Search

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/mm2 (<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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)