinded study. There was no difference in tolerability between rabeprazole and omeprazole, with 52.6% and 51% of patients reporting at least one adverse event, respectively. Of the patients controlled and maintained on omeprazole before the study, 33.9% reported adverse events on omeprazole during the study and seven discontinued the study for that reason. Patients thought the most important drug characteristics for treating this condition were rapid and lasting control of pain. Most (83.6%) would be willing to try an alternative medication within a drug class. In conclusion, most patients already controlled by a PPI would be willing to try another. An individual patient may have a strong preference for one PPI over another, and this difference may be important if treatment is to be long term.

Proton pump inhibitors in the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the most common peptic acid disease in the western world and is the commonest indication for acid suppression therapy. Major advances have been made over the past 30 years in the understanding of lower oesophageal sphincter function and the mechanism of acid secretion. Developments in surgical and pharmacological therapy have paralleled these advances. Pharmacotherapy for GERD has evolved from antacids to H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) to prokinetics to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The H2RAs, while modestly effective in symptom relief and healing of GERD, are limited by pharmacological tolerance. The prokinetics (metoclopramide and cisapride) are limited by low efficacy, pharmacological tolerance and toxicity. The PPIs have emerged as the most effective therapy for symptom relief, healing and long-term maintenance. They have also proved to be remarkably safe and cost-effective in long-term therapy. This review evaluates the pharmacology, efficacy, tolerability, safety and cost-effectiveness of the four currently available PPIs, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole and rabeprazole, in the treatment of GERD.

Empirical trials in treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease

The assortment of diagnostic tests that are currently available for detecting gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are invasive, costly and not readily available to community-based physicians. In contrast, a short course of high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) as an empirical trial is an attractive alternative. This simple diagnostic test has been demonstrated to be accurate and cost-effective in patients with symptoms suggestive of GERD and those with noncardiac chest pain. Early studies in patients with extraesophageal manifestations of GERD have yielded promising results. Cost assessment of the PPI empirical trial revealed significant cost savings, mainly due to a marked decrease in utilization of invasive diagnostic tests. Thus the PPI empirical trial should be considered as the initial diagnostic step in patients with the disease spectrum of GERD.