0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Invited Commentary |

Reflux and Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Jonathan M. Bock, MD1; David M. Poetker, MD2
[+] Author Affiliations
1Division of Laryngology and Professional Voice, Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
2Division of Rhinology and Sinus Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;142(7):633-634. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2016.1050.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Extract

No disease has been implicated more frequently as a comorbid cause of upper airway diseases than gastroesophageal reflux disease. Supraesophageal reflux of stomach acid has been suggested to lead to a large number of otolaryngologic conditions, including such disparate morbidities as dysphonia, laryngospasm, vocal cord dysfunction, globus sensation, vocal process granulomas, throat pain, laryngeal cancer, chronic otitis media, rhinitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Our understanding of the subtleties of upper airway mucosal damage from laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has remained in its infancy throughout the recent past and deserves more attention. Any disease process of the head and neck with a component of inflammation may, in concept, be worsened by the potential damage of acid or nonacid LPR. It is generally unclear from a mechanistic standpoint how simple acid suppression would inhibit the potential upper airway damage of gastric reflux in patients with LPR; most reflux into the pharynx is weakly acidic or nonacidic owing to salivary bicarbonate buffering, and simple acid suppression alone would have minimal effect on overall rates of reflux. Antireflux medications, such as histamine2-receptor blockers and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do nothing to stop nonacid reflux, which is likely the majority of reflux that might reach the nasopharynx and contribute to any CRS pathophysiologic processes. Medical treatments for LPR, including trials of empirical PPIs, are expensive, unnecessary, and not without risk. At the same time, the main surgical options to abrogate LPR (such as fundoplication) are often difficult to recommend without concrete evidence of severe gastroesophageal reflux disease owing to the inherent vagueness of the presentation of symptoms of upper airway disease. Endpoints for empirical trials of PPIs are questionable, and the potential for a large amount of placebo effect in the response rate to medication is very real. It is with this background that many well-meaning otolaryngologists often consider trials of PPIs or other antireflux medications for treatment of vague symptoms of upper airway irritation, congestion, and inflammation, including sinus disease.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

270 Views
0 Citations
×

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Original Article: Can the Clinical History Distinguish Between Organic and Functional Dyspepsia?

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Original Article: Can the Clinical History Distinguish Between Organic and Functional Dyspepsia?

brightcove.createExperiences();