Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis: An Underdiagnosed Condition

Clinical guideline highlight for the hospitalist: Childhood eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders beyond eosinophilic esophagitis

GUIDELINE TITLE

Joint ESPGHAN/NASPGHAN Guidelines on Childhood Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders Beyond Eosinophilic Esophagitis RELEASE DATE: July 4, 2023 (e-publication ahead of print) PRIOR VERSION(S): None DEVELOPER: European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) and the North American Society for Pediatrics Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) FUNDING SOURCE: ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN TARGET POPULATION: Children with eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders beyond eosinophilic esophagitis.

Clinical and atopic features of patients with primary eosinophilic colitis: an Italian multicentre study

Eosinophilic colitis (EC) is the rarest among primary eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGID). EC is underdiagnosed due to its blurred and proteiform clinical manifestations. To explore the clinical and atopic characteristic of EC adult patients, the diagnostic delay, and relapse-associated factors, by comparison with patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). EC patients followed-up at four clinics were included, and clinical, histopathological, and laboratory data were retrieved. As control groups, age-matched patients with EoE and IBS were recruited. Allergy tests included skin prick test and serum specific IgE. Diagnostic delay was assessed. Overall, data from 73 patients were retrieved, including 40 with EC (median age 39 years IQR 22.5-59, F:M 2.1:1), 12 with EoE (F:M ratio: 1:5), and 21 with IBS (F:M ratio: 1:0.9). The most common features in EC patients were female sex (67.5%), atopy (77.5%), abdominal pain/distention (70%), diarrhoea (77.5%), and faecal calprotectin elevation (22.5%). Blood eosinophils were elevated in EoE, but not in EC (p < 0.001), while ECP did not differ across the three groups (p = 0.4). The frequency of allergen sensitization reached 25% of patients. Several frequent pan-allergens for this region were present. The overall diagnostic delay was 10 months (IQR 4-15). Factors contributing to a greater diagnostic delay were atopy, weight loss, and a previous misdiagnosis. EC is mostly a diagnosis of exclusion, burdened by a substantial diagnostic delay. In female patients the presence of allergen sensitization, abdominal symptoms and faecal calprotectin elevation should raise the suspicion of EC.

Dietary Management of Non-EoE Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases

Patients with non-eosinophilic esophagitis eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (non-EoE EGIDs) are prone to nutritional deficiencies due to food-avoidant behaviors, malabsorption, and high nutrition impact symptoms. Nutrient deficiencies correspond to the segment, depth, and extent of the gastrointestinal tract involved and can impact organs distant from the gut. Patients with non-EoE EGIDs are often atopic, and some appear to respond to dietary avoidance of specific food allergens. Tests to identify food triggers other than response to elimination diets are lacking. Dietary restriction therapy should be considered in such patients and is best implemented through a multidisciplinary approach to avoid nutritional complications.

Joint ESPGHAN/NASPGHAN Guidelines on Childhood Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders Beyond Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders beyond eosinophilic esophagitis (non-EoE EGIDs) are rare chronic inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Diagnosis is based on clinical symptoms and histologic findings of eosinophilic inflammation after exclusion of a secondary cause or systemic disease. Currently, no guidelines exist for the evaluation of non-EoE EGIDs. Therefore, the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) formed a task force group to provide consensus guidelines for childhood non-EoE EGIDs.

METHODS

The working group was composed of pediatric gastroenterologists, adult gastroenterologists, allergists/immunologists, and pathologists. An extensive electronic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted up to February 2022. General methodology was used in the formulation of recommendations according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to meet current standards of evidence assessment.

RESULTS

The guidelines provide information on the current concept of non-EoE EGIDs, disease pathogenesis, epidemiology, clinical manifestations, diagnostic and disease surveillance procedures, and current treatment options. Thirty-four statements based on available evidence and 41 recommendations based on expert opinion and best clinical practices were developed.

CONCLUSION

Non-EoE EGIDs literature is limited in scope and depth, making clear recommendations difficult. These consensus-based clinical practice guidelines are intended to assist clinicians caring for children affected by non-EoE EGIDs and to facilitate high-quality randomized controlled trials of various treatment modalities using standardized, uniform disease definitions.

[Eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases with esophageal involvement: Analysis of 212 patients]

BACKGROUND

Primary eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGID) are chronic inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal tract with unknown etiology. Features, utility, and evolution are still unknown in screening for EGID in adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prevalence, characteristics, comorbidities, and evolution of EGID in adults diagnosed with EoE and investigate differences between both groups.

METHODS

Prospective unicenter observational and analytical study. Gastric and duodenal biopsies were obtained during upper baseline endoscopy in all consecutive EoE adult patients evaluated. A colonoscopy with colon biopsies was performed upon persistent diarrhea and normal duodenal biopsies.

RESULTS

212 EoE patients were included. Nine patients (4.3%) also showed significant eosinophilic infiltration in at least one organ within the digestive tract. The most common site affected was the small bowel (78%). Gastrointestinal symptoms (43% vs. 100%, p<0.002) and, more specifically, either abdominal pain or diarrhea (17% vs. 78%, p<0.001), some food sensitizations, and digestive comorbidities (p<0.05) were significantly more common in patients with EGID. Gastrointestinal symptoms were present in 94/212 (44%) patients, of whom 9 (10%) had EGID. Considering only abdominal pain or diarrhea, 20% suffered from it.

CONCLUSIONS

EGID rarely coexist with EoE, even when gastrointestinal symptoms are present. These findings advise against routine gastric, duodenal, or colon biopsies in adult EoE patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. Most of the characteristics of EoE do not change due to having EGID except gastrointestinal symptoms, digestive comorbidities, and sensitizations to some foods. The evolution was generally favorable despite intermittent adherence to treatment, especially maintenance.

Benralizumab for eosinophilic gastritis: a single-site, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

In eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, the role of eosinophils in disease pathogenesis and the effect of eosinophil depletion on patient outcomes are unclear. Benralizumab, an eosinophil-depleting monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin-5 receptor α, might eliminate gastric tissue eosinophils and improve outcomes in eosinophilic gastritis. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with eosinophilic gastritis.

METHODS

We conducted a single-site, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (Cincinnati, OH, USA). Individuals aged 12-60 years with symptomatic, histologically active eosinophilic gastritis (peak gastric eosinophil count ≥30 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf] in at least five hpfs) and blood eosinophilia (>500 eosinophils per μL [eos/μL]) were randomly assigned (1:1, block size of four) to benralizumab 30 mg or placebo, stratified by the use of glucocorticoids for gastric disease. Investigators, study staff, and study participants were masked to treatment assignment; statisticians were unmasked when analysing data. Treatments were administered subcutaneously once every 4 weeks for a 12-week double-blind period (three total injections). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved histological remission (peak gastric eosinophil count <30 eos/hpf) at week 12. Key secondary endpoints were the changes from baseline to week 12 in peak gastric eosinophil count, blood eosinophil count, eosinophilic gastritis histology (total, inflammatory, and structural feature scores), Eosinophilic Gastritis Endoscopic Reference System (EG-REFS) score, and patient-reported outcome symptom measures (Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment [SODA] and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System [PROMIS] short-form questionnaire). After the 12-week double-blind period, patients were eligible for entry into two open-label extension (OLE) periods up to week 88, in which all patients received benralizumab. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03473977, and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between April 23, 2018, and Jan 13, 2020, 34 patients were screened, and 26 were subsequently randomly assigned to benralizumab (n=13) or placebo (n=13) and included in the ITT and safety populations (mean age 19·5 years [SD 7·3]; 19 [73%] male patients and seven [27%] female patients). At week 12, ten (77% [95% CI 50 to 92]) of 13 patients who received benralizumab and one (8% [1 to 33]) of 13 who received placebo achieved histological remission (difference 69 percentage points [95% CI 32 to 85]; p=0·0010). Changes from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater in the benralizumab group versus the placebo group for peak gastric eosinophil counts (mean -137 eos/hpf [95% CI -186 to -88] vs -38 eos/hpf [-94 to 18]; p=0·0080), eosinophilic gastritis histology total score (mean -0·31 [-0·42 to -0·20] vs -0·02 [-0·16 to 0·12]; p=0·0016), histology inflammatory score (mean -0·46 [-0·60 to -0·31] vs -0·04 [-0·22 to 0·13]; p=0·0006), and blood eosinophil counts (median -1060 eos/μL [IQR -1740 to -830] vs -160 eos/μL [-710 to 120]; p=0·0044). Changes were not significantly different between the groups for eosinophilic gastritis histology structural score (mean -0·07 [95% CI -0·19 to 0·05] vs 0·03 [-0·09 to 0·15]; p=0·23), EG-REFS score (mean -1·0 [-2·3 to 0·3] vs -0·5 [-2·0 to 1·0]; p=0·62), or in patient-reported outcomes (SODA and PROMIS). During the double-blind period, treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 11 (85%) of 13 patients in the benralizumab group and six (46%) of 13 in the placebo group; the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were headache (six [46%] vs two [15%] patients), nausea (three [23%] vs two [15%]), and vomiting (two [15%] vs three [23%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. Two patients had serious adverse events (dizziness and rhabdomyolysis in one patient; aspiration in one patient) during the OLE periods, which were considered unrelated to study treatment.

INTERPRETATION

Benralizumab treatment induced histological remission, as defined by absence of tissue eosinophilia, in most patients with eosinophilic gastritis. However, the persistence of histological, endoscopic, and other features of the disease suggest a co-existing, eosinophil-independent pathogenic mechanism and the need for broader targeting of type 2 immunity.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca and the Division of Intramural Research (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US National Institutes of Health).

The use of amino acid formulas in pediatric patients with allergy to cow's milk proteins: Recommendations from a group of experts

One of the most common food allergies in children is cow's milk allergy (CMA). In breast-fed infants with CMA, the mother is encouraged to avoid dairy products. If this is not possible, or in formula fed infants, use of hypoallergenic replacement formulas such as extensively hydrolyzed formulas (EHF) is recommended. However, in ∼5% of patients EHFs are not tolerated and/or allergy symptoms can persist. When EHFs are ineffective and in severe forms of CMA, amino acid-based formulas (AAF) should be considered. Six pediatric gastroenterologists with extensive experience in food allergy management reviewed scientific publications and international clinical practice guidelines to provide practical recommendations on AAF. The guidelines reviewed had discrepancies and ambiguities around the specific indications for using formulas as a milk substitute. The panel recommends AAFs as the first therapeutic option in anaphylaxis due to CMA, in acute and chronic severe food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome, in CMA associated with multiple food allergy, and in cases of eosinophilic esophagitis not responding to an extended exclusion diet or not eating solids. The main benefit of AAF is its absence of residual allergenicity, making it a safe treatment option in severe CMA patients who do not tolerate or respond to an EHF.

Gastroenterology Practice Patterns Contribute to Missed Diagnoses of Eosinophilic Gastritis and Duodenitis

Background and Aims

Eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic duodenitis (EoG/EoD) are often misdiagnosed as functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Consequently, patients with GI symptoms of EoG/EoD may not undergo the necessary steps for diagnosis. We studied gastroenterologists' evaluations of patients with chronic, unexplained, moderate-to-severe GI symptoms that were unresponsive to over-the-counter medications.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional online survey of 202 board-certified gastroenterologists at office-based practices, community hospitals, or academic institutions. Respondents had been in active clinical practice for 3-35 years post-residency training, spent most of their time on direct patient care, managed ≥1 patient with irritable bowel syndrome and/or functional dyspepsia, and performed ≥1 endoscopy per month. Responses were analyzed to identify barriers to EoG/EoD diagnosis and management.

Results

Respondents managed a mean of 1880 patients per year; the most common diagnoses were functional dyspepsia (36%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (19%). Mean proportions of patients who underwent upper endoscopy ranged from 42% to 84%. Biopsies were collected from >90% of patients with visible endoscopic mucosal abnormalities vs 42%-72% of patients with normal-appearing mucosae. Approximately 20% of respondents collected only 1-2 biopsies from each site of the GI tract. Only 30% routinely requested pathologists to count eosinophils, and nearly 40% had no histologic threshold for EoG/EoD diagnosis.

Conclusion

Gastroenterologists vary in their evaluation of patients with chronic, unexplained moderate-to-severe GI symptoms. Limited gastric and duodenal biopsy collection, particularly from normal-appearing mucosae, and failure to request tissue eosinophil counts might contribute to underdiagnosis of EoG/EoD. Availability and awareness of EoG/EoD diagnostic guidelines should improve detection in clinical practice.

The Economic Burden of Eosinophilic Gastritis and Eosinophilic Enteritis in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic enteritis (EoG/EoN) are associated with a substantial clinical burden. However, limited information is available regarding the economic burden of EoG/EoN. This study was conducted to compare healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs among patients with EoG/EoN versus without EoG/EoN in the USA.

METHODS

Administrative claims data from the IBM MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) and Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits Databases (2009-2019) was used to identify two cohorts of patients. Patients without EoG/EoN were matched 3:1 to patients with EoG/EoN on sex, year of birth, and healthcare plan type. Study measures included demographic characteristics, select comorbidities, all-cause HRU, and costs. Comparisons were made over a 1-year period following EoG/EoN diagnosis for patients with EoG/EoN and an eligible date for patients without EoG/EoN.

RESULTS

A total of 2219 patients with EoG/EoN and 6657 patients without EoG/EoN were analyzed. Significantly higher proportions of patients with EoG/EoN versus without EoG/EoN had comorbid conditions. Rates of all-cause HRU were significantly higher among patients with EoG/EoN versus patients without EoG/EoN (adjusted rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: inpatient visits, 6.26 [5.26, 7.46]; outpatient visits, 1.17 [1.16, 1.19]; emergency department visits, 2.11 [1.98, 2.25]; all p < 0.001). Patients with EoG/EoN incurred significantly higher costs versus patients without EoG/EoN (adjusted mean cost difference $31,180; p < 0.001). Cost differences were largely due to outpatient (adjusted mean cost difference $14,018; p < 0.001) and inpatient (adjusted mean cost difference $11,224; p < 0.001) costs.

CONCLUSION

The economic burden associated with EoG/EoN is substantial, with patients with EoG/EoN having a higher rate of HRU and incurring $31,180 more than patients without EoG/EoN on average. Most of the cost difference was attributable to outpatient and inpatient costs. Cost-saving strategies to lower the burden of illness in this patient population are needed.

Primary eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and allergy: Clinical and therapeutic implications

Primary eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGID) are increasingly prevalent, immune‐mediated, chronic conditions which primarily affect pediatric and young adult patients, leading to substantial disease burden, and poor quality of life. EGID may either involve single portions of the gastrointestinal tract (i.e., esophagus, stomach, small bowel, and colon) or a combination. Their strong association with allergic disorders has been recently recognized, and although their shared pathophysiological basis remains partly elusive, this feature greatly impacts the diagnostic and treatment work‐up. We herein critically discuss the current knowledge on the association of EGID and allergic disorders, including atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, and food or drug allergy. In particular, we reviewed the literature focusing on their epidemiology, pathophysiological basis and mechanisms, and diagnostic strategies. Finally, we discuss the currently ongoing clinical trials targeting EGID and allergic diseases, including, among others the monoclonal antibodies dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and lirentelimab.

Nutritional and Psychological Considerations for Dietary Therapy in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

The step-up empiric elimination diet, starting from one/two food groups of most local allergens remains the current gold standard for a dietary approach in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients. Milk, followed by wheat and egg, is the most frequent food that triggers EoE in pediatric and adult patients. Elimination diets, with restrictions over four food groups, may be limited to highly motivated patients, in which nutritional counseling is recommended. Malnourishment is uncommon in EoE patients and likely multifactorial (concomitant gastrointestinal eosinophilic disorders or IgE-mediated food allergies, feeding difficulties, abnormal feeding behavior). Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder in EoE children on highly restrictive diets was lately described and may warrant specific psychological support. As for adults, quality of life may be impaired by symptom severity and dietary restrictions, aside from recently reported food impaction-related specific anxiety in up to 43% of patients. Severe symptoms, feeding dysfunction, and diet restrictions may negatively influence psychosocial adjustment for patients and their caregivers.

Determination of Biopsy Yield That Optimally Detects Eosinophilic Gastritis and/or Duodenitis in a Randomized Trial of Lirentelimab

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Eosinophilic gastritis (EG) and eosinophilic duodenitis (EoD), characterized by chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and increased numbers or activation of eosinophils and mast cells in the GI tract, are likely underdiagnosed. We aimed to determine rates of EG and EoD and number of biopsies required to optimize detection using screening data from a randomized trial of lirentelimab (AK002), an antibody against siglec-8 that depletes eosinophils and inhibits mast cells. We also characterized endoscopic features and symptoms of EG and EoD.

METHODS

Subjects with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms, assessed daily through a validated patient-reported outcome questionnaire, underwent endoscopy with a systematic gastric and duodenal biopsy protocol and histopathologic evaluation. EG diagnosis required presence of ≥30 eosinophils/high-power field (eos/hpf) in ≥5 hpfs and EoD required ≥30 eos/hpf in ≥3 hpfs. We analyzed diagnostic yields for EG and EoD and histologic, endoscopic, and clinical findings.

RESULTS

Of 88 subjects meeting symptom criteria, 72 were found to have EG and/or EoD (EG/EoD), including patients with no prior diagnosis of EG/EoD. We found that GI eosinophilia was patchy and that examination of multiple biopsies was required for diagnosis-an average of only 2.6 per 8 gastric biopsies and 2.2 per 4 duodenal biopsies per subject met thresholds for EG/EoD. Evaluation of multiple nonoverlapping hpfs in each of 8 gastric and 4 duodenal biopsies was required to capture 100% of EG/EoD cases. Neither endoscopic findings nor symptom severity correlated with eosinophil counts.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of patients with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms participating in a clinical trial of lirentelimab for EG/EoD, we found eosinophilia to be patchy in gastric and duodenal biopsies. Counting eosinophils in at least 8 gastric and 4 duodenal biopsies is required to identify patients with EG/EoD, so they can receive appropriate treatment. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03496571).

Development and content validation of a symptom assessment for eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic gastroenteritis in adults and adolescents

BACKGROUND

A patient reported outcome (PRO) instrument with evidence of validity and reliability for assessing symptoms of eosinophilic gastritis (EG) and eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) is needed to measure treatment benefit in clinical trials. The aim of this research is to develop an EG/EGE symptom PRO instrument for patients aged 12 and above.

METHODS

The Symptom Assessment for Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Diseases (SAGED) was developed through a literature review, discussions with expert clinicians, and concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients. Patients (n = 28) were recruited based on confirmed diagnosis and self-reported symptoms. The final instrument was translated and linguistically validated with additional cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 105).

RESULTS

SAGED is a 24-h recall questionnaire consisting of eight items evaluating the core symptoms of EG and EGE (abdominal pain, nausea, bloating, early satiety, loss of appetite, vomiting, and diarrhea). Seven of the eight items are evaluated on an 11-point numerical rating scale ranging from 'none' to 'worst imaginable'. Cognitive debriefing interviews showed that adults and adolescents understand the content and are able to select a response that reflects their experience. The linguistic validation process produced 21 translations that are understandable to patients and conceptually equivalent to the source version.

CONCLUSIONS

SAGED is suitable for measuring symptom improvement in adult and adolescent patients with EG and/or EGE. The content validity of SAGED has been established through best practices in qualitative research for PRO instrument development. The psychometric properties of SAGED will be evaluated in a future study.

Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis: Using Presenting Findings to Predict Disease Course

INTRODUCTION

Studies on eosinophilic gastroenteritis have identified broad spectrums of disease. We aimed to characterize subtypes of disease and ascertain outcomes of each group.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study from a large tertiary medical center including 35 patients diagnosed with eosinophilic gastroenteritis from 2007 to 2018. We defined 2 groups of patients based on clinical and laboratory findings at presentation. Severe disease was defined as having weight loss at time of presentation, hypoalbuminemia at presentation, serosal disease involvement, or anemia at diagnosis. The remaining patients were labeled as mild disease group. We collected and compared demographic data, clinical features, laboratory findings, an allergy history, and disease course of both cohorts.

RESULTS

Among 35 patients with eosinophilic gastroenteritis, 18 patients met the criteria for severe disease and 17 patients for mild disease. Of the patients with severe eosinophilic gastroenteritis, 6 (38%) had remission without chronic symptoms, whereas 10 (63%) had chronic symptoms requiring chronic medical therapy. Of the mild group, 12 patients (80%) had disease remission without chronic medications. An allergy history was more common in the severe disease group (83%) compared with the mild disease group (45%). Prednisone and open capsule budesonide were the most commonly used treatment medications in both groups.

DISCUSSION

Patients with eosinophilic gastroenteritis may be characterized into 2 forms. Patients with weight loss at time of presentation, hypoalbuminemia at presentation, serosal disease involvement, or anemia at diagnosis were associated with a chronic disease course requiring chronic medications.

Successful use of montelukast in eosinophilic gastroenteritis: a case report and a literature review

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders, also known as eosinophilic gastroenteritis, are rare inflammatory conditions characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of different parts of the gastrointestinal tract, along with peripheral eosinophilia in most cases. Other known causes for gut eosinophilic infiltration must be excluded to confirm the diagnosis of eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Symptoms of the disorder depend on the affected gastrointestinal tract segment and depth of involvement. Treatment includes systemic glucocorticoids and/or dietary therapy with an empiric elimination diet. Second line therapies include the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast, and other anti-allergy drugs such as mast cell stabilizers (including cromolyn and the H1-antihistamine ketotifen), suplatast tosilate which is a selective Th-2 cytokines (IL-4 and IL-5) inhibitor, and the monoclonal anti-IgE antibody omalizumab. We report a case of eosinophilic gastroenteritis who was successfully treated and achieved remission with montelukast as an initial monotherapy. Upon extensive literature review, this represents the second reported adult case of eosinophilic gastroenteritis who responds to montelukast alone as a first line therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 49-year-old female presented with recurrent abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea and unexplained eosinophilia. She was diagnosed with eosinophilic gastroenteritis and was successfully treated with montelukast monotherapy. After 7 days of therapy, the patient responded well and had complete resolution of her gastrointestinal symptoms and peripheral eosinophilia. Patient remained in remission on follow-up after 12 months. We reviewed the literature for leukotriene antagonist use in the treatment of eosinophilic gastroenteritis and included the cases treated with the leukotriene antagonist montelukast as an initial therapy or as a second line therapy for refractory disease.

CONCLUSION

Montelukast may be an effective treatment for eosinophilic gastroenteritis, either alone or in combination with systemic steroids or ketotifen. Our patient is the second reported adult case of eosinophilic gastroenteritis who responded to montelukast alone as a first line therapy. Further studies and clinical trials are required to confirm efficacy compared to standard therapy.

Eosinophilic gastroenteritis with abdominal pain and ascites: A case report

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) is a rare disease that presents many unspecific gastroenterological symptoms. The disease includes three types depending on the depth of eosinophil infiltration in the gastrointestinal tract. The serosal type is the most rare, presenting as ascites.

CASE SUMMARY

A 34-year-old man presented with abdominal pain, diarrhea without bloody stool, or nausea. Laboratory test results revealed a peripheral blood eosinophil count (4.85 × 10⁹/L), which was remarkedly elevated. Computed tomography scan demonstrated extensive intestinal wall edema thickening in the duodenum, jejunum, ascending colon and transverse colon; multiple exudative effusion surrounding the intestinal tract, and ascites in the abdominal cavity. A series of examinations excluded eosinophil elevation in secondary diseases. Endoscopic multipoint biopsy detected eosinophilic infiltration in the mucous layer of the transverse colon, with ≥ 50 eosinophils/high power field. All symptoms vanished after a few days of steroid therapy and ascites disappeared within 2 wk.

CONCLUSION

EGE should be considered in patients with abdominal pain, ascites, and eosinophilia. Multiple point biopsies are essential for diagnosis.

Successful Montelukast Treatment in an Infant with Steroid-Resistant Eosinophilic Colitis

Eosinophilic colitis (EC) belongs to a group of idiopathic diseases called eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders, which are characterized by eosinophil-predominant inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract. Corticosteroids is the first-line pharmacotherapy for EC refractory to diet therapy. We report an infant with steroid-resistant EC, who successfully returned to a healthy growth trajectory under the combined therapy of montelukast and ketotifen. An 8-month-old boy presented with bloody diarrhea, anemia, and failure to thrive (FTT) that started 6 days after birth. The patient has no known allergies. A trial of elementary diet was unsuccessful. The results of several stool cultures were unremarkable. Similarly, lower gastrointestinal series failed to identify anything significant. At 3 months of age, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies from the distal duodenum and proximal jejunum were unremarkable. The diarrhea and FTT persisted. A rectosigmoidoscopy with biopsies was performed; the results led to the diagnosis of EC at 5 months of age. Oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg/day was prescribed; however, 3 months into the treatment, persistent bloody diarrhea and FTT were still noted. Montelukast and ketotifen were added, after which diarrhea and weight gain started to improve. Prednisolone and montelukast/ketotifen were tapered off 6 months after. He remains symptom free and has normal growth and development in a 5-year follow-up.

Malnutrition in Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders

Primary eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are emerging chronic/remittent inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology, which may involve any part of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, in the absence of secondary causes of GI eosinophilia. Eosinophilic esophagitis is the prototype of eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and is clinically characterized by symptoms related to esophageal inflammation and dysfunction. A few studies have assessed the nutritional status of patients with eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders, showing conflicting results. This review summarizes the current evidence on the nutritional status of patients with EGIDs, focusing on the pediatric point of view and also speculating potential etiological mechanisms.

Anti-Siglec-8 Antibody for Eosinophilic Gastritis and Duodenitis

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic gastritis and duodenitis are characterized by gastrointestinal mucosal eosinophilia, chronic symptoms, impaired quality of life, and a lack of adequate treatments. Mast-cell activity may contribute to the pathogenesis of the conditions. AK002 (lirentelimab) is an anti-Siglec-8 antibody that depletes eosinophils and inhibits mast cells and that has shown potential in animal models as a treatment for eosinophilic gastritis and duodenitis.

METHODS

In this phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned adults who had symptomatic eosinophilic gastritis, eosinophilic duodenitis, or both conditions in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive four monthly infusions of low-dose AK002, high-dose AK002, or placebo. The primary end point was the change in gastrointestinal eosinophil count from baseline to 2 weeks after the final dose; to maximize statistical power, we evaluated this end point in the placebo group as compared with the combined AK002 group. Secondary end points were treatment response (>30% reduction in total symptom score and >75% reduction in gastrointestinal eosinophil count) and the change in total symptom score.

RESULTS

Of the 65 patients who underwent randomization, 43 were assigned to receive AK002 and 22 were assigned to receive placebo. The mean percentage change in gastrointestinal eosinophil count was -86% in the combined AK002 group, as compared with 9% in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, -98 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -121 to -76; P<0.001). Treatment response occurred in 63% of the patients who received AK002 and in 5% of the patients who received placebo (difference, 58 percentage points; 95% CI, 36 to 74; P<0.001). The mean change in total symptom score was -48% with AK002 and -22% with placebo (least-squares mean difference, -26 percentage points; 95% CI, -44 to -9; P = 0.004). Adverse events associated with AK002 were similar to those with placebo, with the exception of higher percentages of patients having mild-to-moderate infusion-related reactions with AK002 (60% in the combined AK002 group and 23% in the placebo group).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with eosinophilic gastritis or duodenitis, AK002 reduced gastrointestinal eosinophils and symptoms. Infusion-related reactions were more common with AK002 than with placebo. (Funded by Allakos; ENIGMA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03496571.).

Epidemiology of Nonesophageal Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases in Symptomatic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Primary eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are increasingly described disorders that include eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), eosinophilic gastritis, gastroenteritis, and colitis. The exact epidemiology of nonesophageal EGIDs (non-EoE EGIDs) is still unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the epidemiology of non-EoE EGIDs in adults and children referred to outpatient clinics for gastrointestinal symptoms.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using a protocol registered and published with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42018111437). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL for cohort or cross-sectional studies published since 1990, evaluating the incidence and prevalence of non-EoE EGIDs. We assessed study quality and risk of bias using items derived from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement.

RESULTS

A total of 576 articles were identified. Ten studies with 13,377 participants were included in the analysis, with the results showing high heterogeneity. No significant publication bias was found. The overall prevalence of non-EoE EGIDs in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms was 1.9% (95% confidence interval: 0.575-3.894; I2 = 92.72%; P < .001). Because none of the examined studies were prospectively designed, incidence rates could not be determined.

CONCLUSIONS

More prospective, large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to evaluate reported data and to further investigate the epidemiology of non-EoE EGIDs and their possible risk factors and comorbidities.

Fecal Calprotectin as a Useful Non-Invasive Screening Marker for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorder in Korean Children

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder (EoGID) is an emerging disease condition in Korean children, but its diagnosis requires invasive endoscopic biopsies. Fecal calprotectin (FCal) is a noninvasive biomarker for intestinal inflammation to differentiate organic gastrointestinal diseases from functional abdominal pain disorder. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FCal and to determine the optimal cutoff to differentiate EoGID from functional abdominal pain disorder.

METHODS

A total of 253 children (122 boys, 131 girls; mean age 12.2 ± 3.6, range 2.9-17.8 years) who underwent endoscopy with biopsies for chronic gastrointestinal symptoms were recruited, except for 38 children diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease, and divided into EoGID (n = 67) and functional abdominal pain disorder (n = 186). FCal, white blood cell (WBC) counts, eosinophil counts, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were measured in all subjects at initial diagnosis.

RESULTS

FCal levels weakly correlated with WBC (r = 0.127, P = 0.044) and CRP (r = 0.126, P = 0.040) but not with ESR and eosinophil count. FCal levels were significantly higher in the EoGID group than in the functional abdominal pain disorder group (mean 179.5 ± 242.9 mg/kg vs. 44.3 ± 68.1 mg/kg; P < 0.001), while WBC, ESR, CRP, and eosinophil count did not differ between the two groups (all P > 0.05). An optimal cutoff of FCal 73.2 mg/kg distinguished EoGID from functional abdominal pain disorder with a sensitivity of 50.7% and a specificity of 84.6%.

CONCLUSION

FCal is a useful and reliable noninvasive marker for differentiating EoGID from functional abdominal pain disorder in Korean children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms when optimal cutoffs are applied.

Eosinophilic ascites: an unusual manifestation of eosinophilic gastroenteritis

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic gastroenteritis is an uncommon disorder, characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the gastrointestinal tract. Clinical presentations are variable. It depends on the involvement of GI layer. Eosinophilic ascites is a rare presentation of eosinophilic gastroenteritis and is often associated with the serosal form.

CASE PRESENTATION

In this paper, we present a 26-year-old male with EGE who presented with massive hemorrhagic ascites and was successfully treated with steroids.

CONCLUSION

The diagnosis of eosinophilic gastroenteritis requires histopathological examination and is often made after the exclusion of other possible causes of eosinophilia. EGE should be considered in a patient with unexplained hemorrhagic ascites.

Outcomes of inflammatory bowel disease in patients with eosinophil-predominant colonic inflammation

Background

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is characterised by acute intestinal mucosal inflammation with chronic inflammatory features. Various degrees of mucosal eosinophilia are present along with the typical acute (neutrophil-predominant) inflammation. The effect of intestinal eosinophils on IBD outcomes remains unclear.

Methods

This is a retrospective study. Archived intestinal mucosal biopsy specimens of treatment-naïve IBD patients were examined by two pathologists. The number of eosinophils per high-power field was counted, and the mucosal inflammation was classified according to the eosinophilic inflammatory patterns. Clinical outcomes during the follow-up period were recorded.

Results

142 treatment-naïve IBD patients were included. Mean age was 39 years. 83% of patients had ulcerative colitis, and median follow-up was 3 years. 41% of patients had disease flare(s) and 24% required hospitalisation. Eosinophil count was not associated with risk of disease flare or hospitalisation. Patients with neutrophil-predominant inflammation (>70% neutrophils) had greater risk of disease flare(s): 27(55%) versus 24(36%) and 7(28%) in patients with mixed and eosinophil-predominant inflammation, respectively (p=0.04). Overall, patients with neutrophil-predominant inflammation were more likely to have a disease flare; HR: 2.49, 95% CI (1.0 to 5.6). Hospitalisation rate was higher in patients with neutrophil-predominant inflammation: 17(35%) compared to 17(19%) in patients with eosinophil-rich inflammation (p=0.04). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed higher flare-free survival in patients with eosinophil-predominant inflammation compared to mixed and neutrophil-predominant inflammation.

Conclusion

IBD patients with eosinophil-predominant inflammation phenotype might have reduced risk of disease flares and hospitalisation. Larger prospective studies to assess IBD outcomes in this subpopulation are warranted.

Causes of eosinophilic ascites – A systematic review

Background . In the last years an uprising interest for a relatively unknown entity, eosinophilic ascites (EA), has been recorded.

Our aim is to investigate the potential causes of EA development, as well as clinical, laboratory, endoscopic and radiologic features, management and outcome in these patients.

Methods . The following research was performed on PubMed (MEDLINE) database using the medical subject headings [Mesh] terms “Ascites” AND “Eosinophils”.

Results . A total of 284 results, dating from 1962 onwards, were found and abstracts were examined. 131 papers were excluded and the remaining 153 publications, consisting in case reports and series of cases, were analyzed.

From 171 patients with EA, 127 subjects (74%) had EGE, 17 (10%) parasitic and fungal infections, 11(7%) Hypereosinophilic syndrome and 16 patients (9%) less common diseases (eosinophilic pancreatitis, chronic eosinophilic leukemia, myelofibrosis, T-cell lymphoma, Churg Strauss Syndrome, Systemic lupus erythematosus, Familial paroxysmal polyserositis and Ménétrier’s disease). High eosinophil blood count and IgE levels as well as gastrointestinal symptoms are frequent. The diagnosis is based on ascitic fluid analysis, imaging and endoscopic biopsies. Therapy with corticosteroids results in resolution of eosinophilic ascites in almost all patients.

Conclusion . In most cases, in the absence of allergy, parasitic infections, malignancy, hematological disorders, peritoneal tuberculosis, inflammatory bowel disease or autoimmune disease, EA develops as a manifestation of eosinophilic gastroenteritis.

Eosinophil counts in colonic tissue eosinophilia: Investigating specificity and sensitivity of cutoff points and comparing two counting methods

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the specificity and sensitivity of eosinophil cutoff points defining the colonic tissue eosinophilia (TE) and compare the yield of reporting the highest count versus the mean of five high-power fields (HPFs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and seventy-one cases of colonic TE, including 22 primary eosinophilic colitis (PEC) cases, were compared to one hundred and twenty-one normal controls in the University of Jordan. The highest eosinophil count (EC) and the mean of five HPFs were recorded. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to find the cutoff point with the best sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

There was no significant advantage of counting five fields over counting the most densely populated HPF. Using 30 eosinophils per HPF achieved 80% sensitivity and 65% specificity. This point is close to the mean in normal controls plus one standard deviation (SD) (29 per HPF). However, there was overlap between normal counts and TE, using 30 as a cutoff point resulted in 35% false-positive rate. There was no reliable cutoff point to differentiate PEC from secondary TE.

CONCLUSION

We recommend reporting the highest EC in colonic biopsies and using 30 as a cutoff point, bearing in mind the overlap with normal and correlating with the clinical team to not treat asymptomatic patients. Clinicopathological correlation is essential to separate PEC from secondary TE.

Eosinophil Counts in Mucosal Biopsies of the Ileum and Colon: Interobserver Variance Affects Diagnostic Accuracy

Primary eosinophilic gastroenteritis and colitis (EGE) is a rare entity with unspecific clinical and endoscopic findings. Validated histopathologic criteria for confirming the diagnosis are lacking, because numeric values for normal or elevated concentrations of eosinophils in mucosal biopsies are varying between observers. To quantify this interobserver variance, we had the same set of 30 slides of eosinophilic-rich mucosal biopsies from the ileum and colon systematically reviewed by a panel of six independent pathologists, each with more than a ten-year experience in the field. Using a highly standardized biopsy and slide preparation protocol, we ruled out any influence by the preparation, the patient, the endoscopist, the endoscopes and calipers used, the sampling site, the fixation and staining method, and the microscopic field sizes. Still, all numeric results differed between pathologists up to a factor greater than 30. Calculated positive or negative diagnosis of EGE differed up to a factor greater than 8. A theoretical incidence for EGE calculated from these numbers differed by a factor greater than 1500. We conclude that eosinophil counts in mucosal biopsies from the lower gastrointestinal tract are subject to a very high interobserver variance. Until further research provides objective and validated methods for standardization, all epidemiologic numbers derived from histopathologic findings may have to be questioned. When diagnosing individual patients with EGE, overall morphologic picture together with clinical and endoscopic findings is more important than numeric eosinophil count.

Ascites in a Young Woman: A Rare Presentation of Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis

Introduction

Eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) is a rare idiopathic disease that can affect one or more organs of the digestive tract. It has an estimated incidence of 1–20 cases per 100,000 patients. Klein et al. classified EGE into 3 subtypes: predominant mucosal, muscular, or subserosal.

Clinical Case

We report a case of a 32-year-old woman, who presented with diffuse abdominal pain, nausea, postprandial infarction, diarrhea, and moderate ascites of three-week evolution. The rest of physical examination did not show alterations. The past medical history was unremarkable. Laboratory test results revealed peripheral blood eosinophilia. Abdominal CT scan revealed diffuse and concentric parietal thickening of the distal 2/3 of esophagus, moderate volume ascites, and small bowel wall thickening and distension on the left quadrants. The paracentesis revealed 93.3% of eosinophils. The colon biopsies evidenced an increase in the number of eosinophils. Secondary causes of eosinophilia were excluded. The patient was treated with oral prednisolone 40 mg/day with immediate clinical and analytical improvement.

Conclusion

Eosinophilic gastroenteritis is a rare condition with a nonspecific and highly variable clinical presentation, which requires a high level of clinical suspicion. It is a diagnosis of exclusion. Secondary causes of eosinophilia such as intestinal tuberculosis, parasitosis, and malignant neoplasms should be excluded.

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder: is it what it seems to be?

Background

Eosinophilic gastroenteropathy is an uncommon condition whose causes can be numerous and non-specific. The aim of the study was to characterize the presence of gastrointestinal disorders in the adult Maltese population and assess the degree of association with atopic diseases.

Methods

Adult patients with gastrointestinal eosinophilia in the gastrointestinal tract on histology were identified and their clinical case notes were reviewed. Patients were interviewed and asked questions regarding asthma, allergic rhinitis, and eczema.

Results

Sixty-six patients (39 female) were recruited. The most common clinical symptoms were diarrhea (42.4%) and abdominal pain (33.3%). The sites involved were stomach (10.6%), colon (56.1%), small bowel (10.6%), small bowel and colon (18.2%), esophagus (1.5%), and esophagus and colon (1.5%). Forty percent had persistent lower gastrointestinal symptoms and a repeat ileocolonoscopy was performed within 12 months. These patients were diagnosed with ulcerative colitis (n=10; 47.6%), Crohn's disease (n=6; 28.6%), indeterminate colitis (n=1; 4.8%) or microscopic colitis (n=4; 19%). Allergic rhinitis was present in 39.4% of the study group, eczema in 26.1%, and asthma in 19.7%. These findings were compared with local data for atopic conditions and the study group was found to have a significantly higher prevalence of allergic rhinitis (P=0.002), but not of asthma (P=0.62) or eczema (P=0.19).

Conclusions

A high proportion of patients with eosinophilic gastrointestinal infiltration were subsequently diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease. Patients persistently symptomatic or who do not respond to treatment should be reassessed to exclude inflammatory bowel disease, given its high prevalence in this group of patients.

Eosinophilic Enterocolitis: An Exceedingly Rare Entity

Eosinophilic enterocolitis is an exceptionally rare condition with few described cases in the literature, representing the least frequent manifestation of the wide spectrum of eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders. We describe a case of a young male patient presenting with a panmural form of the disease, manifested by abdominal pain, distention, and watery diarrhea with 4 days of evolution, bowel wall thickening, and ascites. Eosinophilic ascites is probably the most unusual presentation form of this entity. It poses a diagnostic challenge because of its nonspecific symptoms, associated with the absence of standardized histological criteria, hence requiring a high level of suspicion. There is also no consensus regarding treatment: it should be individualized according to the patient's age and severity of symptoms.

Eosinophilic disorders of the gastro-intestinal tract: an update

Eosinophilic diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, including eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE), are rare chronic pathologies of the digestive system, with an immuno-mediated pathogenesis. Recent data suggest that, together with the “classic” IgE-response to allergens, also a delayed hypersensitivity mechanism could be involved in the development of eosinophilic disorders. EoE and EGE were studied only in the latest decades and as a consequence accurate data are not yet available, concerning not only pathogenesis, but also epidemiology, treatment and outcomes. The diagnosis of EoE is centered on endoscopic findings but the certainty is obtained by histological examination from biopsy samples, that has a sensitivity of 100% when based on five samples. The currently available treatments include topical corticosteroids, specific diets and endoscopic treatment. Concerning EGE, three subtypes (mucosal, muscular, and serosal) were identified. The diagnosis is based, as for EoE, on endoscopic and histological assessment, and the treatment includes pharmacological and dietetic approaches. Further studies are warranted in order to better define the etiology and pathogenesis of eosinophilic diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, and thus to develop more appropriate and specific therapies.