Non- and semi-invasive methods of monitoring eosinophilic esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis: absolute eosinophilic count, peak eosinophilic count, and potential biomarkers of eosinophilic degranulation products-an in-depth systematic review

Background

Eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder, often relapsing. There is an increasing need to develop new alternative diagnostic and monitoring methods on a critical basis, which will provide samples through none or minimally invasive procedures. This study aims to identify and document the types and roles of potential biomarkers in eosinophilic esophagitis released by eosinophils as well as the potential relationship to the peak eosinophilic count and the degree of degranulation of in situ eosinophils (DGE/DGE + NDGE: degranulated eosinophils/degranulated eosinophils and non-degranulated eosinophils).

Methods

This is the first in-depth systematic review study using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) parameters involving a literature search of academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database, 2011-2022) targeting specifically the eosinophilic counts and ratio, and the eosinophilic degranulation products as potential biomarkers. Data were extracted from ten selected studies and presented on a spreadsheet.

Results

The studies show the ability to detect eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic degranulation products, and absolute eosinophilic count in samples, including blood and urine, thereby serving as potential surrogates in making the diagnosis or monitoring disease progression in the future. There is an obvious paucity of studies that correlate potential biomarkers to the degree of degranulation of in situ eosinophils.

Conclusions

A few minimally invasive methods and biomarkers may be suggested as alternative tools in diagnosing and monitoring eosinophilic esophagitis. While there is no consensus on the clinical usefulness of these biomarkers, our critical evaluation may suggest that the eosinophilic degranulation ratio (DGE/DGE + NDGE: degranulated eosinophils/degranulated eosinophils and non-degranulated eosinophils) in the esophagus may be critical for evaluating properly these biomarkers. An increasing trend may culminate in the potential clinical use of these biomarkers evaluated not only with the peak eosinophilic count, but also with the degranulation score upon regulatory bodies' approval to monitor eosinophilic esophagitis in the future. We strongly advocate for the necessity to score the esophageal biopsies with both a peak eosinophilic count and a score of the degranulated eosinophils.

A case of food and aeroallergen sublingual immunotherapy inducing eosinophilic esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been reported secondary to aeroallergen sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and food allergen oral immunotherapy. Gastrointestinal symptoms with food allergen SLIT are uncommon, with no prior reports of cases of food allergen SLIT inducing EoE. Here we report a patient who developed EoE secondary to food and aeroallergen SLIT therapy that resolved with SLIT cessation.

Diagnostic role of fractional exhaled nitric oxide in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis, relationship with gastric and duodenal eosinophils

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an eosinophilic-predominant inflammation of the esophagus diagnosed by upper endoscopy and biopsies. A non-invasive and cost-effective alternative for management of EoE is being researched. Previous studies assessing utility of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in EoE were low powered. None investigated the contribution of eosinophilic inflammation of the stomach and duodenum to FeNO.

AIM

To assess the utility of FeNO as a non-invasive biomarker of esophageal eosinophilic inflammation for monitoring disease activity.

METHODS

Patients aged 6-21 years undergoing scheduled upper endoscopy with biopsy for suspected EoE were recruited in our observational study. Patients on steroids and with persistent asthma requiring daily controller medication were excluded. FeNO measurements were obtained in duplicate using a chemiluminescence nitric oxide analyzer (NIOX MINO, Aerocrine, Inc.; Stockholm, Sweden) prior to endoscopy. Based on the esophageal peak eosinophil count (PEC)/high power field on biopsy, patients were classified as EoE (PEC ≥ 15) or control (PEC ≤ 14). Mean FeNO levels were correlated with presence or absence of EoE, eosinophil counts on esophageal biopsy, and abnormal downstream eosinophilia in the stomach (PEC ≥ 10) and duodenum (PEC ≥ 20). Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Spearman correlation, and logistic regression were used for analysis. P value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

We recruited a total of 134 patients, of which 45 were diagnosed with EoE by histopathology. The median interquartile range FeNO level was 17 parts per billion (11-37, range: 7-81) in the EoE group and 12 parts per billion (8-19, range: 5-71) in the control group. After adjusting for atopic diseases, EoE patients had significantly higher FeNO levels as compared to patients without EoE (Z = 3.33, P < 0.001). A weak yet statistically significant positive association was found between the number of esophageal eosinophils and FeNO levels (r = 0.30, P < 0.005). On subgroup analysis within the EoE cohort, higher FeNO levels were noted in patients with abnormal gastric (n = 23, 18 vs 15) and duodenal eosinophilia (n = 28, 21 vs 14); however, the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

After ruling out atopy as possible confounder, we found significantly higher FeNO levels in the EoE cohort than in the control group.

Accuracy and Safety of the Cytosponge for Assessing Histologic Activity in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Two-Center Study

OBJECTIVES

Management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires repeated endoscopic mucosal sampling to assess disease activity. A less invasive and expensive means of monitoring of EoE is required. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy, safety, and tolerability of the cytosponge compared to endoscopy and biopsy for histologic assessment of EoE.

METHODS

In this prospective two-center cross-sectional study, patients with known EoE underwent cytosponge sampling followed by endoscopy and biopsy. Sample adequacy and eosinophil counts (eos/HPF) were determined for both cytosponge and endoscopic samples. The cytosponge was assessed for diagnostic accuracy, safety, and patient preference as compared to endoscopy.

RESULTS

Six patients (7%) failed to swallow the sponge. One hundred and five procedures were successfully performed in 80 patients (66% male, 100% white, 19% stricture). The cytosponge sample was adequate in 102 and the biopsy in 104; 101 procedures had adequate samples by both techniques. Fifty-seven biopsies were graded as active EoE with ≥15 eos/HPF as the gold standard. Eosinophil counts highly correlated between the biopsy and cytosponge (r=0.78, P<0.0001). Using a cutoff of ≤15 eos/HPF for inactive disease, the sensitivity and specificity of the cytosponge was 75% and 86%, respectively. Six patients had active EoE on cytosponge not found on biopsy. For biopsies with inactive EoE, the cytosponge identified 38/44. No complications occurred, and cytosponge endoscopic abrasion scores were low (0.34/4). Patients preferred cytosponge to endoscopy with higher rating scores (7.27 vs. 6.11, P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to endoscopy with biopsy, cytosponge provided a minimally invasive, safe, well tolerated, and accurate method to assess EoE histologic activity. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT01585103).

Prospective assessment of serum periostin as a biomarker for diagnosis and monitoring of eosinophilic oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Periostin is highly expressed in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), but has not been extensively studied as a non-invasive biomarker.

AIM

To assess whether serum periostin distinguished EoE from controls at baseline, had utility for monitoring treatment response, or was associated with IL-13 levels.

METHODS

This was a sub-analysis of a prospective cohort study of adults undergoing out-patient upper endoscopy. Incident cases of EoE were diagnosed per consensus guidelines. Controls were subjects with either GERD or dysphagia without EoE. EoE patients were treated with swallowed/topical steroids and had repeat endoscopy/biopsy. Serum periostin levels for cases and controls were compared at baseline, and pre/post-treatment levels were compared for cases. Serum IL-13 and tissue expression of periostin were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 61 incident EoE cases and 87 controls were analysed. Despite a marked increase in tissue periostin expression in cases, the median baseline serum periostin level was only slightly higher in cases than controls (22.1 ng/mL vs. 20.7; P = 0.04); there was no change in post-treatment levels. There was also no difference in serum periostin for cases by histologic response or atopic status. There was a strong trend towards higher serum IL-13 levels in cases in the highest periostin quartile (57.1 pg/mL vs. 2.6; P = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Serum periostin levels were similar in cases and controls, and there were no changes post-treatment. Given elevated IL-13 levels in the EoE patients with the highest periostin levels, future studies could explore periostin as a biomarker in EoE, perhaps in the setting of anti-IL-13 therapy.

Peripheral blood eosinophils and other non-invasive biomarkers can monitor treatment response in eosinophilic oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Monitoring of the treatment response in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) requires structured endoscopical and histological examination of the oesophagus. Less invasive methods would be highly desirable.

AIM

To evaluate the utility of several EoE-associated blood and serum markers in order to non-invasively monitor the response to treatment with swallowed topical corticosteroids in adult EoE patients.

METHODS

In a randomised, controlled double-blind trial blood samples of EoE patients (n = 69) were collected at baseline and after 14 days of treatment with budesonide (n = 51) or placebo (n = 18) respectively. Absolute blood eosinophil count (AEC) as well as serum levels of CCL-17, CCL-18, CCL-26, eosinophil-cationic-protein (ECP) and mast cell tryptase (MCT) were determined and correlated with oesophageal eosinophil density and with symptom and endoscopy scores.

RESULTS

Histological remission, defined as mean number of <16 eos/mm(2) hpf at end-of-treatment, was achieved in 98% of the budesonide and 0% of the placebo recipients. AEC [380.2 vs. 214.7/mm(3) (P = 0.0001)], serum-CCL-17 [294.3 vs. 257.9 pg/mL (P = 0.0019)], -CCL-26 [26.7 vs. 16.2 pg/mL (P = 0.0058)], -ECP [45.5 ± 44.7 vs. 27.5 ± 25.0 μg/L (P = 0.0016)] and -MCT [5.3 ± 2.9 vs. 4.5 ± 2.6 μg/L (P = 0.0019)] significantly decreased under budesonide but not under placebo. AEC significantly correlated with oesophageal eosinophil density before (r = 0.28, P = 0.0236) and after (r = 0.42, P = 0.0004) budesonide treatment. In ROC-AUC analyses post-treatment values of AEC were significantly associated with histological remission (ROC-AUC 0.754; 95% CI: 0.617-0.891; P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

The budesonide-induced treatment response in EoE is mirrored by several blood and serum markers, and the absolute blood eosinophil count is the most valuable as it shows correlation with the oesophageal eosinophil density.

Evaluating the Stability of RNA-Seq Transcriptome Profiles and Drug-Induced Immune-Related Expression Changes in Whole Blood

Methods were developed to evaluate the stability of rat whole blood expression obtained from RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) and assess changes in whole blood transcriptome profiles in experiments replicated over time. Expression was measured in globin-depleted RNA extracted from the whole blood of Sprague-Dawley rats, given either saline (control) or neurotoxic doses of amphetamine (AMPH). The experiment was repeated four times (paired control and AMPH groups) over a 2-year span. The transcriptome of the control and AMPH-treated groups was evaluated on: 1) transcript levels for ribosomal protein subunits; 2) relative expression of immune-related genes; 3) stability of the control transcriptome over 2 years; and 4) stability of the effects of AMPH on immune-related genes over 2 years. All, except one, of the 70 genes that encode the 80s ribosome had levels that ranked in the top 5% of all mean expression levels. Deviations in sequencing performance led to significant changes in the ribosomal transcripts. The overall expression profile of immune-related genes and genes specific to monocytes, T-cells or B-cells were well represented and consistent within treatment groups. There were no differences between the levels of ribosomal transcripts in time-matched control and AMPH groups but significant differences in the expression of immune-related genes between control and AMPH groups. AMPH significantly increased expression of some genes related to monocytes but down-regulated those specific to T-cells. These changes were partially due to changes in the two types of leukocytes present in blood, which indicate an activation of the innate immune system by AMPH. Thus, the stability of RNA-seq whole blood transcriptome can be verified by assessing ribosomal protein subunits and immune-related gene expression. Such stability enables the pooling of samples from replicate experiments to carry out differential expression analysis with acceptable power.

Utility of a Noninvasive Serum Biomarker Panel for Diagnosis and Monitoring of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Prospective Study

OBJECTIVES

Noninvasive biomarkers would be valuable for diagnosis and monitoring of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The aim of this study was to determine the utility of a panel of serum biomarkers for the diagnosis and management of EoE.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of consecutive adults undergoing outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Incident cases of EoE were diagnosed per consensus guidelines; controls had gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or dysphagia and did not meet the EoE criteria. EoE cases were treated with topical steroids and had repeat endoscopy. Pre- and post-treatment serum samples were analyzed in a blinded manner for interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-9, IL-13, transforming growth factor (TGF)-α, TGF-β, tumor necrosis factor-α, eotaxin-1, -2, and -3, thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), major basic protein, and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin. Cases and controls were compared at baseline, and pre- and post-treatment assays were compared in cases.

RESULTS

A total of 61 incident EoE cases and 87 controls were enrolled; 51 EoE cases had post-treatment serum analyzed. There were no significant differences in any of the biomarkers between EoE cases and controls at baseline. IL-13 and eotaxin-3 for cases and controls were 85 ± 160 vs. 43 ± 161 pg/ml (P=0.12) and 41 ± 159 vs. 21 ± 73 (P=0.30). There were no significant differences in assay values among cases before and after treatment. There were also no differences after stratification by atopic status or treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

A panel of inflammatory factors known to be associated with EoE pathogenesis were not increased in the serum, nor were they responsive to therapy. None of these biomarkers are likely candidates for a serum test for EoE. Histologic analysis for diagnosis and management of EoE continues to be necessary, and novel, less invasive, biomarkers are needed.