Toward uniformity in the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE): the effect of guidelines on variability of diagnostic criteria for EoE

Novel transcriptomic panel identifies histologically active eosinophilic oesophagitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is characterised by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and oesinophil tissue infiltration. The EoE Diagnostic Panel (EDP) can distinguish between active and non-active EoE using a set of 77 genes. Recently, the existence of distinct EoE variants featuring symptoms similar to EoE, such as oesophageal dysfunction but lacking eosinophil infiltration, had been determined.

METHODS

We used oesophageal biopsies from patients with histologically active (n=10) and non-active EoE (n=9) as well as from healthy oesophageal controls (n=5) participating in the Swiss Eosinophilic Esophagitis Cohort Study (SEECS) and analysed the gene expression profile in these biopsies by total RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq). Moreover, we employed the publicly accessible RNA-seq dataset (series GSE148381) as reported by Greuter et al, encompassing a comprehensive genomic profile of patients presenting with EoE variants.

RESULTS

A novel, diagnostic gene expression panel that can effectively distinguish patients with histologically active conventional EoE from patients with EoE in histological remission and control individuals, and from three newly discovered EoE variants was identified. Histologically Active EoE Diagnostic Panel (HAEDP) consists of 53 genes that were identified based on differential expression between histologically active EoE, histological remission and controls (p≤0.05). By combining the HAEDP with EDP, we expanded our knowledge about factors that may contribute to the inflammation in EoE and improved our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the disease. Conversely, we suggested a compact group of genes common to both HAEDP and EDP to create a reliable diagnostic tool that might enhance the accuracy of EoE diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

We identified a novel set of 53 dysregulated genes that are closely associated with the histological inflammatory activity of EoE. In combination with EDP, our new panel might be a valuable tool for the accurate diagnosis of patients with EoE as well as for monitoring their disease course.

Addressing diagnostic dilemmas in eosinophilic esophagitis using esophageal epithelial eosinophil-derived neurotoxin

OBJECTIVES

Eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) is a viable marker of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity. We studied the utility of measuring EDN from esophageal epithelial brushings for diagnosing EoE, focusing on two scenarios: (1) cases of exclusive distal eosinophilia and (2) cases of discrepancy between endoscopy and histology.

METHODS

Records of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with EDN measured via esophageal brushings at Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children in Orlando, Florida from January 2014 to October 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, clinical, endoscopic, and histologic data were collected.

RESULTS

We reviewed 231 patient records (66.7% male, mean age 10.3 years, range 1-22 years). EDN values correlated with endoscopic reference score (EREFS) and peak eosinophil count (PEC) (Spearman's rho = 0.756 (p < 0.001) and 0.824 (p < 0.001) respectively). Average PEC, EREFS, and EDN concentrations were higher in patients with active EoE than in controls or patients with EoE in remission (inactive). When grouping patients based on esophageal eosinophilia distribution, EDN mirrored PEC, and EREFS. Patients with exclusive distal eosinophilia had lower EDN concentrations than those with eosinophilia in >1 level of the esophagus (23.8 ± 46.1 mcg/mL vs. 171.3 ± 205.8 mcg/mL respectively, p < 0.001). EDN values were more consistent with EREFS in cases of discrepancies between endoscopic findings and pathology (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

EDN measured in esophageal brushing samples reflects disease activity objectively and accurately. It also offers significant value in cases of exclusive distal esophageal eosinophilia and when discrepancies exist between endoscopy and histology.

Determination of a treatment response threshold for the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are measured using the validated EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS); however, a threshold for treatment response has not been defined. We aimed to determine a cut-point for endoscopic response as measured by EREFS.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing budesonide slurry with swallowed fluticasone multidose inhaler for initial treatment of EoE. In the parent trial, EREFS was determined before and after treatment (score range 0-9), as were histologic findings and dysphagia symptoms. We performed tabular, flexible trend, and dependent mixture analyses of measures of treatment response to select the best clinical EREFS threshold.

RESULTS

In the 111 included patients (mean age 39 years; 67 % male; 96 % white), an EREFS threshold of ≤ 2 was 80 % sensitive (95 % confidence interval [CI] 69 % to 88 %) and 83 % specific (95 %CI 67 % to 94 %) for histologic response (peak of < 15 eosinophils per high-power field). Flexible trend analysis and dependent mixture modeling similarly suggested that a threshold of ≤ 2 best captured the correlation of EREFS with histologic and symptomatic measures. Dependent mixture modeling found near-total membership in the response class at EREFS of 0 or 1 and > 75 % at EREFS of 2 or 3.

CONCLUSIONS

An EREFS of ≤ 2 was the best clinical threshold for endoscopic response to topical steroid treatment, and was consistent with clinical and histologic response. Therefore, future studies can report a binary outcome of endoscopic response when EREFS is 2 or less.

Non-oesophageal eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases are undersuspected clinically and underdiagnosed pathologically

BACKGROUND

Non-oesophageal gastrointestinal eosinophilic diseases (EGID) are considered rare. However, low disease awareness among clinicians and pathologists may contribute to underdiagnosis.

AIMS

To determine how frequently requests to evaluate for EGID accompany gastrointestinal biopsies and in what proportion of suspected cases pathologists address these requests, either confirming or refuting the clinical suspicion.

METHODS

All cases in which biopsy requisitions included an explicit suspicion of EGID were extracted from a large clinicopathologic database and manually reviewed for accuracy. The diagnoses for these cases were then analysed to determine whether clinical suspicions were confirmed, refuted or ignored.

RESULTS

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) was suspected in 12.8% of 903,516 patients with biopsies and confirmed in 14.9% of them. A suspicion of eosinophilic gastritis accompanied <0.001% of 1,438,206 gastric biopsy sets and was confirmed in 11.5% of them; eosinophilic duodenitis was suspected in 0.02% of ~675,519 patients with duodenal biopsies and confirmed in 8.0% of these; eosinophilic colitis was mentioned in <0.001% of 2,504,485 patients with colonic biopsies and confirmed in 0.1% of them. Less than 3% of endoscopists mentioned non-oesophageal EGID in the requisition, while most expressed a clinical suspicion of Barrett oesophagus, Helicobacter pylori gastritis, celiac disease and microscopic colitis (in 21.2%, 49.2%, 1% and 6.4% of the cases, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologists and pathologists commonly address and diagnose EoE. In contrast, both clinical suspicion and diagnosis of non-oesophageal EGID are extremely rare. Increased clinical awareness might result in a better understanding of the epidemiology and improved diagnosis of these still elusive conditions.

Important Quality Metrics and Standardization in Endoscopy

Quality metrics and standardization has become critical as the Affordable Care Act mandates that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services change reimbursement from volume to a value-based system. While the most commonly used quality indicators are related to that of colonoscopy, quality metrics for other procedures and endoscopy units have been developed mainly by the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Data to show that these quality metrics, especially in the field of advanced endoscopy as well as in the era of COVID-19 pandemic, can improve patient outcomes, are anticipated.

Emerging incidence trends of eosinophilic esophagitis over 25 years: Results of a nationwide register-based pathology cohort

RATIONALE

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has emerged from a case-reportable illness in the early 1990s to a distinct clinicopathological entity. Increasing worldwide incidences have been observed, although due to various study designs estimates are inconsistent.

AIM

To determine population-based annual incidence rates over a time period of 25 years.

METHODS

A nationwide register-based pathology (PALGA) search was performed to identify reports describing esophageal eosinophilia between 1995 and 2019. EoE was identified if the diagnosis was confirmed by the pathologist. Crude incidence rates were estimated by the number of new EoE cases per year and matched with population data.

RESULTS

Between 1995 and 2019, 7361 unique patients' reports mentioned esophageal eosinophilia, of these 4061 were classified as EoE (71% male, mean age 37.9 ± 18.4 years). In total, 639 (16%) children (<18 years) were diagnosed. The EoE incidence increased from 0.01 in 1995 (95% CI: 0.0 - 0.04) to 3.16 (95% CI: 2.90 - 3.44) per 100.000 inhabitants in 2019. EoE was significantly more prevalent in males (OR 2.48 | 95% CI: 2.32 - 2.65; vs. females p < 0.001) and adults (OR 1.42 | 95% CI: 1.31 - 1.55; vs. children p < 0.001). Highest incidences were observed in 2019, being 4.37 (95% CI: 3.94 - 4.84) vs. 1.97 (95% CI: 1.68 - 2.29) per 100.000 males and females, respectively (p < 0.001). No seasonal variation was observed.

CONCLUSION

Over the past quarter century, the annual rates of newly diagnosed EoE patients raised dramatically and this increase has not reached a deceleration yet.

Eosinophilic esophagitis: clinical, endoscopic, histologic and therapeutic differences and similarities between children and adults

In the absence of secondary causes, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, local, progressive, T-helper type 2 immune-mediated disorder characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and eosinophil-predominant inflammation. In the last 20 years, the incidence and prevalence of EoE have risen sharply, and the chances of encountering affected patients in clinics and endoscopy rooms have increased. Nevertheless, it is estimated that the mean diagnostic delay of EoE is 4-6 years in both children and adults. Unfortunately, the longer the disease stays unrecognized, the likelier it is for the patient to have persistent or increased esophageal eosinophilic inflammation, to complain of non-resolving symptoms, and to develop fibrotic complications. Early detection depends on the recognition of initial clinical manifestations that vary from childhood to adulthood and even among patients of the same age. The disease phenotype also influences therapeutic approaches that include drugs, dietary interventions, and esophageal dilation. We have herein reviewed epidemiologic, clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features and therapeutic options of EoE focusing on differences and similarities between children and adults that may certainly serve in daily clinical practice.

Red Between the Lines: Evolution of Eosinophilic Esophagitis as a Distinct Clinicopathologic Syndrome

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, including dysphagia. While EoE is still considered a rare disease, in practice it seems that more and more cases are diagnosed every week, research in the field is exploding, and the pipeline for treatments contains multiple agents, some of which are quite far along the development pathway. After only scattered cases and small series were published in the late 1970s and 1980, Stephen Attwood, Thomas Smyrk, Tom DeMeester, and James Jones, published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences in 1993 a seminal report that described a clinicopathologic syndrome of esophageal eosinophilia with dysphagia. This review details the origins of this paper and compares and contrast what was observed then and what is known now about multiple aspects of EoE, including the clinical presentation, diagnosis, epidemiology, natural history, and treatments and outcomes. Moreover, it will highlight how the paper presaged a number of controversies in the field that have yet to be resolved, as well as foreshadowed the collaborative, multidisciplinary approach that has led to rapid advances.

Differences in Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Europe: An Assessment of Current Practice

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess differences in the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) by European pediatric (PG) and adult gastroenterologists (AG), and their self-reported adherence to guidelines.

METHODS

A multiple-choice questionnaire gauged the diagnostic and management strategies of gastroenterologists treating children or adults in 14 European countries and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

RESULTS

Questionnaires were completed by 465 PG and 743 AG. PG were significantly more likely to take biopsies in patients with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction (86.2% PG vs 75.4% AG, P < 0.001) and to perform endoscopic follow-up (86.3% PG vs 80.6% AG, P < 0.001). After failure of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), topical steroids were the preferred second-line therapy; however, PG opted more frequently for elimination diets (47.5% PG vs 13.7% AG, P < 0.001). More PG than AG indicated having read recent guidelines (89.4% PG vs 58.2% AG, P < 0.001). Geographic differences in practice were reported, with respondents from the United Kingdom, Portugal, and Spain more often adhering to recommended biopsy protocols. Physicians in the UAE, France, Lithuania, and Poland tended to opt for steroid therapy or elimination diets as first-line therapy, in contrast to most other countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in general practice between PG and AG were demonstrated with notable divergence from consensus guidelines. International practice variations are also apparent. Among other strategies, educational activities to highlight current recommendations may help harmonize and optimize clinical practice.

Outcome, complication and follow-up of patients with esophageal foreign body impaction: an academic institute's 15 years of experience

Esophageal foreign body impaction (EFBI) is a gastrointestinal emergency, mostly requiring endoscopic management. The aim of this study is to evaluate the epidemiology, adverse events, and outcomes of patients following the episode of EFBI. All esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) reports of admitted patients for EFBI at the University of Kansas Medical Center between 2003 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Of 204 patients, who met the inclusion criteria, 60% were male and the mean age was 54.7 ± 17.7 years. The encounter was the first episode of EFBI in 76% of cases. EGD in less than 24 hours of patients' admission was required in 79% of cases. The distal esophagus was the most common site of impaction (44%). Push and pull techniques were used in 38 and 35.2% of cases, respectively, while 11% were managed by a combination of both techniques. Structural causes were the most common etiologic findings including benign strictures and stenosis in 21.5% of patients, followed by Schatzki's ring (7.8%) and hiatal hernia (6.9%). Of all cases, 45% did follow-up in up to 1 year, and biopsy was done in 34% of cases. Out of 43 patients who had endoscopic findings suspicious for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), the diagnosis was confirmed by pathology in 37. The rate of recurrence EFBI was significantly higher in patients with EoE (P < 0.001). EFBI-related esophageal adverse events (AEs) occurred in 4.9% of cases. Cardiovascular and pulmonary AEs occurred in 1.5 and 2.9%, respectively. Logistic regression did not find any predictor for AEs occurrence. EFBI managed very well with endoscopic treatments. Despite the emerging data about the safety of the push technique, there are still concerns regarding its adverse events especially the risk of perforations. Our study shows no significant difference in adverse events between different types of techniques.

Practice patterns and adherence to clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis among gastroenterologists

Real-world practice patterns of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) among gastroenterologists are not well-described. The aim is to describe practice patterns of EoE diagnosis and management and assess concordance with consensus guidelines. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of gastroenterologists in the USA using Qualtrics, which was dispersed through the North Carolina Society of Gastroenterology (NCSG) and the American College of Gastroenterology member listservs. A similar survey was sent to NCSG members in 2010 and responses were compared in a subanalysis. Of 240 respondents, 37% (n = 80) worked in an academic setting versus 63% (n = 138) community practice setting. Providers saw a median of 18 (interquartile range 2-100) EoE patients annually and 24% (n = 52) were 'very familiar' with EoE guidelines. A proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) trial was required by 37% of providers prior to EoE diagnosis. In total, 60% used a ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field cut point for diagnosis and 62% biopsied from the proximal and distal esophagus on initial exam. Only 12% (n = 28) followed EoE diagnosis guidelines. For first-line treatment, 7% used dietary therapy, 32% topical steroids, and 61% used PPIs; 67% used fluticasone as first-line steroid; 41% used maintenance steroid treatment in responders. In the NCSG cohort, a higher proportion in 2017 followed guideline diagnosis recommendations compared with 2010 (14% vs. 3%; P = 0.03) and a higher proportion used dietary therapy as first-line treatment (13% vs. 3%; P = 0.046). There is variability in EoE practice patterns for EoE management, with management differing markedly from consensus guidelines. Further education and guideline dissemination are needed to standardize practice.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Adults: A Concise Overview of an Evolving Disease

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease that encompasses esophageal symptoms along with eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal epithelium. EoE is an evolving disease that has been a subject of interest to many researchers since the first studies recognized this condition as a new and distinct clinicopathological entity 25 years ago. Clinical presentation in adult patients may include dysphagia, food impaction, vomiting, and reflux symptoms. The diagnosis of EoE is based on the combination of clinical history suggestive of esophageal dysfunction, endoscopic features indicative of the disease, and histology revealing eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal epithelium that persists after a trial of proton pump inhibitor therapy along with the exclusion of other disorders that may be associated with esophageal tissue eosinophilia. The interplay between EoE and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is complex, and differentiating these two conditions continues to be difficult and challenging in clinical practice. The mainstay treatment includes dietary modification, topical steroids, and/or endoscopic dilation. The primary care physician (PCP) plays an important role in improving patient care and quality of life by ensuring early referral and participating in management and follow-up. This article provides an overview of the current knowledge base regarding the disease including epidemiology, genetics, pathogenesis, common clinical presentations, the interplay between EoE and GERD, diagnostic approaches, and therapeutic options available to the PCP.

Eosinophilic esophagitis: pitfalls and controversies in diagnosis and management

Formerly considered a rare disorder, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has emerged as a leading cause of feeding problems in children and an increasingly recognized cause of dysphagia and food impaction in adults. Our understanding of EoE and its complex interplay with gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) has evolved over the past decade and culminated in the introduction of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) responsive EoE as a distinct entity which has added to this complexity. It is now clear that this entity is on the same spectrum as the original EoE, and that PPIs should be considered as part of treatment protocol and should not be recommended as a diagnostic tool. As such, removing the PPI trial from the diagnostic algorithm has been encouraged recently. Recent guidelines and reviews thoroughly address various aspects in EoE pathogenesis and diagnostic workup as well as management endpoints, treatment options and novel therapies. However, despite the recent extensive study and the advances in our knowledge of this disease, unmet needs and pitfalls in diagnostic workup and management of these patients are still to be clarified and will be under focus in this review.

Use of diverse diagnostic criteria for acquired apraxia of speech: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of evidence that speech and language therapy (SLT) intervention is effective in improving communication ability for individuals with non-progressive acquired apraxia of speech (AOS). However, there is no universally agreed diagnostic standard for AOS, and diverging opinions on its diagnostic features. This has led to claims that diverse diagnostic criteria may be used to select participants for AOS research studies. These claims raise concerns for evidence-based practice in AOS but have yet to be systematically investigated.

AIMS

To determine the presence, nature and extent of diversity in the diagnostic criteria for non-progressive AOS used in both published studies and clinical practice internationally.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

The study used a scoping review methodology that followed the 2005 framework of Arksey and O'Malley and included a consultation exercise in the form of an online survey of international SLTs. The scoping review included 157 studies involving participants with acquired AOS, published between 1997 and 2017. There were 264 respondents to the online survey of SLTs, with a completion rate of 72%. Respondents came from 15 countries and had varying levels of clinical experience.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION

This study found that no common set of diagnostic criteria for AOS was used universally across research and practice. Although the diagnostic criteria used to select participants with AOS were reported explicitly in most studies, they varied from study to study. Some studies used directly conflicting criteria. Use of specific diagnostic criteria in studies was influenced by year of publication but not by location. There was a trend towards increasing consistency in diagnostic criteria in recent years. Compared with the research, the survey revealed relatively greater consistency among SLTs on the speech features considered indicative of AOS, although the SLTs who responded to the survey showed variation in how diagnostic criteria were combined into sets. Use of specific diagnostic criteria was not associated with SLTs' location or experience. There were differences between the diagnostic criteria for AOS used most commonly in research studies and those selected most commonly by SLTs in the survey. These findings have implications for the generalizability of AOS research to clinical practice, as well as implications for effective research synthesis.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

The claim that research and practice in the field of AOS is characterized by the use of diverse diagnostic criteria is supported by this scoping review. The findings support the need to develop a universal consensus standard for AOS diagnosis to ensure consistency across research and clinical practice.

Eosinophilic esophagitis in children: doubts and future perspectives

Background

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorder and represents the leading cause of food impaction. The pathogenesis of EoE is the result of an interplay between genetic, environmental and host immune system factors. New therapeutic approaches for EoE have been proposed. In this manuscript we review the current evidence regarding EoE management in pediatric age, with a particular focus on new findings related to the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies.

Main body

Conventional therapies have failed in treating some patients with EoE, which then requires aggressive procedures such as esophageal dilatation. The most effective available medical therapy for EoE is swallowed topic corticosteroids (fluticasone propionate and budesonide), which have two main drawbacks: they are related to well-known adverse effects (especially in the paediatric population), and there are not enough long-term data to confirm that they are able to reverse the remodelling process of the esophageal mucosa, which is the major cause of EoE symptoms (including dysphagia, abdominal pain, nausea, obstruction, perforation and vomiting). The monoclonal antibodies appear to be an interesting therapeutic approach. However, the studies conducted until now have shown substantial histological improvement not coupled with significant clinical improvements and no significant relationship between a decreasing number of eosinophils and clinical symptoms, highlighting the importance in the pathogenesis of EoE of cells such as T-helper cells, mast cells, B cells, epithelial cells and natural killer cells.

Conclusions

Monoclonal antibodies targeting a signal involved in the pathogenesis of EoE may not break the complex self-propagating inflammatory activation responsible for perpetuation of the inflammatory response and the development of symptoms and complications. We speculate that combined biological therapies targeting more than one molecule or cell may provide better results, with conventional therapies potentially enhancing the effects of antibodies. However, further studies should aim to find the best therapeutic approach to target the cells involved in the remodelling process and to reverse the histological changes in this complex clinical condition.

Comparison of mucosal impedance measurements throughout the esophagus and mucosal eosinophil counts in endoscopic biopsy specimens in eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Assessing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) activity from limited esophageal mucosal biopsy samples has been questioned. Here our aim was to compare mucosal impedance (MI) throughout the esophagus and eosinophil counts in endoscopic biopsy samples in EoE.

METHODS

We compared 20-site MI using a balloon catheter in the esophagus and eosinophils per high-power field (eos/HPF) in esophageal mucosal biopsy samples. Data are summarized as median (interquartile range) comparing control subjects and EoE using Mann-Whitney rank sum test and between endoscopic reference score and MI (minimal and average) using rank Spearman correlation.

RESULTS

Ten adult control patients (ages 38-70) and 23 EoE patients (ages 21-80, 18 active) were studied. The mean (range) pan-esophageal MI in control subjects was significantly higher (6435 ohms [4546-7301]) compared with EoE patients (2004 ohms [1437-2546], P < .001). In control patients 172 of 180 (95.6%) individual impedance measurements (18 per patient) were normal when compared with 126 of 432 (29.2%) measurements in EoE. No EoE patient had uniformly normal MI. MI varied widely, with 19 of 23 patients having values above and below 2300 ohms (normal) regardless of EoE activity. Correlation of maximim eos/HPF with minimum and average MI per patient was r = -.243, P = .072 and r = -.358, P = .086, respectively. Of 5 patients with inactive EoE, 3 had >50% abnormal MI segments. Correlation coefficients of the endoscopic reference score with minimum and average MI were r = -.154, P = .47 and r = -.27, P = .20, respectively. The procedure was <5 minutes without adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

MI is lower in the esophagus of EoE patients compared with control subjects with poor correlation between peak esophageal eosinophil counts, EoE activity, and MI. Segmental esophageal MI provides a unique marker of esophageal dysfunction in EoE. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02995395.).

Incidence and prevalence of eosinophilic oesophagitis increase continiously in adults and children in Central Spain: A 12-year population-based study

OBJECTIVES

To update population-based incidence, prevalence and trends for eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) in children and adults over the past decade.

METHODS

All patients referred to our EoE unit and living in the study area up to December 2017 were prospectively registered. Endoscopy and pathology databases and clinical charts were manually reviewed. Diagnosis of EoE was confirmed upon symptoms of oesophageal dysfunction and eosinophilia >15 eos/HPF. Annual incidence rates and prevalence were estimated with confidence intervals (CI) of 95%.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients, including 19 children, were diagnosed with EoE in the 2006-2017 period. In 2017, the prevalence of EoE in children was 111.9 (95%CI, 67.4-174.6) cases/100,000 inhabitants and in adults 111.9 (95%CI, 90.8-136.5) also, and in both cases was significantly higher for male patients. The highest prevalences were observed in ages ranging between 20 and 24 and 35-39 years old. Mean incidence rates of the study period were 10.6 and 9.1 new cases/100,000 inhabitants/year in children and adults, respectively. Rise in the appearance of EoE during the study period exceeded that for endoscopic procedures. No seasonal variation was observed in the diagnosis of EoE.

CONCLUSION

The incidence and prevalence of EoE has increased sharply in central Spain, beyond previous estimations, with one out of every 893 inhabitants now being diagnosed.

Updated International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Proceedings of the AGREE Conference

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Over the last decade, clinical experiences and research studies raised concerns regarding use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as part of the diagnostic strategy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to clarify the use of PPIs in the evaluation and treatment of children and adults with suspected EoE to develop updated international consensus criteria for EoE diagnosis.

METHODS

A consensus conference was convened to address the issue of PPI use for esophageal eosinophilia using a process consistent with standards described in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II. Pediatric and adult physicians and researchers from gastroenterology, allergy, and pathology subspecialties representing 14 countries used online communications, teleconferences, and a face-to-face meeting to review the literature and clinical experiences.

RESULTS

Substantial evidence documented that PPIs reduce esophageal eosinophilia in children, adolescents, and adults, with several mechanisms potentially explaining the treatment effect. Based on these findings, an updated diagnostic algorithm for EoE was developed, with removal of the PPI trial requirement.

CONCLUSIONS

EoE should be diagnosed when there are symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (or approximately 60 eosinophils per mm²) on esophageal biopsy and after a comprehensive assessment of non-EoE disorders that could cause or potentially contribute to esophageal eosinophilia. The evidence suggests that PPIs are better classified as a treatment for esophageal eosinophilia that may be due to EoE than as a diagnostic criterion, and we have developed updated consensus criteria for EoE that reflect this change.

PPI Trial for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Chaos in the Community

INTRODUCTION

Despite consensus eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) statement published in 2011 calling for a 2-month trial of protons pump inhibitor (PPI), the guidelines are not followed by many. We studied the practice patterns in our community and response to a PPI retrial in patients previously diagnosed with "idiopathic EoE."

METHODS

All patients presenting to the senior author's practice with suspected EoE from 2011 to 2015. Two cohorts were studied: (1) patients diagnosed in the community as "idiopathic EoE"; (2) treatment naïve patients given a PPI trial at University of South Florida. PPI responsive eosinophilia was defined after 2 months of high dose PPIs after initial diagnosis of mucosal eosinophilia and histologic response of <15 eosinophils per HPF. SPSS v19.0 was used to calculate mean difference and odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

In total, 78 patients met inclusion criteria, 46 patients had outside diagnosis of "idiopathic EoE," and 41 patients received a PPI trial at University of South Florida. In total, 34/46 (73.9%) community patients were placed on a PPI, 3/46 (6.5%) were placed on elimination diets, 31/46 (67.4%) steroids, and 21/46 (45.7%) were treated with both steroids/PPIs. Fewer patients received PPI trials in the community 3/46 (6.5%) versus 26/34 (76.5%) at our center [OR, 46.6 (95% CI, 11.3-191.5); P<0.0001]. In total, 12/26 (46.2%) were PPI responders on our retrial despite previously being diagnosed with idiopathic EoE. The group initially diagnosed at our center had a higher PPI response rate 12/15 (80%) versus 12/26 (46.2%) in the community group [OR, 7.58 (1.42, 40.55; P=0.018)].

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of a PPI trial is misunderstood and may be confused with the more traditional PPI trial for gastroesophageal reflux disease. This algorithm is critical and should be done before empiric steroids/diet therapies.

A diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis is associated with increased life insurance premiums

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disease that can be diagnosed at any age, but is not associated with malignancy and does not shorten lifespan. It remains unknown whether an EoE diagnosis affects insurability or insurance premium costs. We therefore aimed to determine whether a diagnosis of EoE affects the costs of life insurance. Our investigation was a secret shopper audit study whereby we contacted national insurance companies in the United States to evaluate the effect of a diagnosis of EoE on life insurance premiums. We constructed standardized case scenarios for males and females, including a 25-year-old and a 48-year-old without other comorbid conditions, who either had or did not have a diagnosis of EoE. Companies were asked for their best estimate for a $100,000 whole life insurance policy. Comparisons between median premiums were made using the Mann-Whitney U test. There were 20 national life insurance companies contacted and a total of 73 quotes were obtained. The median premium rate was similar for EoE and non-EoE cases at the younger age ($828 [IQR $576-1,020] vs. $756 [IQR $504-$804]; P = 0.10). However, the premium for the older case without EoE was 19% less expensive compared to a case with EoE ($1990 [IQR $1,248-2,350] vs. $2,375 [IQR $2,100-2568; P = 0.02]. This finding was not explained by sex or state of residence. Based on these findings, we conclude that life insurance premiums are significantly more expensive in the older patient case with EoE when compared to the same case without EoE. Patients with EoE and their providers should be aware of the additional cost associated with this diagnosis.

Practice Differences in the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Among Adult and Pediatric Gastroenterologists in Israel

OBJECTIVES

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) guidelines call for similar practices in adults and children with EoE. We compared the diagnostic and management practices of gastroenterologists treating adult and pediatric patients suspected of having, or diagnosed with, EoE.

METHODS

A 19-question multiple-choice questionnaire was given to gastroenterologists treating either adults or children. Questions explored 4 areas of interest: physician demographics, diagnosis and tissue sampling practices, management, and the need for societal publications on EoE.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were returned by 85/180 adult and 30/40 pediatric gastroenterologists (PGs). Compared to PGs, adult gastroenterologists (AGs) took esophageal biopsies significantly less frequently in the following scenarios: endoscopy without esophageal symptoms or macroscopic endoscopic findings (10% vs 57%; P < 0.001), dysphagia without macroscopic findings (83% vs 100%; P = 0.019), and gastroesophageal reflux symptoms with distal esophageal erythema (44% vs 100%; P < 0.001). Significantly fewer AGs reported taking gastric and duodenal biopsies when EoE was suspected (29% vs 90%; P < 0.001). AGs more often followed patients clinically (30% vs 0%; P < 0.001) rather than endoscopically, and were far less inclined to implement elimination diets compared to PGs (23% vs 68%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant disparities exist between gastroenterologists treating adult and pediatric patients with EoE. These findings may impact rates of diagnosis, appropriate treatment, monitoring, long-term outcomes, and may affect negatively transition from pediatric to adult care.

Optimal Histologic Cutpoints for Treatment Response in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Analysis of Data From a Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

No prospective studies substantiate 15 eos/hpf as an appropriate endpoint for treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to determine a histologic cutpoint that identifies successful treatment of EoE by assessing symptomatic and endoscopic improvement.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study of 62 consecutive adult patients undergoing outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy at the University of North Carolina from 2009 through 2014. At diagnosis of EoE and after 8 weeks of standard treatment, symptom and endoscopic responses were measured using a visual analogue scale and an endoscopic severity score (ESS), and eosinophil counts were assessed. Receiver operator curves and logistic regression models evaluated the histologic threshold that best predicted symptomatic and endoscopic response. For symptoms, analysis was limited to patients without baseline esophageal dilation.

RESULTS

The mean eosinophil count at diagnosis was 124 eos/hpf, falling to 35 eos/hpf after treatment. The mean visual analogue scale decreased from 3.4 at baseline to 1.7 after treatment, and the mean ESS decreased from 3 to 1.6. Twenty-nine patients had symptom responses (47%) and 34 had endoscopic responses (55%). Post-treatment eosinophil count thresholds of 8, 15, and 5 eos/hpf best predicted symptom, endoscopic and combined responses, respectively. On logistic regression, decreasing eosinophil count was significantly associated with the probability of symptomatic (P = .01) and endoscopic response (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study of patients with EoE, we found that a cutpoint of <15 eos/hpf identifies most patients with symptom and endoscopic improvements, providing support for the current diagnostic threshold. A lower threshold (<5 eos/hpf) identifies most patients with a combination of symptom and endoscopic responses; this cutpoint might be used in situations that require a stringent histologic threshold.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a new disease. It is caused by a T-helper type 2 cell response to food antigens in contact with the esophageal mucosa. Although no single feature defines EoE, a constellation of compatible demographic, clinical, endoscopic, and histologic findings establish the diagnosis. Children present with symptoms and endoscopic patterns characteristic of inflammation, whereas adolescents and adults have manifestations of fibrosis and gross esophageal strictures. Clinical and endoscopic scoring systems have helped to standardize diagnosis. There is controversy in EoE research over the optimal endpoint for treatment. Although the most common endpoint is a reduced number of eosinophils in biopsies, changes in symptoms and endoscopic features are becoming important targets of therapy. We should improve our understanding of EoE progression and the need for maintenance therapy, and continue development of diagnostic tools that avoid endoscopy and biopsy analyses to more easily monitor disease activity.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children and Adults

Adults and children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have distinct clinical and endoscopic presentations. Recognition of clinical signs, along with laboratory and endoscopic findings, is critical for the identification of patients with EoE because delay in diagnosis has been associated with esophageal remodeling and stricture formation. Clinical presentation varies considerably between adults and children. This is less due to differences in the disease and more due to patient differences. This article describes the similarities and differences in clinical presentation of children and adults with EoE, including areas of epidemiology, clinical and endoscopic presentation, pathophysiology, and treatment.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

EoE is a significant cause of gastrointestinal morbidity affecting 1:2000. Patients with EoE typically have multiple atopic comorbidities, and additionally, many patients with EoE can be controlled well with elimination diets. The purpose of this review is to summarize the care of pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

EoE represents a distinct clinical syndrome which is characterized by esophageal dysfunction and eosinophil-predominant inflammation of the esophageal mucosa. Patients with EoE can present with varying symptoms depending on their age; in this review, we review the presenting features of eosinophilic esophagitis in children as well as a diagnostic algorithm for EoE. The mucosal inflammation in EoE is driven by exposure to food antigens in many patients with EoE. Therefore, for the majority of patients, the mainstays of treatment remain food elimination diets or swallowed steroids. This review summarizes the diagnostic approach to eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in pediatric patients, focusing on the importance of accurate diagnosis and selection of appropriate therapy.

A Gene Expression Panel is Accurate for Diagnosis and Monitoring Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Adults

Objective:

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) can be difficult to diagnose. We aimed to evaluate whether a gene expression score could differentiate adult EoE cases from non-EoE controls and to determine whether scores normalized after treatment for EoE.

Methods:

We analyzed prospectively collected esophageal biopsies from EoE patients (diagnosed as per consensus guidelines and after a proton pump inhibitor trial) and non-EoE controls. Gene expression for a previously constructed 94 gene panel was quantified for a single RNA-later preserved biopsy. For diagnosis, a summary expression score and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated. For treatment response (defined as <15 eosinophils per high-power field), pretreatment and posttreatment EoE samples were compared.

Results:

For 91 EoE cases and 174 controls, gene scores for EoE cases were lower than non-EoE controls (mean 198 vs. 420; P<0.001), with an AUC of 0.927. A score ≤263 yielded a positive predictive value=91% a score ≥349 yielded a negative predictive value=90% only 12% of subjects had an indeterminate score (264–348) by this classification scheme. For the 89 EoE cases with paired pretreatment and posttreatment samples, overall gene scores improved after treatment from 199 to 343 (P<0.001). This normalization was seen only in cases with histological response (202 vs. 425; P<0.001); scores were unchanged in non-responders (189 vs. 226; P=0.25).

Conclusions:

A gene expression score has high diagnostic utility for distinguishing EoE patients from non-EoE controls in adults and can be used in clinical algorithms. Because it is highly responsive to treatment, the test could be used to monitor disease status.

Lack of compliance with consensus recommendations on the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in published prevalence studies. A clinical and systematic review

OBJECTIVE

According to consensus recommendations, the presence of esophageal symptoms, >15 eosinophils/high-power field and unresponsiveness to proton pump inhibitors are required for a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Nevertheless, inconsistency in using these guidelines has been reported in recent publications. The objective of this study was to assess compliance with EoE diagnostic guidelines in published studies on EoE prevalence and to evaluate other clinical and methodological parameters.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in articles published between 2008 and 2015 on the prevalence of EoE in unselected adults. Studies using EoE diagnostic definitions were judged to be compliant if they included all three components of the definition, partially compliant if they included two and non-compliant if they included one or none. Esophageal biopsy protocol differences and descriptions of patients' characteristics were determined.

RESULTS

Among the 20 studies included, eight were performed in a hospital setting and 12 in the general population. Only 40.0% of studies were compliant, 35.0% were partially compliant and 25.0% were non-compliant with the EoE diagnostic definition guidelines. In 60.0% of the studies a proton pump inhibitor trial was not administered. Only 30.0% adhered to the recommendations in the esophageal biopsy protocol. A lack of description of the history of atopia and endoscopic characteristics was observed in many studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial or non-compliance with the EoE diagnostic definition was observed in most of the published prevalence studies after the publication of the first consensus. The results of these studies might be interpreted taking into account this context.

Systematic review of outcome measures in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis treatment trials

Background

Heterogeneity has been noted in the selection and reporting of disease-specific, pediatric outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The consequence is invalid results or difficulty comparing results across trials. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess primary outcome and outcome measure selection and reporting, in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) treatment trials. As secondary objectives, we compared trial disease definition to established concensus guidelines, and the efficacy of current EoE treatments.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL since 2001. We also searched clinical trial registries (portal.nihr.ac.uk; clinicaltrials.gov; isrctn.com; and anzctr.org.au) and references of included studies. We included RCTs of EoE treatment in patients 0–18 years. Two authors independently assessed articles.

Results

Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. All identified primary outcomes, however, of 9 unique primary outcomes, only 2 were used in more than one study. In total, 25 unique primary and secondary outcome measures were employed for pediatric EoE treatment trials. Measurement properties and rationale for their selection was rarely provided. Uptake of consensus-based diagnostic criteria was 25 % in trials initiated after 2011. Due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies obtained, no meta-analysis of treatment efficacy could be undertaken. This SR was limited to exclusively pediatric RCTs.

Conclusions

The results of this study confirm the need for a standardized set of core outcomes that are universally reported in pediatric EoE trials. Consistent disease definition and standardized outcome reporting will facilitate meta-analyses across similar trials and inform future clinical decision-making.

Systematic review registration number CRD42013003798

Seasonal recurrence of food bolus obstruction in eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a newly recognised condition that is apparently increasing in prevalence, and the aetiology is poorly understood. The role of aeroallergens in EoE is controversial, given the success of dietary therapy. Massive aeroallergen exposure leading to food bolus obstruction events (FBOE) has been described, and the diagnosis of EoE by esophageal biopsy noted to be more common in the pollen season according to previous case series.

AIM

To determine if a seasonal variation and a geographical variation occurred in EoE presenting as FBOE in adults, and to track the prevalence of FBOE and EoE over time.

METHOD

A retrospective case-control study analysis was performed from January 2002 to January 2012 to identify all FBOE in adults presenting to five tertiary hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Endoscopy, histopathological reports, case notes and blood tests were examined, and postcodes recorded. Records of pollen counts were obtained. Cases were defined according to esophageal biopsy and grouped based on month of diagnosis. All other causes of FBOE served as controls.

RESULTS

One thousand, one hundred and thirty-two FBOE were identified. Biopsies were only performed in 278 of these cases, and 85 patients were found to have EoE after biopsy. Patients with EoE were younger (mean age 38 years, range 18-72) compared with those with alternative diagnosis (mean age 64.4 range 22-92), more likely to be male (M : F = 4:1 compared with 1.68:1 ) and had a higher eosinophil count in venous blood. Overall no seasonality was demonstrated in FBOE secondary to any diagnosis, although the six cases of recurrent FBOE secondary to EoE mainly occurred in the grass pollen season in subsequent years. FBOE cases were evenly distributed throughout metropolitan Melbourne irrespective of population density. EoE as a percentage of FBOE increased over time.

CONCLUSION

Seasonal aeroallergens may be important for a subgroup of patients with EoE presenting as recurrent FBOE. Esophageal biopsies are performed in a minority of patients, representing a significant departure from ideal management and contributing to recurrent unnecessary FBOE. EoE is an increasingly important cause of FBOE.

From genetics to treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE) is an emerging chronic atopic disease. Recent advances in understanding its genetic and molecular biology pathogenesis may lead to a better management of the disease

RECENT FINDINGS

EoE is an atopic disease. Most of the patients affected by EoE have other atopic diseases such as allergic rhinitis, asthma, IgE-mediated food allergies and/or atopic dermatitis. The local inflammation is a T helper type 2 (Th2) flogosis, which most likely is driven by a mixed IgE and n-IgE-mediated reaction to food and/or environmental allergens. Epidemiological studies show that EoE is an atopic disease with a strong genetic component. Genetic studies have shown that EoE is associated with single nucleotide polymorphism on genes, which are released by the epithelium and important in atopic inflammation such as thymic stromal lymphopoietin located (TSLP) close to the Th2 cytokine cluster [interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, IL-13] on chromosome 5q22, Calpain 14, EMSY, and Eotaxin3. When the EoE diagnosis is made, it is imperative to control the local eosinophilic inflammation not only to give symptomatic relief to the patient, but also to prevent complications such as esophageal stricture and food impaction.

SUMMARY

EoE is treated like many other atopic diseases with a combination of topical steroids and/or food antigen avoidance. The new understanding of EoE may lead to more specific and definitive treatments of EoE.

An Overview of the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory condition characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa. The diagnosis requires esophageal biopsies demonstrating at least 15 eosinophils per high-powered field following a course of high-dose proton pump inhibitors. Management of EoE consists of the three Ds: drugs, dietary therapy, and esophageal dilation. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of EoE to include the role of emerging therapies.

Evaluation of Histologic Cutpoints for Treatment Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

AIM

No consensus exists on the definition of successful treatment in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The aim of this study was to identify the optimal histologic cutpoint to define successful treatment of EoE by assessing rates of symptomatic and endoscopic improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study utilizing the University of North Carolina EoE Clinicopathologic Database between 2006 and 2013. Rates of symptomatic and endoscopic improvement were determined, as were post-treatment eosinophil counts. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated for symptomatic and endoscopic response at several possible eosinophil count cutpoints (eos/hpf). Predictors of response were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 224 treatments in 199 patients, 76% were associated with symptomatic improvement, 68% with endoscopic improvement, and 60% with both. Of treatments that resulted in a post-treatment count of <15 eos/hpf, 90% were associated with an endoscopic response, 88% with a symptomatic response, and 81% with both symptomatic and endoscopic responses. Using a <15 eos/hpf threshold, the area under the curves (AUCs) were 0.70, 0.78, and 0.75 for symptomatic, endoscopic, and symptomatic/endoscopic responses, respectively. Lower histologic cut-points did not result in a substantial gain in response, but decreased the AUC.

CONCLUSION

In this large cohort of EoE patients, rates of symptomatic and endoscopic improvement were generally associated with histologic improvement. A histologic cutoff for treatment response of <15 eos/hpf may balance clinical outcomes and test performance.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Gastroenteritis

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease (EGID) can be classified as eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) when the eosinophilia is limited to the esophagus or as eosinophilic gastritis (EG) if it is limited to the gastric tract, eosinophilic colitis (EC) if it is limited to the colon, and eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) if the eosinophilia involves one or more parts of the gastrointestinal tract. EoE is by far the most common EGID. It is a well-defined chronic atopic disease due to a T helper type 2 (Th2) inflammation triggered often by food allergens. EoE diagnosis is done if an esophageal biopsy shows at least 15 eosinophils per high power field (eos/hpf). Globally accepted long-term therapies for EoE are the use of swallowed inhaled steroids or food antigen avoidance. The treatment of EoE is done not only to control symptoms but also to prevent complications such as esophageal stricture and food impaction. EGE cause non-specific gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and are diagnosed if esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/colonoscopy show eosinophilia in one or more parts of the GI tract. They are rare diseases with an unclear pathogenesis, and they are poorly defined in terms of diagnostic criteria and treatment. Before initiating treatment of any EGE, it is imperative to conduct a differential diagnosis to exclude other causes of hypereosinophilia with GI localization. EGE are often poorly responsive to therapy and there is no commonly accepted long-term treatment. EG has many characteristics similar to EoE, including the fact that it is often due to a food allergen-driven Th2 inflammation; transcriptome analysis however shows that it is more a systemic disease and has a different gene signature than EoE. EC is a benign form of delayed food allergy in infant and is instead a difficult-to-treat severe inflammatory condition in older children and adults. EC in the latter groups can be a manifestation of drug allergy or autoimmune disease. Overall EGE, EC, and EG are rare and are a diagnosis of exclusion until more common causes of eosinophilia have been excluded.

The Role of Environmental Exposures in the Etiology of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an emerging clinicopathologic entity defined by abnormal esophageal eosinophilic infiltration. Management of this disease is hampered by limited understanding of etiologic and controllable risk factors. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the environmental risk factors for EoE. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases from January 1, 1950, through June 30, 2015. To identify additional relevant studies, we hand searched bibliographies of included articles. We limited the review to articles using human subjects and consisting of case reports, case series, cross-sectional and cohort studies, and clinical trials. Nineteen articles discuss the risk of environmental exposures on EoE and indicate that environment plays a large role in the etiology of EoE. Seasonal, geographic, and climate-based differences in disease prevalence have been reported, but the exact mediators of this process, possibly aeroallergens that vary over time and from place to place, remain elusive.

Value of an Additional Review for Eosinophil Quantification in Esophageal Biopsies

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires a peak count of 15 eosinophils per high-power field (hpf). Herein, the peak eosinophil count specified by a pathologist was compared with the second review of a research assistant. Of 477 biopsies, 106 had a peak count between 1 and 14 eosinophils/hpf cited in the pathology report, and 23/106 (22%) had ≥15 eosinophils/hpf on second review. The pathology report detected potential EoE with 99% specificity, but 80% sensitivity. As such, an additional review of esophageal biopsies yields higher eosinophil counts in ∼5% of cases. We propose that biopsies with a count between 1 and 14 eosinophils/hpf require further investigation because ∼22% may yield a potential EoE diagnosis.

Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms not responding to proton pump inhibitor: GERD, NERD, NARD, esophageal hypersensitivity or dyspepsia?

Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is a common gastrointestinal process that can generate symptoms of heartburn and chest pain. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the gold standard for the treatment of GER; however, a substantial group of GER patients fail to respond to PPIs. In the past, it was believed that acid reflux into the esophagus causes all, or at least the majority, of symptoms attributed to GER, with both erosive esophagitis and nonerosive outcomes. However, with modern testing techniques it has been shown that, in addition to acid reflux, the reflux of nonacid gastric and duodenal contents into the esophagus may also induce GER symptoms. It remains unknown how weakly acidic or alkaline refluxate with a pH similar to a normal diet induces GER symptoms. Esophageal hypersensitivity or functional dyspepsia with superimposed heartburn may be other mechanisms of symptom generation, often completely unrelated to GER. Detailed studies investigating the pathophysiology of esophageal hypersensitivity are not conclusive, and definitions of the various disease states may overlap and are often confusing. The authors aim to clarify the pathophysiology, definition, diagnostic techniques and medical treatment of patients with heartburn symptoms who fail PPI therapy.

Prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis in the United States

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has become a major cause of upper gastrointestinal morbidity in children and adults. However, there are few data on the nationwide prevalence of EoE. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of EoE in the United States.

METHODS

We collected health insurance claims from a large database that represented the U.S. commercially insured population. We analyzed data from 2008 to 2011, identifying cases of EoE by using a previously validated definition, and calculated a period prevalence by using data from 2009 to 2011. EoE was defined as any instance of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision code 530.13. We calculated the prevalence of the code in the database and standardized the estimate to the U.S. population.

RESULTS

Of 35,575,388 individuals in this database, 16,405 had at least 1 code for EoE. The mean age was 33.5 years, 65% were male, 55.8% had dysphagia, and 52.8% had a diagnostic code for at least 1 allergic condition. Among 11,569,217 individuals with continuous insurance coverage between mid-2009 and mid-2011, 6513 had at least 1 code for EoE. When standardized to the U.S. population, the estimated period prevalence of EoE was 56.7/100,000 persons, translating to approximately 152,152 cases in the U.S. Prevalence peaked in men 35-39 years old, with a rate of 114.6/100,000 persons.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its relatively recent description, EoE is frequently diagnosed in the United States, with an estimated prevalence of 56.7/100,000 persons. This estimate depends on the accuracy of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision code, but it could be an underestimate, because knowledge of the code and recognition of EoE are increasing.

Diagnostics of eosinophilic esophagitis: clinical, endoscopic, and histologic pitfalls

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is currently defined as an immune-mediated chronic esophageal disorder that is diagnosed using both clinical and pathologic information. A series of consensus diagnostic guidelines for EoE have brought a measure of consistency to the field, but in practice the diagnosis of EoE can be challenging. Typical clinical symptoms of EoE, including dysphagia, heartburn, and chest pain, can overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease, which itself is a common indication for performing endoscopic evaluation. The endoscopic findings of EoE, such as esophageal rings, strictures, linear furrows, and white exudates, are not specific. Esophageal eosinophilia, the histologic hallmark of EoE, is also not pathognomonic and can be seen in a range of conditions. Further complicating the diagnosis of EoE is the newly recognized entity of proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia, a condition that must be excluded prior to confirming a diagnosis of EoE. This paper will review the current diagnostic criteria for EoE and discuss multiple clinical, endoscopic, and histologic pitfalls in making the diagnosis of EoE.

Development and field testing of a novel patient-reported outcome measure of dysphagia in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Dysphagia is the hallmark of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but no validated dysphagia instruments in this population exist.

AIM

To develop and field test a patient-reported outcome (PRO) for dysphagia in subjects with EoE.

METHODS

This was a multi-centre/multi-phase prospective study. The first phase developed a dysphagia questionnaire using qualitative methods. The second phase was a 30-day field trial to test the instrument and assess content validity. Adolescents and adults with EoE, active symptoms of dysphagia and oesophageal eosinophilia (≥15 eosinophils per high-power field) were enrolled. Solid-food-avoidance days, dysphagia days and actions taken to get relief were recorded. A dysphagia score was calculated and compared to the Straumann Dysphagia Instrument (SDI).

RESULTS

Ten adolescents and 10 adults were included in the first phase and the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ), a three-item daily electronic diary, was developed. In the second phase, 35 subjects finished the field trial (18 adults, 17 adolescents, mean age 24, 54% male, 95% white, 54% currently on topical corticosteroids). The median number of dysphagia days per week was 2 for adolescents vs. 4 for adults (P < 0.001), and 2 for those on topical steroids vs. 4 for those not on topical steroids (P < 0.001). The DSQ score strongly correlated with the number of dysphagia days (R = 0.96; P < 0.001) and the SDI (R = 0.77; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The DSQ, a three-question patient-reported outcome, was successfully developed and field tested. The DSQ had content validity and the score accurately measured dysphagia frequency and intensity. The Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire is suitable for use in clinical trials of EoE patients with dysphagia.

Diagnostic and therapeutic management of eosinophilic oesophagitis in children and adults: results from a Spanish registry of clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic oesophagitis has emerged as a common cause of oesophageal symptoms.

AIMS

To document practice variation in care provided to eosinophilic oesophagitis patients in Spain and to assess adherence to available guidelines.

METHODS

A prospective survey-based registry including data from all patients receiving care from gastroenterologists and allergists throughout Spain was developed.

RESULTS

Data from 705 patients (82% adults, male:female ratio 4.1:1) were collected from 26 Spanish hospitals. 42.7% received care in teaching hospitals. Adults presented dysphagia and food impaction more frequently; vomiting and weight loss predominated in children (p < 0.01). A mean diagnostic delay of 54.7 and 28.04 months was documented for adults and children, respectively. Normal endoscopic exams were reported in 27.6% and directly related to the experience in managing the disease (p < 0.05). Paediatric patients, non-teaching hospitals and greater experience in managing eosinophilic oesophagitis were associated with increased frequency in eosinophil count reports and with taking gastric and duodenal biopsies (p < 0.001). Initial therapy consisted of topical steroids (61.7% of patients), proton pump inhibitors (52.4%), dietary modifications (51.26%) and endoscopic dilation (7.2%). Referrals to allergy units occurred more frequently in teaching hospitals (p = 0.003) where food restrictions generally followed allergy test results (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Availability of facilities and the physician's experience constituted the most important factors in explaining differences in patient management.

Randomized controlled trial comparing aerosolized swallowed fluticasone to esomeprazole for esophageal eosinophilia

OBJECTIVES

Patients with clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and dense eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa are suspected to have eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Topical steroids are often used as first-line therapy for EoE, although some patients respond clinically to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The purpose of this study was to compare the histological and clinical response of patients with esophageal eosinophilia treated with aerosolized swallowed fluticasone propionate vs. esomeprazole.

METHODS

This prospective single-blinded randomized controlled trial enrolled newly diagnosed patients with suspected EoE, defined as having clinical symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction with at least 15 eosinophils/high power field (hpf). Patients underwent 24-h pH/impedance monitoring to establish gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Patients were stratified by the presence of GERD and randomized to receive fluticasone 440 mcg twice daily or esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for 8 weeks followed by repeat endoscopy with biopsies. The primary outcome was histological response of esophageal eosinophilia, defined as <7 eosinophils/hpf. Secondary outcomes included clinical change in symptoms using the validated Mayo dysphagia questionnaire (MDQ) and interval change in endoscopic findings following treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients (90% male, 81% white, mean age 38 ± 10 years) were randomized into fluticasone (n = 21) and esomeprazole (n = 21) treatment arms. In all, 19% (8/42) of patients had coexisting GERD and were equally stratified into each arm (n = 4). Overall, there was no significant difference in resolution of esophageal eosinophilia between fluticasone and esomeprazole (19 vs. 33%, P = 0.484). In patients with established GERD, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia was noted in 0% (0/4) of the fluticasone group compared with 100% (4/4) of the esomeprazole group (P = 0.029). In GERD-negative patients, there was no significant difference in resolution of esophageal eosinophilia between treatment arms with fluticasone and esomeprazole (24 vs.18%, P = 1.00). The MDQ score significantly decreased after treatment with esomeprazole (19 ± 21 vs. 1.4 ± 4.5, P<0.001), but not with fluticasone (17 ± 18 vs. 12 ± 16, P = 0.162). Improvement in endoscopic findings and other histological markers were similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone and esomeprazole provide a similar histological response for esophageal eosinophilia. With regard to clinical response, esomeprazole was superior to fluticasone, particularly in patients with established GERD.

Eosinophilic esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated condition whereby infiltration of eosinophils into the esophageal mucosa leads to symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. EoE is encountered in a substantial proportion of patients undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy. This review discusses the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features of EoE and presents the most recent guidelines for its diagnosis. Selected diagnostic dilemmas are described, including distinguishing EoE from gastroesophageal reflux disease and addressing the newly recognized clinical entity of proton-pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia. Also highlighted is evidence to support both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, including topical corticosteroids, dietary elimination therapy, and endoscopic dilation.

Diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory condition characterized by esophageal dysfunction and eosinophilic infiltrate in the esophageal epithelium in the absence of other potential causes of eosinophilia. EoE is increasing in incidence and prevalence, and is a major cause of gastrointestinal morbidity among children and adults. EoE is thought to be immune mediated, with food or environmental antigens stimulating a T-helper (Th)-2 inflammatory response. An increased understanding of the pathogenesis of EoE has led to the evolution of diagnostic and treatment paradigms. We review the latest approach to diagnosis of EoE and present consensus diagnostic guidelines. We also discuss the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features of EoE and challenges to diagnosis. Finally, we present the 3 major treatment options for EoE: pharmacologic therapy, dietary modification, and endoscopic dilation.

The prevalence and diagnostic utility of endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic findings such as esophageal rings, strictures, narrow-caliber esophagus, linear furrows, white plaques, and pallor or decreased vasculature might indicate the presence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to determine the prevalence and diagnostic utility of endoscopic features of EoE.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, and gastrointestinal meeting abstracts were searched to identify studies that included more than 10 patients with EoE and reported endoscopic findings. Pooled prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated using random- and mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

The search yielded 100 articles and abstracts on 4678 patients with EoE and 2742 without (controls). In subjects with EoE, the overall pooled prevalence was as follows: esophageal rings, 44%; strictures, 21%; narrow-caliber esophagus, 9%; linear furrows, 48%; white plaques, 27%; and pallor/decreased vasculature, 41%. Substantial heterogeneity existed among studies. Results from endoscopy examinations were normal in 17% of patients, but this number decreased to 7% when the analysis was limited to prospective studies (P < .05). Overall levels of sensitivity were modest, ranging from 15% to 48%, whereas levels of specificity were greater, ranging from 90% to 95%. Positive predictive values ranged from 51% to 73% and negative predictive values ranged from 74% to 84%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is heterogeneity among studies in the reported prevalence of endoscopic findings in patients with EoE, but in prospective studies at least 1 abnormality was detected by endoscopy in 93% of patients. The operating characteristics of endoscopic findings alone are inadequate for diagnosis of EoE. Esophageal biopsy specimens should be obtained from all patients with clinical features of EoE, regardless of the endoscopic appearance of the esophagus.

Influence of race and gender on the presentation of eosinophilic esophagitis

OBJECTIVES

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is thought to be more common among males and Caucasians, but little is known about the disease presentation among patients with different genders or racial backgrounds. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic characteristics of patients with EoE of different genders or racial backgrounds.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of the University of North Carolina EoE clinicopathologic database between January 2000 and December 2008. Cases of EoE were defined per 2007 consensus guidelines and stratified by race and gender for comparison.

RESULTS

In all, 208 incident EoE cases were identified (76% males, mean age 26 years, 82% Caucasian, and 12% African American). Caucasians were older at diagnosis than African Americans (27.1 vs. 19.0 years, P=0.05), less likely to present with failure-to-thrive (9 vs. 30%, P=0.002), and more likely to have esophageal rings (41 vs. 12%, P=0.005). These findings persisted after stratification by age. A higher proportion of males were diagnosed under the age of 18 as compared with females (48 vs. 64%, P=0.05). Males were more likely to report dysphagia and food impaction as symptoms (71 vs. 53%, P=0.02 and 35 vs. 20%, P=0.05, respectively), and these findings also persisted after stratification by age. The remainder of clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features did not differ by either race or gender.

CONCLUSIONS

While age and dysphagia differed by gender and race among EoE patients, the majority of symptoms and findings were not different across groups, even after stratification by age. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for EoE, regardless of race or gender, and obtain esophageal biopsies to confirm the diagnosis.

Diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis: current approach and future directions

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a chronic inflammatory condition with a rapidly evolving epidemiology, is now a major cause of esophageal disease. Current guidelines emphasize that EoE is a clinicopathologic condition with the following criteria: clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction; at least 15 eosinophils in one high-power field on esophageal biopsy; and lack of responsiveness to high-dose proton-pump inhibition or normal pH monitoring of the distal esophagus. Challenges in diagnosis include lack of standardized esophageal biopsy protocols, variability in how eosinophil counts are determined, variability in the size of microscope high-power fields, and the need to evaluate the differential diagnosis of esophageal eosinophilia. In particular, the complex interplay between esophageal eosinophilia, EoE, and reflux disease remains an area both of controversy and active study. In the future, diagnostic strategies could include symptom scores, tissue or noninvasive biomarkers, and/or genetic expression profiles.