Search

Although mostly accentuated in the distal esophagus, distribution of esophageal eosinophilia in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) seems to be nonuniform. 1 Disease extent has been associated with disease severity and disease progression in inflammatory bowel disease. 2,3 Whether the same holds true for EoE remains largely unknown. One recent EoE study looked at the distribution of eosinophilia, but without analyzing its potential association with treatment outcomes. 4 Here, we characterize the different inflammatory patterns of EoE and investigate their impact on disease presentation and disease outcome, with a particular focus on therapeutic response., (Copyright © 2024 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures (EREFS) represent the major endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The Endoscopic Reference System (EREFS) grading system is easy to learn and apply during daily clinical practice in the diagnosis and follow-up of EoE patients. When endoscopy is performed by an EoE-experienced physician, the EREFS criteria will identify the majority of EoE patients. The EREFS score from the area of greatest involvement of the esophagus should be reported. The EREFS grading system was formally validated as an endoscopy score and several randomized placebo-controlled trials have shown responsiveness of the EREFS score to therapeutic interventions., Competing Interests: Disclosure A.M. Schoepfer received consulting fees and/or speaker fees and/or research grants from Avir Pharma, Inc., Adare/Ellodi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca, AG, Switzerland, Receptos-Celgene-BMS Corp., Dr Falk Pharma, GmbH, Germany, Glaxo Smith Kline, AG, Nestlé S. A., Switzerland, Novartis, AG, Switzerland, and Regeneron-Sanofi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. E. Safroneeva reports (i) consulting fees from Avir Pharma, Inc., Aptalis Pharma, Inc., Celgene Corp., Novartis, AG, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; (ii) being an employee of Tillotts Pharma AG. K. Peterson received (i) consulting fees and/or speaker fees from AGA, Alladapt, AstraZeneca, Allakos, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Ellodi, ITA group, Lecture LInx, Lucid, Nexstone (Ubiquity), WebMD, Peerview, PLatform Q health, Regeneron, Revolo, Sanofi, Takeda, WebMD; (ii) research support from AstraZeneca, Allakos, Regeneron-Sanofi, Revolo, Adare, Ellodi, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celldex; and (iii) equity from Nexeos Bio., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) variants have been recently characterized as conditions with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction resembling EoE, but absence of significant esophageal eosinophilia. Their disease course and severity have yet to be determined., Methods: Patients from 6 EoE centers with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, but peak eosinophil counts of <15/hpf in esophageal biopsies and absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease with at least one follow-up visit were included. Clinical, (immuno)histological, and molecular features were determined and compared with EoE and healthy controls., Results: We included 54 patients with EoE variants (EoE-like esophagitis 53.7%; lymphocytic esophagitis 13.0%; and nonspecific esophagitis 33.3%). In 8 EoE-like esophagitis patients, EoE developed after a median of 14 months (interquartile range 3.6-37.6). Such progression increased over time (17.6% year 1, 32.0% year 3, and 62.2% year 6). Sequential RNA sequencing analyses revealed only 7 genes associated with this progression (with TSG6 and ALOX15 among the top 3 upregulated genes) with upregulation of a previously attenuated Th2 pathway. Immunostaining confirmed the involvement of eosinophil-associated proteins (TSG6 and ALOX15) and revealed a significantly increased number of GATA3-positive cells during progression, indicating a Th1/Th2 switch. Transition from one EoE variant (baseline) to another variant (during follow-up) was seen in 35.2% (median observation time of 17.3 months)., Discussion: Transition of EoE variants to EoE suggests the presence of a disease spectrum. Few genes seem to be associated with the progression to EoE with upregulation of a previously attenuated Th2 signal. These genes, including GATA3 as a Th1/Th2 switch regulator, may represent potential therapeutic targets in early disease pathogenesis., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Introduction: Given the lack of data, we aimed to explore which therapeutic endpoints pediatric patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and their parents consider to be relevant., Methods: We created an educational brochure on EoE and a questionnaire, both of which were content-validated by pediatric patients and parents. Validated documents were sent to 112 patients and parents. They ranked the importance (5 levels) of short (during next 3 months) and long-term (≥1 year) treatment effect on symptoms, quality of life, endoscopic inflammation, stricture formation, histological inflammation, and fibrosis., Results: A total of 45 parents and 30 pediatric patients ≥11 years completed the questionnaires. Pediatric patients identified improvement in the following domains as most important in the short- and long-term, respectively: symptoms (73% vs. 77%), QoL (53% vs. 57%), histologic inflammation (47% vs. 50%), histologic fibrosis (40% vs. 33%), endoscopic inflammation (47% vs. 40%), and strictures (33% vs. 40%). Parents of children ≥11 years old classified improvement in the following domains as most important in the short- and long-term, respectively: symptoms (70% vs. 83%), QoL (63% vs. 80%), histologic inflammation (67% vs. 77%), histologic fibrosis (47% vs. 63%), endoscopic inflammation (77% vs. 80%), and strictures (40% vs. 53%). Agreement between caregiver and children on the short-term importance of treatment outcomes was as follows: symptoms (77%), QoL (40%), histologic inflammation and fibrosis (47% and 43%), endoscopic inflammation and strictures (50% and 40%)., Conclusion: Pediatric patients and parents attributed most importance to improvement in symptoms and QoL. Agreement between parents and patients regarding therapy goals is limited., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: It is still unknown whether eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients with localized disease are different from those with extended disease., Methods: We evaluated prospectively included patients in the Swiss EoE cohort. Data on all patients with active disease at baseline, no concomitant gastroesophageal reflux disease, no strictures at baseline, and at least one follow-up visit were analyzed. We compared patients with histologically localized proximal versus distal versus extended (=proximal and distal) disease with regard to patient, disease characteristics, disease presentation, and development of complications., Results: We included 124 patients with a median of 2.5 years of follow-up (73.4% males, median age 35.0 years). Ten patients had proximal (8.1%), 46 patients had distal (37.1%), and 68 patients had extended disease (54.8%). Patients with proximal disease were significantly more often females (80%) compared with patients with distal (26.1%, p = 0.002) or extended disease (19.1%, p &lt; 0.001) and reported less severe symptoms (VAS 0 vs. VAS 1, p = 0.001). Endoscopic and histological disease was less pronounced in the proximal esophagus of proximal EoE compared to extended disease (EREFS 1.0 vs. 3.0, p = 0.001; 27.0 eos/hpf vs. 52.5 eos/hpf, p = 0.008). Patients with proximal disease were less likely to undergo dilation compared to patients with distal disease in the follow-up (3.3% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.010). In a multivariate Cox regression model, proximal eosinophilia was less likely to be associated with treatment failure compared to distal eosinophilia., Conclusion: Although isolated proximal EoE is infrequent, it is associated with less severe disease and better disease outcome. Proximal disease appears to present a unique EoE phenotype., (© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Having long been considered the mainstay in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) diagnosis and pathogenesis, the role of eosinophils has been questioned and might be less important than previously thought. It is well known now that EoE is a Th2-mediated disease with many more disease features than eosinophilic infiltration. With more knowledge on EoE, less pronounced phenotypes or nuances of the disease have become apparent. In fact, EoE might be only the tip of the iceberg (and the most extreme phenotype) with several variant forms, at least three, lying on a disease spectrum. Although a common (food induced) pathogenesis has yet to be confirmed, gastroenterologists and allergologists should be aware of these new phenomena in order to further characterize these patients. In the following review, we discuss the pathogenesis of EoE, particularly those mechanisms beyond eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa, non-eosinophilic inflammatory cell populations, the new disease entity EoE-like disease, variant forms of EoE, and the recently coined term mast cell esophagitis., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background & Aims: Topical steroids are effective treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The FLUTE (Fluticasone in EoE) trial evaluated safety and efficacy of APT-1011 (fluticasone propionate oral disintegrating tablet) vs placebo for treatment of EoE., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 2b trial, 106 adults with EoE received 1 of 4 APT-1011 doses or placebo for a 12-week induction period and 40 weeks of maintenance. Primary outcome was histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) at Week 12. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic features and dysphagia frequency., Results: Histologic response rates were 0% for placebo, 80% for APT-1011 3 mg twice daily (BID), 67% for 3 mg at bedtime (HS), 86% for 1.5 mg BID, 48% for 1.5 mg HS (P &lt; .001 for all groups vs placebo). At Week 12, mean Edema/Rings/Exudates/Furrows/Strictures (EoE Endoscopic Reference Score) total score (max, 9.0) improved from 4.5 to 2.3 for 3 mg BID, 5.3 to 2.1 for 3 mg HS, 4.6 to 1.7 for 1.5 mg BID, 5.3 to 2.9 for 1.5 mg HS vs 5.2 to 4.5 for placebo. Mean dysphagia frequency over 14 days improved from baseline to Week 12 with all active groups improving more than placebo. Improvements were sustained to Week 52. APT-1011 was safe and well-tolerated, with higher incidence of candidiasis noted at the higher twice daily doses., Conclusion: APT-1011 dosing regimens were superior for histologic and endoscopic responses, and for reduction in dysphagia frequency vs placebo. Based on the symptom improvement and assessment of adverse events together with the histologic response rate, 3 mg once daily at bedtime dose showed the most favorable risk-benefit profile., Clinicaltrials: gov, Number: NCT03191864., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Physicians are increasingly confronted with patients presenting with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction resembling eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but absence of significant esophageal eosinophilia. The purpose of this study was to characterize and classify this group of EoE variants., Design: Patients from six EoE-centers with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, but peak eosinophil counts of <60/mm 2 (<15/hpf) in esophageal biopsies and absence of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) were included. Clinical, endoscopic, (immuno)-histological, and molecular features were determined and compared with EoE, GERD, and healthy controls., Results: We included 69 patients with EoE variants. Endoscopic abnormalities were found in 53.6%. We identified three histological subtypes: EoE-like esophagitis (36/69, 52.2%), lymphocytic esophagitis (14/69, 20.3%), and non-specific esophagitis (19/69, 27.5%). Immunohistochemistry revealed-in contrast to EoE-no significant increase in inflammatory cell infiltrates compared with GERD and healthy controls, except for lymphocytes in lymphocytic esophagitis. EoE-typical Th2-response was absent in all EoE variants. However, considerable structural changes were detected based on histology and protein expression. Using next generation mRNA sequencing, we found the three EoE variants to have distinct molecular fingerprints partially sharing pronounced traits of EoE. Hierarchical sample clustering of RNA sequencing data confirmed the presence of an EoE-like (characterized by eotaxin-3 expression), non-specific, and lymphocytic variant cluster (characterized by CD3 cells and TSLP expression)., Conclusion: All EoE variants are clinically and histologically active conditions despite the absence of esophageal eosinophilia. EoE variants appear to be part of a disease spectrum, where classical EoE represents the most common and apparent phenotype., (© 2022 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease of increasing prevalence, characterized by symptoms of dysphagia and reduced quality of life. A dysregulated type 2 immune response to food and aeroallergen leads to barrier dysfunction, chronic esophageal inflammation, remodeling, and fibrosis. Patients with EoE have impaired quality of life because of dysphagia and other symptoms. They may also suffer social and psychological implications of food-related illness and expensive out-of-pocket costs associated with treatment. Disease burden in EoE is often compounded by the presence of comorbid type 2 inflammatory diseases. Current conventional treatments include elimination diet, proton pump inhibitors, and swallowed topical corticosteroids, as well as esophageal dilation in patients who have developed strictures. These treatments demonstrate variable response rates and may not always provide long-term disease control. There is an unmet need for long-term histologic, endoscopic, and symptomatic disease control; for targeted therapies that can normalize the immune response to triggers, reduce chronic inflammation, and limit or prevent remodeling and fibrosis; and for earlier diagnosis, defined treatment outcomes, and a greater understanding of patient perspectives on treatment. In addition, healthcare professionals need a better understanding of the patient perspective on disease burden, the disconnect between symptoms and disease activity, and the progressive nature of EoE and the need for continuous monitoring and maintenance treatment. In this review, we explore the progression of disease over the patient's lifespan, highlight the patient perspective on disease, and discuss the unmet need for effective long-term treatments., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background & Aims: Disease activity and severity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) dictate therapeutic options and management, but the decision-making process for determining severity varies among practitioners. To reduce variability in practice patterns and help clinicians monitor the clinical course of the disease in an office setting, we aimed to create an international consensus severity scoring index for EoE., Methods: A multidisciplinary international group of adult and pediatric EoE researchers and clinicians, as well as non-EoE allergy immunology and gastroenterology experts, formed 3 teams to review the existing literature on histology, endoscopy, and symptoms of EoE in the context of progression and severity. A steering committee convened a 1-day virtual meeting to reach consensus on each team's opinion on salient features of severity across key clinicopathologic domains and distill features that would allow providers to categorize disease severity., Results: Symptom features and complications and inflammatory and fibrostenotic features on both endoscopic and histologic examination were collated into a simplified scoring system-the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE)-that can be completed at routine clinic visits to assess disease severity using a point scale of 0-6 for mild, 7-14 for moderate, and ≥15 for severe EoE., Conclusions: A multidisciplinary team of experts iteratively created a clinically usable EoE severity scoring system denominated "I-SEE" to guide practitioners in EoE management by standardizing disease components reflecting disease severity beyond eosinophil counts. I-SEE should be validated and refined using data from future clinical trials and routine clinical practice to increase its utilization and functionality., (Copyright © 2022 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Endoscopic outcomes have become important measures of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity, including as an endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated the operating properties of endoscopic measures for use in EoE RCTs., Methods: Modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methods and a panel of 15 international EoE experts identified endoscopic items and definitions with face validity that were used in a 2-round voting process to define simplified (all items graded as absent or present) and expanded versions (additional grades for edema, furrows, and/or exudates) of the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS). Inter- and intrarater reliability of these instruments (expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]) were evaluated using paired endoscopy video assessments of 2 blinded central readers in patients before and after 8 weeks of proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical corticosteroids, or dietary elimination. Responsiveness was measured using the standardized effect size (SES)., Results: The appropriateness of 41 statements relevant to EoE endoscopic activity (endoscopic items, item definitions and grading, and other considerations relevant for endoscopy) was considered. The original and expanded EREFS demonstrated moderate-to-substantial inter-rater reliability (ICCs of .472-.736 and .469-.763, respectively) and moderate-to-almost perfect intrarater reliability (ICCs of .580-.828 and .581-.828, respectively). Strictures were least reliably assessed (ICC, .072-.385). The original EREFS was highly responsive (SES, 1.126 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .757-1.534]), although both expanded versions of EREFS, scored based on worst affected area, were numerically most responsive to treatment (expanded furrows: SES, 1.229 [95% CI, .858-1.643]; all items expanded: SES, 1.252 [95% CI, .880-1.667]). The EREFS and its modifications were not more reliably scored by segment and also not more responsive when proximal and distal EREFSs were summed., Conclusions: EREFS and its modifications were reliable and responsive, and the original or expanded versions of the EREFS may be preferred in RCTs. Disease activity scored based on the worst affected area optimizes reliability and responsiveness., (Copyright © 2022 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: No recommendations exist regarding optimal follow-up schedule in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) under maintenance treatment., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a long-term surveillance concept at the Swiss EoE clinic, where clinical, endoscopic and histological disease activity is assessed annually regardless of EoE symptoms. Data on 159 adult patients under maintenance steroid treatment with available follow-up were analyzed. Patients were classified as having close (duration between visits <18 months) or non-close follow-up (≥18 months)., Results: We analyzed a total of 309 follow-up visits of 159 patients (123 males, age at diagnosis 38.9 ± 15.4 years). 157 (51%) visits were within a close follow-up schedule (median duration between visits of 1.0 years (interquartile range (IQR) 0.9-1.2)), while 152 visits (49%) were not (median duration between visits 2.9 years (IQR 2.0-4.1)). There was no difference regarding ongoing clinical, endoscopic, and histological disease activity, and adherence to prescribed steroid treatment between the two groups. However, stricture formation was significantly less frequently observed at visits within a close follow-up schedule (22.9 vs. 33.6%, p = 0.038). Absence of close follow-up was a significant risk factor for stricture development in a multivariate regression model. Patients who achieved histological remission and were followed within a close-follow-up schedule had significantly earlier detection of histological relapse compared to patients not within such close follow-up., Conclusion: Close follow-up is associated with fewer stricture formation and appears to result in earlier detection of histological relapse in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. We advocate for regular assessment of disease activity (every 12-18 months) in order to detect relapsing disease as early as possible, and therefore potentially minimize the risk for EoE complications., (© 2022 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Background & Aims: Esophageal dilation improves dysphagia but not inflammation in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients. We investigated if dilation modifies the association between symptoms and peak esophageal eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf)., Methods: Adults enrolled in a multisite prospective Consortium of Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Disease Researchers Outcome Measures for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases Across Ages observational study (NCT02523118) completed the symptom-based EoE activity index (EEsAI) patient-reported outcome instrument and underwent endoscopy with biopsy specimens. Patients were stratified based on dilation status as absent, performed 1 year or less before endoscopy, and performed more than 1 year before endoscopy. Assessments included Spearman correlations of the relationship between symptoms and eos/hpf and linear regression with EEsAI as the outcome, eos/hpf as predictor, and interaction for dilation and eos/hpf., Results: Among 100 patients (n = 61 males; median age, 37 y), 15 and 40 patients underwent dilation 1 year or less and more than 1 year before index endoscopy, respectively. In nondilated patients, the association between eos/hpf and symptoms was moderate (ρ = 0.49; P < .001); for a 10-eos/hpf increase, the predicted EEsAI increased by 2.69 (P = .002). In patients dilated 1 or less and more than 1 year before index endoscopy, this association was abolished (ρ = -0.38; P = .157 for ≤1 y and ρ = 0.02; P = .883 >1 y); for a 10-eos/hpf increase, the predicted EEsAI changed by -1.64 (P = .183) and 0.78 (P = .494), respectively. Dilation modified the association between symptoms and eos/hpf (P = .005 and P = .187 for interaction terms of eos/hpf and dilation 1 or less years before and more than 1 year before index endoscopy, respectively)., Conclusions: In nondilated EoE adults, eos/hpf correlate modestly with symptoms; this correlation was no longer appreciated in dilated patients, and the dilation effects lasted longer than 1 year. Dilation status should be considered in studies evaluating EoE treatment and for clinical follow-up evaluation., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: End points used to determine treatment efficacy in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have evolved over time. With multiple novel therapies in development for EoE, harmonization of outcomes measures will facilitate evidence synthesis and appraisal when comparing different treatments., Objective: We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for controlled and observational studies of pharmacologic and diet interventions in adult and pediatric patients with EoE., Methods: Candidate outcomes were generated from systematic literature reviews and patient engagement interviews and surveys. Consensus was established using an iterative Delphi process, with items voted on using a 9-point Likert scale and with feedback from other participants to allow score refinement. Consensus meetings were held to ratify the outcome domains of importance and the core outcome measures. Stakeholders were recruited internationally and included adult and pediatric gastroenterologists, allergists, dieticians, pathologists, psychologists, researchers, and methodologists., Results: The COS consists of 4 outcome domains for controlled and observational studies: histopathology, endoscopy, patient-reported symptoms, and EoE-specific quality of life. A total of 69 stakeholders (response rate 95.8%) prioritized 42 outcomes in a 2-round Delphi process, and the final ratification meeting generated consensus on 33 outcome measures. These included measurement of the peak eosinophil count, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, and patient-reported measures of dysphagia and quality of life., Conclusions: This interdisciplinary collaboration involving global stakeholders has produced a COS that can be applied to adult and pediatric studies of pharmacologic and diet therapies for EoE and will facilitate meaningful treatment comparisons and improve the quality of data synthesis., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Data evaluating efficacy of different doses of swallowed topical corticosteroids (STC) in the long-term management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are lacking. We assessed long-term effectiveness and safety of different STC doses for adults with EoE after achievement of histological remission., Methods: We performed a retrospective multicenter study at five EoE referral centers (US and Switzerland). We analyzed data on 82 patients with EoE in histological remission and ongoing STC treatment with therapeutic adherence of ≥75% (58 males; mean age at diagnosis, 37.2±14.4 years). Patients were followed for a median of 2.2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.0-3.8 years). We collected data from 217 follow-up endoscopy visits. The primary endpoint was time to histological relapse., Results: Histological relapse occurred in 67% of patients. Relapse rates were comparable in patients taking low dose (≤0.5 mg per day, n = 58) and high dose STC (>0.5 mg per day, n = 24) with 72 vs 54% (ns). However, histological relapse occurred significantly earlier with low dose STC (1.0 vs 1.8 years, P = .030). There was no difference regarding rates of and time to stricture formation for low vs high dose STC. Esophageal candidiasis was observed in 6% of patients (5% for low dose, 8% for high dose, ns). No dysplasia or mucosal atrophy was detected., Conclusion: Histological relapse frequently occurs in EoE despite ongoing STC treatment regardless of STC doses. However, relapse develops later in patients on high dose STC without an increase in side-effects. Doses higher than 0.5 mg/day may be considered for EoE maintenance treatment, but advantage over lower doses appears to be small., (Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The BougieCap (Ovesco Endoscopy AG, Tübingen, Germany) is a new device that allows optical and tactile feedback during stricture dilation of the upper GI tract. We evaluated the technical feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of a 1-time esophageal stricture dilation using the BougieCap in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE)., Methods: EoE patients prospectively included in the Swiss EoE Cohort were dilated with the BougieCap for esophageal strictures (esophageal diameter, ≤14 mm) and stricture-related symptoms. Symptoms were assessed before and 2 weeks after a single dilation session using the validated Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index Patient Reported Outcomes instrument (score ranges from 0 to 100 points)., Results: Fifty patients (70% men; median age, 41 years; median disease duration, 4 years; 50% treated with swallowed topical corticosteroids, 10% with proton pump inhibitors, 14% with combined swallowed topical corticosteroids plus proton pump inhibitors, 14% with elimination diet, 12% without antieosinophil therapy) were evaluated. Endoscopic bougienage was technically successful in 100%. The median esophageal diameter increased from 12 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 12-13) to 16 mm (IQR, 16-16; P < .001). Median symptom severity dropped from 32 points (IQR, 27-41) to 0 (IQR, 0-10; P < .001) at 2 weeks postdilation. In 1 patient the BougieCap was temporarily lost after stricture dilation in the hypopharynx but could be retrieved. No severe adverse events were reported., Conclusions: In adults with EoE, endoscopic treatment of esophageal strictures using the BougieCap is technically feasible and safe and offers significant symptomatic improvement in the short term., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We investigated whether dilation modifies the association between symptoms and esophageal eosinophilia (peak esophageal eosinophils/high-power field [eos/hpf]) in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis enrolled into a randomized trial comparing the efficacy of budesonide and fluticasone., Methods: Baseline Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire and Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index were available in 102 and 73 patients, respectively, of whom 56 and 39 underwent dilation at screening endoscopy before symptom assessment. The pair-wise relationship between Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index, and eos/hpf was analyzed with nonparametric correlations., Results: In nondilated patients, the association between baseline eos/hpf and symptoms was moderate and significant, although it was abolished in dilated patients., Discussion: Dilation modifies association between symptoms and eos/hpf (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02019758).

Background & Aims: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an allergen-mediated inflammatory disease with no approved treatment in the United States. Dupilumab, a VelocImmune-derived human monoclonal antibody against the interleukin (IL) 4 receptor, inhibits IL4 and IL13 signaling. Dupilumab is effective in the treatment of allergic, atopic, and type 2 diseases, so we assessed its efficacy and safety in patients with EoE., Methods: We performed a phase 2 study of adults with active EoE (2 episodes of dysphagia/week with peak esophageal eosinophil density of 15 or more eosinophils per high-power field), from May 12, 2015, through November 9, 2016, at 14 sites. Participants were randomly assigned to groups that received weekly subcutaneous injections of dupilumab (300 mg, n = 23) or placebo (n = 24) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 10 in Straumann Dysphagia Instrument (SDI) patient-reported outcome (PRO) score. We also assessed histologic features of EoE (peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and EoE histologic scores), endoscopically visualized features (endoscopic reference score), esophageal distensibility, and safety., Results: The mean SDI PRO score was 6.4 when the study began. In the dupilumab group, SDI PRO scores were reduced by a mean value of 3.0 at week 10 compared with a mean reduction of 1.3 in the placebo group (P = .0304). At week 12, dupilumab reduced the peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count by a mean 86.8 eosinophils per high-power field (reduction of 107.1%; P < .0001 vs placebo), the EoE-histologic scoring system (HSS) severity score by 68.3% (P < .0001 vs placebo), and the endoscopic reference score by 1.6 (P = .0006 vs placebo). Dupilumab increased esophageal distensibility by 18% vs placebo (P < .0001). Higher proportions of patients in the dupilumab group developed injection-site erythema (35% vs 8% in the placebo group) and nasopharyngitis (17% vs 4% in the placebo group)., Conclusions: In a phase 2 trial of patients with active EoE, dupilumab reduced dysphagia, histologic features of disease (including eosinophilic infiltration and a marker of type 2 inflammation), and abnormal endoscopic features compared with placebo. Dupilumab increased esophageal distensibility and was generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02379052., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The treatment options for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients include drugs (proton pump inhibitors [PPIs], swallowed topical corticosteroids [STCs]), elimination diets, and dilation. Given the lack of data, we aimed to assess adult EoE patients' satisfaction with different EoE-specific treatment modalities., Patients and Methods: We evaluated therapy satisfaction recalled over a 12-month period using the validated Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication that assesses effectiveness, side effects, convenience, and overall satisfaction. The score for each scale ranges from 0 (dissatisfied) to 100 (satisfied). To evaluate satisfaction with nonpharmacologic therapies, the questionnaire was modified and debriefed into three focus groups. The final questionnaire was sent to 147 patients., Results: The patient response rate was 74%. In the last 12 months, 24, 75, 19, and 9% were treated with PPIs, STCs, elimination diet, and dilation, respectively. Patients identified the following considerations as important for therapy choice: effect on symptoms (89%), effect on esophageal inflammation (76%), side effects (69%), and ease of use (58%). Patients found STCs to be effective (83 points), convenient (83 points), and experienced no side effects when using this therapy. When using STCs alone (43%), overall patient satisfaction was high (86 points). Patients judged PPIs to be most convenient (89 points), STCs to be a bit less convenient (83 points), and diet to be most inconvenient (46 points) of the three therapies examined., Conclusions: Adult EoE patients consider both therapy effect on symptoms and esophageal inflammation as important criteria when choosing EoE therapy and appear to be satisfied with STC use., (© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background & Aims: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is assessed endoscopically (endoscopic activity), based on grades of edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures (EREFS). We examined variations in endoscopic assessments of severity, developed and validated 3 EREFS-based scoring systems, and assessed responsiveness of these systems using data from a randomized placebo-controlled trial of patients with EoE., Methods: For the development set, 5 gastroenterologists reviewed EREFS findings from 266 adults with EoE and provided endoscopist global assessment scores (EndoGA, scale of 0 to 10); variation (ΔEndoGA) was assessed using linear regression. We evaluated simple scores (features given arbitrary values from 0 to 3) and developed 2 scoring systems (adjusted score range, 0-100). We then fitted our linear regression model with mean EndoGA to data from 146 adults recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between April 2011 and December 2012. For the validation set, we collected data from 120 separate adults (recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between May 2013 and July 2014), assessing regression coefficient-based scores using Bland-Altman method. We assessed the responsiveness of our scoring systems using data from a randomized trial of patients with EoE given fluticasone (n=16) or placebo (n=8)., Results: The distribution of EndoGA values differed among endoscopists (mean ΔEndoGA, 2.6±1.8; range 0-6.6). We developed 2 regression-based scoring systems to assess overall and proximal and distal esophageal findings; variation in endoscopic features accounted for more than 90% of the mean EndoGA variation. In the validation group, differences between mean EndoGA and regression-based scores were small (ranging from -4.70 to 2.03), indicating good agreement. In analyses of data from the randomized trial, the baseline to end of study change in patients given fluticasone was a reduction of 24.3 in simple score (reduction of 4.6 in patients given placebo, P=.052); a reduction of 23.5 in regression-based overall score (reduction of 6.56 in patients given placebo, P=.12), and a reduction of 23.8 (reduction of 8.44 in patients given placebo, P=.11)., Conclusion: Assessments of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE vary among endoscopists. In an analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial, we found that newly developed scoring systems are no better than simple scoring system in detecting changes in endoscopic activity. These results support the use of a simple scoring system in evaluation of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE. clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT00939263 and NCT01386112., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: In adults with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a chronic, inflammatory immune-mediated condition of the esophagus, both inflammation and fibrosis are likely associated with symptom generation. Therefore, assessing symptom-based patient-reported outcomes (PROs), defined by US Food and Drug Administration as 'any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patients, without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else', is important in the context of trials and observational studies of emerging therapies., Recent Findings: For purposes of treatment monitoring, lack of symptoms does not predict the absence of biologic inflammation; hence, endoscopy with esophageal biopsies should be performed to check for residual inflammation. Lack of inflammation does not predict lack of symptoms, and the presence of subepithelial fibrosis cannot be excluded. No published instrument currently measures the frequency of dysphagia described all possible ways, strategies of living with this symptom and various pain types. In randomized controlled trials, in which symptom response was detected using validated PRO measures, only modest decreases in symptom scores were observed., Summary: Accessing full EoE symptom spectrum and optimizing PRO measures remains a challenge that should be tackled to reliably assess response to existing and emerging therapies.

Background & Aims: Although swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) are effective in inducing remission of active eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), there are few data on maintenance of long-term remission. We evaluated the long-term effectiveness of STC therapy for adults with EoE., Methods: We performed a retrospective study using the Swiss EoE database. We analyzed data on 229 patients with EoE treated with STCs (175 male; mean age at diagnosis, 39±15 years; median time until diagnosis, 6 years) from 2000 through 2014. Patients were followed for a median of 5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 3-7 years). We collected data from 819 follow-up visits on clinical, endoscopic and histological disease characteristics. The primary endpoint was proportions of clinical, endoscopic, and histological remission in all patients and groups, based on the status and duration of STC treatment., Results: Patients were taking STCs at 336 of the follow-up visits (41.0% of visits). The median duration of STC use before a follow-up visit was 347 days (IQR, 90-750 days) corresponding to 677 doses (IQR, 280-1413 doses) of 0.25 mg each. At the visits, higher proportions of patients who were still taking STCs were in clinical remission (31.0%) compared to patients not taking STCs (4.5%) (P <.001), as well as endoscopic remission (48.8% vs 17.8%; P < .001), histologic remission (44.8% vs 10.1%; P < .001), and complete remission (16.1% vs 1.3%; P < .001). Higher cumulative doses of STCs and longer durations of treatment were associated with higher proportions of clinical and complete remission. No dysplasia or mucosal atrophy was detected. Esophageal candidiasis was observed at 2.7% of visits in patients taking STCs., Conclusion: In an analysis of data from the Swiss EoE database, we found maintenance therapy with STCs to achieve complete remission at 16.1% of follow-up visits, which was higher than in patients receiving no treatment (1.3%). Given the good safety profile of low-dose STC, we advocate for a prolonged treatment. Dose-finding trials are needed to achieve higher remission rates., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, esophageal, type 2 inflammatory response associated with increased serum levels of interleukin 13 (IL13), which might contribute to its pathogenesis. RPC4046, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against IL13, prevents its binding to the receptor subunits IL13RA1 and IL13RA2. We performed a phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RPC4046 in patients with EoE., Methods: We performed a multicenter, double-blind trial of 99 adults with active EoE randomly assigned (1:1:1) to groups given RPC4046 (180 or 360 mg) or placebo once weekly for 16 weeks, from September 2014 through December 2015. Patients were seen at day 1 (baseline) and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. They underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy and biopsies were collected at baseline and week 16. Patients completed a daily dysphagia symptom diary through week 16 and patient-reported outcome data were collected. The primary outcome was change in mean esophageal eosinophil count in the 5 high-power fields (hpfs) with the highest level of inflammation., Results: At week 16, mean changes in esophageal eosinophil count per hpf were a reduction of 94.8 ± 67.3 in patients who received 180 mg RPC4046 (P < .0001) and a reduction of 99.9 ± 79.5 in patients who received 360 mg RPC4046 (P < .0001) compared with a reduction of 4.4 ± 59.9 in patients who received placebo. The 360-mg RPC4046 group, compared with the placebo group, showed significant reductions in validated endoscopic severity score at all esophageal locations (P < .0001), validated histologic grade and stage scores (both P < .0001), and clinician's global assessment of disease severity (P = .0352); they had a numerical reduction in scores from the dysphagia symptom diary (P = .0733). Significant reductions in esophageal eosinophil counts and histologic and endoscopic features were observed in patients with steroid-refractory EoE who received RPC4046. The most common adverse events were headache and upper respiratory tract infection., Conclusions: In a phase 2 trial of patients with EoE, we found RPC4046 (a monoclonal antibody against IL13) to reduce histologic and endoscopic features compared with placebo. RPC4046 was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02098473., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Agents are being developed for treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, it is not clear what outcome measures would best determine the efficacy and safety of these agents in clinical trials. We performed a systematic review of outcomes used in randomized placebo-controlled trials of EoE and we estimate the placebo response and rates of remission., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register from inception through February 20, 2018 for randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic therapies for EoE. Efficacy outcome definitions, measurement tools, and the proportion of patients responding to placebo were collected and stratified by based on histologic, endoscopic, and patient-reported outcomes., Results: We analyzed data from 22 placebo-controlled trials, comprising 1112 patients with EoE. Ten additional active registered trials were identified. Most published trials evaluated topical corticosteroid therapy (13/22, 59.1%). Histologic outcomes measuring eosinophil density and patient-reported outcomes were reported in 21/22 published trials (95.5%). No consistently applied definitions of histologic or patient-reported response or remission were identified. Endoscopic outcomes were described in 60% (12/20) of published trials. The EoE Endoscopic Reference Score is the most commonly applied tool for describing changes in endoscopic appearance. The median histologic response to placebo was 3.7% (range, 0%-31.6%) and the median rate of remission in patients given placebo was 0.0% (range, 0%-11.0%). The median patient-reported response to placebo was 14.4% (range, 8.6%-77.8%) and rate of remission in patients given placebo was 26.2% (range, 13.2%-35.7%)., Conclusions: In a systematic review of the literature, we found that no standardized definitions of histologic, endoscopic, or patient-reported outcomes are used to determine whether pharmacologic agents produce a response or remission in patients with EoE. A core outcome set is needed to reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting and facilitate trial interpretation and comparison of results from trials., (Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Well informed patients who are in cohesive partnership with physicians and who have realistic expectations towards therapy are more likely to be adherent, which results in better disease control., Aim: To assess which therapy goals adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis consider relevant., Methods: Following refinement during three focus groups, a study brochure and questionnaire were sent to 148 patients. Patients ranked the importance (five levels) of short-term (in the next 3 months) and long-term (≥1 year) treatment effect on symptoms, quality of life (QoL), histologically-detected inflammation and fibrosis, endoscopically-detected inflammation, and stricture formation as well as achieving histological remission while asymptomatic. Patients' characteristics associated with treatment goals were identified using logistic regression., Results: Of 109 respondents (mean age 43 years), 85 were men. Over 90% chose symptoms and QoL improvement as important short- and long-term therapy goals. A greater proportion attributed more importance to long-term reduction in endoscopic (90% vs 73%, P < 0.001) and histological (81% vs 62%, P = 0.002) inflammation, and histologically-detected fibrosis (79% vs 64%, P = 0.018) when compared to short-term reduction in these features. Patients (88%) ranked achieving histological remission while being asymptomatic as important. Gender, therapy use, education level, QoL, symptom severity, and history of dilation were associated with patients' choice of treatment goals., Conclusions: Patients attributed most importance to improvement in symptoms and QoL. Reduction in biological activity was judged less important, but more relevant in the long- compared to the short-term., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: For technical reasons, the histologic characterization of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE)-specific alterations is almost exclusively based on those found in the esophageal epithelium, whereas little is known about subepithelial abnormalities. In this study, we aimed to systematically assess the nature of subepithelial histologic alterations, and analyze their relationship with epithelial histologic findings, endoscopic features, and symptoms., Methods: Adult patients with established EoE diagnosis were prospectively included during a yearly follow-up visit. Patients underwent assessment of clinical, endoscopic, and histologic disease activity using EoE-specific scores., Results: We included 200 EoE patients (mean age 43.5±15.7 years, 74% males) with a median peak count of 36 intraepithelial eosinophils/hpf (IQR 14-84). The following histologic features were identified in the subepithelial layer: eosinophilic infiltration (median peak count of 20 eosinophils/hpf (IQR 10-51)), eosinophil degranulation (43%), fibrosis (82%), and lymphoid follicles (56%). Peak intraepithelial eosinophil counts were higher, identical, and lower when compared to the subepithelial layer in 62.5%, 7%, and 30.5% of patients, respectively. Anti-eosinophilic treatment at inclusion did not influence the relation between subepithelial and epithelial peak eosinophil counts. Subepithelial histologic activity correlated with epithelial histologic activity (rho 0.331, P<0.001), endoscopic severity (rho 0.208, P=0.003), and symptom severity (rho 0.179, P=0.011). Forty percent (21/52) of patients with <15 intraepithelial eosinophils/hpf had subepithelial peak counts of ≥15/hpf., Conclusions: There is a significant but modest correlation between subepithelial histologic activity and epithelial histologic activity, endoscopic severity, and symptom severity. The long-term clinical impact of assessing subepithelial alterations in EoE needs to be further elucidated.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is defined as a chronic, immune-medicated or antigen-mediated, esophageal disease, characterized clinically by symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction and histologically by eosinophil-predominant inflammation. Food allergens are identified in most patients. Treatment strategies include elimination diets, drugs, and esophageal dilation. This article focuses on pharmacologic treatment. Currently, there is no pharmacologic treatment that has been approved by regulatory authorities. Established pharmacologic options to treat EoE include proton pump inhibitors and swallowed topical steroids. Several biologic therapies are currently under evaluation and some of them have shown promising results in improving biologic endpoints and patient-reported outcomes., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) present with symptoms accompanied by behavioral adaptions to living with this condition. These include swallowing- and nonswallowing-associated pain in adulthood. In children, EoE symptoms vary with age and include vomiting, abdominal pain, and dysphagia. Studies using validated patient-reported outcome measures have demonstrated that symptoms in EoE are associated with severe biologic alterations and that patients on the low biologic severity spectrum have few symptoms. This nonlinear nature of the relationship between symptoms and biologic findings has important implications for among other things the length of diagnostic delay, selection of patients for clinical trials, trial duration, and long-term management of EoE patients., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) are efficacious in inducing and presumably maintaining remission in patients with active eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Hitherto, it has not been evaluated whether long-lasting remission can be achieved, and whether treatment can be stopped once patients have achieved this remission., Methods: Since 2007, EoE patients included into a large database at the Swiss EoE Clinics were put on STCs as induction/maintenance therapy. Disease activity was assessed on an annual basis. In patients who achieved long-lasting (≥6 months) clinical, endoscopic, and histological (=deep) remission, treatment was stopped. Data on all patients treated using this therapeutic strategy were analyzed retrospectively., Results: Of the 351 patients, 33 (9.4%) who were treated with STCs achieved deep remission. Median age of remitters at disease onset was 32.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 19.1-49.3), and diagnostic delay was 5.4 years (IQR 1.2-11.4). Deep remission was achieved after 89.0 weeks (IQR 64.6-173.8). Female gender was the only independent prognostic factor for achieving deep remission (odds ratio (OR) 2.518, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.203-5.269). Overall, STCs were stopped after 104.7 weeks (IQR 65.5-176.6). No mucosal damage was observed upon histological examination. In 27 of the 33 remitters (81.8%), a clinical relapse occurred after a median of 22.4 weeks (95% CI 5.1-39.7). Six remitters (18.2%) did not experience a clinical relapse during a follow-up of 35.1 weeks (IQR 18.3-44.9). Hence, a total of 1.7% (6/351) patients were able to discontinue STCs in the long term., Conclusions: Long-term EoE treatment with STCs was well tolerated, but only a minority achieved deep remission. Female gender is the only prognostic factor for attainment of such remission. After treatment cessation, the majority experienced a clinical relapse.

Background and aims: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a mixed inflammatory and fibrostenotic disease. Unlike superficial inflammatory changes, subepithelial fibrosis is not routinely sampled in esophageal biopsies. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of deep esophageal sampling with four different types of biopsy forceps. Patients and methods: In this cross-sectional study, esophageal biopsies were taken in 30 adult patients by one expert endoscopist. Biopsies sampled from distal esophagus using a static jaw forceps (Olympus, FB-11K-1) were compared with proximal biopsies sampled with static jaw (Olympus, FB-45Q-1), alligator jaw (Olympus, FB-210K), and large-capacity forceps (Boston Scientific, Radial Jaw 4). One pathologist calculated the surface area of epithelial and subepithelial layers in hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained biopsies. Results: Subepithelial tissue was acquired in 97 % (static jaw FB-11K-1), 93 % (static jaw FB-45Q-1), 80 % (alligator jaw), and 55 % (large-capacity) of samples. Median (interquartile [IQR]) ratios of surface area of epithelial to subepithelial tissue were: static jaw FB-45Q-1, 1.07 (0.65 - 4.465); static jaw FB-11K-1, 1.184 (0.608 - 2.545); alligator jaw, 2.353 (1.312 - 4.465); and large-capacity, 2.71 (1.611 - 4.858). The static jaw models obtained a larger surface area of subepithelial tissue compared with the alligator jaw ( P  < 0.001 and P  = 0.037, for FB-11K-1 and FB-45Q-1, respectively) and the large-capacity forceps ( P  < 0.001, for both static jaw models). No esophageal perforations occurred. Conclusions: The static jaw forceps models allowed sampling of subepithelial tissue in > 90 % of biopsies and appear to be superior to alligator or large-capacity forceps in sampling larger amounts of subepithelial tissue., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background & Aims: It is not clear whether symptoms alone can be used to estimate the biologic activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate whether symptoms can be used to identify patients with endoscopic and histologic features of remission., Methods: Between April 2011 and June 2014, we performed a prospective, observational study and recruited 269 consecutive adults with EoE (67% male; median age, 39 years old) in Switzerland and the United States. Patients first completed the validated symptom-based EoE activity index patient-reported outcome instrument and then underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsy collection. Endoscopic and histologic findings were evaluated with a validated grading system and standardized instrument, respectively. Clinical remission was defined as symptom score <20 (range, 0-100); histologic remission was defined as a peak count of <20 eosinophils/mm(2) in a high-power field (corresponds to approximately <5 eosinophils/median high-power field); and endoscopic remission as absence of white exudates, moderate or severe rings, strictures, or combination of furrows and edema. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis to determine the best symptom score cutoff values for detection of remission., Results: Of the study subjects, 111 were in clinical remission (41.3%), 79 were in endoscopic remission (29.7%), and 75 were in histologic remission (27.9%). When the symptom score was used as a continuous variable, patients in endoscopic, histologic, and combined (endoscopic and histologic remission) remission were detected with area under the curve values of 0.67, 0.60, and 0.67, respectively. A symptom score of 20 identified patients in endoscopic remission with 65.1% accuracy and histologic remission with 62.1% accuracy; a symptom score of 15 identified patients with both types of remission with 67.7% accuracy., Conclusions: In patients with EoE, endoscopic or histologic remission can be identified with only modest accuracy based on symptoms alone. At any given time, physicians cannot rely on lack of symptoms to make assumptions about lack of biologic disease activity in adults with EoE. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT00939263., (Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: There is no "gold standard" for assessing disease activity in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to compare physicians' judgment of EoE activity with patients' judgment of symptom severity. We also aimed to examine the relative contribution of symptoms as well as endoscopic and histologic findings in shaping physicians' judgment of EoE activity., Methods: Six gastroenterologists (all EoE experts) assessed EoE-associated symptoms in adult patients. Patients completed a symptom instrument and provided global assessment of EoE symptom severity (PatGA) (Likert scale: 0 (inactive) to 10 (most active)). Following esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy sampling, gastroenterologists provided a global assessment of EoE activity (PhysGA) (Likert scale from 0 to 10) based on patient history and endoscopic and histologic findings. Linear regression and analysis of variance was used to quantify the extent to which variations in severity of EoE symptoms and endoscopic and histologic findings explain variations in PhysGA., Results: A total of 149 EoE patients were prospectively included (71.8% male, median age at inclusion 38 years, 71.8% with concomitant allergies). A moderate positive correlation between PhysGA and PatGA (rho=0.442, P<0.001) was observed and the mean difference in the Bland-Altman plot was 1.77. Variations in severity of endoscopic findings, symptoms, and histologic findings alone explained 53%, 49%, and 30%, of the variability in PhysGA, respectively. Together, these findings explained 75% of variability in PhysGA., Conclusions: Gastroenterologists rate EoE activity mainly on the basis of endoscopic findings and symptoms and, to a lesser extent, on histologic findings.

Background & Aims: Standardized instruments are needed to assess the activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and to provide end points for clinical trials and observational studies. We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument and score, based on items that could account for variations in patient assessments of disease severity. We also evaluated relationships between patient assessment of disease severity and EoE-associated endoscopic, histologic, and laboratory findings., Methods: We collected information from 186 patients with EoE in Switzerland and the United States (69.4% male; median age, 43 y) via surveys (n = 135), focus groups (n = 27), and semistructured interviews (n = 24). Items were generated for the instruments to assess biologic activity based on physician input. Linear regression was used to quantify the extent to which variations in patient-reported disease characteristics could account for variations in patient assessment of EoE severity. The PRO instrument was used prospectively in 153 adult patients with EoE (72.5% male; median age, 38 y), and validated in an independent group of 120 patients with EoE (60.8% male; median age, 40.5 y)., Results: Seven PRO factors that are used to assess characteristics of dysphagia, behavioral adaptations to living with dysphagia, and pain while swallowing accounted for 67% of the variation in patient assessment of disease severity. Based on statistical consideration and patient input, a 7-day recall period was selected. Highly active EoE, based on endoscopic and histologic findings, was associated with an increase in patient-assessed disease severity. In the validation study, the mean difference between patient assessment of EoE severity (range, 0-10) and PRO score (range, 0-8.52) was 0.15., Conclusions: We developed and validated an EoE scoring system based on 7 PRO items that assess symptoms over a 7-day recall period. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00939263., (Copyright © 2014 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A validated disease-specific symptom-assessment tool for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has yet to be approved by regulatory authorities for use in clinical trials. Relevant end points for daily practice include EoE-related symptoms and esophageal eosinophilic inflammation. Endoscopic features should also be taken into account when establishing a therapy plan. A reasonable clinical goal is to achieve a reduction in EoE-related symptoms and esophageal eosinophilic inflammation. Evidence is increasing to support an anti-inflammatory maintenance therapy, as this can reduce esophageal remodeling. In EoE patients in clinical remission, annual disease monitoring with symptom, endoscopic, and histologic assessments of sustained treatment response is recommended., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Development of strictures is a major concern for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). At diagnosis, EoE can present with an inflammatory phenotype (characterized by whitish exudates, furrows, and edema), a stricturing phenotype (characterized by rings and stenosis), or a combination of these. Little is known about progression of stricture formation; we evaluated stricture development over time in the absence of treatment and investigated risk factors for stricture formation., Methods: We performed a retrospective study using the Swiss EoE Database, collecting data on 200 patients with symptomatic EoE (153 men; mean age at diagnosis, 39 ± 15 years old). Stricture severity was graded based on the degree of difficulty associated with passing of the standard adult endoscope., Results: The median delay in diagnosis of EoE was 6 years (interquartile range, 2-12 years). With increasing duration of delay in diagnosis, the prevalence of fibrotic features of EoE, based on endoscopy, increased from 46.5% (diagnostic delay, 0-2 years) to 87.5% (diagnostic delay, >20 years; P = .020). Similarly, the prevalence of esophageal strictures increased with duration of diagnostic delay, from 17.2% (diagnostic delay, 0-2 years) to 70.8% (diagnostic delay, >20 years; P < .001). Diagnostic delay was the only risk factor for strictures at the time of EoE diagnosis (odds ratio = 1.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.040-1.122; P < .001)., Conclusions: The prevalence of esophageal strictures correlates with the duration of untreated disease. These findings indicate the need to minimize delay in diagnosis of EoE., (Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) was first described in the early 1990s. Although initially reported to be a rare entity, EoE has rapidly become a regularly diagnosed disease with a prevalence of approximately 1 in 2,000 individuals in the USA and Europe. The disease is characterized by a combination of oesophageal dysfunction and predominant eosinophilic infiltration of the oesophageal tissue. At diagnosis, other diseases that can be associated with oesophageal eosinophilic infiltration must be ruled out. Children with EoE present with a wide variety of symptoms, whereas adults mostly present with dysphagia for solid food and chest pain. Histologic features of EoE resemble those of T-helper type 2 inflammation. Endoscopy should be carried out to establish the diagnosis, but endoscopic abnormalities are not pathognomonic for EoE and the examination might not show histologic abnormality. Treatment modalities for EoE include drugs (corticosteroids, PPIs, antiallergic and biologic agents), hypoallergenic diets and oesophageal dilatation for strictures that are unresponsive to medical therapy. Unresolved eosinophilic inflammation leads to the formation of oesophageal strictures, which probably increase the risk of food bolus impactions. To date, long-term strategies for the therapeutic management of this chronic inflammatory disease remain poorly defined.