The effect of antireflux treatment on patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease undergoing a mental arithmetic stressor.

BACKGROUND: Acute stress exacerbates heartburn in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients by enhancing the perceptual responses to intraesophageal acid. The aim of the study was to determine if antireflux treatment can still alter stimulus response functions to acid in patients undergoing acute stress as compared with placebo. METHODS: Symptomatic GERD patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) or an abnormal pH test were included. Patients underwent stimulus response functions to intraesophageal acid perfusion using the mental arithmetic stressor test. Thereafter, patients were randomized (2 : 1 ratio) to either esomeprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo for 8 weeks. On the last day of treatment, subjects underwent stimulus response functions to intraesophageal acid perfusion using a similar stressor as baseline. KEY RESULTS: A total of 31 patients were randomized into the treatment arm (mean age 48.6 ± 2.8, M/F 21/10) and 16 into the placebo arm (mean age 52.3 ± 4.3, M/F 12/4). In the esomeprazole group, there was a significant increase in lag time to symptom perception (P = 0.02) and decreased in intensity rating (P = 0.01) as well as acid perfusion sensitivity score (P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in any of the stimulus response functions to acid in the placebo group between baseline and treatment. Interpersonal sensitivity was the only independent clinical predictor factor for response to antireflux treatment. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Long-term antireflux treatment with a proton pump inhibitor is effective in reducing esophageal perception responses to acid during acute stress.

The effect of esomeprazole 20 mg twice daily on acoustic and perception parameters of the voice in laryngopharyngeal reflux.

BACKGROUND: Randomized, placebo-controlled studies have failed to demonstrate a significant treatment effect for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) using traditional clinical endpoints. We compared the effect of esomeprazole 20 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) vs placebo on voice and acoustic-related measures in patients with LPR. METHODS: Patients with LPR underwent endoscopy and pH testing. Subsequently, patients underwent videostroboscopic recordings of the larynx, acoustic voice and speech analysis. A voice use and quality diary and oesophageal symptom diary were completed at baseline. Thereafter, patients were randomized to esomeprazole 20 mg twice daily vs placebo for 3 months. The voice use and quality diary and oesophageal symptom dairy were repeated during the last week of treatment. Videostroboscopy and acoustic voice and speech analysis were also performed at the end of treatment. KEY RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were randomized to the esomeprazole group and 17 to the placebo group. There was no significant difference in videostroboscopic reflux finding scores from baseline to post-treatment. Acoustic measures also failed to demonstrate significant differences within the same or between groups, even when a sub-group analysis of patients with endoscopically documented oesophageal inflammation at baseline was performed. Additionally, no significant differences were found between groups when using voice use and quality diary. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Use of more specific laryngeal functional parameters such as voice-related acoustic measures of pitch range, fundamental frequency and intensity also failed to demonstrate a significant response to proton pump inhibitor treatment as compared to placebo in patients with suspected LPR.