Search

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]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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. [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]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]