School Work

Nerd

Categories
Published
of 14
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
NERD
Transcript
  JNM  Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility Review  J Neurogastroenterol Motil, Vol. 16 No. 1 January, 2010 DOI: 10.5056/jnm.2010.16.1.8 8 ⓒ 2010 The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility  J Neurogastroenterol Motil, Vol. 16 No. 1 January, 2010 www.jnmjournal.org Nonerosive Reflux Disease (NERD) - An Update Tiberiu Hershcovici, M.D. and Ronnie Fass, M.D.* The Neuroenteric Clinical Research Group, Section of Gastroenterology, Southern Arizona VA Health Care System, Tucson, Arizona, USA  ㅋ Recognizing nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) as a distinct presentation of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was one of the most important developments in the field of GERD in the last decade. Whilst the definition of NERD has not changed sig-nificantly over the years, the disorder accounts for the majority of the GERD patients and those who failed proton pump in-hibitor (PPI) treatment. Recent developments in NERD focused primarily on understanding the pathophysiology and natural history. The introduction of esophageal impedance+pH has led to the assessment of other forms of gastroesophageal reflux in causing NERD. Therapeutic modalities still focus on acid suppression, but there is growing recognition that other therapeutic strategies should be considered in NERD. (J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010;16:8-21) Key Words Nonerosive reflux disease, Gastroesophageal reflux disease, Proton pump inhibitor   Received: December 24th, 2009Accepted: December 30th, 2009 CC  This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the srcinal work is properly cited.*Correspondence:Ronnie Fass, M.D., FACP, FACG Chief of Gastroenterology, Southern Arizona VA Health Care System, GI Section (1-111G-1), 3601 S. 6th Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85723-0001, USATel: +1-520-792-1450 (ext. 5139), Fax: +1-520-629-4737, E-mail: Ronnie.Fass@va.govFinancial support:None.Conflicts of interest:None. Introduction It has been demonstrated that 44% of the US population re-port gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-related symptoms at least once a month and 20% once a week. 1,2  Furthermore, due to the close relationship between GERD and body mass index (BMI), it is highly likely that the prevalence of GERD will close-ly follow the increase in BMI that is expected in the future. Most of the patients with GERD fall into 1 of 2 categories: nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) or erosive esophagitis. The 2 main phenotypes of GERD appear to have different pathophy-siological and clinical characteristics. Furthermore, NERD and erosive esophagitis clearly diverge when it comes to response to antireflux treatment. NERD patients have a significantly lower response rate to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, and con-sequently they constitute the majority of the refractory heartburn group. 3,4   Definition NERD has been commonly defined as the presence of classic GERD symptoms in the absence of esophageal mucosal injury during upper endoscopy. The Genval workshop suggested that the definition of NERD should be reserved for individuals who satisfy the definition of GERD but who do not have either Barrett's esophagus or definite endoscopic esophageal mucosal breaks (erosion or ulceration). 5  We proposed that NERD should  Nonerosive Reflux Disease (NERD) - An Update 9 Vol. 16, No. 1 January, 2010 (8-21) Figure 1. A diagnostic algorithm for NERD and functional heartburn based on Rome III criteria. 10 be defined as the presence of typical symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease caused by intraesophageal reflux (acidic or weakly acidic), in the absence of visible esophageal mucosal in- jury at endoscopy. 1  Recently, the Montreal International Consensus defined GERD as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome reflux-associated symptoms, and NERD was defined by the presence of these symptoms in the ab-sence of esophageal mucosal breaks. 6  Studies have shown that about 30-50% of NERD patients demonstrate esophageal acid exposure within the physiological range. 7  The Rome II Committee for Functional Esophageal Disorders considered these patients as having functional heart-burn, defined as “episodic retrosternal burning in the absence of pathological gastroesophageal reflux, pathology-based motility disorders, or structural explanations.” 8  This subgroup was fur-ther divided into 2 subgroups. The first subgroup included pa-tients who demonstrated a close temporal relationship between their heartburn symptoms and acid reflux events, in spite of hav-ing physiological range of esophageal acid exposure. This sub-group accounts for up to 40% of patients with functional heart-burn and has been termed the hypersensitive esophagus. 7  Patients with hypersensitive esophagus demonstrate partial re-sponse to PPI treatment. 9  In contrast, the other subgroup (up to 60%) demonstrates lack of any correlation between heartburn ep-isodes and acid reflux events. The Rome III Committee for Functional Esophageal Disorders redefined the functional heart-burn group, and consequently NERD, by primarily incorporat-ing the hypersensitive esophagus group and those patients with negative symptom association who are responsive to PPI treat-ment back into the NERD group (Fig. 1). 10   Epidemiology Several early studies reported that about 50% of patients with heartburn were found to exhibit normal esophageal mucosa dur-ing endoscopy. 11,12  There after, several community-based European studies of NERD patients found a much higher preva-lence of up to 70%. 13,14  Galmiche et al. 15  assessed the efficacy of on-demand H 2 RA therapy in patients with GERD symptoms  who were recruited from general practice clinics. A total of 423 GERD patients were included in this study; and, of those, 71% met the criteria for NERD. Carlsson et al. 16  compared different treatment strategies for GERD at 36 primary care centers in Europe and Australia and noted that 49% of the 538 enrolled pa-tients lacked esophageal mucosal breaks. In the United States, Robinson et al. 17  evaluated only sub- jects who used antacids for symptomatic relief of heartburn. Of 165 patients enrolled in this study, 53% had normal esophageal mucosa on upper endoscopy. In a recent population-based study, 1,000 subjects with or without GERD-related symptoms from an adult population of 2 Swedish municipalities were randomly se-   Tiberiu Hershcovici and Ronnie Fass    Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility lected to undergo an upper endoscopy. Of the patients with gas-troesophageal reflux symptoms, only 24.5% were found to have erosive esophagitis. 18  More recently, Zagari et al. performed a large epidemiologic study in the general population of 2 villages in northern Italy and demonstrated a 23.7% (out of 1,033 sub- jects) prevalence rate of patients with reflux symptoms at least twice a week. Of those patients with reflux symptoms, 75.9%  were found to have a negative endoscopy. 19  Overall, the results of old and recent epidemiologic studies investigating patients with GERD-related symptoms have sug-gested that the prevalence of NERD in the general population is between 50% and 70%. Because the usage of proton pump in-hibitors (PPIs) has become so widespread, it is likely that some of the recent studies that determined the prevalence of NERD have been contaminated by including healed erosive esophagitis sub- jects as NERD patients. Natural History Within the spectrum of GERD, the pathophysiological rela-tionship between NERD and erosive esophagitis remains the subject of great debate. 20  The assumption that NERD and ero-sive esophagitis represent 1 continuous disorder has been chal-lenged by studies demonstrating differences in relation to epi-demiological features, pathophysiological characteristics, and re-sponses to treatment. 21-23  Pace et al. 24  performed a retrospective evaluation of patients  with NERD. The authors followed 33 patients with NERD and documented abnormal esophageal pH monitoring for a period of 3-6 months while on therapy with antacids, prokinetics or both. Five (15%) of the patients that remained symptomatic during therapy developed erosive esophagitis (unknown grading). Pretreatment pH testing results were not predictable of erosive esophagitis development. In this study, patients were treated from the time of admittance into the study, suggesting that some may have not been true NERD patients. Furthermore, the ob-servation in the study that NERD patients rapidly progressed to develop erosive esophagitis after only a very short duration of fol-low-up (3-6 months) may further support the conclusion that those who developed erosive esophagitis during the study period  were likely healed erosive esophagitis patients that were falsely la-beled as having NERD from the beginning. Kuster et al. 25  followed 109 patients with GERD, of whom 33 had endoscopically documented erosive esophagitis. The au-thors used a step-up approach in which patients initially received antacids and prokinetics, and if symptoms continued an H 2 RA  was prescribed. Patients that did not respond to an H 2 RA were referred for antireflux surgery. At the 3-year follow-up, 109 pa-tients were available for evaluation, and of those 52% required only antacids plus prokinetics to control their symptoms. At the 6-year follow-up, 89 patients were available for evaluation, and of those 55% required only antacids plus prokinetics to control their symptoms. Regardless of therapy, only 2.7% of the NERD pa-tients developed erosive esophagitis after 3 years and 3% after 6  years of follow-up. Unlike Pace et al., 24  this study provided lon-ger duration of follow-up, and despite its limitations very few NERD patients progressed to develop esophageal mucosal injury. Isolauri et al. 26  conducted a longer duration follow-up (17-22 years, mean 19.5 years) of 60 patients with documented GERD. Patients received medical (50) or surgical (10) antireflux therapy as needed (no standardization). Of the 50 subjects that received only medical therapy, 30 had NERD and 20 erosive esophagitis at baseline. At follow-up, only 5 (17%) of the NERD patients progressed to develop erosive esophagitis (all to grade 1 Savary-Miller). McDougall et al. 27  conducted a 10 year follow-up of 152 pa-tients with typical GERD symptoms and grade 1-3 erosive esophagitis (modified Savary-Miller) documented during an up-per endoscopy. Over 70% of the patients still had heartburn daily or at least weekly at follow-up. Patients reporting dysphagia un-derwent repeat endoscopy, revealing 2 new benign peptic stric-tures and 1 Barrett’s esophagus. However, because this was a survey study and patients were allowed to be on and off treatment ad libitum, it is difficult to interpret the findings. Furthermore, the presence of so-called “new Barrett’s esophagus” may well be an unrecognized Barrett’s mucosa that was present underneath esophageal inflammation. In another study, McDougall et al. 28  performed a prospective follow-up of 101 GERD patients for a period of at least 32 months after initial assessment with pH test-ing and an upper endoscopy. During follow-up, more than half of the patients were on a PPI or H 2 RA. Of the 17 subjects with NERD and abnormal pH testing, 4 (24%) developed erosive esophagitis while on H 2 RA. Again, the authors’ report in this study that 3 patients with erosive esophagitis developed Barrett’s esophagus may also represent an unrecognized Barrett’s mucosa that was present underneath the esophageal inflammation. Manabe et al. 29  followed 105 patients with mild erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification A and B) for a mean dura-tion of 5.5 years. Only 10.5% of the patients progressed to higher grading (mostly Los Angeles grade C), and none have pro-  Nonerosive Reflux Disease (NERD) - An Update Vol. 16, No. 1 January, 2010 (8-21) Figure 2. Proposed new paradigm for the natural course of NERD. 23 Table 1. The Largest Population-based Studies Assessing Progre-ssion of NERD to Erosive Espophagitis 23 StudyNFollow-upProgressionLabenz 32  3,894 2 years25.5%Sontag 35  2,3067.6 years 0%Bardhan 36 12,374 24 years 4.4% gressed to Barrett’s esophagus. This study suggests that even  within the different gradings of erosive esophagitis, there is very little progression over time. Two recent retrospective studies stand out in their findings about the natural course of GERD. Unlike the aforementioned studies as well as other more recently published articles (  vide in- fra ), Pace et al. 30  have reported a 94% progression of NERD to erosive esophagitis. Using their srcinal cohort of GERD sub- jects, 24  the authors were able to endoscope 18 of 33 subjects. Seventeen (94%) were found to have esophageal mucosal in-flammation (erosive esophagitis). The authors concluded that GERD is a chronic disease characterized by increasing severity in time, requiring protracted medical therapy. Although the authors provide only 2 endoscopies (index and follow-up), they con-cluded that almost all NERD patients are destined to progress over time to develop erosive esophagitis, regardless of the extent of their esophageal acid exposure. 31  The study does not provide evidence of increased severity in gastroesophageal reflux that par-allels the new endoscopic findings. In contrast to the previous study, Labenz et al. have recently proposed a highly complex model to describe the natural course of GERD. 32  Using the ProGERD (progression of gastroesophageal reflux disease) da-tabase, the authors evaluated progression or regression in GERD. Interestingly, the study demonstrated significant pro-gression and regression after 2 years of follow-up. 31  The authors showed that 24.9% of the NERD patients progressed to develop low-grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades A and B), and 0.6% developed severe erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and D). Surprisingly, 50.4% of those with grades C and D and 61.3% with grades A and B re-gressed to NERD. Again, the study provides only 2 endoscopies (index and follow-up), and thus the durability of the described esophageal mucosal findings is unknown. Furthermore, 73% of the subjects in this study had taken antireflux medications, and 61% had visited a physician. 33  The study suggests for the first time that patients move freely and in large numbers from NERD to erosive esophagitis and back again. Garrido Serrano et al. followed 692 GERD patients over a period of 6 years and prospectively assessed progression or re-gression along the spectrum. 34  The authors found that patients  with NERD (50% of the sample) did not develop erosive esoph-agitis and those with erosive esophagitis remained within the stage of the initial diagnosis. Sontag et al. 35  evaluated 4,633 pa-tients undergoing endoscopy for reflux symptoms over a mean follow-up period of 7.6 years. The patients received antireflux medications, but treatment regimens were not standardized for all patients. The authors were unable to document progression of NERD along the spectrum. Bardhan et al. provided the longest and largest natural history data evaluating 12,374 GERD pa-tients over a period of 24 years. 36  The authors were able to docu-ment only 4.4% progression to erosive esophagitis among the NERD patients. Overall, the currently available natural course studies suggest that lack of progression is more common than progression along the spectrum for patients with NERD (Table 1). Most im-portantly, there is no evidence that NERD patients may progress over time to develop Barrett’s esophagus. Fass and Ofman 22  proposed a novel paradigm suggesting that GERD patients exhibit 3 phenotypic presentations: NERD erosive esophagitis, and Barrett’s esophagus. The vast majority of NERD and erosive esophagitis patients remain within their re-spective GERD groups throughout their lifetime. This new para-digm proposes that the genetic makeup of each individual subject exposed to similar environmental factors may ultimately de-termine the specific phenotypic presentation of GERD (Fig. 2). 22,23  In other words, GERD phenotypes once determined re-main true to form. 35,37   Pathophysiology Current concepts in the pathophysiology of NERD involve
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks