Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Podcast: NC Health Policy Forum
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
North Carolina Medical Journal
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal
  • My alerts
  • Log in
North Carolina Medical Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Podcast: NC Health Policy Forum
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Follow ncmj on Twitter
  • Visit ncmj on Facebook
Research ArticlePolicy Forum

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Treating Wisely

J. Lane Wilson and Kellner L. Pruett
North Carolina Medical Journal May 2016, 77 (3) 202-205; DOI: https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.77.3.202
J. Lane Wilson
clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: wilsonjo@ecu.edu
Kellner L. Pruett
medical student, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is commonly managed in both primary and secondary care settings, as this condition occurs in patients of all ages and has a wide variety of clinical presentations. However, evidence suggests that GERD is commonly overdiagnosed and overtreated. Adherence to guidelines may help reduce the harms of overdiagnosis.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most frequently encountered and managed diseases in the primary care setting. In the United States, 18.1%–27.8% of the population report weekly symptoms of GERD, and up to 40% of people report occasional symptoms [1]. Most patients respond completely to a relatively short course of pharmacotherapy and do not require endoscopy; however, GERD is often overdiagnosed and overtreated [2, 3]. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of GERD and screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) are available from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), and the University of Michigan Health System [2, 4]. Understanding the indications and recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of GERD will help clinicians identify those in need of endoscopy, minimize the risks of pharmacotherapy, and reduce costs.

Diagnosis

The diagnosis of GERD in adults can usually be made clinically. Heartburn and regurgitation are the most reliable symptoms in establishing the diagnosis, identifying up to 70% of patients with GERD [5]. Chest pain is also indicative of GERD once a cardiac cause has been ruled out. In patients with atypical symptoms—such as dyspepsia, epigastric pain, nausea, bloating, and eructation—a good clinical response to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may help establish GERD as the diagnosis but should not be considered definitive [2].

Endoscopy should be reserved for patients with alarm symptoms, including dysphagia, unintentional weight loss, and anemia; those with risks for BE; and those whose symptoms have been unresponsive to adequate PPI therapy [2]. Barium swallow studies, esophageal biopsy, and esophageal manometry are not helpful for diagnosis of GERD but may help to evaluate the patient for complications, such as an esophageal stricture or ring, or to rule out other diagnoses such as achalasia [4]. Ambulatory reflux monitoring has the benefit of determining esophageal acid exposure, reflux frequency, and correlation of reflux to reported symptoms. Thus, its use is justified when the diagnosis of GERD is uncertain, when symptoms are refractory, or when surgical management is being considered in the absence of other objective evidence of GERD [2, 4].

Extraesophageal symptoms such as chronic cough, asthma, dental erosions, sinusitis, and laryngitis have been attributed to GERD; however, multiple studies have failed to conclusively demonstrate causality. Indeed, trials in which patients with extraesophageal symptoms are empirically treated with PPIs have no, poor, or mixed evidence for improvement of those symptoms, even in patients with objective evidence of GERD on endoscopy or reflux monitoring [2].

In children aged 1–5 years, presenting symptoms of GERD are more likely to include regurgitation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and cough. Severe symptoms and anorexia or feed refusal should raise clinical suspicion for erosive esophagitis [6, 7]. In infants, normal gastroesophageal reflux may result in spitting up 4 or more times per day. GERD is only diagnosed when gastroesophageal reflux symptoms become troublesome—including spitting, vomiting, back arching, feeding difficulties, and cough—or when they lead to complications. Barium swallow testing, pH probe testing, and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy have poor evidence for establishing GERD as a cause of these symptoms [8].

Treatment

Lifestyle Modification

Lifestyle modification is often recommended for the treatment of GERD symptoms. For nocturnal symptoms, elevating the head of the bed and avoiding meals 2–3 hours prior to bedtime may be helpful. For patients with a body mass index above 25 kg/m2 or patients with a normal body mass index but recent weight gain, weight loss may result in significant improvement of symptoms [9]. Other commonly touted lifestyle recommendations such as avoidance of caffeine, carbonated beverages, alcohol, spicy foods, and fatty foods have no evidence to support them [2].

H2RAs

For patients with intermittent, mild, and nonerosive reflux disease, histamine2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) may provide adequate symptom relief [9]. H2RAs may also be used in addition to daytime PPI therapy in patients with significant nighttime symptoms, although H2RAs may be associated with tachyphylaxis after several weeks of daily usage [2].

PPIs

PPIs are more effective than H2RAs and may be more cost effective than step-up therapy. Most PPIs should be dosed 30–60 minutes prior to a meal; the exception is dexlansoprazole, which may be dosed irrespective of meal timing [5]. For patients with typical symptoms, noncardiac chest pain, or erosive disease, an 8-week trial of a PPI is indicated. For patients with atypical symptoms or extraesophageal symptoms, further diagnostic work-up is indicated unless typical GERD symptoms are also present [2, 4]. Despite the fact that no particular PPI has been demonstrated to be more effective than another, switching to another PPI in patients with a partial response may improve symptoms. Alternatively, escalating to twice-daily dosing may improve symptoms. Endoscopy is indicated for nonresponders [2, 4, 5, 9]. Maintenance therapy with a PPI is indicated for patients with complications of GERD, such as BE or erosive esophagitis, and for patients who develop recurrence of symptoms with cessation of the PPI [2]. In the latter group, periodic trials off medication should be attempted to minimize costs and potential adverse effects [4].

Adjunctive Treatments

Baclofen, a gamma-aminobutyric acid (B) receptor agonist, inhibits transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation and may reduce GERD symptoms that are refractory to PPI therapy [9]. Prokinetic agents, such as metoclopramide and domperidone, increase the lower esophageal sphincter pressure and may provide additional relief in combination with a PPI in patients suffering from GERD with comorbid gastroparesis [2]. Use of these agents is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of GERD, and they should only be used with specialist consultation and objective evidence of GERD [4].

Surgical Treatments

Surgical management of patients with chronic or refractory symptoms is indicated only when there is objective evidence of GERD. In patients without evidence of erosive esophagitis on endoscopy, preoperative ambulatory reflux monitoring is indicated [4]. Surgical interventions are most likely to benefit patients who have typical symptoms, patients with atypical symptoms that correlate well with ambulatory reflux monitoring, and those with at least a partial response to PPI therapy [10].

Special Groups

As opposed to the general adult population, pregnant women should typically receive step-up therapy, beginning with sucralfate and antacids without bicarbonate. These first-line treatments can be used on an as-needed basis. H2RAs (category B) may then be added if needed. If the patient has still not obtained adequate relief, PPIs may be used [9]. (PPIs are classified as category B for use during pregnancy, with the exception of omeprazole, which is category C.)

In children, both H2RAs and PPIs are considered safe. Management is similar to that of adults, with a bigger emphasis on lifestyle modification in younger children [7]. In infants, nonpharmacologic management should be employed whenever possible. Positioning after feeds, thickening of feeds, changes of formula (particularly to hypoallergenic formulas), and modification of feed volume and frequency may improve gastroesophageal reflux symptoms [7, 8]. Medication should be reserved for those with true GERD and generally requires a gastroenterology consultation. The American Academy of Pediatrics Choosing Wisely campaign advises against acid-suppressive therapy in any patient who is a “happy spitter”—that is, an infant with gastroesophageal reflux that is effortless, painless, and not affecting growth [11].

Screening for Barrett's Esophagus

GERD is a well-established risk factor for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. BE, a common precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, develops in 10%–15% of GERD patients [12, 13]. Patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma diagnosed during screening have a longer life expectancy than patients diagnosed once they become symptomatic, which suggests that early detection and surveillance of BE may be beneficial [12]. However, identifying patients with BE who are at high risk for progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma is difficult. Forty percent of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma do not experience frequent GERD symptoms prior to diagnosis [14]. Furthermore, the absolute risk for progression of BE to esophageal adenocarcinoma is low—0.2%–0.5% per year for nondysplastic BE, 0.7% for low-grade dysplasia, and 7% for high-grade dysplasia—and 90% of BE patients die from causes other than esophageal adenocarcinoma [13]. Additionally, data to support specific endoscopic screening and surveillance guidelines are lacking [14].

While there is no consensus on screening for or surveillance of BE, multiple organizations have overlapping guidelines that focus on risk factors and alarm symptoms. The ACG notes that risk factors for BE including male sex, GERD symptoms for more than 5 years, tobacco use, age greater than 50 years, central obesity, and a first-degree relative with BE. SAGES also includes hiatal hernia as a risk factor [4].

The ACG, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), the American College of Physicians (ACP), and the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) all recommend that clinicians perform an endoscopy to screen for BE in patients with GERD and persistent symptoms despite PPI therapy. For patients with GERD and multiple risk factors, the strength of the recommendation varies, but each organization recommends that clinicians at least consider endoscopy [15]. Screening is not recommended for the general population or for women with chronic GERD symptoms without multiple risk factors [13].

For surveillance of BE without dysplasia, the ACG, ACP, AGA, and ASGE recommend endoscopic surveillance every 3–5 years. For low-grade dysplasia, the ACG recommends endoscopic surveillance at 6 months and 12 months, then annually until there are 2 negative consecutive tests. The AGA recommends screening every 6–12 months, and the ASGE recommends both 6-month and 12-month screenings, followed by annual screening. Each organization recommends screening patients with high-grade dysplasia every 3 months [4, 15].

Adverse Effects of PPIs

PPIs are among the most commonly prescribed medications in both primary care and secondary care settings [3]. Their low cost, high efficacy, and perceived low toxicity all contribute to the overprescription and inappropriate continuation of PPIs. As their use escalates, however, PPIs are increasingly being associated with adverse effects, which is fueling increased scrutiny on appropriate prescribing practices and adherence to guidelines.

Kidney Disease

The use of PPIs has been associated with both acute and chronic kidney disease. In a population-based study involving nearly 300,000 people, acute kidney injury and acute interstitial nephritis were 2.5–3-fold more common in adults older than 66 years who used PPIs [16]. In another study, a 20%–50% increase in the risk of development of chronic kidney disease was observed in PPI users; this observational cohort study followed more than 10,000 patients for nearly 14 years [17]. It is hypothesized that recurrent acute kidney injury or PPI-related hypomagnesemia may be responsible for this finding. Thus, routine monitoring of creatinine levels is advised in patients who require long-term PPI therapy.

Hypomagnesemia

Prolonged PPI use is associated with hypomagnesemia, which, in turn, is associated with an increased risk for kidney disease. Low serum magnesium levels in the setting of PPI use may not respond to supplementation unless the PPI is discontinued [18]. Routine monitoring of magnesium levels in patients on maintenance PPI therapy is likely warranted, particularly for patients on high doses of PPIs.

Dementia

In a prospective cohort study involving more than 73,000 people aged 75 years or older who were followed for 7 years, there was a 44% increased risk of incident dementia among regular PPI users. Rates of dementia were similar in patients receiving omeprazole, pantoprazole, and esomeprazole, the 3 most commonly prescribed PPIs evaluated in the study [19].

Infection

Reduced gastric pH and increased bacterial colonization of the stomach are thought to increase the risk of certain infections. PPI use is associated with a 74% higher risk of Clostridium difficile infection and a 2.5-fold risk of recurrent C. difficile infection. Community-acquired pneumonia, but not hospital-acquired pneumonia, is 34% higher among PPI users compared with nonusers [18].

Fractures

Multiple observational studies have associated PPI use with increased risk of hip, spine, and any-site fractures (26%, 58%, and 33% higher risk, respectively). Even use of a PPI for less than 1 year conferred risk. Reduction of intestinal calcium absorption in PPI users may play a role in decreasing bone density [18].

Conclusions

GERD is a common disease, but it is also overdiagnosed and overtreated. Most patients with GERD should respond to an 8-week course of PPI therapy. Only patients with alarm symptoms, those with multiple risk factors for BE, those with an unclear diagnosis, or patients who are unable to wean from a PPI should undergo endoscopy. As evidence grows linking PPIs to adverse effects, adherence to treatment guidelines may minimize risks, reduce costs, and identify those in need of endoscopy.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Bridgid H. Wilson, PhD, for her assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

Potential conflicts of interest. J.L.W. and K.L.P. have no relevant conflicts of interest.

  • ©2016 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. El-Serag HB,
    2. Sweet S,
    3. Winchester CC,
    4. Dent J
    Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut. 2014;63(6):871-880.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Katz PO,
    2. Gerson LB,
    3. Vela MF
    Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(3):308-328.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Forgacs I,
    2. Loganayagam A
    Overprescribing proton pump inhibitors. BMJ. 2008;336(7634):2-3.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), National Guideline Clearinghouse
    Diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). AHRQ website. https://www.guideline.gov/syntheses/synthesis.aspx?id=50025. Published May 2008. Revised June 2014. Accessed January 20, 2016.
  5. ↵
    1. Anderson WD 3rd.,
    2. Strayer SM,
    3. Mull SR
    Common questions about the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am Fam Physician. 2015;91(10):692-697.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Gupta SK,
    2. Hassall E,
    3. Chiu YL,
    4. Amer F,
    5. Heyman MB
    Presenting symptoms of nonerosive and erosive esophagitis in pediatric patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2006;51(5):858-863.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Lightdale JR,
    2. Gremse DA, Section on Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition
    Gastroesophageal reflux: management guidance for the pediatrician. Pediatrics. 2013;131(5):e1684-e1695.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Rosen R
    Gastroesophageal reflux in infants: more than just a pHenomenon. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(1):83-89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Drugs for peptic ulcer disease and GERD. Treat Guidel Med Lett. 2014;12(140):25-30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Oelschlager BK,
    2. Quiroga E,
    3. Parra JD,
    4. Cahill M,
    5. Polissar N,
    6. Pellegrini CA
    Long-term outcomes after laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(2):280-287.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Choosing Wisely
    American Academy of Pediatrics. Choosing Wisely website. http://www.choosingwisely.org/clinician-lists/american-academy-pediatrics-acid-blockers-motility-agents-for-gastroesophageal-reflux-in-infants/. Released March 17, 2014. Accessed February 26, 2016.
  12. ↵
    1. Shaheen N,
    2. Ransohoff DF
    Gastroesophageal reflux, Barrett Esophagus, and esophageal cancer: scientific review. JAMA. 2002;287(15):1972-1981.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Shaheen N,
    2. Falk GW,
    3. Iyer PG,
    4. Gerson LB
    ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(1):30-50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Shaheen NJ,
    2. Weinberg DS,
    3. Denberg TD,
    4. Chou R,
    5. Qaseem A,
    6. Shekelle P, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians
    Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(11):808-816.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Zimmerman TG
    Common questions about Barrett esophagus. Am Fam Physician. 2014;89(2):92-98.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Antoniou T,
    2. Macdonald EM,
    3. Hollands S, et al.
    Proton pump inhibitors and the risk of acute kidney injury in older patients: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ Open. 2015;3(2):E166-E171.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Lazarus B,
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Wilson FP, et al.
    Proton pump inhibitor use and the risk of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(2):238-246.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Schoenfeld AJ,
    2. Grady D
    Adverse effects associated with proton pump inhibitors. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(2):172-174.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Gomm W,
    2. von Holt K,
    3. Thomé F, et al.
    Association of proton pump inhibitors with risk of dementia: a pharmacoepidemiological claims data analysis [published online ahead of print February 15, 2016]. JAMA Neurol. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.4791.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

North Carolina Medical Journal: 77 (3)
North Carolina Medical Journal
Vol. 77, Issue 3
May-June 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on North Carolina Medical Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
(Your Name) has sent you a message from North Carolina Medical Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the North Carolina Medical Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
J. Lane Wilson, Kellner L. Pruett
North Carolina Medical Journal May 2016, 77 (3) 202-205; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.77.3.202

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
J. Lane Wilson, Kellner L. Pruett
North Carolina Medical Journal May 2016, 77 (3) 202-205; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.77.3.202
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Diagnosis
    • Treatment
    • Screening for Barrett's Esophagus
    • Adverse Effects of PPIs
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • State of the State in Gastroenterology
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Policy Forum

  • Breaking the Cycle
  • Breaking the Cycle
  • From Here to There—With a Spring in Our Steps
Show more Policy Forum

INVITED COMMENTARIES AND SIDEBARS

  • Sidebar: History Shaping the Future: How History Influences Health in North Carolina Native American Communities
  • Sidebar: Impact of Racial Misclassification of Health Data on American Indians in North Carolina
  • Sidebar: Community-driven Approaches to Preventing Overdoses Among American Indians
Show more INVITED COMMENTARIES AND SIDEBARS

Similar Articles

About & Contact

  • About the NCMJ
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback

Info for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers

Articles & Alerts

  • Archive
  • Current Issue
  • Get Alerts
  • Upcoming Articles

Additional Content

  • Current NCIOM Task Forces
  • NC Health Data & Resources
  • NCIOM Blog
North Carolina Medical Journal

ISSN: 0029-2559

© 2022 North Carolina Medical Journal

Powered by HighWire