Usefulness of pep-test for laryngo-pharyngeal reflux: A pilot study in primary care

9Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a digestive disorder characterized by nausea, regurgitation, and heartburn. Gastroesophageal reflux is the primary cause of laryngeal symptoms, especially chronic posterior laryngitis. The best diagnostic test for this disease is esophageal impedance-pH monitoring; however, it is poorly employed owing to its high cost and invasiveness. Salivary pepsin measured using a lateral flow device (Pep-test) has been suggested as an indirect marker of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The present study tested the reliability of Pep-test in diagnosing LPR in uninvestigated primary care attenders presenting with chronic laryngeal symptoms, and evaluated the raw pepsin concentration in patients with LPR. Methods: A multicenter, non-interventional pilot study was conducted on 86 suspected patients with LPR and 59 asymptomatic subjects as controls in three Italian primary care settings. A reflux symptom index questionnaire was used to differentiate patients with LPR (score >13) from controls (score <5). Two saliva samples were collected, and comparisons between the groups were performed using two-sided statistical tests, according to variable distributions. Results: There was no statistical difference in the salivary pepsin positivity between LPR patients and controls, whereas the pepsin intensity value was higher in controls than in LPR patients. Conclusion: A high prevalence of pepsin positivity was observed in asymptomatic controls. Pepsin measurement should not be considered as a diagnostic test for LPR in primary care patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bozzani, A., Grattagliano, I., Pellegatta, G., Furnari, M., Galeone, C., Savarino, V., … De Bastiani, R. (2020). Usefulness of pep-test for laryngo-pharyngeal reflux: A pilot study in primary care. Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 41(4), 250–255. https://doi.org/10.4082/KJFM.18.0207

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free