S. boulardii is an effective and safe treatment for prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea when given concomitantly to patients receiving H. pylori eradication.

ObjectiveAntireflux surgery can be proposed in patients with GORD, especially when proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use leads to incomplete symptom improvement. However, to date, international consensus guidelines on the clinical criteria and additional technical examinations used in patient selection for antireflux surgery are lacking. We aimed at generating key recommendations in the selection of patients for antireflux surgery.DesignWe included 35 international experts (gastroenterologists, surgeons and physiologists) in a Delphi process and developed 37 statements that were revised by the Consensus Group, to start the Delphi process. Three voting rounds followed where each statement was presented with the evidence summary. The panel indicated the degree of agreement for the statement. When 80% of the Consensus Group agreed (A+/A) with a statement, this was defined as consensus. All votes were mutually anonymous.ResultsPatients with heartburn with a satisfactory response to PPIs, patients with a hiatal hernia (HH), patients with oesophagitis Los Angeles (LA) grade B or higher and patients with Barrett’s oesophagus are good candidates for antireflux surgery. An endoscopy prior to antireflux surgery is mandatory and a barium swallow should be performed in patients with suspicion of a HH or short oesophagus. Oesophageal manometry is mandatory to rule out major motility disorders. Finally, oesophageal pH (±impedance) monitoring of PPI is mandatory to select patients for antireflux surgery, if endoscopy is negative for unequivocal reflux oesophagitis.ConclusionWith the ICARUS guidelines, we generated key recommendations for selection of patients for antireflux surgery.

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), which is defined as the backflow of gastric contents into the upper aerodigestive tract, is a relatively common disorder. However, its diagnosis still poses many problems. Twenty-four-hour double-probe pH monitoring is currently the diagnostic test of choice, but it has many disadvantages. Thus, an empiric trial of antireflux therapy has been suggested as an alternative method for diagnosis. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the validity of this alternative method in the management of LPR. The study group consisted of 36 patients with symptoms and physical findings suggesting LPR. The control subjects were 23 healthy adults. Twenty-four-hour double-probe pH monitoring was performed both in the study group and the control group, and the results were compared. In addition, the symptoms and physical findings in the study group was scored by the modified reflux symptom index (MRSI) and reflux finding score (RFS) at four intervals: before the start of therapy and at the second, fourth and sixth months of the therapy. The results of the 24-hour double-probe pH monitoring showed no significant difference between the study and the control groups (p>0.05). In the study group, the MRSI before the therapy was 13.6+/-4.4. This index improved significantly to 4.3+/-1.9 at the second month; to 1.5+/-0.6 at the fourth month, and to 0.5+/-0.2 at the sixth month of the therapy (p<0.05). The RFS before the start of the therapy was 14.8+/-3.8; and it improved significantly to 7.7+/-3.8 at the second month; to 4.5+/-2.3 at the fourth month, and to 1.4+/-0.9 at the sixth month of the therapy (p<0.05). The significant improvement in the MRSI and the RFS during the course of proton pump inhibitor therapy relates the patients' symptoms and physical findings to LPR. This implies the validity of the method, not only in the treatment of LPR, but in the diagnosis of this disorder, as well. Unfortunately, 24-hour double-probe pH monitoring has failed to differentiate LPR patients from healthy individuals.

Thirty-eight symptomatic patients (allergic rhinitis (AR) with or without asthma) who had sensitization to grass pollen were included in the study during the pollen season. Controls were composed of 25 healthy non-atopics and 24 patients diagnosed as having gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Reflux was excluded in allergic and non-atopic groups, whereas the presence of allergy was eliminated in control groups. Gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed in all participants, and biopsy specimens were taken from both the proximal and the distal oesophagus to evaluate eosinophil accumulation. At the same time, blood eosinophil numbers were counted. Results Oesophageal eosinophil accumulation was found in 10 allergic patients (26%) and in five patients (21%) with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease but none of the healthy controls had eosinophils (0%) (P<0.05). Blood eosinophils were higher in these 10 patients than the rest of the 28 patients without infiltration. In this group, blood eosinophils were also correlated with the number of accumulated eosinophils in the oesophagus (P<0.001). There was more intense eosinophil infiltration at the distal part of the oesophagus in the reflux group when compared with the allergic group (mean 7.6+/-5.6 vs. 3.2+/-3.7). Nevertheless, eosinophils were found to be concentrated (mean 5.5+/-7.3) in the proximal oesophagus of allergic patients, although it was 1.7+/-1.5 in reflux patients (P>0.05). Conclusion Our results showed that eosinophil infiltration might be observed in oesophageal tissue of patients with respiratory tract allergy during the symptomatic period. This finding may possibly reflect the systemic and common mucosal aspects of allergic inflammation.

In this large cohort, the prevalence of GERD was significantly increased in those with primary snoring and OSAS compared to the general population, but severity of OSAS did not influence GERD prevalence. The present results suggest that OSAS was not likely a causative factor but female gender, obesity, and sleepiness were related with prevalence of GERD in OSAS patients.