No abstract available.
Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid* ; Bronchoalveolar Lavage*

No abstract available.
Gastroesophageal Reflux* ; Humans

No abstract available.
Humans ; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis* ; Proton Pump Inhibitors* ; Proton Pumps* ; Protons*

No abstract available.
Humans

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.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a complex disorder with heterogeneous symptoms and a multifaceted pathogenetic basis, which prevent a simple diagnostic algorithm or any categorical classification. Clinical history, questionnaires and response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy are insufficient tools to make a conclusive diagnosis of GERD and further investigations are frequently required. The Lyon Consensus goes beyond the previous classifications and defines endoscopic and functional parameters able to establish the presence of GERD. Evidences for reflux include high-grade erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, and peptic strictures at endoscopy as well as esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on pH-metry or combined pH-impedance monitoring. Even if a normal endoscopy does not exclude GERD, its combination with distal acid exposure time < 4% on off-PPI pH-impedance monitoring provides sufficient evidence refuting this diagnosis. Reflux-symptom association on pH-monitoring provides supportive evidence for reflux-triggered symptoms and may predict a better treatment outcome, when present. Also recommendations to perform pH-impedance “on” or “off” PPI are well depicted. When endoscopy and pH-metry or combined pH-impedance monitoring are inconclusive, adjunctive evidence from biopsy findings (eg, microscopic esophagitis), high-resolution manometry (ie, ineffective esophagogastric barrier and esophageal body hypomotility), and novel impedance metrics, such as mean nocturnal baseline impedance and post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index, can contribute to better identify patients with GERD. Definition of individual patient phenotype, based on the level of refluxate exposure, mechanism of reflux, efficacy of clearance, underlying anatomy of the esophagogastric junction, and clinical presentation, will lead to manage GERD patients with a tailored approach chosen among different types of therapy.

Background/Aims: Current literature is lacking in studies comparing the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) treated with adalimumab (ADA) or vedolizumab (VDZ) in a real-life scenario. Therefore, our primary aim was to compare the AEs occurring in patients taking ADA to those of patients taking VDZ. Methods: In this single center study, data on AEs from IBD patients who underwent treatment with ADA and VDZ were retrospectively collected. AE rates per 100 person-years were calculated. A Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratios of the AEs between the 2 drugs. Results: A total of 16 ADA patients (17.2%) and 11 VDZ patients (7.6%) had AEs causing drug interruption during the study period (P=0.02). Most of the AEs were noninfectious extraintestinal events (50% in ADA and 54.5% in VDZ) while infections accounted for 31.2% of the AEs in patients treated with ADA and 27.3% in those treated with VDZ. The incidence rate of AEs causing withdrawal of therapy was 13.2 per 100 person-years for ADA and 5.3 per 100 person-years for VDZ, corresponding to a 76% lower risk in patients in VDZ. Considering the first year of treatment, we observed 34 subjects treated with ADA (36.5%) having at least 1 AEs and 57 (39.3%) among those taking VDZ (P=0.67). Conclusions VDZ has a lower incidence rate of AEs causing withdrawal of treatment compared to ADA but a similar risk of AEs not causing drug interruption. Real-life head-to-head studies are still necessary to further explore the safety profile of these drugs.