Overlapping Transcriptional Profile in Proton Pump Inhibitor Responsive and Nonresponsive Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Proton-Pump Inhibitors in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Review Focused on the Role of Pharmacogenetics

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most administered first-line treatment for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, only around half of EoE patients respond histologically to a double dosage of PPI. In addition, 70% of responders maintain EoE in remission after tapering the PPI dose. In order to avoid endoscopy with biopsies-the only accurate method of assessing PPI response-efforts have been made to identify PPI responder patients. The clinical or endoscopic features and biomarkers evaluated so far, however, have not proven to be sufficient in predicting PPI response. Although new approaches based on omics technologies have uncovered promising biomarkers, the specialized and complex procedures required are difficult to implement in clinical settings. Alternatively, PPI pharmacogenetics based on identifying variations in CYP2C19 and STAT6 genes have shown promising results in EoE, and could easily be performed in most laboratories. Other genetic variations have also been associated with PPI response and may explain those cases not related to CYP2C19 or STAT6. Here, we provide an overview of PPI treatment in EoE and evidence of how genetic variations in CYP2C19 and other genes could affect PPI effectiveness, and also discuss studies evaluating the role of pharmacogenetics in predicting PPI response in patients with EoE.

Allergic phenotype identified on allergen testing is associated with proton pump inhibitor nonresponse in eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Food/environmental allergens have been associated with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE); however, the correlation between allergy profiles and disease responsiveness to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy remains unclear. We aimed to assess the association between food/environmental allergies identified on allergen testing and histologic response to PPI in patients with treatment-naive EoE.

METHODS

Adults with newly diagnosed EoE who underwent formal testing for food/environmental allergies at a tertiary center were included. All patients underwent twice-daily PPI for 8 weeks with subsequent repeat endoscopy and biopsy to assess histologic response. Patients with <15 eosinophils/hpf on post-PPI mucosal biopsies were classified as responders (PPI-r-EoE), while those with ≥15 eosinophils/hpf were nonresponders (PPI-nr-EoE).

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients met inclusion criteria (21 PPI-r-EoE vs 40 PPI-nr-EoE). Demographic, clinical, and endoscopic finding variables were similar between groups. Positive food allergen test was more prevalent among PPI-nr-EoE patients (82.5% vs 42.9%, P = 0.003). On multivariable analysis, positive food allergen testing remained an independent predictor for PPI nonresponse (aOR 0.15, CI: 0.04-0.58, P = 0.0006). Positive environmental allergen testing was highly prevalent, with no significant differences between groups (77.5% vs 95.2%, P = 0.14). However, higher number of positive environmental allergens (23.3% [≥5 allergens] vs 73.3% [<5 allergens], P = 0.003) and specific aeroallergens correlated with PPI-nr-EoE.

CONCLUSION

Positive food allergy testing and increased environmental allergens predicted lower likelihood of histologic response to PPI in EoE. Our findings support an allergic phenotype of EoE that may less likely respond to PPI therapy. Formal allergen testing may play a role in therapy selection and tailored management in EoE.