From the AGA Journals

GERD: Composite pH impedance monitoring better identifies treatment escalation need

View on the News

New cutoffs mean higher confidence in escalation

The management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the most common referral for a gastroenterologist; however, metrics to determine dose-escalation for persistent symptoms in patients with proven GERD is an unmet need. The Lyon consensus aimed to standardize abnormal pH parameters but used similar thresholds for off– and on–proton pump inhibitor testing; these thresholds for on-PPI testing are likely too high to detect refractory reflux on PPI therapy. The use of pH-impedance testing is an optimal test for patients with persistent symptoms in the setting of proven GERD to determine escalation of antireflux therapy. In this multicenter, international cohort study, Gyawali and colleagues rigorously challenged the definition of abnormal pH-impedance testing with an evaluation of pH impedance parameters comparing controls (n = 66) versus proven GERD (n = 43) on twice-daily PPI dosing to define pH-impedance parameters.

Rishi D. Naik, MD, MSCI, is an assistant professor in the department of medicine in the section of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Esophageal Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Memphis, Tenn.

Dr. Rishi D. Naik

In the era of easy access and overprescription of PPI countered by the unfounded, but perceived fears of PPI or surgery, testing prior to antireflux escalation is now more easily standardized with this data to help guide our patients. Abnormal pH-impedance parameters also help support of the utility of surgery for the carefully selected patient and these cutoffs highlight success rates for patients with heartburn or regurgitation. Limitations of pH impedance include careful examination of the original tracings and center expertise/availability, but with improved definitions of abnormal thresholds, providers should feel empowered to test prior to escalation. Prospective studies using these cutoffs will enhance and hopefully continue an iterative process to define this plurality approach to reflux metrics.

Rishi D. Naik, MD, MSCI, is an assistant professor in the department of medicine in the section of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Esophageal Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. He has no conflicts.


 

FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY

Combinations of abnormal pH-impedance metrics better predicted nonresponse to proton pump inhibitor therapy, as well as benefit of treatment escalation, than individual metrics in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) on twice-daily PPI.

The researchers found a higher proportion of nonresponders to PPI in a group of patients that had combinations of abnormal reflux burden, characterized as acid exposure time greater than 4%, more than 80 reflux episodes, and/or mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) less than 1,500 ohms, with 85% of these patients improving following initiation of invasive GERD management such as antireflux surgery or magnetic sphincter augmentation.

Not only does the combination of metrics offer more value in identifying responders to PPI than individual metrics, but the combination also offer greater value in “subsequently predicting response to escalation of antireflux management,” study authors C. Prakash Gyawali, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in Gastroenterology.

Currently in question is the applicability of thresholds for metrics from pH impedance monitoring for studies performed on PPI. According to Dr. Gyawali and colleagues, thresholds from the Lyon Consensus may be too high and likewise lack optimal sensitivity for detecting refractory acid burden in patients on PPI, while thresholds based on pH-metry alone, as reported in other publications, may also lack specificity.

To determine which metrics from “on PPI” pH impedance studies predict escalation therapy needs, the researchers analyzed deidentified pH impedance studies performed in healthy volunteers (n=66; median age, 37.5 years) and patients with GERD (n = 43; median age, 57.0 years); both groups were on twice-daily PPI. The investigators compared median values for pH impedance metrics between healthy volunteers and patients with proven GERD using validated measures.

Data were included from a total of three groups: tracings from European and North American healthy volunteers who received twice-daily PPI for 5-7 days; tracings from European patients with heartburn-predominant proven GERD with prior abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI who subsequently received twice-daily PPI; and tracings from a cohort of patients with regurgitation-predominant, proven GERD and prior abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI who subsequently received twice-daily PPI.

A improvement in heartburn of at least 50%, as recorded on 4-point Likert-type scales, defined PPI responders and improvements following antireflux surgery in the European comparison group. Additionally, an improvement of at least 50% on the GERD Health-Related Quality of Life scale also characterized PPI responders and improvements following magnetic sphincter augmentation in the North American comparison group.

There was no significant difference between PPI responders and nonresponders in terms of individual conventional and novel reflux metrics. The combinations of metrics associated with abnormal reflux burden and abnormal mucosal integrity (acid exposure time >4%, >80 reflux episodes, and MNBI <1,500 ohms) were observed in 32.6% of patients with heartburn and 40.5% of patients with regurgitation-predominant GERD, but no healthy volunteers. The combinations were also observed in 57.1% and 82.4% of nonresponders, respectively.

The authors defined a borderline category (acid exposure time, >0.5% but <4%; >40 but <80 reflux episodes), which accounted for 32.6% of patients with heartburn-predominant GERD and 50% of those regurgitation-predominant GERD. Nonresponse among these borderline cases was identified in 28.6% and 81%, respectively.

“Performance characteristics of the presence of abnormal reflux burden and/or abnormal mucosal integrity in predicting PPI nonresponse consisted of sensitivity, 0.50; specificity, 0.71; and AUC, 0.59 (P = .15),” the authors explained. “Performance characteristics of abnormal and borderline reflux burden categories together in predicting PPI nonresponse consisted of sensitivity, 0.86; specificity, 0.36; and AUC, 0.62 (P = .07).”

Limitations of this study included its retrospective nature, small sample sizes for the healthy volunteer and GERD populations, and the lack of data on relevant clinical information, including body mass index, dietary patterns, and PPI types and doses. Additionally, the findings may lack generalizability because of the inclusion of only patients with GERD who underwent surgical management.

Despite these limitations, the researchers wrote that the findings and identified “thresholds will be useful in planning prospective outcome studies to conclusively determine when to escalate antireflux therapy when GERD symptoms persist despite bid PPI therapy.”

The study researchers reported conflicts of interest with several pharmaceutical companies. No funding was reported for the study.

Recommended Reading

Intervention reduces PPI use without worsening acid-related diseases
MDedge Internal Medicine
High eradication, fewer adverse events with hybrid therapy for H. pylori
MDedge Internal Medicine
Some nasogastric intubation procedures lead to less aerosolization than feared
MDedge Internal Medicine
Sporebiotics improve functional dyspepsia symptoms
MDedge Internal Medicine
Upper GI bleed guidelines say endoscopy within 24 hours of bleed
MDedge Internal Medicine
Prebiotic in development shows promise for reducing GERD symptoms
MDedge Internal Medicine
Most stent misdeployments in EUS-GE are manageable
MDedge Internal Medicine
Gastric cancer: Family history–based H. pylori strategy would be cost effective
MDedge Internal Medicine
Extraesophageal symptoms of GERD 
MDedge Internal Medicine
Rivaroxaban’s single daily dose may lead to higher bleeding risk than other DOACs
MDedge Internal Medicine