Search

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 and Study Aims: The recommended minimum withdrawal time for screening colonoscopy is 6 minutes. Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) increase with longer withdrawal times. We aimed to compare withdrawal times and ADRs of endoscopists unaware of being monitored vs. aware. Patients and Methods: Seven experienced gastroenterologists prospectively performed 558 screening colonoscopies during a 9-month period in a Swiss University hospital. Colonoscopy withdrawal times were first measured without the gastroenterologists’ knowledge of being monitored (n = 355 colonoscopies) and then with their knowledge (n = 203 colonoscopies). Results: The median withdrawal time when gastroenterologists were unaware of being monitored was 4.5 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 4 – 5.5 minutes) without intervention and 6 minutes (IQR 4 – 9 minutes) with intervention, increasing significantly to 7.3 minutes (IQR 6.5 – 9 minutes) and 8 minutes (IQR 7 – 11 minutes), respectively, when they were aware of being monitored (P < 0.001 both for colonoscopies with and without intervention). The ADR increased from 21.4 % when the gastroenterologists were unaware of being monitored to 36.0 % when they were aware (P < 0.001). In the multivariate regression model, the endoscopists knowing they were being monitored was the strongest factor associated with ADR (odds ratio 4.417; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.241 – 8.705; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Colonoscopy withdrawal time in unmonitored gastroenterologists is shorter than recommended and increases with awareness of monitoring. ADR significantly increases when gastroenterologists are aware of being monitored. Implementation of systematic monitoring, and analysis of withdrawal time and ADR for each endoscopist may help to increase the ADR. [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]

Abstract: Background: There is increasing evidence for the clinical relevance of mucosal healing (MH) as therapeutic treatment goal in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to investigate by which method gastroenterologists monitor IBD activity in daily practice. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all board-certified gastroenterologists in Switzerland to specifically address their strategy to monitor IBD between May 2009 and April 2010. Results: The response rate was 57% (153/270). Fifty-two percent of gastroenterologists worked in private practice and 48% worked in hospitals. Seventy-eight percent judged clinical activity to be the most relevant criterion for monitoring IBD activity, 15% chose endoscopic severity, and 7% chose biomarkers. Seventy percent of gastroenterologists based their therapeutic decisions on clinical activity, 24% on endoscopic severity, and 6% on biomarkers. The following biomarkers were used for IBD activity monitoring: CRP, 94%; differential blood count, 78%; fecal calprotectin (FC), 74%; iron status, 63%; blood sedimentation rate, 3%; protein electrophoresis, 0.7%; fecal neutrophils, 0.7%; and vitamin B12, 0.7%. Gastroenterologists in hospitals and those with ≤10years of professional experience used FC more frequently compared with colleagues in private practice (P =0.035) and those with >10years of experience (P <0.001). Conclusions: Clinical activity is judged to be more relevant for monitoring IBD activity and guiding therapeutic decisions than endoscopic severity and biomarkers. As such, the accumulating scientific evidence on the clinical impact of mucosal healing does not yet seem to influence the management of IBD in daily gastroenterologic practice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]