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.)

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.

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.)

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]

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]