Knowledge gaps in the management of refractory reflux-like symptoms: Healthcare provider survey.

BACKGROUND: Refractory reflux-like symptoms have a substantial impact on patients and healthcare providers. The aim of the survey was to qualitatively assess the needs and attitudes of practicing clinicians around the management of refractory reflux symptoms and refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (rGERD). METHODS: An International Working Group for the Classification of Oesophagitis (IWGCO) steering committee invited clinicians to complete an online survey including 17 questions. KEY RESULTS: Of the 113 clinicians who completed the survey, 70% were GIs, 20% were primary care physicians, and 10% were other specialties. Functional heartburn was considered the most common reason for an incomplete response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (82%), followed by stress/anxiety (69%). More GIs identified esophageal hypersensitivity as a cause, while more non-GIs identified esophageal dysmotility and non-reflux-related esophageal conditions. As the first step, most clinicians would order investigations (70-88%). Overall, 72% would add supplemental therapy for patients with partial response, but only 58% for those with non-response. Antacid/alginate was the most common choice overall, while non-GIs were more likely to add a prokinetic than were GIs (47.8 vs. 24.1%). Approximately 40% of clinicians would switch PPIs in patients with partial response, but only 29% would do so in non-responders. Preferences for long-term therapy were highly variable. The most common initial investigation was upper endoscopy. Choice of esophageal manometry and pH monitoring was more variable, with no clear preference for whether pH monitoring should be conducted on, or off, PPI therapy. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: The survey identified a number of challenges for clinicians, especially non-GI physicians, treating patients with refractory reflux-like symptoms or rGERD on a daily basis.

State of Evidence in Minimally Invasive Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux: Findings of a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUNDS & AIMS: Endoscopic management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is being employed increasingly. The aim of this scoping review was to assess the volume of available evidence on the benefits of endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical therapies for GERD. METHODS: criteria were used to perform an extensive literature search of data regarding the reported benefit of endoscopic therapies in GERD. Randomized controlled studies were utilized when available; however, data from observational studies were also reviewed. RESULTS: A formal review of evidence was performed in 22 studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria and study duration were noted and tabulated. Assessment of outcomes was based on symptoms and objective criteria reported by investigators. Reported outcomes for the interventions were tabulated under the heading of subjective (symptom scores, quality of life metrics, and change in proton pump inhibitor use) and objective metrics (pH parameters, endoscopic signs, and lower esophageal sphincter pressure changes). Adverse events were noted and tabulated. The majority of studies showed symptomatic and objective improvement of GERD with the device therapies. Adverse events were minimal. However, normalization of acid exposure occurred in about 50% of patients and, for some modalities, long-term durability is uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review revealed that the endoluminal and minimally invasive surgical devices for GERD therapy are a promising alternative to proton pump inhibitor therapy. Their place in the treatment algorithm for GERD will be better defined when important clinical parameters, especially durability of effect, are better understood.

Unmet needs in treating laryngo-pharyngeal reflux disease: where do we go from here?

INTRODUCTION: Many patients experience ear, nose and throat symptoms associated with their gastroesophageal reflux disease. These symptoms are purportedly caused by reflux of gastroduodenal contents into the larynx, which leads to laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Various modalities are used to diagnose LPR, including ambulatory pH monitoring, laryngoscopy, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy, as well as a few new emerging diagnostic tests. However, there are still no established diagnostic criteria or gold standard methodologies that can reliably distinguish LPR from other conditions. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we will evaluate currently available diagnostic tests and therapeutic options for patients with laryngeal signs and symptoms of reflux and briefly discuss the development and emergence of new treatments. Numerous studies have investigated the role of proton pump inhibitor therapy in this patient population, but have led to disparate and often inconsistent results. Expert commentary: While a subgroup of patients with LPR appears to respond to PPI therapy, many patients show no symptomatic improvement, particularly with respect to extraesophageal symptoms. As such, there is a vital need to explore alternative treatment options, including anti-reflux surgery, lifestyle changes, and other classes of medications to better address LPR.

Control of acid and duodenogastroesophageal reflux (DGER) in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

OBJECTIVES: Symptom eradication in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) does not guarantee control of acid or duodenogastroesophageal reflux (DGER). Continued reflux of acid and/or DGER may increase risk of neoplastic progression and may decrease the likelihood of columnar mucosa eradication after ablative therapy. To date, no study has addressed whether both complete acid and DGER control is possible in patients with BE. This prospective study was designed to assess the effect of escalating-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy on esophageal acid and DGER. METHODS: Patients with BE (≥3 cm in length) underwent simultaneous ambulatory prolonged pH and DGER monitoring after at least 1 week off PPI therapy followed by testing on therapy after 1 month of twice-daily rabeprazole (20 mg). In those with continued acid and/or DGER, the tests were repeated after 1 month of double-dose (40 mg twice daily) rabeprazole. The primary study outcome was normalization of both acid and DGER. Symptom severity was assessed on and off PPI therapy employing a four-point ordinal scale. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients with BE consented for pH monitoring, of whom 23 also consented for both pH and DGER monitoring off and on therapy (83% male; mean age 58 years; mean body mass index 29; mean Barrett's length 6.0 cm). Median (interquartile range) total % time pH <4 and bilirubin absorbance >0.14 off PPI therapy were 18.4 (11.7-20.0) and 9.7 (5.0-22.2), respectively. In addition, 26/29 (90%) had normalized acid and 18/23 (78%) had normalized DGER on rabeprazole 20 mg. Among those not achieving normalization on 20 mg twice daily, 3/3 (100%) had normalized acid and 4/5 (80%) had normalized DGER on rabeprazole 40 mg twice daily. All subjects had symptoms controlled on rabeprazole 20 mg twice daily. Univariate analysis found no predictor for normalization of physiologic parameters based on demographics. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom control does not guarantee normalization of acid and DGER at standard dose of twice-daily PPI therapy. Normalization of acid and DGER can be achieved in 79% of BE patients on rabeprazole 20 mg p.o. twice daily, and in the majority of the remainder at high-dose twice-daily PPI. In patients undergoing ablative therapy, pH or DGER monitoring may not be needed to ensure normalization of reflux if patients are treated with high-dose PPI therapy.