Diagnostic accuracy shows over 100% sensitivity and 94.3% specificity for salivary cholesterol in laryngopharyngeal reflux disease, indicating its potential clinical relevance.
Objective To evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiple digestive enzyme biomarkers in detecting and characterizing laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD). Methods Patients with LPRD at the 24‐h hypopharyngeal‐esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance‐pH testing (HEMII‐pH) were consecutively recruited from January 2020 to May 2024 from two European hospitals. The control group consisted of adults without symptoms. Prospective clinical data collection included demographics, gastrointestinal endoscopy, HEMII‐pH, reflux symptom score (RSS), and reflux sign assessment (RSA) findings. At baseline, pepsin, elastase, cholesterol, bile acids, trypsin, pancreatic, and gastric lipase were measured in saliva samples of LPRD patients and asymptomatic individuals. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy (receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC)) were evaluated. Results One hundred and twenty‐three patients and forty‐eight asymptomatic individuals were prospectively recruited. Patients exhibited significantly elevated salivary pH and elastase levels, but decreased cholesterol compared to controls. Salivary cholesterol demonstrated superior diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.989), with a 2.05 mg/dL threshold yielding excellent sensitivity (100%), specificity (94.3%), and predictive values. Elastase showed moderate‐to‐high diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.811, threshold > 49.2 μg/mL). Combined RSS > 13 and salivary pH demonstrated robust diagnostic accuracy (SE = 88.8%, SP = 97.1%). Cholesterol positively correlated with 3‐month RSS ( r = 0.538). Conclusion Salivary cholesterol, elastase, and the salivary pH emerge as promising diagnostic biomarkers for LPRD, demonstrating superior accuracy to other digestive enzymes and potential value in predicting treatment outcomes. Level of Evidence III.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lechien et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: