Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-6
The burden of gastroesophageal reflux disease on the cost of managing chronic diseases in Australia. The need for a new diagnostic and management paradigm
Chronic disease poses a major problem for the Australian healthcare system as the leading cost-burden and cause of death. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD) typifies the problems with a growing prevalence and cost. We hypothesise that a scintigraphic test could optimise the diagnosis, especially in problematic extraoesophageal disease.
Materials and Methods
Data was collected from 2 groups of patients. Patients undergoing fundoplication for severe GORD (n = 30) and those with atypical symptoms (n = 30) were studied by scintigraphy and 24-hour oesophageal pH, impedance and manometry.
Results
Mean age of cohort was 55.8 years with 40 females and 20 males. Body mass index was a mean of 28.3. DeMeester score was normal in 12/60 with atypical symptoms and abnormal in the rest. Good correlation was shown between scintigraphy and impedance, manometry and distal pH readings. Pulmonary aspiration was shown in 25/60 (15 with atypical symptoms) and LPR in 20/30. Several impedance, manometric and scintigraphic finding were good predictors of lung aspiration of refluxate.
Conclusion
Scintigraphy provides a good tool for screening patients with typical and atypical symptoms of GORD. It is well correlated with the standard methods for the diagnosis and provides visual evidence of LPR and lung aspiration.
Australian Government.National strategic framework for chronic conditions.
Canberra, ACT, Australia:
Department of Health and Ageing, 2017.
2.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.Australia’s health 2018. Australia’s health series no. 16.
Canberra, ACT, Australia:
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2018.
3.
Deloitte-Touche-Tohmatsu. 2019 Global health care outlook. Shaping the future.
UK:
Deloitte-Touche-Tohmatsu, 2019.
4.
NaikRDVaeziMF.Recent advances in diagnostic testing for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol2017;
11: 531–537.
5.
GyawaliCKahrilasPSavarinoE, et al.
Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus. Gut2018;
67: 1351–1362.
6.
YamasakiTHemondCEisaM, et al.
The changing epidemiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease: are patients getting younger?J Neurogastroenterol Motil2018;
24: 559–569.
7.
VakilNvan ZantenSVKahrilasP, et al.
The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol2006;
101: 1900–1920; quiz 1943.
8.
Pacheco-GalvanAHartSPMoriceAH.Relationship between gastro-oesophageal reflux and airway diseases: the airway reflux paradigm. Arch Bronconeumol2011;
47: 195–203.
9.
GovernmentA.Pharmaceutical benefits schedule item reports.
Canberra, ACT:
Services Department of Health and Ageing, 2012–2019.
10.
Australian Government. Schedule of pharmaceutical benefits.
Canberra, ACT:
Department of Health and Ageing, 1992–2019.
11.
MedicineWise.
Top 10 drugs 2018–19. Aust Prescriber2019;
42: 204.
12.
SpechlerSJHunterJGJonesKM, et al.
Randomized trial of medical versus surgical treatment for refractory heartburn. N Engl J Med2019;
381: 1513–1523.
13.
BelafskyPCPostmaGNKoufmanJA.Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom index (RSI). J Voice2002;
16: 274–277.
14.
FalkGLBeattieJIngA, et al.
Scintigraphy in laryngopharyngeal and gastroesophageal reflux disease: a definitive diagnostic test?World J Gastroenterol2015;
21: 3619–3627.
15.
KahrilasPJDoddsWJHoganWJ, et al.
Esophageal peristaltic dysfunction in peptic esophagitis. Gastroenterology1986;
91: 897–904.
16.
KahrilasPJDentJDoddsWJ, et al.
A method for continuous monitoring of upper esophageal sphincter pressure. Dig Dis Sci1987;
32: 121–128.
17.
JohnsonLDeMeesterT.Twenty-four hour pH monitoring of distal esophagus. A quantitative measure of gastro-esophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol1974;
62: 325–332.
18.
KahrilasPJClouseREHoganWJ.American gastroenterological association technical review on the clinical use of esophageal manometry. Gastroenterology1994;
107: 1865–1884.
19.
RichterJEWuWCJohnsDN, et al.
Esophageal manometry in 95 healthy adult volunteers. Variability of pressures with age and frequency of “abnormal” contractions. Dig Dis Sci1987;
32: 583–592.
20.
ImamHShaySAliA, et al.
Bolus transit patterns in healthy subjects: a study using simultaneous impedance monitoring, videoesophagram, and esophageal manometry. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol2005;
288: G1000–G1006.
21.
SifrimDCastellDDentJ, et al.
Gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring: review and consensus report on detection and definitions of acid, non-acid, and gas reflux. Gut2004;
53: 1024–1031.
22.
ShaySTutuianRSifrimD, et al.
Twenty-four hour ambulatory simultaneous impedance and pH monitoring: a multicenter report of normal values from 60 healthy volunteers. Am J Gastroenterology2004;
99: 1037–1043.
23.
Australia’s health2018. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Department of Health and Ageing, 2018.
24.
KatzPOGersonLBVelaMF.Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol2013;
108: 308–328; quiz 329.
25.
SavarinoEBredenoordAJFoxM, et al.
Advances in the physiological assessment and diagnosis of GERD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol2018;
15: 323–304.
RichterJE.Current diagnosis and management of suspected reflux symptoms refractory to proton pump inhibitor therapy. Gastroenterol Hepatol2014;
10: ▪.
28.
HatlebakkJG.Endoscopy in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol2010;
24: 775–786.
29.
ZerbibFRomanSBruley Des VarannesS, et al.
Normal values of pharyngeal and esophageal 24-hour pH impedance in individuals on and off therapy and interobserver reproducibility. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol2013;
11: 366–372.
30.
BurtonLFalkGLParsonsS, et al.
Benchmarking of a simple scintigraphic test for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease that assesses oesophageal disease and its pulmonary complications. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther2018;
27: 113–120. 2018/10/16. DOI: 10.4274/mirt.10438.
31.
Usai SattaPOppiaFCabrasF.Overview of pathophysiological features of GERD. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol2017;
63: 184–197.
32.
MoriceA.Airway reflux as a cause of respiratory disease. Breathe2013;
9: 256–266.
33.
AyaziSHagenJAZehetnerJ, et al.
Proximal esophageal pH monitoring: improved definition of normal values and determination of a composite pH score. J Am Coll Surg2010;
210: 345–350.
34.
KawamuraOAslamMRittmannT, et al.
Physical and pH properties of gastroesophagopharyngeal refluxate: a 24-hour simultaneous ambulatory impedance and pH monitoring study. Am J Gastroenterology2004;
99: 1000–1010.
35.
MainieIAgrawalATutuianR, et al.
The role of proximal pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol2005;
100: 1621–1622.
36.
MainieITutuianRCastellDO.The limitations of pH monitoring for detecting gastroesophageal reflux. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol2006;
4: 1184; author reply 1185.
37.
El-SeragHBSweetSWinchesterCC, et al.
Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut2014;
63: 871–880.
38.
Australian Government.The impact of PBS reform.
ACT, Australia:
Department of Health and Ageing, 2010, pp.1–117.
39.
Australian Government.Scheduling delegate's final decisions.
Canberra, ACT, Australia:
Australian Government, 2016 (press release).
40.
Australian Government.Scheduling delegate’s final decisions.
Canberra, ACT, Australia:
Australian Government, 2017 (press release).
41.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.Impact of overweight and obesity as a risk factor for chronic conditions.
Australian Burden of disease study. Canberra, ACT, Australia:
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2017.
