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.

Is it possible to clinically differentiate erosive from nonerosive reflux disease patients? A study using an artificial neural networks-assisted algorithm.

BACKGROUND: The use of either symptom questionnaires or artificial neural networks (ANNs) has proven to improve the accuracy in diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the differentiation between the erosive and nonerosive reflux disease based upon symptoms at presentation still remains inconclusive. AIM: To assess the capability of a combined approach, that is, the use of a novel GERD questionnaire - the QUestionario Italiano Diagnostico (QUID) questionnaire - and of an ANNs-assisted algorithm, to discriminate between nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (NERD) and erosive esophagitis (EE) patients. METHODS: Five hundred and fifty-seven adult outpatients with typical GERD symptoms and 94 asymptomatic adult patients, were submitted to the QUID questionnaire. GERD patients were then submitted to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to differentiate them between EE and NERD patients. RESULTS: The QUID score resulted significantly (P<0.001) higher in GERD patients versus controls, but it was not statistically significantly different between EE and NERD patients. ANNs assisted diagnosis had greater specificity, sensitivity and accuracy compared with the linear discriminant analysis only to differentiate GERD patients from controls. However, no single technique was able to satisfactorily discriminate between EE and NERD patients. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the combination between QUID questionnaire and an ANNs-assisted algorithm is useful only to differentiate GERD patients from healthy individuals but fails to further discriminate erosive from nonerosive 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.

Topical nifedipine with lidocaine ointment versus active control for pain after hemorrhoidectomy: results of a multicentre, prospective, randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Spasm through the internal anal sphincter is one of the supposed causes for pain after hemorrhoidectomy, a common and distressing experience. We hypothesized that the addition of topical nifedipine to lidocaine would improve pain control by causing a relaxation of the smooth muscle of the internal anal sphincter. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre randomized, double-blind trial to compare the efficacy of 0.3% nifedipine and 1.5% lidocaine ointment versus 1.5% lidocaine ointment alone in reducing pain after hemorrhoidectomy. A physician unaware of the treatment arm measured pain by use of the Analogue Chromatic Continuous Scale (ACCS) at baseline; soon after surgery; at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 hours after surgery; on day 7 after surgery; and at a final visit 14 days after surgery. The physician also noted the time to first analgesic administration within 24 hours after surgery. RESULTS: In all, 135 patients per group participated (270 total). Evaluation of the delta ACCS score versus basal value, a covariate for rescue analgesic administration time, revealed better pain control in the group that received nifedipine with lidocaine at 6 hours after surgery and on day 7 (p < 0.011 and p < 0.054, respectively). We noticed no difference between groups for time of administration of rescue analgesic, blood pressure, heart rate or frequency of headache. CONCLUSION: Although there was no difference between groups for time of administration of rescue analgesic after open hemorrhoidectomy, the patients' assessment of pain using ACCS showed that the use of topical nifedipine with lidocaine may provide a slight significant difference in favour of the study group at 6 hours and at day 7 after surgery. Narcotic analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration should continue to be recommended. Further research focusing on these outcomes is warranted.

Pharmacokinetics of anorectal nifedipine and lidocaine (lignocaine) ointment following haemorrhoidectomy: an open-label, single-dose, phase IV clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess whether topical anorectal application of an ointment containing nifedipine (0.3% w/w) and lidocaine (lignocaine) [1.5% w/w] to patients undergoing Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy achieves pharmacologically relevant serum concentrations of the active ingredients and has any haemodynamic effects or adverse effects. METHODS: A single dose of 3 g of study ointment was circumferentially applied inside the anus to 24 patients (17 males and 7 females) aged 23-71 years (mean +/- SD: 42.9 +/- 4.9 years) during postoperative dressing after Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy from March 2007 to January 2008. Blood samples for the determination of nifedipine and lidocaine serum concentrations were drawn before surgery and at 20, 40, 60, 90, 120, 240, 360, 480 and 720 minutes after application. Serum concentrations of nifedipine and lidocaine were determined by a high-performance liquid chromatography method in order to calculate pharmacokinetic parameters. Patients' BP, heart rate and ECG readings were monitored during the study. RESULTS: Chromatographic signals of nifedipine were sporadically observed in only five patients (20.8%), consistent with therapeutically negligible concentrations and insufficient to permit calculation of any pharmacokinetic parameters. The serum concentrations of nifedipine in these five patients ranged from 5.9 to 18.8 ng/mL. Lidocaine concentrations were detectable in all patients. The means +/- SD and medians of pharmacokinetic parameters for lidocaine were as follows: maximum serum concentration (C(max)) 245.1 +/- 370.8 ng/mL, 73.6 ng/mL; time to reach C(max) (t(max)) 69.2 +/- 78.3 minutes, 40 minutes; area under the serum concentration-time curve from 0 to 6 hours (AUC(6)) 756.5 +/- 1254.1 ng.h/mL, 238.2 ng.h/mL. Only three patients had maximum serum concentrations above 1000 ng/mL (1037.8, 1044.75 and 1364.1 ng/mL). These outlier concentrations were four to five times lower than the threshold of CNS lidocaine toxicity (5000-6000 ng/mL). No serious local or systemic adverse events were observed throughout the study, and no subjects developed arrhythmias or significant ECG changes. Neither BP nor mean heart rate varied significantly after application of a single dose. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that single-dose topical application of an ointment containing nifedipine (0.3% w/w) and lidocaine (1.5% w/w) to patients undergoing Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy is safe to use. Following application onto damaged anorectal mucosa, nifedipine and lidocaine are absorbed into the bloodstream in small quantities that do not have any major implications for the safety of the product. Further studies are required to evaluate nifedipine and lidocaine concentrations in serum using a multiple-dose regimen.

Artificial neural networks are able to recognize gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients solely on the basis of clinical data.

BACKGROUND: Artificial neural networks (ANN) are modelling mechanisms that are highly flexible and adaptive to solve the non-linearity inherent in the relationship between symptoms and underlying pathology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of ANN in achieving a diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) using oesophagoscopy or pH-metry as a diagnostic gold standard and discriminant analysis as a statistical comparator technique in a group of patients with typical GORD symptoms and with or without GORD objective findings (e.g. a positive oesophagoscopy or a pathological oesophageal pH-metry). METHODS: The sample of 159 cases (88 men, 71 women) presenting with typical symptoms of GORD, were subdivided on the basis of endoscopy and pH-metry results into two groups: GORD patients with or without oesophagitis, group 1 (N=103), and pH and endoscopy-negative patients in whom both examinations were negative, group 2 (N=56). A total of 101 different independent variables were collected: demographic information, medical history, generic health state and lifestyle, intensity and frequency of typical and atypical symptoms based on the Italian version of the Gastroesophageal Reflux Questionnaire (Mayo Clinic). The diagnosis was used as a dependent variable. Different ANN models were assessed. RESULTS: Specific evolutionary algorithms selected 45 independent variables, concerning clinical and demographic features, as predictors of the diagnosis. The highest predictive performance was achieved by a 'back propagation' ANN, which was consistently 100% accurate in identifying the correct diagnosis compared with 78% obtained by traditional discriminant analysis. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this preliminary work, the use of ANN seems to be a promising approach for predicting diagnosis without the need for invasive diagnostic methods in patients suffering from GORD symptoms.