Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Study Group of Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Paris, France.
Department of Human Anatomy and Experimental Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, UMONS Research Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, University of Mons (UMons), Mons, Belgium.
Clin Otolaryngol. 2020 Jul;45(4):450-458. doi: 10.1111/coa.13518. Epub 2020 Mar 26.
Diagnosis and treatment of presumed laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) remain controversial. Empiric medication trials remain widespread for suspected LPR despite emerging evidence against proton pump inhibitor (PPI) safety and for pepsin as a mediator of LPR symptoms. Ongoing concerns exist related to inaccurate diagnosis, the cost and morbidity of potentially unnecessary PPI prescriptions, and availability and interpretation of objective reflux testing.
To review contemporary evidence that does and does not support empiric medication trials for presumed LPR.
PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched for literature about benefits, limitations and alternatives to empiric medication trial for LPR, in order to present both sides of this debate and identify best practices.
The majority of physicians perform prolonged empiric medication trial with PPIs for patients with suspected LPR. Because symptoms and signs of LPR are non-specific, empiric medication trials require exclusion of other conditions that can mimic LPR. Following a PPI empiric medication trial, over one-third of patients remain non-responders. The use of hypopharyngeal-oesophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) has benefits and limitations in objective diagnosis of LPR.
Use of PPIs for single-agent empiric medication trial does not account for possible non-responders with non-acid or mixed LPR. If LPR diagnosis remains uncertain, alginates can be added to PPI trials. HEMII-pH testing upfront is ideal for patients with suspected LPR, but not always practical; it is indicated when PPI and alginate empiric medication trials have failed or when comorbidities confuse the diagnosis. A more comprehensive, combination therapy empiric medication trial regimen may be needed.
喉咽反流(LPR)的诊断和治疗仍然存在争议。尽管有新的证据表明质子泵抑制剂(PPI)的安全性存在问题,且胃蛋白酶是 LPR 症状的介质,但仍广泛采用经验性药物试验来治疗疑似 LPR。目前仍存在与诊断不准确、潜在不必要的 PPI 处方的成本和发病率、客观反流检测的可用性和解释相关的问题。
综述目前关于经验性药物试验治疗疑似 LPR 的证据,包括支持和不支持的证据。
通过检索 PubMed、Scopus 和 Cochrane Library 中的文献,了解 LPR 经验性药物试验的获益、局限性和替代方法,以呈现这一争议的两面,并确定最佳实践。
大多数医生对疑似 LPR 患者进行长期的 PPI 经验性药物试验。由于 LPR 的症状和体征是非特异性的,经验性药物试验需要排除其他可能模仿 LPR 的疾病。在进行 PPI 经验性药物试验后,超过三分之一的患者仍未得到缓解。使用喉咽食管多通道腔内阻抗-pH 监测(HEMII-pH)在客观诊断 LPR 方面具有优势和局限性。
使用 PPI 进行单一药物经验性药物试验并不能解释可能存在的非酸性或混合性 LPR 的无应答者。如果 LPR 诊断仍不确定,可以在 PPI 试验中添加藻酸盐。如果怀疑有 LPR,建议进行 HEMII-pH 测试,但这并不总是可行的;当 PPI 和藻酸盐经验性药物试验失败或并存疾病使诊断变得复杂时,就需要进行 HEMII-pH 测试。可能需要更全面的联合治疗经验性药物试验方案。