Loss to follow-up after food impaction among patients with and without eosinophilic esophagitis

Diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis and esophageal food impaction in adults : A position paper issued by the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH)

This position paper deals with an expert consensus on diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis and esophageal food impaction issued by the Austrian Eosinophilic Esophagitis Network, a working group under the patronage of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH). In need of a standardized approach on the management of EoE, recommendations were made based on international guidelines and landmark studies.

Clinical practices and adherence to guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis: A European survey

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the clinical practices and adherence to guidelines for adult Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE) patients in Europe.

METHODS

A cross-sectional web survey containing 23 questions was distributed to members of the European Consortium for Eosinophilic Diseases of the Gastrointestinal Tract (EUREOS) and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and digestive endoscopists (AIGO). We conducted a subgroup analysis to assess the impact of EoE expertise and practice setting on clinical practices.

RESULTS

228 physicians from 18 European countries participated. Adherence to guidelines varied from 72% to 98.6%. 83.4% of total respondents obtained ≥ 6 esophageal biopsies in suspected EoE. 42% of total respondents, 82.5% of EoE experts (vs. non-experts 33%; P < 0.0001), and 55% of academics (vs. 29.1 non-academics; P < 0.0001) routinely used the EREFS score. Regarding first-line therapy, 82.9% of total respondents prescribed proton pump inhibitors, 41.6% topical steroids, 20.6% elimination diets, and 9.2% combination therapies. Only 72% of respondents used symptoms and endoscopy with <15 Eosinophils/HPF to define treatment response. 21.5% of all respondents did not prescribe maintenance therapies and 12.7% discontinued therapy before response evaluation endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Our findings revealed significant heterogeneity in practice patterns and suboptimal adherence to EoE guidelines across Europe. Expertise in EoE and working in an academic hospital positively influenced clinical practices and adherence to guidelines.

Measuring and improving quality in esophageal care and swallowing disorders

Evaluating clinical care through quality-related metrics is increasingly common. There are now numerous quality statements and indicators related to the medical management of benign and pre-malignant esophageal diseases. Expert consensus leveraging evidence-based recommendations from published society guidelines has been the most frequently used basis for developing esophageal quality statements. While surgical care of patients with esophageal malignancies, including squamous cell carcinoma, has also been developed, those related to benign esophageal disease now include domains of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring for gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), achalasia, and Barrett's esophagus (BE). Several recent studies evaluating adherence to quality metrics affirm substantial variation in practice patterns with opportunities for improvement in care across esophageal diseases. In particular, patient education regarding treatment options in achalasia, frequency of esophageal biopsies among patients with dysphagia to evaluate for EoE, and endoscopic evaluation within a BE segment are areas identified to have need for improvement. As the management of esophageal diseases becomes more complex and interdisciplinary, adherence to quality metrics may be a source of standardization and improvement in delivery and ultimately patient outcomes. Indeed, the development of national quality databases has resulted in a significant growth in the use of these metrics for quality improvement activities and may form the basis for future inclusion in quality reporting and payment programs.

Common and disparate clinical presentations and mechanisms in different eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are a group of diseases characterized by selective eosinophil infiltration of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in the absence of other causes of eosinophilia. These diseases are generally driven by type 2 inflammation, often in response to food allergen exposure. Among all EGIDs, the clinical presentation often includes a history of atopic disease with a variety of GI symptoms. EGIDs are traditionally separated into eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and non-EoE EGIDs. EoE is relatively better understood and now associated with clinical guidelines and 2 US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments, whereas non-EoE EGIDs are rarer and less well-understood diseases without US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments. Non-EoE EGIDs are further subclassified by the area of the GI tract that is involved; they comprise eosinophilic gastritis, eosinophilic enteritis (including eosinophilic duodenitis), and eosinophilic colitis. As with other GI disorders, the disease presentations and mechanisms differ depending on the involved segment of the GI tract; however, the differences between EoE and non-EoE EGIDs extend beyond which GI tract segment is involved. The aim of this article is to summarize the commonalities and differences between the clinical presentations and disease mechanisms for EoE and non-EoE EGIDs.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis: a common cause of food bolus obstruction

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EOE) is a known cause of food bolus obstruction (FBO) with rising incidence and prevalence.

AIMS

To assess the rates of EOE in adult cases presenting with an FBO via prospective biopsy collection during index endoscopy.

METHODS

Oesophageal FBO cases requiring gastroscopy between February 2014 and January 2021 at a single institution with a unified policy to perform biopsies on FBO cases were analysed using medical records, endoscopy and histology. Statistical analysis was undertaken to compare those with and without EOE as their final diagnosis, including the timing of oesophageal biopsy and the season that cases presented.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety FBO presentations were analysed, 15 patients presented twice and one patient presented four times within the 7-year study period. Men represented 72% of cases. A total of 78% of cases had biopsies collected at an index or scheduled follow-up endoscopy. EOE was the cause of the FBO in 28% (53/190) of presentations. FBO secondary to EOE was more likely to occur in the spring and summer months (Australian September to March), with 39% (19 of 49) of cases presenting in spring attributable to EOE.

CONCLUSION

EOE affects a significant proportion of patients presenting with FBO (28%); a high biopsy rate of 78% in FBO cases provides an opportunity for prompt diagnosis and treatment.

Association between time from esophageal food impaction to endoscopy and adverse events

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines recommend emergent or urgent EGD for esophageal food impaction (EFI), but data on how time to EGD impacts the risk of adverse events remain limited. We determined whether EFI-to-EGD time was associated with adverse events.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study of patients with endoscopically confirmed EFI, adverse events were classified as esophageal (mucosal tear, bleeding, perforation) or extraesophageal (aspiration, respiratory compromise, hypotension, arrhythmia). Esophageal perforation and extraesophageal adverse events requiring intensive care unit admission were classified as serious adverse events. Baseline characteristics, event details, and procedural details were compared between patients with and without adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess for an association between EFI-to-EGD time and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 188 patients with EFI, 22 (12%) had any adverse event and 2 (1%) had a serious adverse event. Patients with adverse events were older and more likely to have an esophageal motility disorder, to tolerate secretions at presentation, and to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score. EFI-to-EGD time was similar in those with and without adverse events. On multivariable analysis, EFI-to-EGD time was not associated with adverse events (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% confidence interval, .97-1.04] for 1-hour increments; odds ratio, 1.03 [95% confidence interval, .86-1.24] for 6-hour increments). Results were similar after stratifying by eosinophilic esophagitis status and after adjusting for possible confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Because the time from EFI to EGD is not associated with adverse events, emergent EGD for EFI may be unnecessary, and other considerations may determine EGD timing.

Clinical Features and Treatment Response to Topical Steroids in Ethnic and Racial Minority Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

Differences in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) presentation and outcomes by ethnicity or race remain understudied. We aimed to determine whether EoE patients of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity or non-White race have differences in presentation at diagnosis or response to topical corticosteroid (tCS) treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included subjects of any age with a new diagnosis of EoE and documentation of ethnicity or race. For those who had treatment with tCS and follow-up endoscopy/biopsy, we assessed histologic response (<15 eosinophils/hpf), global symptom response, and endoscopic response. Hispanic EoE patients were compared with non-Hispanics at baseline and before and after treatment. The same analyses were repeated for White vs non-Whites.

RESULTS

Of 1,026 EoE patients with ethnicity data, just 23 (2%) were Hispanic. Most clinical features at presentation were similar to non-Hispanic EoE patients but histologic response to tCS was numerically lower (38% vs 57%). Non-White EoE patients (13%) were younger at diagnosis and had less insurance, lower zip code-level income, shorter symptom duration, more vomiting, less dysphagia and food impaction, fewer typical endoscopic features, and less dilation. Of 475 patients with race data treated with tCS, non-Whites had a significantly lower histologic response rate (41% vs 59%; P = 0.01), and odds of histologic response remained lower after controlling for potential confounders (adjusted odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence intervals: 0.19-0.87).

DISCUSSION

Few EoE patients at our center were Hispanic, and they had similar clinical presentations as non-Hispanics. The non-White EoE group was larger, and presentation was less dysphagia-specific. Non-White patients were also less than half as likely to respond to tCS.

Barriers to Timely Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases

Although eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, including eosinophilic esophagitis, have been described over the past 2 to 3 decades, barriers to diagnosis and treatment are common and compounded by issues related to social determinants of health, race, ethnicity, and access to care. These barriers contribute to delays in diagnosis, resulting in persistent inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract, which can have significant consequences, including fibrostenotic complications in adults, failure to thrive in children, and decreased quality of life in all affected patients. In this commentary, we summarize gaps in knowledge regarding the epidemiology of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, highlight barriers to diagnosis, discuss potential approaches based on best practices in other atopic and chronic gastrointestinal diseases, and provide recommendations for reducing barriers to timely diagnosis of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases in underserved populations.

A retrospective cohort study on oesophageal food bolus obstruction in the North Denmark region in 2021-two thirds were never diagnosed with a cause

BACKGROUND

Food bolus obstruction (FBO) leading to hospital treatment is often associated with eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), stenosis, or oesophageal cancer (1). Danish national guidelines recommend that patients with FBO undergo a diagnostic upper endoscopy within two weeks of presentation to exclude possible malignancy, and histological evaluation of eight biopsies (2, 3).

AIMS

The aims of this study were to (1) report the incidence and describe the causes and treatment of FBO in the North Denmark Region (NDR), (2) determine the proportion of patients who underwent upper endoscopy and biopsy according to regional and national guidelines, and (3) identify International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis and procedure codes applied to the hospital visits due to FBO in the NDR.

METHODS

Among all acute hospital visits in the NDR in 2021, all visits with ICD-10 codes possibly reflecting FBO, as well as a random sample of 14,400 visits with unspecific ICD-10 codes (R and Z codes), were screened manually for possible FBO. Diagnosis, follow-up, and treatment of all patients with FBO were recorded.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 66.0 (Q1-Q3: 49.8-81.0) years, and half of the patients had experienced FBO before. Two thirds of patients (66.0%) were never diagnosed with a cause of FBO, followed by 17.3% with EoE. 30% of patients did not undergo upper endoscopy within two weeks of the hospital visit, and 50.7% were never biopsied in the oesophagus. Of 1886 hospital visits with registry ICD-10 codes that possibly reflected FBO, 8.4% were due to FBO, while FBO was present in 0.028% of the random sample of unspecific ICD-10 codes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most hospitalized FBO patients in the NDR in 2021 were never diagnosed with a cause. In these patients there is a high risk of overlooked EoE or upper gastrointestinal cancers. The area needs immediate focus and changed routines to improve treatment and prevent new FBO.

Epidemiologic Burden and Projections for Eosinophilic Esophagitis-Associated Emergency Department Visits in the United States: 2009-2030

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with poorly controlled eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) may require unplanned emergency department (ED) visits for the management of dysphagia or food impactions. We evaluated the epidemiologic burden of EoE on ED utilization in the United States.

METHODS

Data from the US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample were used to estimate weighted annual EoE-associated ED visits from 2009 to 2019. Temporal trends in population-adjusted rates of EoE visits were assessed using joinpoint regression. Autoregressive integrated moving average models were used to project EoE-associated ED visits to 2030. We also evaluated endoscopic utilization, requirement for hospitalization, and ED-related charges in patients with EoE presenting to the ED.

RESULTS

A total of 11,125 unweighted (49,507 weighted) ED visits for EoE were included (69.0% male; mean age, 32.4 y). The annual volume of EoE-associated ED visits increased from 2934 (95% CI, 2437-3431) in 2009 to 8765 (95% CI, 7514-10,015) in 2019, and is projected to reach 15,445 (95% prediction interval, 14,672-16,218) by 2030. From 2009 to 2019, the number of EoE-associated ED visits increased by an average of 11.5% per year (95% CI, 10.3%-12.7%). The proportion of patients admitted to the hospital from the ED decreased from 25.6% in 2009 to 2011 to 14.0% in 2017 to 2019. Half of EoE patients presenting to the ED required an endoscopy, and nearly 40% required an esophageal foreign body removal. Total mean inflation-adjusted charges for an EoE-associated ED visit were $9025 US dollars in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

The volume of EoE-associated ED visits tripled between 2009 and 2019 and is projected to further double by 2030. This represents a substantial burden of unanticipated health care resource utilization and highlights a potential opportunity to optimize outpatient EoE care.

Postendoscopy Care for Patients Presenting With Esophageal Food Bolus Impaction: A Population-Based Multicenter Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal food bolus impactions (FBI) are a common gastrointestinal emergency. Appropriate management includes not only index endoscopy for disimpaction but also medical follow-up and treatment for the underlying esophageal pathology. We evaluated the appropriateness of postendoscopy care for patients with FBI and assessed patient-related, physician-related, and system-related factors that may contribute to loss to follow-up.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, population-based, multicenter cohort study of all adult patients undergoing endoscopy for FBI in the Calgary Health Zone, Canada, from 2016 to 2018. Appropriate postendoscopy care was defined by a composite of a clinical or endoscopic follow-up visit, appropriate investigations (e.g., manometry), or therapy (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors or endoscopic dilation). Predictors of inappropriate care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 519 patients underwent endoscopy for FBI: 25.2% (131/519) did not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. Half of the patients (55.3%, 287/519) underwent follow-up endoscopy or attended clinic, and among this group, 22.3% (64/287) had a change in their initial diagnosis after follow-up, including 3 new cases of esophageal cancer. Patients in whom a suspected underlying esophageal pathology was not identified at the index endoscopy were 7-fold (adjusted odds ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval 4.49-11.78, P < 0.001) more likely to receive inappropriate postendoscopy follow-up and treatment, even after adjusting for age, sex, rural residence, timing of endoscopy, weekend presentation, and endoscopic interventions.

DISCUSSION

One-quarter of patients presenting with an FBI do not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. This is strongly associated with failure to identify a potential underlying pathology at index presentation.

Management of suspected and known eosinophilic esophagitis-a nationwide survey in Austria

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the esophagus with increasing incidence and dysphagia as the main symptom. The management of suspected or known EoE by Austrian endoscopists has not been investigated yet.

METHODS

A web-based survey with 13 questions about the management of EoE was sent to endoscopists via the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH).

RESULTS

A total of 222 endoscopists (74% gastroenterologists, 23% surgeons, and 2% pediatricians; 68% working in a hospital) from all 9 states participated. In patients with dysphagia but a normal appearing esophagus, 85% of respondents reported always taking biopsies; however, surgeons were less likely to obtain biopsies compared to gastroenterologists ("always" 69% vs. 90%, "sometimes" 29% vs. 10%, "never" 2% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). The approved budesonide orodispersible tablet is the preferred first-line drug used in EoE, ahead of proton pump inhibitors (PPI). Only 65% of participants monitor the patients by endoscopy and histology after 12 weeks of induction therapy, 26% do not continue maintenance therapy, and 22% monitor patients only when symptomatic.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of Austrian endoscopists adhere to the European and US guidelines in cases of suspected EoE. In contrast, despite the chronic disease course, a significant percentage of providers indicate not to use maintenance therapy and monitor the patients routinely.

Quality Indicators for the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

Despite best practice recommendations for managing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), variation in care exists.

METHODS

We used established methodology for quality indicator development to identify metrics to define quality for the treatment of EoE.

RESULTS

Among 29 proposed quality indicator statements, 9 (31%) were adopted as highly valid across all categories. Two (22%) of these statements were identified as having existing or suspected quality gaps.

DISCUSSION

We identified highly valid EoE quality indicators for adult gastroenterologists, which can be used for quality improvement with resulting benefits for patient outcomes.

Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis at the Time of Esophageal Food Impaction

BACKGROUND

Esophageal food impactions (EFI) often precede a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EOE). Current guidelines suggest obtaining esophageal biopsies upon suspicion of EOE, treating with proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and repeating esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). This study was conducted to determine provider practice patterns with these mentioned recommendations at the time of EFI.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, key outcomes were the proportion of patients who had EOE mucosal biopsies, EOE diagnosis, PPI initiation, and recommendations and completions of repeat EGD. Differences in outcomes among age, sex, race, off-hours time of procedure, and trainee involvement were examined. EOE diagnosis predictors were explored with logistic regression.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine percent of the patients had esophageal biopsies taken at the time of index EGD (iEGD). Sixteen patients were diagnosed with EOE at the time of index EFI, while fourteen patients were diagnosed on subsequent EGDs. Among those diagnosed with EOE at iEGD, 94% were placed on PPI. Of patients with confirmed EOE on index biopsy, 63% of patients were recommended repeat EGD, of which 50% completed it within 90 days. Older age was protective of EOE diagnosis while no GERD history and endoscopist suspicion of EOE predicted diagnosis of EOE.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopists uncommonly take biopsies at the time of EFI, which may delay diagnosis and treatment of EOE.

Esophageal disease and loss to follow-up are common among patients who experience non-endoscopic resolution of food impaction

Many patients who experience esophageal food impaction (EFI) will have non-endoscopic resolution (NER) of their EFI, but this population is poorly defined. The purpose of this study is to describe the outcomes of patients with NER of EFI. A retrospective chart review from 2007 to 2017 was performed at a single tertiary care center. There were 593 patients who presented to the emergency department with EFI, defined as recent soft food ingestion and inability to tolerate oral secretions. Adequate follow-up was defined as a gastroenterology clinic visit or EGD within 6 months of EFI. Out of these, 149 patients (25.1%) had NER of their EFI. Patients with NER were less likely to have adequate follow-up than those with ER (45.0% vs. 59.5%, P = 0.003). Of those without established esophageal disease and NER, 92.5% had significant esophageal pathology on endoscopy, including stricture (34.0%), features of eosinophilic esophagitis (30.2%), and esophagitis (22.6%). Recurrent EFI occurred at a similar rate between patients with NER and ER (9.4% vs. 14.6%, P = 0.14). Patients with established esophageal disease (odds ratio [OR]: 1.51, P = 0.04) and recommendation to follow-up at time of EFI (OR: 6.06, P < 0.001) were most likely to follow up after EFI. Approximately, a quarter of patients with EFI will experience NER of their EFI. Virtually, all patients (92.5%) were found to have esophageal disease warranting longitudinal care. Importantly, follow-up rates are significantly lower in those with NER than their counterparts requiring EGD. Our study highlights the need to develop standardized protocols that improve follow-up for patients after NER of EFI.

Worsened Fibrostenotic Outcomes in Eosinophilic Esophagitis Patients Due to COVID-19-Related Endoscopy Cancellations

BACKGROUND

Indirect consequences of COVID-19 in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are not known.

AIM

To determine the impact of COVID-19-related endoscopy cancellations on outcomes in EoE patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we assessed whether adult EoE patients who had routine endoscopy scheduled from mid-March 2020 to May 2020 (pandemic start) were canceled or proceeded, and if canceled, ultimately returned. We extracted clinical, endoscopic, and histologic data for their pre-COVID procedure as well as the next procedure performed, if a patient returned. Outcomes included histologic response (< 15 eos/hpf) and endoscopic severity. Those with delayed care were compared to those who returned as scheduled.

RESULTS

Of 102 patients identified, 75 had procedures canceled, and 20 (27%) never returned. For the 55 who were canceled but returned, mean time between procedures was 1.1 ± 0.7 years with a delay of 0.5 ± 0.3 years. While treatment rates were similar between the pre- and delayed post-COVID EGD, more patients required a dilation after their return (71% vs 58%; p = 0.05) and their esophageal diameter had significantly decreased (16.8 mm to 15.0 mm; p < 0.001). Of 17 individuals who did not have stricture, narrowing, or dilation pre-pandemic, during their next endoscopy 5 (29%) had a stricture, 1 (6%) had a narrowing, and 7 (41%) required dilation.

CONCLUSION

Of EoE patients with canceled endoscopies during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, > 25% never returned for care, which is a previously unmeasured impact of the pandemic. Those who returned had > 1 year between procedures with progression of fibrotic features and need for esophageal dilation.

Endoscopic Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Basics and Recent Advances

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory disease, characterized by esophageal dysfunction and intense eosinophil infiltration localized in the esophagus. In recent decades, EoE has become a growing concern as a major cause of dysphagia and food impaction in adolescents and adults. EoE is a clinicopathological disease for which the histological demonstration of esophageal eosinophilia is essential for diagnosis. Therefore, the recognition of the characteristic endoscopic features with subsequent biopsy are critical for early definitive diagnosis and treatment, in order to prevent complications. Accumulating reports have revealed that EoE has several non-specific characteristic endoscopic findings, such as rings, furrows, white exudates, stricture/narrowing, edema, and crepe-paper esophagus. These findings were recently unified under the EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS), which has been widely used as an objective, standard measurement for endoscopic EoE assessment. However, the diagnostic consistency of those findings among endoscopists is still inadequate, leading to underdiagnosis or misdiagnosis. Some endoscopic findings suggestive of EoE, such as multiple polypoid lesions, caterpillar sign, ankylosaurus back sign, and tug sign/pull sign, will aid the diagnosis. In addition, image-enhanced endoscopy represented by narrow band imaging, endocytoscopy, and artificial intelligence are expected to render endoscopic diagnosis more efficient and less invasive. This review focuses on suggestions for endoscopic assessment and biopsy, including recent advances in optical technology which may improve the diagnosis of EoE.

Diagnostic Delay in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis Has Not Changed Since the First Description 30 Years Ago: Diagnostic Delay in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic progressive disease. Diagnostic delay (DD) is associated with increased risk of esophageal strictures and food impactions. We aimed to assess the evolution of DD since the first description of EoE in 1993 until 2021.

METHODS

We analyzed data from patients prospectively included in the Swiss EoE database. DD was calculated as the time interval between the first occurrence of EoE symptoms and the confirmed diagnosis. DD was analyzed annually over time (1989-2021) and according to milestone publications in the field (1993: first description; 2007: first consensus recommendations; and 2011: updated consensus recommendations). In addition, a Cox proportional hazards model has been used to describe the relation between DD and covariates.

RESULTS

Complete data of 1,152 patients (857 male [74%]; median age at diagnosis: 38 years, interquartile range: 28-49, range: 1-86) were analyzed. Overall, median DD was 4 years (interquartile range: 1-11, range, 0-56), with DD ≥ 10 years in 32% of the population. Over time, DD did not significantly change, neither annually nor according to release dates of milestone publications with a persistently stable fraction of roughly one-third of all patients with a DD of ≥10 years. Both ages at diagnosis ( P < 0.001, with an increase in DD up to the age of 31-40 years) and at symptom onset (younger patients had a longer DD; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with DD.

DISCUSSION

DD has not changed since the first description of EoE almost 30 years ago and remains substantial. Even today, one-third of patients have a persistently high DD of ≥10 years. Substantial efforts are warranted to increase awareness for EoE and its hallmark symptom, solid food dysphagia, as an age-independent red-flag symptom among healthcare professionals and presumably the general population alike to lower risk of long-term complications.

Endoscopic approach to eosinophilic esophagitis: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Consensus Conference

Endoscopy plays a critical role in caring for and evaluating the patient with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Endoscopy is essential for diagnosis, assessment of response to therapy, treatment of esophageal strictures, and ongoing monitoring of patients in histologic remission. To date, less-invasive testing for identifying or grading EoE severity has not been established, whereas diagnostic endoscopy as integral to both remains the criterion standard. Therapeutic endoscopy in patients with adverse events of EoE may also be required. In particular, dilation may be essential to treat and attenuate progression of the disease in select patients to minimize further fibrosis and stricture formation. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, a group of 20 expert clinicians and investigators in EoE were assembled to provide guidance for the use of endoscopy in EoE. Through an iterative process, the group achieved consensus on 20 statements yielding comprehensive advice on tissue-sampling standards, gross assessment of disease activity, use and performance of endoscopic dilation, and monitoring of disease, despite an absence of high-quality evidence. Key areas of controversy were identified when discussions yielded an inability to reach agreement on the merit of a statement. We expect that with ongoing research, higher-quality evidence will be obtained to enable creation of a guideline for these issues. We further anticipate that forthcoming expert-generated and agreed-on statements will provide valuable practice advice on the role and use of endoscopy in patients with EoE.

Management of eosinophilic esophagitis associated food impaction in Europe and the United States

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most common cause of esophageal food impaction (EFI). Approaches to management of EFI due to EoE have not been well characterized. We conducted a web-based survey to understand approaches to management of EFI due to EoE among endoscopists. Questions focused on management of patients from presentation to post-endoscopy follow-up. The survey was administered to a list of eligible candidates provided by societies of gastroenterology. A total of 308 endoscopists completed the questionnaire. The majority (83%) practiced in Europe and treated adults (78%). Most agreed patients should be advised to seek emergency care (66%) within 1 to 2 hours (41% agreement). There was agreement that medications to induce vomiting should be avoided (84%) and that blood tests or imaging studies were usually not required before endoscopy. By contrast, there was more variability in the type of sedation recommended and the need for endotracheal intubation, especially when comparing more experienced with less experienced EoE-endoscopists. Overall, fewer than half (43%) respondents recommended obtaining esophageal biopsies during the initial endoscopy. However, there were significant differences in the proportion who recommended biopsies based on level of EoE-experience (25, 52, 77%, P < 0.001; less vs. moderate vs. very experienced) and comparing pediatric and adult endoscopists (32, vs. 79%, P < 0.001; adult vs. pediatric). There exists heterogeneity among endoscopists in recommendations to manage EFI in patients with EoE. These findings support development of clinical guidelines and new studies to clarify the rationale for best practices. Key summary: Established knowledge-The optimal management of patients with esophageal food impaction due to eosinophilic esophagitis from presentation at the emergency department to postendoscopy care is unclear. New findings-Considerable recommendation variation exists in the management of EFI in patients with EoE. Our findings provide a rationale for the creation of consensus practice guidelines and further study into best practices.

Loss to Follow-Up and Health Care Utilization After Initial Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disease, but the extent of patient loss to follow-up (LTFU) and health care utilization has not been fully investigated.

AIM

To determine frequency and predictors of LTFU and health care utilization in EoE patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we extracted data from patients with a new diagnosis of EoE. Follow-up time for each patient was calculated as the time from the first diagnostic endoscopy to the last GI-related contact date in the medical record. Patients with and without LTFU were compared, and the volume of EoE-related health care interactions was recorded.

RESULTS

Of 944 EoE cases, 249 (26%) met the definition for LTFU. Major reasons for LTFU were never being scheduled (45%) and inability to contact patients (40%). Factors independently associated with regular follow-up were having insurance (aOR 2.89; 95% CI 1.85-4.50), white race (aOR 2.16; 95% CI 1.37-3.41), and longer symptom length (aOR 1.04 per year; 95% CI 1.01-1.08). At the time of last contact, patients with follow-up had better symptom response (55% vs. 12%; p < 0.001), improved esophageal caliber (14.3 vs. 12.4 mm; p = 0.005), and more histologic response (45% vs. 4% at 15 eos/hpf; p < 0.001). Health care utilization was high, with an average of 4.6 endoscopies and 4.0 clinic visits over the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

LTFU of newly diagnosed EoE cases was common and associated with lack of insurance, non-white race, and shorter symptom duration. Those who followed up had high health care utilization but improved response rates. Strategies are needed to help decrease LTFU in EoE.

British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) joint consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic oesophagitis in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly common cause of dysphagia in both children and adults, as well as one of the most prevalent oesophageal diseases with a significant impact on physical health and quality of life. We have provided a single comprehensive guideline for both paediatric and adult gastroenterologists on current best practice for the evaluation and management of EoE.

METHODS

The Oesophageal Section of the British Society of Gastroenterology was commissioned by the Clinical Standards Service Committee to develop these guidelines. The Guideline Development Group included adult and paediatric gastroenterologists, surgeons, dietitians, allergists, pathologists and patient representatives. The Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes process was used to generate questions for a systematic review of the evidence. Published evidence was reviewed and updated to June 2021. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations. Two rounds of voting were held to assess the level of agreement and the strength of recommendations, with 80% consensus required for acceptance.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven statements on EoE presentation, diagnosis, investigation, management and complications were produced with further statements created on areas for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

These comprehensive adult and paediatric guidelines of the British Society of Gastroenterology and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition are based on evidence and expert consensus from a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals, including patient advocates and patient support groups, to help clinicians with the management patients with EoE and its complications.