Updates to the modern diagnosis of GERD: Lyon consensus 2.0.

The Lyon Consensus provides conclusive criteria for and against the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and adjunctive metrics that consolidate or refute GERD diagnosis when primary criteria are borderline or inconclusive. An international core and working group was assembled to evaluate research since publication of the original Lyon Consensus, and to vote on statements collaboratively developed to update criteria. The Lyon Consensus 2.0 provides a modern definition of actionable GERD, where evidence from oesophageal testing supports revising, escalating or personalising GERD management for the symptomatic patient. Symptoms that have a high versus low likelihood of relationship to reflux episodes are described. Unproven versus proven GERD define diagnostic strategies and testing options. Patients with no prior GERD evidence (unproven GERD) are studied using prolonged wireless pH monitoring or catheter-based pH or pH-monitoring off antisecretory medication, while patients with conclusive GERD evidence (proven GERD) and persisting symptoms are evaluated using pH-impedance monitoring while on optimised antisecretory therapy. The major changes from the original Lyon Consensus criteria include establishment of Los Angeles grade B oesophagitis as conclusive GERD evidence, description of metrics and thresholds to be used with prolonged wireless pH monitoring, and inclusion of parameters useful in diagnosis of refractory GERD when testing is performed on antisecretory therapy in proven GERD. Criteria that have not performed well in the diagnosis of actionable GERD have been retired. Personalisation of investigation and management to each patient's unique presentation will optimise GERD diagnosis and management.

Esophageal Motility Disorders: Current Approach to Diagnostics and Therapeutics.

Dysphagia is a common symptom with significant impact on quality of life. Our diagnostic armamentarium was primarily limited to endoscopy and barium esophagram until the advent of manometric techniques in the 1970s, which provided the first reliable tool for assessment of esophageal motor function. Since that time, significant advances have been made over the last 3 decades in our understanding of various esophageal motility disorders due to improvement in diagnostics with high-resolution esophageal manometry. High-resolution esophageal manometry has improved the sensitivity for detecting achalasia and has also enhanced our understanding of spastic and hypomotility disorders of the esophageal body. In this review, we discuss the current approach to diagnosis and therapeutics of various esophageal motility disorders.

Opioid Exposure Differentially Impacts Esophageal Body Contraction Over the Lower Esophageal Sphincter.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Studies with limited sample sizes have investigated association of chronic opioid use with motility disorders of esophagogastric junction and esophageal body peristalsis. Our aims were to use a large cohort of patients to assess (1) the impact of opioid exposure on clinical and manometric characteristics, and (2) the association of opioid exposure with higher long-term symptom burden. METHODS: Patients recruited from a tertiary medical center who underwent high-resolution manometry (HRM) between 2007 and 2018 were included. Demographics, opiate exposure, clinical symptoms, and HRM parameters were compared. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Gastrointestinal swallowing domain (PROMIS-GI swallowing domain) and Eckardt score were administered via phone interviews in patients with hypercontractile esophagus (HE) or distal esophageal spasm (DES) to determine long-term symptom burden between opioid and nonopioid users. RESULTS: Our cohort included 4075 patients (869 with opiate exposure with median morphine milligram equivalent [interquartile range] of 30 [10-45]). Patients in the opioid group were significantly more likely to have dysphagia (65% vs 51%, P < .01) and diagnosis of DES (11% vs 5%, P < .01) and HE (9% vs 3%, P < .01). Partial opioid agonists were not associated with motility abnormalities. Patients on opioids had significantly higher symptom burden on median (interquartile range) follow-up of 8.9 years (5.8-10.4) post manometric diagnosis with median PROMIS-GI swallowing domain score of 21.5 (17-25) compared with the nonopioid group at 15 (9.8-21, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 2 of 3 patients with opioid exposure undergoing HRM have dysphagia and more than 25% of them with dysphagia as the primary symptom have a diagnosis of either DES or HE. Opioid users with spastic disorders have higher symptom burden long-term compared with nonopioid users.

Best Practices in Treatment of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: A Multidisciplinary Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common otolaryngologic diagnosis. Treatment of presumed LPR remains challenging, and limited frameworks exist to guide treatment. METHODS: Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methods, a modified Delphi approach identified consensus statements to guide LPR treatment. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a four-round iterative process. Accepted measures reached scores with ≥ 80% agreement in the 7-9 range (on a 9-point Likert scale) across all four categories. RESULTS: Fifteen experts rated 36 proposed initial statements. In round one, 10 (27.8%) statements were rated as valid. In round two, 8 statements were modified based on panel suggestions, and experts subsequently rated 5 of these statements as valid. Round three's discussion refined statements not yet accepted, and in round four, additional voting identified 2 additional statements as valid. In total, 17 (47.2%) best practice statements reached consensus, touching on topics as varied as role of empiric treatment, medication use, lifestyle modifications, and indications for laryngoscopy. CONCLUSION: Using a well-tested methodology, best practice statements in the treatment of LPR were identified. The statements serve to guide physicians on LPR treatment considerations.

Ambulatory Reflux Monitoring Guides Proton Pump Inhibitor Discontinuation in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms: A Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy fails to provide adequate symptom control in up to 50% of patients with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Although a proportion do not require ongoing PPI therapy, a diagnostic approach to identify candidates appropriate for PPI cessation is not available. This study aimed to examine the clinical utility of prolonged wireless reflux monitoring to predict the ability to discontinue PPIs. METHODS: This double-blinded clinical trial performed over 3 years at 2 centers enrolled adults with troublesome esophageal symptoms of heartburn, regurgitation, and/or chest pain and inadequate PPI response. Participants underwent prolonged wireless reflux monitoring (off PPIs for ≥7 days) and a 3-week PPI cessation intervention. Primary outcome was tolerance of PPI cessation (discontinued or resumed PPIs). Symptom burden was quantified using the Reflux Symptom Questionnaire electronic Diary (RESQ-eD). RESULTS: Of 128 enrolled, 100 participants met inclusion criteria (mean age, 48.6 years; 41 men). Thirty-four participants (34%) discontinued PPIs. The strongest predictor of PPI discontinuation was number of days with acid exposure time (AET) > 4.0% (odds ratio, 1.82; P < .001). Participants with 0 days of AET > 4.0% had a 10 times increased odds of discontinuing PPI than participants with 4 days of AET > 4.0%. Reduction in symptom burden was greater among the discontinued versus resumed PPI group (RESQ-eD, -43.7% vs -5.3%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with typical reflux symptoms, inadequate PPI response, and absence of severe esophagitis, acid exposure on reflux monitoring predicted the ability to discontinue PPIs without symptom escalation. Upfront reflux monitoring off acid suppression can limit unnecessary PPI use and guide personalized management. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03202537).

The Effects of Modifying Amount and Type of Dietary Carbohydrate on Esophageal Acid Exposure Time and Esophageal Reflux Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This is the first randomized controlled diet intervention trial to investigate both the amount and type of carbohydrate on symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Ninety-eight veterans with symptomatic GERD were randomly assigned to high total/high simple, high total/low simple, low total/high simple, or low total/low simple carbohydrate diet for 9 weeks. The primary outcomes were esophageal acid exposure time (AET) and total number of reflux episodes derived from 24-hour ambulatory pH monitoring. Secondary outcomes were esophageal reflux symptoms rated using the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire (GERDQ) and GERD Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS). RESULTS: Half of the subjects were White and half African American (mean age, 60.0 ± 12.5 years; mean body mass index, 32.7 ± 5.4 kg/m 2 ). There was a significant main effect of diet treatment on AET ( P = 0.001) and on the total number of reflux episodes ( P = 0.003). The change in AET in the high total/low simple group (-4.3% ± 3.8%) differed significantly from the high total/high simple control group (+3.1% ± 3.7%), (P = 0.04). The reduction in simple sugar intake averaged 62 g less per day. Subjects' ratings of symptoms improved in all carbohydrate modification groups, including significant reductions in heartburn frequency, heartburn severity, acid taste in the mouth, lump/pain in the throat or chest, and sleep disturbance. DISCUSSION: A modification of dietary carbohydrate intake that targeted a substantial reduction in the intakes of simple sugars improved pH monitoring outcomes and symptoms of GERD that profoundly affect daily life. These findings provide a feasible and clinically applicable contribution to the limited objective data existing for efficacious dietary recommendations in the routine treatment and management of GERD.

Optimal Wireless Reflux Monitoring Metrics to Predict Discontinuation of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Ambulatory reflux monitoring performed off proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is the gold standard diagnostic test for nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the diagnostic metrics and optimal duration of monitoring are not well defined. This study evaluated the performance of multiple metrics across distinct durations of wireless reflux monitoring off PPI against the ability to discontinue PPI therapy in patients with suboptimal PPI response. METHODS: This single-arm clinical trial performed over 4 years at 2 centers enrolled adults with troublesome GERD symptoms and inadequate response to > 8 weeks of PPI. Participants underwent 96-hour wireless pH monitoring off PPI. Primary outcome was whether the subject successfully discontinued PPI or resumed PPI within 3 weeks. RESULTS: Of 132 participants, 30% discontinued PPI. Among multiple metrics assessed, total acid exposure time (AET) of 4.0% performed best in predicting PPI discontinuation (odds ratio 2.9 [95% confidence interval 1.4, 6.4]; P = 0.006), with other thresholds of AET and DeMeester score performing comparably. AET was significantly higher on day 1 of monitoring compared with other days, and prognostic performance significantly declined when only assessing the first 48 hours of monitoring (area under the curve for 96 hours 0.63 vs area under the curve for 48 hours 0.57; P = 0.01). DISCUSSION: This clinical trial highlights the AET threshold of 4.0% as a high-performing prognostic marker of PPI discontinuation. 96 hours of monitoring performed better than 48 hours, in predicting ability to discontinue PPI. These data can inform current diagnostic approaches for patients with GERD symptoms who are unresponsive to PPI therapy.

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.

IW-3718 Reduces Heartburn Severity in Patients With Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) reduces quality of life and creates significant financial burden on the health care system. Approximately 30% of patients with GERD who receive label-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) still have symptoms. We performed a trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IW-3718, a bile acid sequestrant, as an adjunct to PPI therapy. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, from March 2016 through April 2017, of 280 patients with confirmed GERD. The patients, stratified by esophagitis status, were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to groups given placebo or IW-3718 (500, 1000, or 1500 mg) twice daily, with ongoing label-dose PPI. The primary endpoint was percent change from baseline to week 8 in weekly heartburn severity score. We also analyzed percent change from baseline to week 8 in weekly regurgitation frequency score. RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline to week 8 in weekly heartburn severity scores were reductions of 46.0% in the placebo group, 49.0% in the 500 mg group, 55.1% in the 1000 mg group, and 58.0% in the 1500 mg IW-3718 group (dose-response P = .02). The treatment difference was 11.9% between the 1500 mg IW-3718 and placebo groups (P = .04, analysis of covariance). The mean change in weekly regurgitation frequency score from baseline to week 8 in the 1500 mg IW-3718 vs placebo groups was a reduction of 17.5% (95% confidence interval, reductions of 31.4% to 3.6%). The most common adverse event was constipation (in 8.1% of patients receiving IW-3718 and 7.1% of patients receiving placebo). There were no drug-related serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of patients with refractory GERD, adding 1500 mg IW-3718 to label-dose PPIs significantly reduced heartburn symptoms compared with adding placebo. Regurgitation symptoms also decreased. IW-3718 was well tolerated. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02637557).

Impedance and Histologic Characteristics of the Sub-Laryngeal Esophagus Distinguish Eosinophilic Esophagitis From Other Esophageal Disorders.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The region of the esophagus 15-17 cm below the incisors, called the sub-upper esophageal sphincter (sub-UES), has not been characterized in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) but appears different during endoscopy. We investigated how the sub-UES differs from the remaining esophagus in patients with EoE and aimed to determine whether these differences be used to distinguish patients with EoE from those with lichen planus. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 14 patients with EoE, 7 patients with lichen planus (based on presence of Civatte bodies, dysphagia, and/or narrow esophagus with thin esophageal mucosa without signs of EoE), and 20 patients undergoing upper endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal or with dysphagia but without features of EoE (controls) at a single medical center from 2015 through 2018. Biopsies from the distal, middle, and sub-UES regions of the esophagus were analyzed by histology, quantitative PCR, and immunohistochemistry. We measured mucosal impedance (MI) in all subjects at the sub-UES and 2 cm, 5 cm, and 10 cm from the gastro-esophageal junction. RESULTS: Patients with EoE had significantly fewer eosinophils (median, 2 eosinophils/high-powered field [HPF]; range, 0-8 eosinophils/HPF) in sub-UES tissues compared with distal esophagus (median, 50 eosinophils/HPF; range, 22.5-60.8 eosinophils/HPF; P < .0001) or middle esophagus (median, 32 eosinophils/HPF; range, 19.3-60; P < .0001). Sub-UES tissues from patients with EoE had significantly less basal cell hyperplasia (P < .01), papillary elongation (P < .01), and dilated intercellular spaces (P < .01) than middle or and distal esophagus. MI in the sub-UES did not differ significantly between patients with EoE vs controls (P = .24), but was significantly lower in patients with lichen planus (median, 1344 ohms; range, 1046-1488) than patients with EoE (median, 2880 ohms; range, 2149-4858) (P < .001). mRNA and protein expression patterns did not differ significantly in the sub-UES of patients with EoE vs controls, except for expression of desmoglein-1, which was increased in sub-UES tissues from patients with EoE. CONCLUSIONS: Sub-UES tissues from patients with EoE differ in numbers of eosinophils, histologic features, and MI compared to controls or patients with lichen planus. These features might help to distinguish these 2 diseases.

Development and Validation of a Mucosal Impedance Contour Analysis System to Distinguish Esophageal Disorders.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Diagnostic testing for chronic esophageal disorders relies on histopathology analysis of biopsies or uncomfortable transnasal catheters or wireless pH monitoring, which capture abnormal intraluminal refluxate. We therefore developed a balloon mucosal impedance (MI) catheter system that instantly detects changes in esophageal mucosal integrity during endoscopy over a long segment of the esophagus. We performed a prospective study to evaluate the ability of a balloon-incorporated MI catheter to detect and evaluate esophageal disorders, including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 69 patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy with or without wireless pH monitoring. Patients were classified as having GERD (erosive esophagitis or abnormal pH; n = 24), EoE (confirmed with pathology analysis of tissues from both distal and proximal esophagus; n = 21), or non-GERD (normal results from esophagogastroduodenoscopy and pH tests; n = 24). Receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the operating characteristic curve (AUC) were used to compare the accuracy of balloon MI in diagnosis. Probabilities of assignment to each group (GERD, non-GERD, or EoE) were estimated using multinomial logistic regression. Association between MI patterns and diagnoses were validated using data from patients seen at 3 separate institutions. RESULTS: MI pattern along the esophageal axis differed significantly (P < .01) among patients with GERD, EoE, and non-GERD. Patients with non-GERD had higher MI values along all measured segments. The MI pattern for GERD was easily distinguished from that of EoE: in patients with GERD, MI values were low in the distal esophagus and normalized along the proximal esophagus, whereas in patients with EoE, measurements were low in all segments of the esophagus. Intercept and rate of rise of MI value (slope) as distance increased from the squamocolumnar junction identified patients with GERD with an AUC = 0.67, patients with EoE with an AUC = 0.84, and patients with non-GERD with an AUC = 0.83 in the development cohort. One patient had an adverse event (reported mild chest pain after the procedure) and was discharged from the hospital without further events. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a balloon MI catheter system that instantly detects changes in esophageal mucosal integrity during endoscopy and found it to be safe and able to identify patients with GERD, EoE, or non-GERD. We validated our findings in a separate cohort for patients. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03103789.

Distinct Physiological Characteristics of Isolated Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Symptoms.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with isolated laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms (LPRS) defined as those without concomitant typical reflux symptoms (CTRS) are clinically challenging to manage due to unclear pathophysiology. We investigated esophageal physiology in patients with isolated LPRS and their response to proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) therapy. METHODS: This is a multi-center observational study conducted in referral hospitals in Taiwan. Patients with predominant LPRS, but without common non-reflux causes, underwent esophageal manometry, 24-hr ambulatory esophagopharyngeal pH testing, and Bernstein test, followed by a 12-week esomeprazole 40 mg twice-daily treatment. Participants with pathological reflux were divided into the isolated LPRS group (ie, LPRS without CTRS, n = 40) and the CTRS group (ie, LPRS with CTRS, n = 66). Participants without pathological reflux or esophagitis (n = 132) served as the nonreflux controls. RESULTS: The PPI-responsiveness was similar between the isolated LPRS group and CTRS group (63% vs 57%, P = .8), but lower in the nonreflux controls (32%, P = .005). Despite similar distal esophageal acid exposure time (P = .7) when compared to those with CTRS, the isolated LPRS group had a lower prevalence of both positive Bernstein test (P = .001) and ineffective esophageal motility disorder (P = .03), and fewer pharyngeal acid reflux episodes (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate similar distal esophageal acid exposure and PPI-responsiveness between LPRS patients with and without CTRS. The lack of CTRS in the isolated LPRS group is likely due to esophageal acid hyposensitivity and fewer pharyngeal acid reflux episodes, thus implicating distinct pathophysiology of isolated LPRS from those with CTRS.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia.

Achalasia is an esophageal motility disorder characterized by aberrant peristalsis and insufficient relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter. Patients most commonly present with dysphagia to solids and liquids, regurgitation, and occasional chest pain with or without weight loss. High-resolution manometry has identified 3 subtypes of achalasia distinguished by pressurization and contraction patterns. Endoscopic findings of retained saliva with puckering of the gastroesophageal junction or esophagram findings of a dilated esophagus with bird beaking are important diagnostic clues. In this American College of Gastroenterology guideline, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process to provide clinical guidance on how best to diagnose and treat patients with achalasia.

Mucosal impedance testing: A new diagnostic testing in gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Current diagnostic testing for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) include endoscopy, ambulatory pH and intraluminal impedance monitoring. However, they are suboptimal and do not measure chronicity of reflux. Recently, a mucosal impedance (MI) device has been developed to measure esophageal epithelial conductivity changes, a marker of chronic GERD. The aim of this review is to summarize the use of MI testing (MIT) for the evaluation and management of esophageal disease. MIT is a minimally invasive and simple through-the-scope procedure performed during endoscopy. It allows for a rapid derivation of MI values within seconds without an uncomfortable overnight pH- impedance catheter. The MI values can correlate with histological findings of epithelial barrier dysfunction, normalize with effective treatment, and show promise for differentiating GERD from non-GERD conditions such as eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). In conclusion, endoscopic MIT measurement can differentiate esophageal disorders instantly during endoscopy. It may not only serve as an important tool in diagnosing of GERD but also help guide therapy in clinically difficult situations as a surrogate to predict the treatment response.

Assessing Old and New Diagnostic Tests for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

A detailed critique of objective measurements of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) would improve management of patients suspecting of having reflux, leading to rational selection of treatment and better outcomes. Many diagnostic tests for GERD have been developed over the past decades. We analyze their development, positive- and negative-predictive values, and ability to predict response to treatment. These features are important for development of medical, surgical, and endoscopic therapies for GERD. We discuss the value of available diagnostic tests and review their role in management of patients with persistent reflux symptoms despite adequate medical or surgical treatment. This is becoming a significant health economic problem, due to the widespread use of proton pump inhibitors. GERD is believed to cause nonesophageal symptoms, such as those provoked by ear, nose, throat, or respiratory disorders. We analyze the value of GERD diagnostic tests in evaluation of these troublesome, nonesophageal symptoms.

Model to Select On-Therapy vs Off-Therapy Tests for Patients With Refractory Esophageal or Extraesophageal Symptoms.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear whether we should test for reflux in patients with refractory heartburn or extraesophageal reflux (EER) symptoms, such as cough, hoarseness, or asthma. Guidelines recommend testing patients by pH monitoring when they are on or off acid-suppressive therapies based on pretest probability of reflux, determined by expert consensus. However, it is not clear what constitutes a low or high pretest probability of reflux in these patients. We aimed to develop a model that clinicians can use at bedside to estimate pretest probability of abnormal reflux. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 471 adult patients with refractory heartburn (n = 214) or suspected EER symptoms (n = 257) who underwent endoscopy with wireless pH monitoring while they were off acid-suppressive treatment and assigned them to groups based on symptoms at presentation (discovery cohort). Using data from the discovery cohort, we performed proportional odds ordinal logistic regression to select factors (easy to obtain demographic criteria and clinical symptoms such as heartburn, regurgitation, asthma, cough, and hoarseness) associated with esophageal exposure to acid. We validated our findings in a cohort of 118 patients with the same features from 2 separate tertiary care centers (62% women; median age 59 years; 62% with cough as presenting symptom). RESULTS: Abnormal pH (>5.5% of time spent at pH <4) was found in 56% of patients with heartburn and 63% of patients with EER (P = .15). Within EER groups, abnormal pH was detected in a significantly larger proportion (80%) of patients with asthma compared with patients with cough (60%) or hoarseness (51%; P < .01). Factors significantly associated with abnormal pH in patients with heartburn were presence of hiatal hernia and body mass index >25 kg/m2. In patients with EER, the risk of reflux was independently associated with the presence of concomitant heartburn (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-3.1), body mass index >25 kg/m2 (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.5-3.1), asthma (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2-3.5), and presence of hiatal hernia (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.2-3.1). When we used these factors to create a scoring system, we found that a score of ≤2 excluded patients with moderate to severe reflux, with a negative predictive value of 80% in the discovery cohort and a negative predictive value of 85% in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: We developed a clinical model to estimate pretest probability of abnormal pH in patients who were failed by proton pump inhibitor therapy. This system can help guide clinicians at bedside in determining the most appropriate diagnostic test in this challenging group of patients.

Comparison of mucosal impedance measurements throughout the esophagus and mucosal eosinophil counts in endoscopic biopsy specimens in eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Assessing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) activity from limited esophageal mucosal biopsy samples has been questioned. Here our aim was to compare mucosal impedance (MI) throughout the esophagus and eosinophil counts in endoscopic biopsy samples in EoE. METHODS: We compared 20-site MI using a balloon catheter in the esophagus and eosinophils per high-power field (eos/HPF) in esophageal mucosal biopsy samples. Data are summarized as median (interquartile range) comparing control subjects and EoE using Mann-Whitney rank sum test and between endoscopic reference score and MI (minimal and average) using rank Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Ten adult control patients (ages 38-70) and 23 EoE patients (ages 21-80, 18 active) were studied. The mean (range) pan-esophageal MI in control subjects was significantly higher (6435 ohms [4546-7301]) compared with EoE patients (2004 ohms [1437-2546], P < .001). In control patients 172 of 180 (95.6%) individual impedance measurements (18 per patient) were normal when compared with 126 of 432 (29.2%) measurements in EoE. No EoE patient had uniformly normal MI. MI varied widely, with 19 of 23 patients having values above and below 2300 ohms (normal) regardless of EoE activity. Correlation of maximim eos/HPF with minimum and average MI per patient was r = -.243, P = .072 and r = -.358, P = .086, respectively. Of 5 patients with inactive EoE, 3 had >50% abnormal MI segments. Correlation coefficients of the endoscopic reference score with minimum and average MI were r = -.154, P = .47 and r = -.27, P = .20, respectively. The procedure was <5 minutes without adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: MI is lower in the esophagus of EoE patients compared with control subjects with poor correlation between peak esophageal eosinophil counts, EoE activity, and MI. Segmental esophageal MI provides a unique marker of esophageal dysfunction in EoE. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02995395.).

Clinical and psychological characteristics in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients overlapping with laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) defined as reflux of gastric content reaching above the upper esophageal sphincter is frequently found in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study aimed to investigate clinical and psychological differences between GERD patients with or without LPR symptoms. METHODS: This study enrolled 303 consecutive patients with proton pump inhibitor treatment-naïve scheduled for upper endoscopy because of troublesome reflux symptoms and recognized as GERD by non-dyspepsia reflux disease questionnaire score. Included GERD patients were further categorized into two study groups: with or without LPR by reflux symptoms index score. All participants were also evaluated with questionnaires for depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances. RESULTS: There were 132 (43.6%) GERD patients with LPR symptoms and 171 (56.4%) GERD patients without LPR symptoms. GERD patients with LPR symptoms had more depression (P < 0.001), sleep disturbance (P = 0.002), irritable bowel syndrome (P = 0.008), functional dyspepsia (P = 0.005), and reflux symptoms burden (P < 0.001) than those without LPR symptoms. Erosive esophagitis was more in patients without LPR symptoms (P = 0.03). GERD patients with LPR symptoms (28.8%) had more complex psychological distress than those without LPR symptoms (28.8% vs 14%, P < 0.001). Reflux symptoms burden, sleep disturbance, and erosive esophagitis were independently associated with GERD overlapping with LPR symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroesophageal reflux disease patients with LPR symptoms appear to have more reflux symptoms, psychological distress, and functional gastrointestinal disturbance but less erosive esophagitis. This work suggests that therapeutic strategy with tailored multidimensional approach is promising for GERD patients overlapping with LPR symptoms.

Impact of concomitant dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome on symptom burden in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) frequently report symptoms like dyspepsia or/and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of symptom overlap on GERD symptom burden. We also investigate whether GERD overlapping dyspepsia or/and IBS would have different clinical and psychological features as compared with GERD alone. METHODS: A total of 2752 subjects were screened from a health check-up population. We compared the clinical and psychological factors among subjects with GERD alone and with overlap of two or all three diseases. All participants underwent an evaluation with questionnaires including Reflux Disease Questionnaire score, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Taiwanese Depression Questionnaire, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory before receiving endoscopic exam. RESULTS: Among the GERD population, we identified 26 with IBS (GERD-IBS), 60 with dyspepsia (GERD-D), and 25 subjects with overlap of all three conditions (GERD-D-IBS). GERD-D and GERD-D-IBS subjects had more severe GERD symptoms as compared subjects with GERD alone (p < 0.001). Subjects with overlapping dyspepsia or/and IBS showed a significant increase in the severity of depression and poorer sleep quality than subjects with GERD alone. Notably, anxiety scores did not differ significantly between subjects with overlapping diseases and GERD alone. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that disease overlap in GERD population is associated with greater symptom burden, higher depression and poorer sleep quality, but not with anxiety. This study highlights the importance of identifying overlapping conditions as a therapeutic strategy for better management of GERD.