Patients in the control diet group also experienced a significant reduction in GIS global score (-26.9%, from 6.7 1.7 to 4.9 2.8, = 0.02), although it was much smaller compared to true diet group. 2 = moderately positive, and level 3 = highly positive. A true diet excluding food items inducing moderate-severe reactions, and a control diet including them was developed for each patient. Then, twenty patients received the true diet and 18 the control diet; after one month (T1) symptoms severity was scored by the GERD impact scale (GIS). Hence, patients in the control group were switched to the true diet, and symptom severity was re-assessed after three months (T2). RESULTS: At baseline (T0) the mean GIS global score was 6.68 (range: 5-12) with no difference between true and control group (6.6 1.19 6.7 1.7). All patients reacted moderately/severely to at least 1 food (range: 5-19), with a significantly greater quantity of food substances inducing reaction in controls compared with the true Nortadalafil diet group (11.6 7.0, 0.001). Food items more frequently involved were milk, lettuce, brewers yeast, pork, coffee, rice, single asparagus, and tuna, followed by eggs, tomato, grain, shrimps, and chemical yeast. At T1 both groups displayed a reduction of GIS score (true group 3.3 1.7, -50%, = 0.001; control group 4.9 2.8, -26.9%, = 0.02), even though GIS score was significantly lower in true control group (= 0.04). At T2, after the diet switch, the control group showed a further reduction in GIS score (2.7 1.9, -44.9%, = 0.01), while the true group did not (2.6 1.8, -21.3%, = 0.19), so that the GIS scores Nortadalafil didnt differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that food intolerance may play a role in GERD symptoms development, and leucocytotoxic test-based exclusion diets may be a possible therapeutic approach when PPI are not effective or indicated. for pain in the chest/behind the breastbone, R for regurgitation/acid taste in ones mouth, B for burning sensation in the chest/behind the breastbone, and S for sore throat/hoarseness related to heartburn or acid reflux) were considered. For each item the score was assigned based on the frequency of that specific symptom as follows: never = 0 points, sometimes = 1 point, often = 2 points, and daily = 3 points. Statistical analysis Continuous variables were expressed as mean SD or median (interquartile range) when necessary. Means (between groups) were compared by one-way ANOVA, while medians were compared by the Mann-Whitney test. Means (within group) were compared by paired-samples test. Correlations between continuous variables were tested by Pearsons correlation. Proportions were compared by the 7.0, 0.001). The food substances more frequently involved in leukocytotoxic test positivity are reported in Table ?Table2.2. At T0, the mean GIS global score, as well the mean sub-scores, were similar in the two groups of patients (6.6 1.9 6.7 1.7) (Figure ?(Figure1).1). No specific adverse events, nor motivated drop out from the study were recorded in either group. Table 1 General characteristics of the study population at baseline (time 0) (%)5 (25)2 (11.1)7 (18.4)Time 0: GIS6.6 1.96.7 1.76.7 1.8P1.3 0.91.4 0.91.3 0.9R1.7 0.62.0 0.91.8 0.8B1.9 0.82.0 0.72.0 0.8S1.8 1.01.4 1.01.6 0.9Foods inducing reaction17 (6-12)11.7 (7-19)9.2 (6-19)Level 2 reaction5.69.27.2Level 3 reaction1.42.51.9 Open in a separate window 1Mean number of foods inducing reaction, range in parentheses. Data are expressed as absolute numbers (percentage) or mean SD. Open in a separate window Figure 1 Histogram compares the mean global GIS scores obtained in true diet group and control diet group at T0 (baseline), T1 (one month after receiving the diet) and T2 (three months after receiving the diet for true diet group, two months after the diet switch for the control group). Error bars indicate the standard deviation. a 0.05 true diet control diet. Table 2 Type of foods most frequently inducing test positivity = 0.001). Patients in the control diet group also experienced a significant reduction in GIS global score (-26.9%, from 6.7 1.7 to 4.9 2.8, = 0.02), although it was much smaller compared to true diet group. As a matter of fact, at T1 the difference between the mean GIS scores in the two groups was significant, as regards both the GIS global score (3.3 1.7 4.9 2.8, = 0.04) and the B sub-score (1.0 0.7 1.5 0.8, = 0.05) (Figure ?(Figure11). Time 2 outcome: GIS score after the diet switch Despite a further reduction was observed at T2 (-21.3%) in the true diet group the T2 didnt differ from the T1 GIS score (3.3 1.7 2.6 1.8, = 0.19) (Figure ?(Figure1).1). On the contrary, a further significant reduction in GIS score was observed among patients in the control group (-44.9%, 4.9 2.8 2.7 1.9, = 0.01). At T2, the mean GIS global scores as.Hence, patients in the control group were switched to the true diet, and symptom severity was re-assessed after three months (T2). RESULTS: At baseline (T0) the mean GIS global score was 6.68 (range: 5-12) with no difference between true and control group (6.6 1.19 6.7 1.7). = highly positive. A true diet excluding food items inducing moderate-severe reactions, and a control diet including them was developed for each patient. Then, twenty patients received the true diet and 18 the control diet; after one month (T1) symptoms severity was scored by the GERD impact scale (GIS). Hence, patients in the control group were switched to the true diet, and symptom severity was re-assessed after three months (T2). RESULTS: At baseline (T0) the mean GIS global score was 6.68 (range: 5-12) with no difference between true and control group (6.6 1.19 6.7 1.7). All patients reacted moderately/severely to at least 1 food (range: 5-19), with a significantly greater number of food substances inducing reaction in controls compared with the true diet group (11.6 7.0, 0.001). Food items more frequently involved were milk, lettuce, brewers yeast, pork, coffee, rice, sole asparagus, and tuna, followed by eggs, tomato, grain, shrimps, and chemical yeast. At T1 both groups displayed a reduction of GIS score (true group 3.3 1.7, -50%, = 0.001; control group 4.9 2.8, -26.9%, = 0.02), although the GIS score was significantly lower in true control group (= 0.04). At T2, after the diet switch, the CD61 control group showed a further reduction in GIS score (2.7 1.9, -44.9%, = Nortadalafil 0.01), while the true group did not (2.6 1.8, -21.3%, = 0.19), so that the GIS scores didnt differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that food intolerance may play a role in GERD symptoms development, and leucocytotoxic test-based exclusion diets may be a possible therapeutic approach when PPI are not effective or indicated. for pain in the chest/behind the breastbone, R for regurgitation/acid taste in ones mouth, B for burning sensation in the chest/behind the breastbone, and S for sore throat/hoarseness related to heartburn or acid reflux) were considered. For each item the score was assigned based on the frequency of that specific symptom as follows: never = 0 points, sometimes = 1 point, often = 2 points, and daily = 3 points. Statistical analysis Continuous variables were expressed as mean SD or median (interquartile range) when necessary. Means (between groups) were compared by one-way ANOVA, while medians were compared by the Mann-Whitney test. Means (within group) were compared by paired-samples test. Correlations between continuous variables were tested by Pearsons correlation. Proportions were compared by the 7.0, 0.001). The food substances more frequently involved in leukocytotoxic test positivity are Nortadalafil reported in Table ?Table2.2. At T0, the mean GIS global score, as well the mean sub-scores, were similar in the two groups of patients (6.6 1.9 6.7 1.7) (Figure ?(Figure1).1). No specific adverse events, nor motivated drop out from the study were recorded in either group. Table 1 General characteristics of the study population at baseline (time 0) (%)5 (25)2 (11.1)7 (18.4)Time 0: GIS6.6 1.96.7 1.76.7 1.8P1.3 0.91.4 0.91.3 0.9R1.7 0.62.0 0.91.8 0.8B1.9 0.82.0 0.72.0 0.8S1.8 1.01.4 1.01.6 0.9Foods inducing reaction17 (6-12)11.7 (7-19)9.2 (6-19)Level 2 reaction5.69.27.2Level 3 reaction1.42.51.9 Open in a separate window 1Mean number of foods inducing reaction, range in parentheses. Data are expressed as absolute numbers (percentage) or mean SD. Open in a separate window Figure 1 Histogram compares the mean global GIS scores obtained in true diet group and control diet group at T0 (baseline), T1 (one month after receiving the diet) and T2 (three months after receiving the diet for true diet group, two months after the diet switch for the control group). Error bars indicate the standard deviation. a 0.05 true diet control diet. Table 2 Type of foods most frequently inducing test positivity = 0.001)..