Response: Prevalence and Risk Factors of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (Diabetes Metab J 2016;40:297-307)

Jun Ouk Ha; Tae Hee Lee; Chang Won Lee

doi:10.4093/dmj.2016.40.5.420

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Diabetes Metab J > Volume 40(5); 2016 > Article

Response Response: Prevalence and Risk Factors of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (Diabetes Metab J 2016;40:297-307): Jun Ouk Ha¹, Tae Hee Lee², Chang Won Lee¹; Diabetes & Metabolism Journal 2016;40(5):420-421.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2016.40.5.420
Published online: October 12, 2016

2,653 Views
32 Download
2 Scopus

¹Department of Internal Medicine, Busan St. Mary's Hospital, Busan, Korea.

²Department of Internal Medicine, Konyang University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea.

Corresponding author: Chang Won Lee. Department of Internal Medicine, Busan St. Mary's Hospital, 25-14, Yonghoro 232beon-gil, Nam-gu, Busan 48575, Korea. koje94@hanmail.net

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Full Article

Download PDF

NOTES
REFERENCES

We thank Dr. Yi for his comments in response to our study, "Prevalence and risk factors of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus" [1]. Prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in Korea has gradually increased after westernized diet and lifestyle changes [2]. The prevalence of GERD in our study showed 32.6% in the type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) group and 35.9% in the control group. We mentioned that the possibility of overestimation of the prevalence and symptoms of GERD cannot be ruled out by selection bias.

As Dr. Yi mentioned, esophageal pH monitoring and manometry are the gold standards for diagnosis of GERD and esophageal dysmotility [3]. Therefore, we agree that the application of pH monitoring and manometry in our study could possibly alter the prevalence of GERD. However, esophageal pH monitoring and manometry are not widely used compared with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in real practice.

A recent meta-analysis by Sun et al. [4] identified a significant association between diabetes and risk of GERD. Although esophageal manometry and 24-hour pH monitoring are the gold standards for detecting GERD, the diagnosis of GERD in this study was established on the basis of reflux symptom questionnaires and the frequency of the cardinal symptoms [4]. Sun et al. [4] also mentioned several study limitations. Firstly, most of the included studies were cross-sectional. Secondly, there may be a certain selection bias. Finally, the data were not adjusted for body mass index. As pointed out by Dr. Yi, the prevalence of asymptomatic GERD confirmed by pH monitoring was significantly higher in diabetic patients than in healthy controls [5].

On the contrary to the meta-analysis and pH study, we concluded that the prevalence of GERD in patients with T2DM showed no difference from that of controls. In our study, we diagnosed as GERD when a patient had erosive esophagitis or nonerosive esophagitis with a frequency scale for symptoms of GERD score ≥8 and minimal change. A different diagnostic tool for GERD may oppositely affect the prevalence of GERD. We think the diagnostic method of GERD using EGD and symptoms is relatively objective compared with symptom-based diagnosis of GERD.

A recent research reported a higher prevalence of GERD symptoms among diabetes mellitus patients with neuropathy [6]. On the contrary, no significant correlation was observed between autonomic or peripheral neuropathy and GERD symptoms and occurrence in our study. Further studies that evaluate the diagnostic value of EGD and symptoms of GERD compared with pH monitoring and manometry in diabetic patients will be necessary in the future.

We appreciate Dr. Yi for the valuable comments and suggestions.

NOTES

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

REFERENCES

1. Ha JO, Lee TH, Lee CW, Park JY, Choi SH, Park HS, Lee JS, Lee SH, Seo EH, Kim YH, Kang YW. Prevalence and risk factors of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab J 2016;40:297-307. Article PubMed PMC PDF
2. Shim CS. The diagnosis and treatment of GERD for family doctors. J Korean Acad Fam Med 2001;22:611-618.
3. Boland BS, Edelman SV, Wolosin JD. Gastrointestinal complications of diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2013;42:809-832. Article PubMed PMC
4. Sun XM, Tan JC, Zhu Y, Lin L. Association between diabetes mellitus and gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:3085-3092. Article PubMed PMC
5. Lluch I, Ascaso JF, Mora F, Minguez M, Pena A, Hernandez A, Benages A. Gastroesophageal reflux in diabetes mellitus. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:919-924. Article PubMed
6. Wang X, Pitchumoni CS, Chandrarana K, Shah N. Increased prevalence of symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux diseases in type 2 diabetics with neuropathy. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:709-712. Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader

Cite

CITE: export Copy Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Response: Prevalence and Risk Factors of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (Diabetes Metab J 2016;40:297-307)

Diabetes Metab J. 2016;40(5):420-421. Published online October 12, 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2016.40.5.420

XML Download

Related articles