Search

Background & Aims: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is assessed endoscopically (endoscopic activity), based on grades of edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures (EREFS). We examined variations in endoscopic assessments of severity, developed and validated 3 EREFS-based scoring systems, and assessed responsiveness of these systems using data from a randomized placebo-controlled trial of patients with EoE., Methods: For the development set, 5 gastroenterologists reviewed EREFS findings from 266 adults with EoE and provided endoscopist global assessment scores (EndoGA, scale of 0 to 10); variation (ΔEndoGA) was assessed using linear regression. We evaluated simple scores (features given arbitrary values from 0 to 3) and developed 2 scoring systems (adjusted score range, 0-100). We then fitted our linear regression model with mean EndoGA to data from 146 adults recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between April 2011 and December 2012. For the validation set, we collected data from 120 separate adults (recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between May 2013 and July 2014), assessing regression coefficient-based scores using Bland-Altman method. We assessed the responsiveness of our scoring systems using data from a randomized trial of patients with EoE given fluticasone (n=16) or placebo (n=8)., Results: The distribution of EndoGA values differed among endoscopists (mean ΔEndoGA, 2.6±1.8; range 0-6.6). We developed 2 regression-based scoring systems to assess overall and proximal and distal esophageal findings; variation in endoscopic features accounted for more than 90% of the mean EndoGA variation. In the validation group, differences between mean EndoGA and regression-based scores were small (ranging from -4.70 to 2.03), indicating good agreement. In analyses of data from the randomized trial, the baseline to end of study change in patients given fluticasone was a reduction of 24.3 in simple score (reduction of 4.6 in patients given placebo, P=.052); a reduction of 23.5 in regression-based overall score (reduction of 6.56 in patients given placebo, P=.12), and a reduction of 23.8 (reduction of 8.44 in patients given placebo, P=.11)., Conclusion: Assessments of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE vary among endoscopists. In an analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial, we found that newly developed scoring systems are no better than simple scoring system in detecting changes in endoscopic activity. These results support the use of a simple scoring system in evaluation of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE. clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT00939263 and NCT01386112., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Few factors have been identified that can be used to predict response of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) to topical steroid treatment. We aimed to determine whether baseline clinical, endoscopic, histologic, and molecular features of EoE can be used to predict histologic response., Methods: We collected data from 97 patients with EoE, from 2009 through 2015, treated with a topical steroid for 8 weeks; 59 patients had a histologic response to treatment. Baseline clinicopathologic features and gene expression patterns were compared between patients with a histologic response to treatment (<15 eos/hpf) and non-responders (≥15 eos/hpf). We performed sensitivity analyses for alternative histologic response definitions. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictive factors associated with response to therapy, which were assessed with area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curves., Results: Baseline dilation was the only independent predictor of non-response (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.89). When an alternate response (<1 eos/hpf) and non-response (<50% decrease in baseline eos/hpf) definition was used, independent predictors of response status were age (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14), food allergies (OR, 12.95; 95% CI, 2.20-76.15), baseline dilation (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.88), edema or decreased vascularity (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-1.03), and hiatal hernia (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.66). Using these 5 factors, we developed a predictive model that discriminated complete responders from non-responders with an AUROC of 0.88. Baseline gene expression patterns were not associated with treatment response and did not change with different histologic response thresholds., Conclusions: In an analysis of 97 patients with EoE, we found dilation to be the only baseline factor associated with non-response to steroid treatment (<15 eos/hpf). However, a model comprising 5 clinical, endoscopic, and histologic factors identified patients with a complete response (<1 eos/hpf). A baseline gene expression panel was not predictive of treatment response at any threshold., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: No prospective studies substantiate 15 eos/hpf as an appropriate endpoint for treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to determine a histologic cutpoint that identifies successful treatment of EoE by assessing symptomatic and endoscopic improvement., Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study of 62 consecutive adult patients undergoing outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy at the University of North Carolina from 2009 through 2014. At diagnosis of EoE and after 8 weeks of standard treatment, symptom and endoscopic responses were measured using a visual analogue scale and an endoscopic severity score (ESS), and eosinophil counts were assessed. Receiver operator curves and logistic regression models evaluated the histologic threshold that best predicted symptomatic and endoscopic response. For symptoms, analysis was limited to patients without baseline esophageal dilation., Results: The mean eosinophil count at diagnosis was 124 eos/hpf, falling to 35 eos/hpf after treatment. The mean visual analogue scale decreased from 3.4 at baseline to 1.7 after treatment, and the mean ESS decreased from 3 to 1.6. Twenty-nine patients had symptom responses (47%) and 34 had endoscopic responses (55%). Post-treatment eosinophil count thresholds of 8, 15, and 5 eos/hpf best predicted symptom, endoscopic and combined responses, respectively. On logistic regression, decreasing eosinophil count was significantly associated with the probability of symptomatic (P = .01) and endoscopic response (P < .001)., Conclusions: In a prospective study of patients with EoE, we found that a cutpoint of <15 eos/hpf identifies most patients with symptom and endoscopic improvements, providing support for the current diagnostic threshold. A lower threshold (<5 eos/hpf) identifies most patients with a combination of symptom and endoscopic responses; this cutpoint might be used in situations that require a stringent histologic threshold., (Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Goals: To characterize patients who suffer perforation in the context of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and to identify predictors of perforation., Background: Esophageal perforation is a serious complication of EoE., Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the University of North Carolina EoE clinicopathologic database from 2001 to 2014. Subjects were included if they had an incident diagnosis of EoE and met consensus guidelines, including nonresponse to a PPI trial. Patients with EoE who had suffered perforation at any point during their course were identified, and compared with EoE cases without perforation. Multiple logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of perforation., Results: Out of 511 subjects with EoE, 10 (2.0%) had experienced an esophageal perforation. Although those who perforated tended to have a longer duration of symptoms before diagnosis (11.4 vs. 7.0 y, P=0.13), a history of food impaction (odds ratio, 14.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-129.2) and the presence of a focal stricture (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-19.7) were the only factors independently associated with perforation. Most perforations (80%) occurred after a prolonged food bolus impaction, and only half of individuals (5/10) carried a diagnosis of EoE at the time of perforation; none occurred after dilation. Six patients (60%) were treated with nonoperative management, and 4 (40%) required surgical repair., Conclusions: Esophageal perforation is a rare but serious complication of eosinophilic esophagitis, occurring in ∼2% of cases. Most episodes are due to food bolus impaction or strictures, suggesting that patients with fibrostenotic disease due to longer duration of symptoms are at increased risk.

Many studies of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) use expert pathology review, but it is unknown whether less experienced pathologists can reliably assess EoE histology. We aimed to determine whether trainee pathologists can accurately quantify esophageal eosinophil counts and identify associated histologic features of EoE, as compared with expert pathologists. We used a set of 40 digitized slides from patients with varying degrees of esophageal eosinophilia. Each of 6 trainee pathologists underwent a teaching session and used our validated protocol to determine eosinophil counts and associated EoE findings. The same slides had previously been evaluated by expert pathologists, and these results comprised the criterion standard. Eosinophil counts were correlated, and agreement was calculated for the diagnostic threshold of 15 eosinophils per high-power field as well as for associated EoE findings. Peak eosinophil counts were highly correlated between the trainees and the criterion standard (ρ ranged from 0.87 to 0.92; P<.001 for all). Peak counts were also highly correlated between trainees (0.75-0.91; P<.001), and results were similar for mean counts. Agreement was excellent for determining if a count exceeded the diagnostic threshold (κ ranged from 0.83 to 0.89; P<.001). Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation (κ = 0.54-0.83; P<.01) and spongiosis (κ = 0.44-0.87; P<.01) but was lower for eosinophil microabscesses (κ = 0.37-0.64; P<.01). In conclusion, using a teaching session, digitized slide set, and validated protocol, the agreement between pathology trainees and expert pathologists for determining eosinophil counts was excellent. Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation and spongiosis but less so for microabscesses., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Some patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have an extremely narrow esophagus, but the characteristics of this group have not been extensively described. We aimed to characterize the narrow-caliber phenotype of EoE, determine associated risk factors, and identify differences in treatment response in this subgroup of patients., Methods: This retrospective cohort study from 2001 to 2014 included subjects with a new diagnosis of EoE per consensus guidelines. Demographic, endoscopic, histologic, and treatment response data were extracted from medical records. An extremely narrow-caliber esophagus was defined when a neonatal endoscope was required to traverse the esophagus due to the inability to pass an adult endoscope. Patients with and without an extremely narrow-caliber esophagus were compared. Multivariable logistical regression was performed to assess treatment outcomes., Results: Of 513 patients with EoE, 46 (9%) had an extremely narrow-caliber esophagus. These patients were older (33 vs 22 years; P < .01), had longer symptom duration (11 vs 3 years; P < .01), more dysphagia (98% vs 66%; P < .01), and food impactions (53% vs 31%; P < .01). Dilation was more common with extreme narrowing (69% vs 17%; P < .01). Patients with a narrow-caliber esophagus were more refractory to steroid treatment, with lower symptom (56% vs 85%), endoscopic (52% vs 76%), and histologic (33% vs 63%) responses (P < .01 for all), and these differences persisted after multivariate analysis., Conclusion: The extremely narrow-caliber esophagus is a more treatment-resistant subphenotype of EoE and is characterized by longer symptom duration and the need for multiple dilations. Recognition of an extremely narrow-caliber esophagus at diagnosis of EoE can provide important prognostic information., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is difficult to distinguish from gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) and other causes of dysphagia. We assessed the utility of a set of clinical and endoscopic features for predicting EoE without obtaining esophageal biopsies., Methods: We prospectively enrolled consecutive adults undergoing outpatient upper endoscopy at the University of North Carolina from July 2011 through December 2013. Incident cases of EoE were diagnosed per consensus guidelines. Non-EoE controls had either GERD- or dysphagia-predominant symptoms. A predictive model containing clinical and endoscopic, but no histological, data was assessed. Receiver operator characteristic curves were constructed and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated., Results: A total of 81 EoE cases (mean age 38 years; 60% male; 93% white; 141 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf)) and 144 controls (mean age 52, 38% male; 82% white; 3 eos/hpf) were enrolled. A combination of clinical (age, sex, dysphagia, food allergy) and endoscopic (rings, furrows, plaques, hiatal hernia) features was highly predictive of EoE. The AUC was 0.944, with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 84, 97, and 92%. Similar values were seen after limiting controls to those with only reflux or dysphagia or to those with esophageal eosinophilia not due to EoE., Conclusions: We validated a set of clinical and endoscopic features to predict EoE with a high degree of accuracy and allow identification of those at very low risk of disease. Use of these predictors at the point-of-care will avoid the effort and expense of low-yield histological examinations for EoE.

Objectives: Noninvasive biomarkers would be valuable for diagnosis and monitoring of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The aim of this study was to determine the utility of a panel of serum biomarkers for the diagnosis and management of EoE., Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of consecutive adults undergoing outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Incident cases of EoE were diagnosed per consensus guidelines; controls had gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or dysphagia and did not meet the EoE criteria. EoE cases were treated with topical steroids and had repeat endoscopy. Pre- and post-treatment serum samples were analyzed in a blinded manner for interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-9, IL-13, transforming growth factor (TGF)-α, TGF-β, tumor necrosis factor-α, eotaxin-1, -2, and -3, thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), major basic protein, and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin. Cases and controls were compared at baseline, and pre- and post-treatment assays were compared in cases., Results: A total of 61 incident EoE cases and 87 controls were enrolled; 51 EoE cases had post-treatment serum analyzed. There were no significant differences in any of the biomarkers between EoE cases and controls at baseline. IL-13 and eotaxin-3 for cases and controls were 85 ± 160 vs. 43 ± 161 pg/ml (P=0.12) and 41 ± 159 vs. 21 ± 73 (P=0.30). There were no significant differences in assay values among cases before and after treatment. There were also no differences after stratification by atopic status or treatment response., Conclusions: A panel of inflammatory factors known to be associated with EoE pathogenesis were not increased in the serum, nor were they responsive to therapy. None of these biomarkers are likely candidates for a serum test for EoE. Histologic analysis for diagnosis and management of EoE continues to be necessary, and novel, less invasive, biomarkers are needed.

Objectives: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is thought to be more common among males and Caucasians, but little is known about the disease presentation among patients with different genders or racial backgrounds. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic characteristics of patients with EoE of different genders or racial backgrounds., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of the University of North Carolina EoE clinicopathologic database between January 2000 and December 2008. Cases of EoE were defined per 2007 consensus guidelines and stratified by race and gender for comparison., Results: In all, 208 incident EoE cases were identified (76% males, mean age 26 years, 82% Caucasian, and 12% African American). Caucasians were older at diagnosis than African Americans (27.1 vs. 19.0 years, P=0.05), less likely to present with failure-to-thrive (9 vs. 30%, P=0.002), and more likely to have esophageal rings (41 vs. 12%, P=0.005). These findings persisted after stratification by age. A higher proportion of males were diagnosed under the age of 18 as compared with females (48 vs. 64%, P=0.05). Males were more likely to report dysphagia and food impaction as symptoms (71 vs. 53%, P=0.02 and 35 vs. 20%, P=0.05, respectively), and these findings also persisted after stratification by age. The remainder of clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features did not differ by either race or gender., Conclusions: While age and dysphagia differed by gender and race among EoE patients, the majority of symptoms and findings were not different across groups, even after stratification by age. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for EoE, regardless of race or gender, and obtain esophageal biopsies to confirm the diagnosis.

Background: Esophageal strictures resulting from eosinophilic esophagitis present management challenges, and high rates of rents and perforation have been reported., Objective: To assess the safety of esophageal dilation in eosinophilic esophagitis and to characterize predictors of both clinical response and complications of the procedure., Design: Retrospective study of the University of North Carolina eosinophilic esophagitis database., Setting: Tertiary care referral center., Patients: Cases of eosinophilic esophagitis were defined as per consensus guidelines., Intervention: Dilation with either Savary or through-the-scope balloon techniques., Main Outcome Measurements: Complications (deep mucosal rents, contained or free perforation, and chest pain requiring medical attention or hospitalization) and the global clinical symptom response., Results: Of 130 eosinophilic esophagitis cases identified, 70 dilations (12 Savary, 58 balloon) were performed in 36 patients. Esophageal size improved from 12 to 16 mm (P < .001), with an overall symptom response rate of 83%. The only predictor of clinical response was final dilation diameter. There were 5 complications (7%): 2 deep mucosal rents and 3 episodes of chest pain. There were no perforations. There was one hospitalization for chest pain. All complications occurred in patients being treated with topical steroids, who underwent balloon dilation. Complications were associated with younger age (23 vs 42; P = .02) and more dilations (4 vs 1.7; P = .009)., Limitations: Single center, retrospective study., Conclusions: Esophageal dilation can be performed in eosinophilic esophagitis with low rates of tears, chest pain, and hospitalization. No perforations were found in our database. The effectiveness of dilation was best when a larger esophageal caliber was achieved, but patients undergoing more procedures was associated with complications., (Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lymphocytic esophagitis (LyE) is a recently described clinicopathological condition, but little is known about its features and clinical associations.Aim: The aim of this study was to characterize patients with LyE, compare them to non-LyE controls, and identify risk factors.Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of all patients ≥18 years old who underwent upper endoscopy with esophageal biopsy between January 1, 2000, and June 1, 2012. Archived pathology slides were re-reviewed, and LyE was diagnosed if there was lymphocyte-predominant esophageal inflammation with no eosinophils or granulocytes. Three non-LyE controls groups were also defined: reflux, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), and normal. Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records, and LyE cases were compared to non-LyE controls.Results: Twenty-seven adults were diagnosed with LyE, and the majority were female (63 %). The most common symptom was dysphagia (70 %). Fifty-two percentage had a prior or current diagnosis of reflux. Endoscopic findings included strictures (37 %), erosive esophagitis (33 %), rings (26 %), and hiatal hernia (26 %); 33 % of patients required dilation. After histology re-review, 78 % of LyE patients were found to have more than 20 lymphs/hpf. In comparison with the normal, reflux and EoE controls, patients with LyE tended to be nonwhite (p < 0.01), were more commonly tobacco users (p = 0.02) and less likely to have seasonal allergies (p = 0.02).Conclusion: LyE commonly presents with dysphagia due to esophageal strictures which require dilation. Smoking was associated with LyE, whereas atopy was not. LyE should be considered as a diagnostic possibility in patients with these characteristics undergoing upper endoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Updated diagnostic guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have eliminated the requirement for a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial, but there are no models to identify patients with EoE based on these new criteria. We aimed to develop a predictive model for diagnosis of EoE based on the updated EoE diagnostic guidelines. We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective study of adult patients referred for outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy at University of North Carolina who had symptoms of esophageal dysfunction; patients with prevalent EoE were excluded. We analyzed data from 206 EoE cases (mean age 40.1, 62.6% male, 93.2% white) and 306 controls (mean age 52.3, 37.9% male, 79.7% white). We built predictive models for case-control status, using clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features, and defining EoE by either the new or historical definition of PPI non-response. Model discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUC). Before endoscopy, younger age, male sex, history of atopic condition or food allergy, and dysphagia identified patients with EoE with an AUC of 0.83. When we included endoscopy findings suggestive of EoE, the model identified patients with EoE with an AUC of 0.92; this increased to 0.99 when histology was included. We developed a model to identify patients with EoE, without a trial of PPIs, based on updated diagnostic guidelines. Clinical features and endoscopic findings identified patients with EoE with an AUC of 0.92—even without histologic data and in the absence of dysphagia. This model can be used to select patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms but without dysphagia for early diagnostic endoscopy. The model can also be used to identify cases of EoE when eosinophil counts are greater than 15 in biopsies but other causes of esophageal eosinophilia cannot necessarily be excluded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We performed a randomized trial to compare nebulized and viscous topical corticosteroid treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Subjects with incident EoE (n = 25) received budesonide 1 mg twice daily, either nebulized and then swallowed (NEB) or as an oral viscous slurry (OVB), for 8 weeks. Baseline eosinophil counts for the NEB and OVB groups were 101 and 83 (P = .62). Posttreatment counts were 89 and 11 (P = .02). The mucosal medication contact time, measured by scintigraphy, was higher for the OVB group than the NEB group (P < .005) and was inversely correlated with eosinophil count (R = −0.67; P = .001). OVB was more effective than NEB in reducing numbers of esophageal eosinophils in patients with EoE. OVB provided a significantly higher level of esophageal exposure to the therapeutic agent, which correlated with lower eosinophil counts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]