Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Functional heartburn, nonerosive reflux disease, and reflux esophagitis are all distinct conditions—A debate: Con

  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is currently defined as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes recurrent symptoms and/or complications. The clinical presentation of GERD has been recognized to be much broader than before, when the typical symptoms of heartburn and acid regurgitation were considered as the main clinical presentation. However, now it is recognized that GERD can present with various other mainly extraesophageal symptoms, abdominal pain, and even sleep disturbance. Moreover, there is an important overlap with functional gastrointestinal disorders such as functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. The morphologic spectrum of esophageal involvement in GERD encompasses erosive (erosive reflux disease [ERD]), Barrett’s esophagus (BE), and nonerosive reflux disease (NERD). However, there is still no consensus on whether GERD represents one disease that can progress from NERD to ERD and BE, or whether it is a spectrum of different conditions with its own clinical, pathophysiologic, and endoscopic characteristics. Recently published data suggest that mild erosive esophagitis behaves in a way similar to NERD and that there is considerable movement between these categories. But follow-up data also show that after 2 years, some patients with NERD or GERD Los Angeles A or B went on to develop severe GERD or even BE. A practical approach is to categorize patients with reflux symptoms into “functional heartburn” (ie, reflux symptoms and negative endoscopy and absent objective evidence of acid reflux into the esophagus), NERD (negative endoscopy but positive documentation of acid reflux into the esophagus), and ERD (erosions documented endoscopically). In conclusion, it appears that GERD is a disease with a spectrum of clinical and endoscopic manifestations, with characteristics that make it a continuum and not a categorical condition with separate entities. It is difficult to clearly delineate the spectrum of GERD based on the clinical, endoscopic, and pathophysiologic characteristics, but therapeutic trials and follow-up studies suggest that GERD is not composed of different conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Vakil N, van Zenten SV, Kahrilas P, et al.: The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:1900–1920.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Locke GR, Talley J, Fett SL, et al.: Prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gastroenterology 1997, 112:1448–1456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Klauser AG, Schindlbeck NE, Muller-Lissner SA: Symptoms in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Lancet 1990, 335:205–208.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Labenz J, Nocon M, Lind T, et al.: Prospective follow-up data from the ProGERD study suggest that GERD is not a categorial disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:2457–2462.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ronkainen J, Aro P, Storskrubb T, et al.: High prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux symptoms and esophagitis with or without symptoms in the general adult Swedish population: a Kalixanda study report. Scand J Gastroenterol 2005, 40:275–285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Labenz J, Malfertheiner P: Treatment of uncomplicated reflux disease. World J Gastroenterol 2005, 11:4291–4299.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Martinez SD, Malagon IB, Garewal HS, et al.: Non-erosive reflux disease (NERD)—acid reflux and symptom patterns. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003, 17:537–545.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Malfertheiner P, Lind T, Willich S, et al.: Prognostic influence of Barrett’s oesophagus and Helicobacter pylori infection on healing of erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and symptom resolution in non-erosive GORD: report from the ProGORD study. Gut 2005, 54:746–751.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Trivedi A, Long JD: Heartburn refractory to proton-pump inhibitors. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2007, 10:47–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Venables TL, Newland RD, Patel AC, et al.: Omeprazole 10 milligrams once daily, omeprazole 20 mg once daily, or ranitidine 150 milligrams twice daily, evaluated as initial therapy for the relief of symptoms in general practice. Scand J Gastroenterol 1997, 32:965–973.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lind T, Havelund T, Carlsson R, et al.: Heartburn without oesophagitis: efficacy of omeprazole therapy and features determining therapeutic response. Scand J Gastroenterol 1997, 32:974–979.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Katz PO, Castell DO, Levine D: Esomeprazole resolves chronic heartburn in patients without erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003, 18:875–883.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Armstrong D, Talley NJ, Lauritsen K, et al.: The role of acid suppression in patients with endoscopy-negative reflux disease: the effect of treatment with esomeprazole or omeprazole. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004, 20:413–421.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kahrilas PJ: Refractory heartburn. Gastroenterology 2003, 124:1941–1945.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Carlsson R, Dent J, Watts R, et al.: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care: an international study of different treatment strategies with omeprazole. International GORD Study Group. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998, 10:119–124.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lind T, Havelund T, Lundell L, et al.: On demand therapy with omeprazole for the long-term management of patients with heartburn without oesophagitis—a placebo-controlled randomized trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999, 13:907–914.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Talley NJ, Lauritsen K, Tunturi-Hihnala H, et al.: Esomeprazole 20 mg maintains symptom control in endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a controlled trial of ‘on-demand’ therapy for 6 months. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001, 15:347–354.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Talley NJ, Venables TL, Green JR, et al.: Esomeprazole 40 mg and 20 mg is efficacious in the long-term management of patients with endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a placebo-controlled trial of on-demand therapy for 6 months. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002, 14:857–863.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tsai HH, Chapman R, Shepherd A, et al.: Esomeprazole 20 mg on-demand is more acceptable to patients than continuous lansoprazole 15 mg in the long-term maintenance of endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux patients: the COMMAND Study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004, 20:657–665.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bayerdörffer E, Sipponen P, Bigard M, et al.: Esomeprazole 20 mg continuous versus on demand treatment of patients with endoscopy-negative reflux disease (ENRD) [abstract]. Gut 2004, 53(Suppl 4):A106.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Castell DO, Kahrilas PJ, Richter JE, et al.: Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2002, 97:575–583.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Fennerty MB, Johanson JF, Hwang C, Sostek M: Efficacy of esomeprazole 40 mg vs. lansoprazole 30 mg for healing moderate to severe erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005, 21:455–463.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Labenz J, Armstrong D, Lauritsen K, et al.: A randomized comparative study of esomeprazole 40 mg versus pantoprazole 40 mg for healing erosive oesophagitis: the EXPO study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005, 21:739–746.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmitt C, Lightdale CJ, Hwang C, Hamelin B: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 8-week comparative trial of standard doses of esomeprazole (40 mg) and omeprazole (20 mg) for the treatment of erosive esophagitis. Dig Dis Sci 2006, 51:844–850.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lightdale CJ, Schmitt C, Hwang C, Hamelin B: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 8-week comparative trial of low-dose esomeprazole (20 mg) and standard-dose omeprazole (20 mg) in patients with erosive esophagitis. Dig Dis Sci 2006, 51:852–857.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sjostedt S, Befrits R, Sylvan A, et al.: Daily treatment with esomeprazole is superior to that taken on-demand for maintenance of healed erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005, 22:183–191.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson DA, Benjamin SB, Vakil NB, et al.: Esomeprazole once daily for 6 months is effective therapy for maintaining healed erosive esophagitis and for controlling gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety. Am J Gastroenterol 2001, 96:27–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Vakil NB, Shaker R, Johnson DA, et al.: The new proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole is effective as a maintenance therapy in GERD patients with healed erosive oesophagitis: a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001, 15:927–935.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Devault KR, Johanson JF, Johnson DA, et al.: Maintenance of healed erosive esophagitis: a randomized six-month comparison of esomeprazole twenty milligrams with lansoprazole fifteen milligrams. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006, 4:852–859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Goh KL, Benamouzig R, Sander P, et al.: Efficacy of pantoprazole 20 mg daily compared with esomeprazole 20 mg daily in the maintenance of healed gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized, double-blind comparative trial — the EMANCIPATE study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007, 19:205–211.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Infectious Diseases, Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg, Otto-von-Guericke University, Leipziger Straße 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany

    Peter Malfertheiner

Authors
  1. Lucía C. Fry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Klaus Mönkemüller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Malfertheiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Malfertheiner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fry, L.C., Mönkemüller, K. & Malfertheiner, P. Functional heartburn, nonerosive reflux disease, and reflux esophagitis are all distinct conditions—A debate: Con. Curr Treat Options Gastro 10, 305–311 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-007-0073-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-007-0073-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation