Guidelines for Evaluation and Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux in Infants and Children : Recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition

Two recent reviews have assessed the effect of parental smoking on respiratory disease in children. The results of the systematic quantitative review published as a series in Thorax are summarised and brought up to date by considering papers appearing on Embase or Medline up to June 1998. The findings are compared with those of the review published recently by the Californian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Areas requiring further research are identified. Overall there is a very consistent picture with odds ratios for respiratory illnesses and symptoms and middle ear disease of between 1.2 and 1.6 for either parent smoking, the odds usually being higher in pre-school than in school aged children. For sudden infant death syndrome the odds ratio for maternal smoking is about 2. Significant effects from paternal smoking suggest a role for postnatal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Recent publications do not lead us to alter the conclusions of our earlier reviews. While essentially narrative rather than systematic and quantitative, the findings of the Californian EPA review are broadly similar. In addition they have reviewed studies of the effects of environmental tobacco smoke on children with cystic fibrosis and conclude from the limited evidence that there is a strong case for a relationship between parental smoking and admissions to hospital. They also review data from adults of the effects of acute exposure to environmental tobacco smoke under laboratory conditions which suggest acute effects on spirometric parameters rather than on bronchial hyperresponsiveness. It seems likely that such effects are also present in children. Substantial benefits to children would arise if parents stopped smoking after birth, even if the mother smoked during pregnancy. Policies need to be developed which reduce smoking amongst parents and protect infants and young children from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The weight of evidence is such that new prevalence studies are no longer justified. What are needed are studies which allow comparison of the effects of critical periods of exposure to cigarette smoke, particularly in utero, early infancy, and later childhood. Where longitudinal studies are carried out they should be analysed to look at the way in which changes in exposure are related to changes in outcome. Better still would be studies demonstrating reversibility of adverse effects, especially in asthmatic subjects or children with cystic fibrosis.

Although patients with gastroesophageal reflux are often instructed to change their lifestyle, population-based data on the risk factors for reflux in the United States are lacking. We performed a cross-sectional study in an age- and gender-stratified random sample of the population of Olmsted County, Minnesota. Residents aged 25 to 74 years were mailed a valid self-report questionnaire that measured reflux symptoms and potential risk factors. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for reflux symptoms (heartburn or acid regurgitation) associated with potential risk factors. Overall, 1,524 (72%) of 2,118 eligible subjects responded. A body mass index >30 kg/m2 (OR = 2.8; CI, 1.7 to 4.5), reporting an immediate family member with heartburn or disease of the esophagus or stomach (OR = 2.6; CI, 1.8 to 3.7), a past history of smoking (OR = 1.6; CI, 1.1 to 2.3), consuming more than seven drinks per week (OR = 1.9; Cl, 1.1 to 3.3), and a higher psychosomatic symptom checklist score (OR per 5 units = 1.4; CI, 1.3 to 1.6) were independently associated with frequent (at least weekly) reflux symptoms. Obesity is a strong risk factor for gastroesophageal reflux, although the value of weight reduction remains to be proven. That family history was also a risk factor suggests that there may be a genetic component to the disorder.

The histologic appearance of esophageal eosinophils has been correlated with esophagitis and gastroesophageal reflux disease in children. Esophageal eosinophilia that persists despite traditional antireflux therapy may not represent treatment failure, but instead may portray early eosinophilic gastroenteritis or allergic esophagitis. In this study, a series of pediatric patients with severe esophageal eosinophilia who were unresponsive to aggressive antireflux therapy were examined and their clinical and histologic response to oral corticosteroid therapy assessed. Of 1809 patients evaluated prospectively over 2.5 years for symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux, 20 had persistent symptoms and esophageal eosinophilia, despite aggressive therapy with omeprazole and cisapride. These patients were treated with 1.5 mg/kg oral methylprednisolone per day, divided into twice-daily doses for 4 weeks. All patients underwent clinical, laboratory, and histologic evaluation before and after treatment. Histologic findings in examination of specimens obtained in pretreatment esophageal biopsies in children with primary eosinophilic esophagitis indicated significantly greater eosinophilia (34.2+/-9.6 eosinophils/high-power field [HPF]) compared with that in children with gastroesophageal reflux disease who responded to medical therapy (2.26+/-1.16 eosinophils/HPF; p < 0.001). After corticosteroid therapy, all but one patient with primary eosinophilic esophagitis had dramatic clinical improvement, supported by histologic examination (1.5 +/-0.9 eosinophils/HPF, p < 0.0001). Pediatric patients in a series with marked esophageal eosinophilia and chronic symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease unresponsive to aggressive medical antire-flux therapy had both clinical and histologic improvement after oral corticosteroid therapy.