Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 < 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the last 20 years, diverse outcome measures have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This systematic review aims to identify the readouts used in observational studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation in adult EoE patients. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase for prospective and retrospective studies (cohorts/case series, randomized open-label, and case-control) evaluating the use of diets, dilation, and topical corticosteroids in adults with EoE. Two authors independently assessed the articles and extracted information about histologic, endoscopic, and patient-reported outcomes and tools used to assess treatment effects. Results: We included 69 studies that met inclusion criteria. EoE-associated endoscopic findings (assessed either as absence/presence or using Endoscopic Reference Score) were evaluated in 24/35, 11/17, and 9/17 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively. Esophageal eosinophil density was recorded in 32/35, 17/17, and 11/17 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively. Patient-reported outcomes were not uniformly used (only in 14, 8, and 3 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively), and most tools were not validated for use in adults with EoE. Conclusions: Despite the lack of an agreed set of core outcomes that should be recorded and reported in studies in adult EoE patients, endoscopic EoE-associated findings and esophageal eosinophil density are commonly used to assess disease activity in observational studies. Standardization of outcomes and data supporting the use of outcomes are needed to facilitate interpretation of evidence, its synthesis, and comparisons of interventions in meta-analyses of therapeutic trials in adults with EoE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]