Managing eosinophilic esophagitis: challenges and solutions

Eosinophilic esophagitis: Current concepts in diagnosis and management

ABSTRACT

Eosinophilic esophagitis is an antigen-mediated chronic inflammatory disorder that has risen in incidence and prevalence over the past 2 decades. The clinical presentation is variable and consists of mainly esophageal symptoms such as dysphagia, heartburn, food impaction, and vomiting. Current management relies on dietary elimination, proton-pump inhibitors, and topical corticosteroids with different response rates and relapses after treatment discontinuation. With a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology, many molecules emerged recently as targeted treatment including dupilumab (IL4/IL13 blocker), as the first FDA-approved biological treatment, which has changed the management paradigm.

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.

Dysphagia and Swallowing Disorders

Dysphagia, defined as impairment of the swallowing process, is a common symptom and can be a significant source of morbidity and mortality in the general population. This article summarizes the causes of the condition, its prevalence, and the consequences and costs of untreated dysphagia. The aim of this article is to provide a framework for the general internist in assessing, diagnosing, and managing dysphagia in an adult patient. Basic diagnostic screening procedures and techniques for management are emphasized. A basic treatment pathway based on cause is provided for reference.

Extent of eosinophilic esophagitis predicts response to treatment

Background and study aim  The clinical impact of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) limited to the distal esophagus (Lim-EE) vs. diffuse involvement (Dif-EE) is unknown. This study compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of Lim-EE vs. Dif-EE. Patients and methods  This retrospective, single-center study of patients with EoE between December 2011 and December 2019 evaluated treatment response based on repeated pathology and/or clinical improvement using comparative statistics. Results  479 patients were identified (126 Lim-EE, 353 Dif-EE). Lim-EE patients had a higher incidence of endoscopically identified esophagitis (23.0 % vs. 14.7 %; P  = 0.04), were older (50.8 [SD 16.2] vs. 46.4 [SD 15.3] years; P  = 0.007), and were more likely to present with iron deficiency anemia (5.6 % vs. 1.7 %; P  = 0.05), dyspepsia (15.1 % vs. 8.8 %; P  = 0.06) or for Barrett's surveillance (10.3 % vs. 3.7 %; P  = 0.02). Patients with Dif-EE presented more frequently with dysphagia (57.2 % vs. 45.2 %; P  = 0.02). Both groups had similar proton pump inhibitor (87.2 % vs. 83.3 %; P  = 0.37) and steroid (12.8 % vs. 21.4 %; P  = 0.14) use. Patients with Lim-EE had a better clinicopathologic response (61.5 % vs. 44.8 %; P  = 0.009). On multivariate analysis, EoE extent predicted treatment response with an odds ratio of 1.89 (95 % confidence interval 1.13-3.20; P  = 0.02). However, treatment response based only on repeat biopsy results showed no statistical difference between Lim-EE (52.5 %) and Dif-EE (39.7 %; P  = 0.15). Conclusions  Lim-EE may represent a distinct phenotype separate from Dif-EE, with more overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease and better treatment response.

Children with eosinophilic esophagitis in real life: 10 years' experience with a focus on allergic management

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is frequently miss-diagnosed or overlooked for several years because of the invasiveness of investigations and the non-specificity of symptoms in childhood. Due to the lack of specific recommendations in children, its management remains very heterogeneous, especially concerning allergy testing. The aim of this study is to analyze our population and practices, in comparison with the literature, with a focus on allergic management, to harmonize and optimize our practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included all children with a diagnosis of EoE at the Hospital Femme Mere Enfant, Bron, France. Data were collected via retrospective chart review.

RESULTS

108 patients were included with an average age of 9.5 years. Average delay before diagnosis was 6.65 years. Symptoms varied with age, with a predominance of vomiting (60% of patients), feeding difficulties (72%) and growth difficulties (24%) in children <5 years, whereas older children often presented with feeding blockage (64%) and dysphagia (61%). Cough was frequent in our cohort (18.5%), especially in children <10 years (38.5% between three and five years). The allergic background was frequent (70.3%) and 80% of our patients benefited from allergy testing. Allergy testing was particularly useful to guide therapy as elimination diet represented an effective treatment in 60% of our patients CONCLUSIONS: Allergy testing has to be harmonized to include major allergens (egg, milk, peanut, fish, wheat, and soy), including prick and patch tests. Allergy-testing based diet seemed to be the best compromise between efficiency and constraints, especially in mono-sensitized patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies

Background and Objective

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) is an immune/antigen-driven inflammation that causes esophageal dysfunction. Budesonide has shown promising effect in the management of EE in multiple studies, and we therefore conducted this systematic review/meta-analysis to assess budesonide efficacy and safety in order to provide more updated and robust evidence.

Methods

In April 2018, we conducted a systematic electronic search through four databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (ISI), and Cochrane Central. All original studies reporting the efficacy of budesonide in the treatment of EE were included in our meta-analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was employed to assess the risk of bias among included randomized controlled trials, while the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used for non-randomized studies.

Results

A total of 12 studies including 555 participants were included in our review. Budesonide showed marked efficacy at the level of histological response compared to placebo [risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) 11.93 (4.82–29.50); p > 0.001]. Analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies revealed considerable reduction in eosinophil count, with a mean difference (MD) (95% CI) of − 69.41 (− 105.31 to − 33.51; p < 0.001) and 46.85 (33.93–59.77; p < 0.001), respectively. Similarly, there was a marked improvement in the clinical symptoms via the analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies, with an RR (95% CI) of 1.72 (1.22–2.41; p = 0.002) and MD (95% CI) of 2.45 (0.76–4.15; p = 0.005), respectively.

Conclusion

Budesonide showed significant effect at all treatment endpoints. However, since budesonide carries a risk of candidiasis and our inferences are based only on a small number of included studies, more research is warranted to clarify these results.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40268-018-0253-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Individuals affected by eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders have complex unmet needs and frequently experience unique barriers to care

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are a rare but emerging healthcare problem. Patient advocacy groups (PAGs) have an important role in representing the EGID community, and serve as valuable research partners. By leveraging the partnership between medical researchers and PAGs, we examined the unmet needs and barriers to care perceived by individuals affected by EGIDs. Next, we examined if these varied between adult EGID patients and adult caregivers of children with EGID.

METHODS

Adult EGID patients and adult caregivers of children (<18 years) with EGIDs participated in this study. PAGs conducted focus groups comprised of individuals affected by EGIDs to identify domains and questions meaningful to the EGID community and this information was used to develop an online REDCap survey. The survey consisted of 58 questions across medical, healthcare, social, and emotional impact domains. It was distributed via the PAGs' web-based platforms. Demographic data, and responses to questions on a six-point Likert scale were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 361 responses analyzed, 90 (25%) were from adult EGID patients and 271 (75%) were from adult caregivers. Of the applicable responses, in the medical domain only 19% of participants indicated that repeated endoscopies to monitor response to treatment was convenient. In the healthcare domain, 67% indicated that lack of insurance coverage for elemental formula was a barrier. In the social domain, only 5% of respondents reported adequate awareness of EGIDs in schools. In the emotional domain, 64% had experienced significant stress due to EGID related out-of-pocket costs. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that some of these responses varied between adult EGID patients and adult caregivers of children with EGID. The respondents indicated highest priority for improvement in the medical domain compared to other domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals affected by EGIDs have a constellation of complex unmet needs and perceived barriers across medical, healthcare, social and emotional domains. Addressing unmet needs in the medical domain is relatively more important for the EGID community. Understanding unmet needs and barriers will likely help design improved patient-centered EGID care paradigms.

Six-Food Elimination Diet and Topical Steroids are Effective for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

Topical corticosteroids or six-food elimination diet is recommended as initial therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

AIMS

We aimed to summarize published manuscripts that report outcomes of these therapies for EoE.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review in MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase of published manuscripts describing topical fluticasone, topical budesonide, and six-food elimination diet as therapies for EoE. We conducted meta-analysis of symptom improvement and the change in peak mucosal eosinophil count, with heterogeneity between studies examined with meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Systematic review yielded 51 articles that met inclusion criteria. Summary histologic response rates were 68.3% [95% prediction limits (PL) 16.2-96.0%] for fluticasone, 76.8% (95% PL 36.1-95.1%) for budesonide, and 69.0% (95% PL 31.9-91.4%) for six-food elimination diet. Corresponding decreases in eosinophil counts were 37.8 (95% PL 19.0-56.7), 62.5 (95% PL 125.6 to -0.67, and 44.6 (95% PL 26.5-62.7), respectively. Symptom response rates were 82.3% (95% PL 68.1-91.1%), 87.9% (95% PL 42.7-98.6%), and 87.3% (95% PL 64.5-96.3%), respectively. Meta-regression analyses decreased the initially large estimate of residual heterogeneity and suggested differences in histologic response rate associated with study populations' baseline eosinophil count and age.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature describing topical corticosteroids and six-food elimination diet consists of small studies with diverse methods and population characteristics. Meta-analysis with meta-regression shows initial histologic and symptomatic response rates on the same order of magnitude for topical corticosteroids and six-food elimination diet, but heterogeneity of study designs prevents direct comparison of modalities.