Prevalence of Psychiatric Comorbidity in Symptomatic Gastroesophageal Reflux Subgroups
- 318 Downloads
Limited data exist regarding the psychosocial aspects of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Some GERD subgroups, such as functional heartburn and hypersensitive esophagus, might show different psychiatric comorbidities than others.
We aimed to evaluate the psychiatric comorbidities of GERD subgroups using a cross-sectional design.
A group of GERD patients at a tertiary outpatient clinic were evaluated via upper GIS (gastrointestinal system) endoscopy, esophageal manometry, and 24-h impedance–pH monitoring. Thirty-nine patients diagnosed with erosive reflux disease, 44 with non-erosive reflux disease, 20 with functional heartburn, 11 with hypersensitive esophagus, and 44 healthy controls participated. Psychiatric diagnoses were made using the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV. Psychometric measurements of the patients were performed using the Somatosensory Amplification Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and Short-Form 36. Healthy controls were evaluated with the same psychometric scales except for the Short-Form 36.
All of the GERD subgroups were significantly more depressed than the control group. Depressive disorders were significantly more prevalent in the functional heartburn group than in the non-erosive reflux disease and erosive reflux disease groups. The trait anxiety level of the functional heartburn group was significantly higher than those of the control and non-erosive reflux disease groups. The quality of life scores of the GERD subgroups were significantly lower than the population standards.
Depressive disorders were frequently comorbid in the GERD subgroups studied (30–65 %). It is essential to consider the high prevalence rates of comorbid depression when managing GERD.
KeywordsGastroesophageal reflux disease Functional gastrointestinal disorders Comorbidity Psychology
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
- 17.First MBSR, Gibbon M, et al. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM IV Axis I Disorders (SCID I). Clinical Version. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1997.Google Scholar
- 18.Ozkurkcugil A, Aydemir O, Yildiz M, EsenDanaci A, Koroglu E. Adaptation to Turkish and reliability study of Structured Clinical Interview for Axial I disorders. Ilac ve Tedavi Dergisi. 1999;12:233–236.Google Scholar
- 20.Hisli N. A study on the validity of Beck Depression Inventory. Turkish J Psychol. 1988;6:118–123.Google Scholar
- 23.Spielberger CDGR, Lushene RE. Manual for State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. California: Consulting Psychologist Press; 1970.Google Scholar
- 24.Oner N, Le Compte A. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Hand Book. Istanbul: Bogazici University; 1985.Google Scholar
- 27.Kocyigit H, Aydemir O, Fisek G, Olmez N, Memis A. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of Short form 36: a study of a patients with romatoid disorder (Turkish). İlac ve Tedavi Dergisi. 1999;12:102–106.Google Scholar
- 30.Guz H, Ay M, Dilbaz N. Alexithymia, depression and anxiety levels in a group of dermatologic patients (Turkish). Dusunen Adam. 2000;13:161–165.Google Scholar
- 31.Gulec MYHÇ, Gokce M, Sayar K. Alexithymia, irritability and amplification of somatic symptoms in non-cardiac chest pain (Turkish). Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi. 2007;8:14–21.Google Scholar
- 34.American Psychiatric Association. Desk Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria from DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.Google Scholar