Search

Objective: To assess the effect of long-term dupilumab on histological, symptomatic and endoscopic aspects of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) in adolescent and adult patients with and without prior use of swallowed topical corticosteroids (STC) or prior inadequate response, intolerance or contraindication to STC., Design: Pre-specified analysis of data from the phase 3 LIBERTY EoE TREET study on patients who received dupilumab 300 mg once a week or placebo for 24 weeks (W24) in parts A and B, and an additional 28 weeks (W52) in part C. Patients were categorised as with/without prior STC use and with/without inadequate/intolerance/contraindication to STC. The proportion of patients achieving ≤6 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf), absolute change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score, mean change in Endoscopic Reference Score and Histologic Scoring System grade/stage scores were assessed for each subgroup., Results: Regardless of prior STC use, dupilumab increased the proportion of patients achieving ≤6 eos/hpf and improved DSQ score versus placebo at W24, with improvements maintained or improved at W52. The DSQ score and the proportion of patients achieving ≤6 eos/hpf after switching from placebo to dupilumab at W24 were similar to those observed in the dupilumab group at W24, regardless of prior STC use or inadequate/intolerance/contraindication to STC. Improvements in other outcomes with dupilumab were similar in patients with/without prior STC use or inadequate/intolerance/contraindication to STC., Conclusion: Dupilumab 300 mg once a week demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in patients with EoE regardless of prior STC use or inadequate response, intolerance and/or contraindication to STC., Trial Registration Number: NCT03633617., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AJB: Dr Falk Pharma, Norgine, Nutricia, Sanofi, SST and Thelial—research funding; Alimentiv, Aqilion, AstraZeneca, Dr Falk Pharma, Laborie, Medtronic, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi—consulting fees. ED: Adare/Ellodi, Allakos, Arena/Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Receptos/BMS, GSK, Meritage, Miraca, Nutricia, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Revolo and Shire/Takeda—research funding; Abbott, AbbVie, Adare/Ellodi, Aimmune, Akesobio, Alfasigma, ALK, Allakos, Amgen, Aqilion, Arena/Pfizer, Aslan, AstraZeneca, Avir, Biorasi, Calypso, Celgene/Receptos/BMS, Celldex, Eli Lilly, EsoCap, Eupraxia, Ferring, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Holoclara, Invea, Knightpoint, Landos, LucidDx, Morphic, Nexstone Immunology, Nutricia, Parexel/Calyx, Phathom, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Revolo, Robarts/Alimentiv, Salix, Sanofi, Shire/Takeda, Target RWE and Upstream Bio—consulting fees; Allakos, Holoclara and Invea—educational funding. IH: Allakos, AstraZeneca, Calyx/Parexel, Eli Lilly, Ellodi/Adare, EsoCap, Gossamer Bio, Nexstone, Pfizer/Arena, Phathom, Receptos/BMS, Sanofi/Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Shire/Takeda—consulting fees; Allakos, AstraZeneca, Ellodi/Adare, Pfizer/Arena, Receptos/BMS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Shire/Takeda—research funding; Sanofi/Regeneron Pharmaceuticals—speaker fees. AJL: Dr Falk Pharma and EsoCap—consulting fees; Dr Falk Pharma, Ellodi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals—research funding. CS: Adare Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Calypso, EsoCap, Dr Falk Pharma, GmbH and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals—consulting fees. AS, EM, JM and XS: employees of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and may hold stock and/or stock options in the company. EL, LG and LM: employees of Sanofi and may hold stock and/or stock options in the company., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions, intended to encourage question-asking by patients and enhance patient-physician communication. To date, a dysphagia-specific QPL has not been developed for patients with esophageal dysphagia symptoms. We aim to develop a dysphagia-specific QPL incorporating both esophageal expert and patient perspectives, applying rigorous methodology., Methods: The QPL content was generated applying a two-round modified Delphi (RAND/UCLA) method among 11 experts. In round one, experts provided five answers to the prompts: "What general questions should patients ask when being seen for dysphagia?" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking but, given my experience, I believe they should be asking?" In round two, experts rated proposed questions on a 5-point Likert scale. Responses rated as "essential" or "important", determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥4.0, were accepted for inclusion. Subsequently, 20 patients from Stanford Health Care were enrolled to modify the preliminary QPL, to incorporate their perspectives and opinions. Patients independently rated questions applying the same 5-point Likert scale. At the end, patients were encouraged to propose additional questions to incorporate into the QPL by open-endedly asking "Are there questions we didn't ask, that you think we should?", Key Results: Eleven experts participated in both voting rounds. Of 85 questions generated from round one, 60 (70.6%) were accepted for inclusion, meeting a median value of ≥4.0. Questions were combined to reduce redundancy, narrowing down to 44 questions. Questions were categorized into the following six themes: 1. "What is causing my dysphagia?"; 2. "Associated symptoms"; 3. "Testing for dysphagia"; 4. "Lifestyle modifications"; 5. "Treatment for dysphagia"; and 6. "Prognosis". The largest number of questions covered "What is causing my dysphagia" (27.3%). Twenty patients participated and modified the QPL. Of the 44 questions experts agreed were important, only 30 questions (68.2%) were accepted for inclusion. Six patients proposed 10 additional questions and after incorporating the suggested questions, the final dysphagia-specific QPL created by esophageal experts and modified by patients consisted of 40 questions., Conclusions & Inferences: Incorporating expert and patient perspectives, we developed a dysphagia-specific QPL to enhance patient-physician communication. Our study highlights importance of incorporating patient perspective when developing such a communication tool. Further studies will measure the impact of this communication tool on patient engagement., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: AJB received research funding from Nutricia, Norgine, DrFalkPharma, Thelial and SST, and received speaker and/or consulting fees from Laborie, Medtronic, Dr. Falk Pharma, Alimentiv, Sanofi/Regeneron and AstraZeneca

Background: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signaling, which have key roles in eosinophilic esophagitis., Methods: We conducted a three-part, phase 3 trial in which patients 12 years of age or older underwent randomization in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous dupilumab at a weekly dose of 300 mg or placebo (Part A) or in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 300 mg of dupilumab either weekly or every 2 weeks or weekly placebo (Part B) up to week 24. Eligible patients who completed Part A or Part B continued the trial in Part C, in which those who completed Part A received dupilumab at a weekly dose of 300 mg up to week 52 (the Part A-C group); Part C that included the eligible patients from Part B is ongoing. The two primary end points at week 24 were histologic remission (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score (range, 0 to 84, with higher values indicating more frequent or more severe dysphagia)., Results: In Part A, histologic remission occurred in 25 of 42 patients (60%) who received weekly dupilumab and in 2 of 39 patients (5%) who received placebo (difference, 55 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 40 to 71; P<0.001). In Part B, histologic remission occurred in 47 of 80 patients (59%) with weekly dupilumab, in 49 of 81 patients (60%) with dupilumab every 2 weeks, and in 5 of 79 patients (6%) with placebo (difference between weekly dupilumab and placebo, 54 percentage points; 95% CI, 41 to 66 [P<0.001]; difference between dupilumab every 2 weeks and placebo, 56 percentage points; 95% CI, 43 to 69 [not significant per hierarchical testing]). The mean (±SD) DSQ scores at baseline were 33.6±12.41 in Part A and 36.7±11.22 in Part B; the scores improved with weekly dupilumab as compared with placebo, with differences of -12.32 (95% CI, -19.11 to -5.54) in Part A and -9.92 (95% CI, -14.81 to -5.02) in Part B (both P<0.001) but not with dupilumab every 2 weeks (difference in Part B, -0.51; 95% CI, -5.42 to 4.41). Serious adverse events occurred in 9 patients during the Part A or B treatment period (in 7 who received weekly dupilumab, 1 who received dupilumab every 2 weeks, and 1 who received placebo) and in 1 patient in the Part A-C group during the Part C treatment period who received placebo in Part A and weekly dupilumab in Part C., Conclusions: Among patients with eosinophilic esophagitis, subcutaneous dupilumab administered weekly improved histologic outcomes and alleviated symptoms of the disease. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03633617.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Introduction: To investigate the adherence to prescribed medical and dietary maintenance treatments in a cohort of adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and to identify associated factors., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, adult patients with EoE who were prescribed medical or dietary maintenance therapy were included. Patients were asked to complete questionnaires concerning treatment adherence (Medication Adherence Rating Scale), beliefs about treatment (Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire), beliefs about disease (Illness Perception Questionnaire), and current symptoms (Straumann Dysphagia Index)., Results: A total of 177 patients with EoE (71% males) were included, with a median age of 43 years. The overall prevalence of poor adherence to prescribed treatments (Medication Adherence Rating Scale &lt; 21 or Diet Adherence Rating Scale &lt; 21) in this cohort was high, being 41.8%. Medically treated patients seemed less adherent to prescribed treatment compared with patients prescribed a diet (35.1% vs 41.8%, P = 0.320). Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified the following independent factors associated with poor treatment adherence: age &lt;40 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.571, 95% CI 1.195-5.532, P = 0.016), longer disease duration in years (OR 1.130, 95% CI 1.014-1.258, P = 0.027), severe symptoms (Straumann Dysphagia Index) (OR 1.167, 95% CI 1.012-1.345, P = 0.034), and low necessity beliefs (OR 4.423, 95% CI 2.169-9.016, P &lt; 0.001)., Discussion: Adherence to maintenance treatment is poor in many adult patients with EoE. Clinicians should pay more attention to treatment adherence, particularly in younger patients, and discuss the necessity of treatment., (Copyright © 2022 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

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: A novel budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) has been proven effective in adult patients with active eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) in a 6-week placebo-controlled trial (EOS-1)., Aims: To report the efficacy of an open-label induction treatment with BOT in a large prospective cohort of EoE patients within the EOS-2 study., Methods: Patients with clinico-histological active EoE were treated with BOT 1 mg BID for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinico-histological remission (≤2 points on numerical rating scales [0-10] each for dysphagia and odynophagia, and peak eosinophil count <16 eos/mm 2 hpf (corresponds to <5 eos/hpf)). Further study endpoints included clinical and histological remission rates, change in the EEsAI-PRO score, change in peak eosinophil counts, and deep endoscopic remission using a modified Endoscopic Reference Score., Results: Among 181 patients enrolled, 126 (69.6%) achieved clinico-histological remission (histological remission 90.1%, clinical remission 75.1%). The mean peak eosinophil counts decreased by 283 eos/mm 2 hpf (i.e., by 89.0%). Mean EEsAI-PRO score decreased from baseline by 29 points and deep endoscopic remission was achieved in 97 (53.6%) patients. The majority of patients judged tolerability as good or very good (85.6%) and compliance was high (96.5%). Local candidiasis was suspected in 8.3% of patients; all were of mild severity, resolved with treatment and none led to premature withdrawal from the study., Conclusions: In this large prospective trial, a 6-week open-label treatment with BOT 1 mg BID was highly effective and safe in achieving clinico-histological remission of active EoE and confirmed the results of the placebo-controlled EOS-1 trial., (© 2022 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Objective: There is no evidence-based treatment for persistent dysphagia after laparoscopic fundoplication. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pneumatic dilation on persistent dysphagia after laparoscopic fundoplication., Design: We performed a multicentre, single-blind, randomised sham-controlled trial of patients with persistent dysphagia (>3 months) after laparoscopic fundoplication. Patients with an Eckardt symptom score ≥4 were randomly assigned to pneumatic dilation (PD) using a 35 mm balloon or sham dilation. Primary outcome was treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score <4 and a minimal reduction of 2 points in the Eckardt score after 30 days. Secondary outcomes included change in stasis on timed barium oesophagogram, change in high-resolution manometry parameters and questionnaires on quality of life, reflux and dysphagia symptoms., Results: Forty-two patients were randomised. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the success rates of PD (7/21 patients (33%)) and sham dilation (8/21 patients (38%)) were similar after 30 days (risk difference -4.7% (95% CI (-33.7% to 24.2%) p=0.747). There was no significant difference in change of stasis on the timed barium oesophagogram after 2 min (PD vs sham: median 0.0 cm, p25-p75 range 0.0-4.3 cm vs median 0.0 cm, p25-p75 range 0.0-0.0; p=0.122) or change in lower oesophageal sphincter relaxation pressure (PD vs sham: 10.54±6.25 vs 14.60±6.17 mm Hg; p=0.052). Quality of life, reflux and dysphagia symptoms were not significantly different between the two groups., Conclusion: Pneumatic dilation with a 35 mm balloon is not superior to sham dilation for the treatment of persistent dysphagia after fundoplication., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JT received grant support from Sofar, received consulting fees from Ironwood and received speaker fees from Truvion. AJB received grant support from Bayer, Norgine, Nutricia, SST, and received speaker and/or consulting fees from Reckitt Benckiser, Laborie, Medtronic, Regeneron, Celgene, Arena, Esocap, Calypso, AstraZeneca and DrFalk., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic esophageal inflammation that may lead to stricture formation. This narrowing can cause major complications including food impactions. Despite increasing interest in EoE accurate data on its natural course is scarce. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the natural course of EoE and to evaluate the association between undiagnosed disease and the occurrence of complications over two decades in a large cohort., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed charts of patients diagnosed with EoE between 1996 and 2015, collected from 15 hospitals throughout the Netherlands. Histologic, clinical, and endoscopic characteristics were identified and stratified by age and diagnostic delay., Results: We included 721 patients (524 males, 117 children (≤18 years)). Dysphagia and food impactions were more common in adults whereas children more often presented with vomiting and abdominal pain (all p < 0.001). The prevalence of fibrotic endoscopic features was higher in adults (76%) than in children (39%) (p < 0.001). As time with undiagnosed disease progressed the percentage of patients with strictures and food impactions increased from 19% and 24% (diagnostic delay ≤ 2 years) to 52% and 57% (diagnostic delay ≥ 21 years) (p < 0.001), respectively. In a multivariate logistic regression model, diagnostic delay (odds ratio (OR) = 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-1.13) and male gender (OR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.61-4.50) were the major risk factors for stricture presence., Conclusion: During the natural course of EoE, progression from an inflammatory to a fibrostenotic phenotype occurs. With each additional year of undiagnosed EoE the risk of stricture presence increases with 9%.

Background: Esophageal dysphagia is a relatively common symptom. We aimed to evaluate whether subtle, presently not acknowledged forms of dysfunction of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) could explain dysphagia in a subset of patients with normal findings at high-resolution manometry (HRM) according to the Chicago classification v3.0., Methods: We used HRM to compare LES relaxation characteristics in 97 patients with unexplained dysphagia with those in 44 healthy subjects. In addition, normative values for time to LES relaxation and completeness of LES relaxation were calculated. Patients with delayed or incomplete LES relaxation were compared with patients with normal relaxation., Key Results: Dysphagia patients had a higher nadir LES pressure (P=.001) and a longer time to LES relaxation (P=.012) than healthy subjects. Based on the findings in healthy subjects, normal values of LES relaxation were defined as: ≥50% of swallows with normal LES relaxation time (<5 seconds) and ≤20% of swallows with incomplete LES relaxation (not reaching a value below 10 mm Hg). Dysphagia patients had significantly more often >50% swallows with delayed and/or incomplete LES relaxation than healthy controls (25% vs 4.5%; P=.004). Dysphagia patients with >50% delayed and/or incomplete LES relaxation had a significantly higher LES resting pressure (P<.001) and a significantly higher intrabolus pressure (P<.001) than dysphagia patients who did not fulfill the criteria., Conclusions and Inferences: Subtle LES relaxation abnormalities, such as a delayed relaxation of the LES and/or incomplete LES relaxation, could be a cause of dysphagia in approximately one quarter of the patients with otherwise unexplained esophageal dysphagia., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: There is no clear consensus regarding the most appropriate measure(s) of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity. We aimed to identify all scoring indices used for the measurement of disease activity in EoE, appraise their operating properties, and discuss their value as outcome measures., Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (The Cochrane library) were searched from inception to 11 May 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that reported outcomes to measure EoE disease activity or response to treatment were eligible. Operating properties of histologic, endoscopic, and patient reported/symptomatic and health-related quality of life measures were critically appraised according to guidelines proposed by the United States Food and Drug Administration., Results: Of 4,373 citations, 130 studies were eligible, of which 20 were RCTs. Although no index met all evaluative criteria, we found that: (1) the EoE histologic scoring system (EoEHSS) is the most valid histologic measure; (2) the Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) is the most reliable and responsive endoscopy measure; and (3) the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index (EEsAI) or the Dysphagia Symptoms Questionnaire (DSQ) had superior construct validity and responsiveness in adults. The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory EoE was the most valid pediatric symptomatic measure., Conclusions: Current evidence supports the use of the EoEHSS and EREFS as measures of histologic and endoscopic EoE disease activity, respectively, and the EEsAI, DSQ, or Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory EoE as measures of adult and pediatric symptoms. Additional research is needed to optimize endpoint configuration to facilitate development of new therapies.

Unlabelled: Esophageal intramural pseudodiverticulosis (EIPD) is a rare disorder in adults, and even more in infants and children. It is characterized by the dilatation of the submucosal esophageal glands. The exact etiology and pathophysiology of EIPD is, however, unknown. Dysphagia is the predominant presenting symptom in both children and adults., Conclusion: Here, we present a case of a boy with persistent dysphagia who had a thorough diagnostic workup and was eventually diagnosed with EIPD.

Background: Non-obstructive dysphagia patients prove to be a difficult category for clinical management. Esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) is a novel method, used to analyze dysphagia. However, it is not yet clear how findings on HRM relate to bolus transport through the esophagus., Methods: Twenty healthy volunteers and 20 patients with dysphagia underwent HRM and videofluoroscopy in a supine position. Each subject swallowed five liquid and five solid barium boluses. Esophageal contraction parameters and bolus transport were evaluated with HRM and concurrent videofluoroscopy., Key Results: Stasis of liquid and solid barium boluses occurred in patients and in healthy volunteers in 64% and 41% and in 84% and 82% of the swallows, respectively. Overall, 70% of the liquid and 72% of the solid bolus swallows were followed by a peristaltic contraction, the difference not being statistically significant. Statistically significant associations were found for transition zone length of liquid and solid boluses, and for DCI and distal contraction amplitudes for liquid stasis. No correlation was found between the degree of stasis and other manometric parameters., Conclusions & Inferences: Stasis of both liquid and solid boluses occurs frequently in patients and in controls and can be regarded as physiological. Motility patterns can predict the effectiveness of bolus transit and level of stasis to some degree but the relationship between esophageal motility and transit is complex and far from perfect. Esophageal manometry is therefore currently deemed unfit to be used for the prediction of bolus transit, and should rather be used for the identification of treatable esophageal motility disorders., (© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Oesophageal dysphagia is the subjective feeling that there is a problem with the passage of solids or liquids through the oesophagus. The differential diagnosis of dysphagia is long and can be divided into mechanical and motility disorders. Dysphagia is an alarming symptom which requires short-term endoscopic evaluation. An emerging cause of dysphagia is eosinophilic oesophagitis. The typical eosinophilic oesophagitis patient is a young adult man, often with an atopic constitution, who has intermittent symptoms of dysphagia. The diagnosis of 'eosinophilic oesophagitis' is based on characteristic histological findings in the oesophagus, seen in a fitting clinical context. Best evidence for the effects of treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis is available for topical glucocorticoids.

Recently, high-resolution oesophageal manometry was added to the armamentarium of researchers and gastroenterologists. Current studies suggest that the yield of high-resolution oesophageal manometry is higher than that of conventional pull-through manometry and is at least comparable to that of sleeve sensor manometry. Probably the most important advantage of solid-state high-resolution manometry is that it makes oesophageal manometry faster and easier to perform. Topographic plotting of high-resolution manometry signals facilitates their interpretation. It is concluded that high-resolution manometry is a promising technique for the evaluation of oesophageal motor function. Further studies will have to determine whether high-resolution manometry is superior to conventional manometry in the diagnostic work-up of patients with oesophageal symptoms.