Revista de Gastroenterología de México Revista de Gastroenterología de México
Rev Gastroenterol Mex 2017;82:103-5 - Vol. 82 Num.2 DOI: 10.1016/j.rgmxen.2017.03.004
Editorial
Gastroesophageal reflux disease: Dichotomy of the clinical trial and clinical practice
La enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico: la dicotomía del ensayo clínico y la práctica clínica
G. Vázquez-Elizondo,
National School of Medicine, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico
Introduction

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic illness that is estimated to affect around 20% of the population of the western countries,1 and in turn, represents approximately 5% of the workload of primary care physicians. It is a condition that alters numerous physical and psychosocial aspects of its sufferers.2 Even though the appearance of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) transformed the paradigm employed in GERD, many unanswered questions still abound in daily practice.3

In the current issue of the Revista Mexicana de Gastroenterología, López-Colombo et al.4 reported the results of their study on patients under 50 years of age that were seen at a primary care unit for presenting with symptoms suggestive of GERD (defined by symptoms consistent with the condition and a Carlsson-Dent questionnaire score ≥ 4), in the absence of clinical alarm symptoms or previous PPI, prokinetic, or antacid use. The patients that met the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate in the study were then intentionally interviewed through a questionnaire that examined their lifestyle (created by the authors based on factors described in the literature). The patients were prescribed a dose of 20mg of oral omeprazole to be taken 30min before breakfast for a period of 4 weeks. The ReQuest questionnaire was applied to define successful response to that 4-week dose of PPI. The baseline score was compared with the score at the end of the treatment period and a final score ≥ 50% of that of the baseline was considered a positive response. The patients that responded according to that clinical outcome were then followed for 12 weeks, with evaluations at 8 and 16 weeks from the study onset (post-treatment weeks 4 and 12). During that phase of the study, symptom recurrence was defined as an increase ≥ 20% in relation to the ReQuest score. Once the study was completed, the authors reported that out of 90 study subjects, 83 finished the first phase (treatment stage). In that group, in accordance with the predefined criteria, the authors found a success rate of 89% (n=74). At follow-up, the patients with successful response showed an accumulated symptom recurrence rate of 66% (n=49/74). With respect to the lifestyle questionnaire, the authors identified a greater consumption of citrus fruits and NSAIDs in the patients that did not have a predefined symptom response. In short, of the initial study cohort, only 33% (n=25) had a 50% reduction of heartburn at 16 weeks of follow-up, under a standard PPI regimen.

The present study is noteworthy, because it broaches a complex subject in primary care practice that also represents one of the main reasons for medical consultation in different studies.5–10 Focusing on a “therapeutic test” in patients with typical GERD symptoms is appealing in such a clinical setting and has been extensively analyzed using different PPI doses and salts. However, this approach has limitations, given the 78% sensitivity and 54% specificity described in a meta-analysis.11 Thus, a negative test does not rule out the presence of GERD, nor is a positive test necessarily diagnostic.12 In addition, despite its extensive use and practicality (and being better understood by patients),13 the Carlsson-Dent questionnaire has limitations in relation to diagnostic performance and has been compared to the clinical judgement of the physician.14 Another limitation is the fact that the questionnaire itself does not distinguish GERD from other conditions in which heartburn is a cardinal symptom, such as functional heartburn and hypersensitivity to reflux.15 These factors can partially explain why the authors found a response rate of 89% at 4 weeks, which then fell to one third after 16 weeks of follow-up, given that the entry criterion had its own limitations. Furthermore, studies that evaluate the sustained effect of this test show mixed results, with recurrence rates reaching almost 50%.16–19

In regard to the conclusions about lifestyle, the present study results show us how complex and subjective the assessment of those factors is. The authors have concisely and thoroughly evaluated the aspects that have shown greater consistency in different analyses and clinical guidelines reported in the literature.12 Nevertheless, the current studies have failed to demonstrate high-quality evidence with respect to the systematic elimination of foods from the diet, and at present there is only evidence for the recommendations that include stopping smoking, losing weight, adjusting meal schedules, and in patients with nocturnal reflux, sleeping with a raised head.20–23 We could thus conclude that it is vitally important to offer evidence-based advice to our patients with GERD symptoms, even though it may not be the cornerstone of management.

In conclusion, the present study shows a very frequent setting in medical practice at all levels of care. Despite its limitations, the study demonstrated that a standard dose (20mg/day 30min before breakfast) was useful for symptom control in at least one third of the study subjects. This response rate (with all the limitations of the available instruments) reflects the real-life scenario of treating patients with GERD. Moreover, this study shows that a structured approach (with defined clinical outcomes and periods) can contribute to the efficient management of this condition, implying that a subgroup of patients could benefit from treatment without the need for complementary diagnostic studies. GERD will continue to be a frequent entity in our environment, making the examination and evaluation of the efficacy of structured interventions a valid endeavor that has great importance for clinical practice.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References
1
F.M. Huerta-Iga,J.L. Tamayo-de la Cuesta,A. Noble-Lugo
The Mexican consensus on gastroesophageal reflux disease. Part I
Rev Gastroenterol Mex, 77 (2012), pp. 193-213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rgmx.2012.10.002
2
H. Liker,P. Hungin,I. Wiklund
Managing gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care: The patient perspective
J Am Board Fam Pract, 18 (2005), pp. 393-400
3
H.R. Liker,P. Ducrotte,P. Malfertheiner
Unmet medical needs among patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: A foundation for improving management in primary care
Dig Dis, 27 (2009), pp. 62-67 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000210106
4
A. López Colombo,M.S. Pacio-Quintero,L.Y. Jesús-Mejenes
Factores de riesgo asociados a recaída de enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico en pacientes de primer nivel de atención exitosamente tratados con inhibidor de bomba de protones
Rev Gastroenterol Mex, 82 (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rgmx.2016.09.001
5
M. Tafalla,J. Nuevo,J. Zapardiel
Study of the clinical profile and management of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care in Spain
Gastroenterol Hepatol, 33 (2010), pp. 490-497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gastrohep.2010.05.002
6
J.A. Ferrus,J. Zapardiel,E. Sobreviela,group SIs.
Management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care settings in Spain: SYMPATHY I study
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 21 (2009), pp. 1269-1278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0b013e32832a7d9b
7
J.P. Gisbert,A. Cooper,D. Karagiannis
Management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care: A European observational study
Curr Med Res Opin, 25 (2009), pp. 2777-2784 http://dx.doi.org/10.1185/03007990903314546
8
M.L. Peralta-Pedrero,A.L. Lagunes-Espinosa,A. Cruz-Avelar
Frequency of gastroesophageal reflux disease in elderly patients attending a family medicine clinic
Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc, 45 (2007), pp. 447-452
9
N. Flook,R. Jones,N. Vakil
Approach to gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care: Putting the Montreal definition into practice
Can Fam Physician, 54 (2008), pp. 701-705
10
E. Dorval,J.F. Rey,C. Soufflet
Perspectives on gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care: The REFLEX study of patient-physician agreement
BMC Gastroenterol, 11 (2011), pp. 25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-11-25
11
M.E. Numans,J. Lau,N.J. de Wit
Short-term treatment with proton-pump inhibitors as a test for gastroesophageal reflux disease: A meta-analysis of diagnostic test characteristics
Ann Intern Med, 140 (2004), pp. 518-527
12
P.O. Katz,L.B. Gerson,M.F. Vela
Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease
Am J Gastroenterol, 108 (2013), pp. 308-328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2012.444
[quiz 29]
13
R. Contreras-Omana,O. Sanchez-Reyes,E. Angeles-Granados
Comparison of the Carlsson-Dent and GERD-Q questionnaires for gastroesophageal reflux disease symptom detection in a general population
Rev Gastroenterol Mex, 82 (2017), pp. 19-25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rgmx.2016.05.005
14
M.E. Numans,N.J. de Wit
Reflux symptoms in general practice: diagnostic evaluation of the Carlsson-Dent gastro-oesophageal reflux disease questionnaire
Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 17 (2003), pp. 1049-1055
15
N. Netinatsunton,S. Attasaranya,B. Ovartlarnporn
The value of Carlsson-dent questionnaire in diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease in area with low prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease
J Neurogastroenterol Motil, 17 (2011), pp. 164-168 http://dx.doi.org/10.5056/jnm.2011.17.2.164
16
Y.W. Min,Y.W. Shin,G.J. Cheon
Recurrence and its impact on the health-related quality of life in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: A prospective follow-up analysis
J Neurogastroenterol Motil, 22 (2016), pp. 86-93 http://dx.doi.org/10.5056/jnm15124
17
K. Fujimoto,M. Hongo,G. Maintenance Study
Risk factors for relapse of erosive GERD during long-term maintenance treatment with proton pump inhibitor: A prospective multicenter study in Japan
J Gastroenterol, 45 (2010), pp. 1193-1200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00535-010-0276-7
18
J.H. Yang,H.S. Kang,S.Y. Lee
Recurrence of gastroesophageal reflux disease correlated with a short dinner-to-bedtime interval
J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 29 (2014), pp. 730-735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jgh.12455
19
J. Labenz,D. Armstrong,S. Zetterstrand
Clinical trial: factors associated with freedom from relapse of heartburn in patients with healed reflux oesophagitis —results from the maintenance phase of the EXPO study
Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 29 (2009), pp. 1165-1171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.03990.x
20
A. Eherer
Management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: Lifestyle modification and alternative approaches
Dig Dis, 32 (2014), pp. 149-151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000357181
21
E. Ness-Jensen,K. Hveem,H. El-Serag
Lifestyle intervention in gastroesophageal reflux disease
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 14 (2016), pp. 175-182 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2015.04.176
e1-3
22
T. Kaltenbach,S. Crockett,L.B. Gerson
Are lifestyle measures effective in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease? An evidence-based approach
Arch Intern Med, 166 (2006), pp. 965-971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.9.965
23
T. Johnson,L. Gerson,T. Hershcovici
Systematic review: The effects of carbonated beverages on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease
Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 31 (2010), pp. 607-614 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04232.x

Please cite this article as: Vázquez-Elizondo G. La enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico: la dicotomía del ensayo clínico y la práctica clínica. Revista de Gastroenterología de México. 2017;82:103–105.

See related content at DOI: 10.1016/j.rgmxen.2017.03.002, Lopez-Colombo A, Pacio-Quiterio MS, Jesus-Mejenes LY, Rodriguez-Aguilar JEG, Lopez-Guevara M, Montiel-Jarquin AJ, et al. Risk factors associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease relapse in primary care patients successfully treated with a proton pump inhibitor. Revista de Gastroenterología de México.2017;82:106–114.

Corresponding author. Calzada San Pedro 255 Sur, Colonia del Valle, C.P. 66220 San Pedro Garza García, Mexico. Tel.: +5281 8218 8555.
Copyright © 2017. Asociaci??n Mexicana de Gastroenterolog??a
Rev Gastroenterol Mex 2017;82:103-5 - Vol. 82 Num.2 DOI: 10.1016/j.rgmxen.2017.03.004