1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A comparison between a gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire-based algorithm and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux-induced chronic cough

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Empiric therapy with multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH) has been used for the initial treatment of gastroesophageal reflux-induced chronic cough (GERC). However, an algorithm based on the gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GerdQ) has the potential to achieve a simple, structured, and effective treatment approach for patients with GERC.

          Objectives:

          This study compared the efficacy of anti-reflux therapy based on GerdQ (new structured pathway, NSP) with medical treatment after MII-pH examination (ordinary clinical pathway, OCP) in the management of GERC.

          Design:

          For the NSP, we adapted the GerdQ score to establish the basis for a treatment algorithm. For the OCP, treatment was determined using the MII-pH examination results.

          Methods:

          The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis was used to evaluate NSP versus OCP.

          Results:

          Overall, the NSP and OCP-based therapeutic algorithms have similar efficacy for GERC [NI analysis: 95% confidence interval (CI), −4.97 to 17.73, p = 0.009; superiority analysis: p = 0.420]. Moreover, the cough symptom scores and cough threshold improved faster in the NSP group than in the OCP group at week 8 ( p < 0.05). In the subgroup analyses using the GerdQ and GerdQ impact scale (GIS) scores, patients with low-likelihood GERC (GerdQ < 8) were more likely to benefit from OCP (NI analysis: 95% CI, −19.73 to 18.02, p = 0.213). On the other hand, in patients with high-likelihood and low-reflux impact GERC patients (GerdQ > 8 and GIS < 4), the NSP arm was not inferior to the standard treatment of OCP (NI analysis: 95% CI, −8.85 to 28.21%, p = 0.04; superiority analysis: p = 0.339), indicating that GerdQ- and GIS-guided diagnosis and management of patients with GERC could be an alternative to MII-pH management, especially in settings with reduced medical resources.

          Conclusions:

          The use of the GerdQ algorithm should be considered when handling patients with GERC in the primary care setting.

          Trial registration:

          This research was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR-ODT-12001899).

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies

          Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus.

            A globally acceptable definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is desirable for research and clinical practice. The aim of this initiative was to develop a consensus definition and classification that would be useful for patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies. A modified Delphi process was employed to reach consensus using repeated iterative voting. A series of statements was developed by a working group of five experts after a systematic review of the literature in three databases (Embase, Cochrane trials register, Medline). Over a period of 2 yr, the statements were developed, modified, and approved through four rounds of voting. The voting group consisted of 44 experts from 18 countries. The final vote was conducted on a 6-point scale and consensus was defined a priori as agreement by two-thirds of the participants. The level of agreement strengthened throughout the process with two-thirds of the participants agreeing with 86%, 88%, 94%, and 100% of statements at each vote, respectively. At the final vote, 94% of the final 51 statements were approved by 90% of the Consensus Group, and 90% of statements were accepted with strong agreement or minor reservation. GERD was defined as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications. The disease was subclassified into esophageal and extraesophageal syndromes. Novel aspects of the new definition include a patient-centered approach that is independent of endoscopic findings, subclassification of the disease into discrete syndromes, and the recognition of laryngitis, cough, asthma, and dental erosions as possible GERD syndromes. It also proposes a new definition for suspected and proven Barrett's esophagus. Evidence-based global consensus definitions are possible despite differences in terminology and language, prevalence, and manifestations of the disease in different countries. A global consensus definition for GERD may simplify disease management, allow collaborative research, and make studies more generalizable, assisting patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus

              Clinical history, questionnaire data and response to antisecretory therapy are insufficient to make a conclusive diagnosis of GERD in isolation, but are of value in determining need for further investigation. Conclusive evidence for reflux on oesophageal testing include advanced grade erosive oesophagitis (LA grades C and D), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal oesophageal acid exposure time (AET) >6% on ambulatory pH or pH-impedance monitoring. A normal endoscopy does not exclude GERD, but provides supportive evidence refuting GERD in conjunction with distal AET <4% and <40 reflux episodes on pH-impedance monitoring off proton pump inhibitors. Reflux-symptom association on ambulatory reflux monitoring provides supportive evidence for reflux triggered symptoms, and may predict a better treatment outcome when present. When endoscopy and pH or pH-impedance monitoring are inconclusive, adjunctive evidence from biopsy findings (histopathology scores, dilated intercellular spaces), motor evaluation (hypotensive lower oesophageal sphincter, hiatus hernia and oesophageal body hypomotility on high-resolution manometry) and novel impedance metrics (baseline impedance, postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index) can add confidence for a GERD diagnosis; however, diagnosis cannot be based on these findings alone. An assessment of anatomy, motor function, reflux burden and symptomatic phenotype will therefore help direct management. Future GERD management strategies should focus on defining individual patient phenotypes based on the level of refluxate exposure, mechanism of reflux, efficacy of clearance, underlying anatomy of the oesophagogastric junction and psychometrics defining symptomatic presentations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: ResourcesRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Journal
                Ther Adv Respir Dis
                Ther Adv Respir Dis
                TAR
                sptar
                Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                1753-4658
                1753-4666
                6 January 2024
                Jan-Dec 2024
                : 18
                : 17534666231220817
                Affiliations
                [1-17534666231220817]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Tongji Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
                [2-17534666231220817]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Tongji Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
                [3-17534666231220817]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Tongji Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
                [4-17534666231220817]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Tongji Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
                [5-17534666231220817]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Tongji Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
                [6-17534666231220817]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Tongji Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
                [7-17534666231220817]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Tongji Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
                [8-17534666231220817]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 389 Xincun Road, Shanghai 200065, China
                [9-17534666231220817]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 389 Xincun Road, Shanghai 200065, China
                Author notes
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9980-7933
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1245-2998
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4469-4756
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8713-5332
                Article
                10.1177_17534666231220817
                10.1177/17534666231220817
                10771753
                38183243
                229d45a7-9017-401f-8476-8b32ca0a5d5f
                © The Author(s), 2024

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 11 February 2023
                : 29 November 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: National Natural Science Foundation of China, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001809;
                Award ID: No. 82070102
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2024
                ts1

                algorithm,clinical trial,gerc,gerdq,mii-ph,treatment efficacy
                algorithm, clinical trial, gerc, gerdq, mii-ph, treatment efficacy

                Comments

                Comment on this article