Effect of Proton Pump Inhibitors on Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Reflux Finding Score (RFS) in Patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

P. A. Soriano, E. G. Llanes, Anna Pamela C Dela Cruz, Kevin Michael D. Mendoza
{"title":"Effect of Proton Pump Inhibitors on Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Reflux Finding Score (RFS) in Patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"P. A. Soriano, E. G. Llanes, Anna Pamela C Dela Cruz, Kevin Michael D. Mendoza","doi":"10.32412/pjohns.v37i1.1697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\n\nABSTRACT\n\n\n\n\nObjectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in treating the symptoms and laryngeal findings of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).\nMethods: Placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials published after June 2001 to January 2021 which used PPI as the sole intervention and the RSI or RFS as outcome measures were eligible for inclusion. Studies that were published prior to June 2001, those which only made use of questionnaires other than the RSI or RFS, those which used PPI in combination with other treatments, or those with unavailable full-text manuscripts were excluded. These studies were identified from MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Embase, and HERDIN Plus databases which were searched from May 21 to 26, 2020. The primary outcome was the mean difference between baseline/pre-treatment and post-treatment RSI scores for both PPI and placebo groups. The secondary outcome was the mean difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment RFS scores for PPI and placebo groups. Aggregate results of these outcomes were analyzed using forest plots. Heterogeneity was determined through prediction intervals. Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool in Assessing Risk of Bias.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\nResults: Nine randomized control trials were included with a total of 737 patients randomized and 595 patients analyzed – 294 from the PPI group and 301 from the placebo group. There were notable variations among the studies in terms of choice of PPI, dosage and frequency. Out of nine studies, four used both RSI and RFS in their analysis. Two studies used RSI alone and three used the RFS in combination with symptom questionnaires other than the RSI. There was a significant decrease in the RSI of the PPI group versus the placebo group with a mean difference of -2.83 (95% CI, -5.13 to -0.53, p = .02). However, there was no significant decrease in the RFS between PPI and placebo groups with a mean difference of -0.84 (95% CI, -2.66 to 0.98, p = .37). For two clinical trials which only reported post-treatment RFS, there was also no significant difference between the two treatment groups with a mean difference of 1.27 (95% CI, -0.22 to 2.76, p = .10).\nConclusion: This meta-analysis found that, although a statistically significant benefit in RSI was noted with PPI therapy, this difference may not translate to a clinically significant change in symptoms; therefore, there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the treatment of LPR with PPIs.","PeriodicalId":33358,"journal":{"name":"Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v37i1.1697","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in treating the symptoms and laryngeal findings of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Methods: Placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials published after June 2001 to January 2021 which used PPI as the sole intervention and the RSI or RFS as outcome measures were eligible for inclusion. Studies that were published prior to June 2001, those which only made use of questionnaires other than the RSI or RFS, those which used PPI in combination with other treatments, or those with unavailable full-text manuscripts were excluded. These studies were identified from MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Embase, and HERDIN Plus databases which were searched from May 21 to 26, 2020. The primary outcome was the mean difference between baseline/pre-treatment and post-treatment RSI scores for both PPI and placebo groups. The secondary outcome was the mean difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment RFS scores for PPI and placebo groups. Aggregate results of these outcomes were analyzed using forest plots. Heterogeneity was determined through prediction intervals. Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool in Assessing Risk of Bias.   Results: Nine randomized control trials were included with a total of 737 patients randomized and 595 patients analyzed – 294 from the PPI group and 301 from the placebo group. There were notable variations among the studies in terms of choice of PPI, dosage and frequency. Out of nine studies, four used both RSI and RFS in their analysis. Two studies used RSI alone and three used the RFS in combination with symptom questionnaires other than the RSI. There was a significant decrease in the RSI of the PPI group versus the placebo group with a mean difference of -2.83 (95% CI, -5.13 to -0.53, p = .02). However, there was no significant decrease in the RFS between PPI and placebo groups with a mean difference of -0.84 (95% CI, -2.66 to 0.98, p = .37). For two clinical trials which only reported post-treatment RFS, there was also no significant difference between the two treatment groups with a mean difference of 1.27 (95% CI, -0.22 to 2.76, p = .10). Conclusion: This meta-analysis found that, although a statistically significant benefit in RSI was noted with PPI therapy, this difference may not translate to a clinically significant change in symptoms; therefore, there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the treatment of LPR with PPIs.
质子泵抑制剂对喉咽反流患者反流症状指数(RSI)和反流发现评分(RFS)的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析
目的:探讨质子泵抑制剂(PPI)治疗咽喉反流(LPR)的疗效,2001年6月至2021年1月后发表的随机临床试验,使用PPI作为唯一干预措施,RSI或RFS作为结果指标,有资格纳入。2001年6月之前发表的研究、仅使用RSI或RFS以外的问卷的研究、将PPI与其他治疗方法结合使用的研究或没有全文手稿的研究被排除在外。这些研究是从2020年5月21日至26日搜索的MEDLINE、Scopus、Cochrane Library、Embase和HERDIN Plus数据库中确定的。主要结果是PPI组和安慰剂组的基线/治疗前和治疗后RSI评分之间的平均差异。次要结果是PPI组和安慰剂组治疗前和治疗后RFS评分的平均差异。使用森林样地对这些结果的总体结果进行了分析。通过预测区间确定异质性。使用Cochrane协作评估偏倚风险的工具评估个体研究的偏倚风险。结果:纳入了9项随机对照试验,共有737名患者被随机分组,595名患者被分析——294名来自PPI组,301名来自安慰剂组。在PPI的选择、剂量和频率方面,研究之间存在显著差异。在九项研究中,有四项在分析中同时使用了RSI和RFS。两项研究单独使用RSI,三项研究将RFS与RSI以外的症状问卷结合使用。PPI组的RSI与安慰剂组相比显著降低,平均差异为-2.83(95%CI,-5.13至-0.53,p=0.02)。然而,PPI组与安慰剂组之间的RFS没有显著降低,其平均差异为-0.84(95%CI为-2.66至0.98,p=.37)。对于两项仅报告治疗后RFS的临床试验,两个治疗组之间也没有显著差异,平均差异为1.27(95%CI,-0.22-2.76,p=.10)。结论:该荟萃分析发现,尽管PPI治疗对RSI有统计学意义的益处,但这种差异可能不会转化为症状的临床意义变化;因此,没有足够的证据支持或反对PPIs治疗LPR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
48 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信