A Multicenter Long-Term Cohort Study of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Variants and Their Progression to Eosinophilic Esophagitis Over Time.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) variants have been recently characterized as conditions with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction resembling EoE, but absence of significant esophageal eosinophilia. Their disease course and severity have yet to be determined. METHODS: Patients from 6 EoE centers with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, but peak eosinophil counts of <15/hpf in esophageal biopsies and absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease with at least one follow-up visit were included. Clinical, (immuno)histological, and molecular features were determined and compared with EoE and healthy controls. RESULTS: We included 54 patients with EoE variants (EoE-like esophagitis 53.7%; lymphocytic esophagitis 13.0%; and nonspecific esophagitis 33.3%). In 8 EoE-like esophagitis patients, EoE developed after a median of 14 months (interquartile range 3.6-37.6). Such progression increased over time (17.6% year 1, 32.0% year 3, and 62.2% year 6). Sequential RNA sequencing analyses revealed only 7 genes associated with this progression (with TSG6 and ALOX15 among the top 3 upregulated genes) with upregulation of a previously attenuated Th2 pathway. Immunostaining confirmed the involvement of eosinophil-associated proteins (TSG6 and ALOX15) and revealed a significantly increased number of GATA3-positive cells during progression, indicating a Th1/Th2 switch. Transition from one EoE variant (baseline) to another variant (during follow-up) was seen in 35.2% (median observation time of 17.3 months). DISCUSSION: Transition of EoE variants to EoE suggests the presence of a disease spectrum. Few genes seem to be associated with the progression to EoE with upregulation of a previously attenuated Th2 signal. These genes, including GATA3 as a Th1/Th2 switch regulator, may represent potential therapeutic targets in early disease pathogenesis.

Close follow-up is associated with fewer stricture formation and results in earlier detection of histological relapse in the long-term management of eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: No recommendations exist regarding optimal follow-up schedule in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) under maintenance treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a long-term surveillance concept at the Swiss EoE clinic, where clinical, endoscopic and histological disease activity is assessed annually regardless of EoE symptoms. Data on 159 adult patients under maintenance steroid treatment with available follow-up were analyzed. Patients were classified as having close (duration between visits <18 months) or non-close follow-up (≥18 months). RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 309 follow-up visits of 159 patients (123 males, age at diagnosis 38.9 ± 15.4 years). 157 (51%) visits were within a close follow-up schedule (median duration between visits of 1.0 years (interquartile range (IQR) 0.9-1.2)), while 152 visits (49%) were not (median duration between visits 2.9 years (IQR 2.0-4.1)). There was no difference regarding ongoing clinical, endoscopic, and histological disease activity, and adherence to prescribed steroid treatment between the two groups. However, stricture formation was significantly less frequently observed at visits within a close follow-up schedule (22.9 vs. 33.6%, p = 0.038). Absence of close follow-up was a significant risk factor for stricture development in a multivariate regression model. Patients who achieved histological remission and were followed within a close-follow-up schedule had significantly earlier detection of histological relapse compared to patients not within such close follow-up. CONCLUSION: Close follow-up is associated with fewer stricture formation and appears to result in earlier detection of histological relapse in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. We advocate for regular assessment of disease activity (every 12-18 months) in order to detect relapsing disease as early as possible, and therefore potentially minimize the risk for EoE complications.

Characterization of eosinophilic esophagitis variants by clinical, histological, and molecular analyses: A cross-sectional multi-center study.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of High- vs Low-Dose Swallowed Topical Steroids for Maintenance Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Data evaluating efficacy of different doses of swallowed topical corticosteroids (STC) in the long-term management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are lacking. We assessed long-term effectiveness and safety of different STC doses for adults with EoE after achievement of histological remission. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter study at five EoE referral centers (US and Switzerland). We analyzed data on 82 patients with EoE in histological remission and ongoing STC treatment with therapeutic adherence of ≥75% (58 males; mean age at diagnosis, 37.2±14.4 years). Patients were followed for a median of 2.2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.0-3.8 years). We collected data from 217 follow-up endoscopy visits. The primary endpoint was time to histological relapse. RESULTS: Histological relapse occurred in 67% of patients. Relapse rates were comparable in patients taking low dose (≤0.5 mg per day, n = 58) and high dose STC (>0.5 mg per day, n = 24) with 72 vs 54% (ns). However, histological relapse occurred significantly earlier with low dose STC (1.0 vs 1.8 years, P = .030). There was no difference regarding rates of and time to stricture formation for low vs high dose STC. Esophageal candidiasis was observed in 6% of patients (5% for low dose, 8% for high dose, ns). No dysplasia or mucosal atrophy was detected. CONCLUSION: Histological relapse frequently occurs in EoE despite ongoing STC treatment regardless of STC doses. However, relapse develops later in patients on high dose STC without an increase in side-effects. Doses higher than 0.5 mg/day may be considered for EoE maintenance treatment, but advantage over lower doses appears to be small.

Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis: Clinical Manifestation, Natural Course, and Evaluation of Treatment with Corticosteroids and Vedolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) is a rare, chronic inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract. Little is known about its natural history and treatment outcomes. The aims of our analysis were to describe clinical presentation, response to current medical treatments, and to evaluate the response of refractory EGE to anti-integrin therapy. METHODS: Patients with confirmed diagnosis of EGE fulfilling the diagnostic criteria: (1) the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms, (2) dense eosinophilic infiltration of the gastrointestinal mucosa, and (3) exclusion of other conditions leading to gastrointestinal eosinophilia were included in this analysis. In patients non-responding to corticosteroids and/or anti-TNF treatment the integrin blocker vedolizumab was used. RESULTS: EGE patients (n = 22) were predominantly female (63%) with a median age at diagnosis of 41.5 years. The most frequent symptoms were abdominal pain (100%), diarrhea (59%), nausea/vomiting (36%), and bloating (27%). No pathognomonic endoscopic alterations were found. Eosinophilic infiltration was observed in the majority of patients in more than one segment. Patients were treated with systemic steroids, topical, and enteral release steroids in 21/22 (95%) patients, proton pump inhibitors in 7/22 (32%), TNFα inhibitors in 3/22 (14%), and vedolizumab in 4/22 (18%) patients. In 3/4 of steroid-refractory patients vedolizumab induced a clinical and histological improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of highly variable clinical presentation, subtle endoscopic abnormalities, and involvement of several GI segments undermines the difficulty to diagnose EGE and the need for structured biopsy sampling. Corticosteroids were efficient in the majority of patients to induce remission. Response to the integrin blocker vedolizumab suggests further assessment in refractory cases.

Maintenance Treatment Of Eosinophilic Esophagitis With Swallowed Topical Steroids Alters Disease Course Over A 5-Year Follow-up Period In Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) are effective in inducing remission of active eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), there are few data on maintenance of long-term remission. We evaluated the long-term effectiveness of STC therapy for adults with EoE. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using the Swiss EoE database. We analyzed data on 229 patients with EoE treated with STCs (175 male; mean age at diagnosis, 39±15 years; median time until diagnosis, 6 years) from 2000 through 2014. Patients were followed for a median of 5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 3-7 years). We collected data from 819 follow-up visits on clinical, endoscopic and histological disease characteristics. The primary endpoint was proportions of clinical, endoscopic, and histological remission in all patients and groups, based on the status and duration of STC treatment. RESULTS: Patients were taking STCs at 336 of the follow-up visits (41.0% of visits). The median duration of STC use before a follow-up visit was 347 days (IQR, 90-750 days) corresponding to 677 doses (IQR, 280-1413 doses) of 0.25 mg each. At the visits, higher proportions of patients who were still taking STCs were in clinical remission (31.0%) compared to patients not taking STCs (4.5%) (P <.001), as well as endoscopic remission (48.8% vs 17.8%; P < .001), histologic remission (44.8% vs 10.1%; P < .001), and complete remission (16.1% vs 1.3%; P < .001). Higher cumulative doses of STCs and longer durations of treatment were associated with higher proportions of clinical and complete remission. No dysplasia or mucosal atrophy was detected. Esophageal candidiasis was observed at 2.7% of visits in patients taking STCs. CONCLUSION: In an analysis of data from the Swiss EoE database, we found maintenance therapy with STCs to achieve complete remission at 16.1% of follow-up visits, which was higher than in patients receiving no treatment (1.3%). Given the good safety profile of low-dose STC, we advocate for a prolonged treatment. Dose-finding trials are needed to achieve higher remission rates.

Variation in Endoscopic Activity Assessment and Endoscopy Score Validation in Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

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.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis: relevance of mast cell infiltration.

AIMS: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised clinically by symptoms of oesophageal dysfunction and histopathologically by a prominent eosinophilic inflammation. Despite eosinophils having a histologically predominant position, their role in the immunopathogenesis of the disease is still questionable. Several other inflammatory cells are involved and may also play a critical role. The purpose of this study was to characterise the mast cell infiltration, and to correlate it with the clinical state of EoE. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using immunohistochemistry and quantitative morphometry, we investigated eosinophils and mast cells extensively in oesophageal biopsies from patients with active EoE and from patients with EoE in remission, and compared the findings with healthy individuals. In EoE, epithelium and lamina propria were similarly infiltrated with eosinophils. In contrast, mast cells infiltration was limited to the epithelium, displaying a localised immune response. Interestingly, whereas epithelial mast cells and eosinophils were high in active EoE, some patients in remission, e.g. normalised epithelial eosinophils, showed remaining high numbers of mast cells. Patient clustering supported two groups of patients in clinical remission, differentiating based on presence or absence of epithelial mast cells. CONCLUSIONS: Active EoE is characterised in addition to the well-known tissue eosinophilia by a marked epithelium-restricted mast cell infiltration. Of interest, in a subgroup of patients, mast cell infiltration persisted despite clinical remission. To elucidate the clinical consequence of persistent epithelial mast cells infiltration further studies are required following patients in clinical remission longitudinally.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Relationship of Subepithelial Eosinophilic Inflammation With Epithelial Histology, Endoscopy, Blood Eosinophils, and Symptoms.

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.

Long-Term Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis With Swallowed Topical Corticosteroids: Development and Evaluation of a Therapeutic Concept.

OBJECTIVES: Swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) are efficacious in inducing and presumably maintaining remission in patients with active eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Hitherto, it has not been evaluated whether long-lasting remission can be achieved, and whether treatment can be stopped once patients have achieved this remission. METHODS: Since 2007, EoE patients included into a large database at the Swiss EoE Clinics were put on STCs as induction/maintenance therapy. Disease activity was assessed on an annual basis. In patients who achieved long-lasting (≥6 months) clinical, endoscopic, and histological (=deep) remission, treatment was stopped. Data on all patients treated using this therapeutic strategy were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Of the 351 patients, 33 (9.4%) who were treated with STCs achieved deep remission. Median age of remitters at disease onset was 32.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 19.1-49.3), and diagnostic delay was 5.4 years (IQR 1.2-11.4). Deep remission was achieved after 89.0 weeks (IQR 64.6-173.8). Female gender was the only independent prognostic factor for achieving deep remission (odds ratio (OR) 2.518, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.203-5.269). Overall, STCs were stopped after 104.7 weeks (IQR 65.5-176.6). No mucosal damage was observed upon histological examination. In 27 of the 33 remitters (81.8%), a clinical relapse occurred after a median of 22.4 weeks (95% CI 5.1-39.7). Six remitters (18.2%) did not experience a clinical relapse during a follow-up of 35.1 weeks (IQR 18.3-44.9). Hence, a total of 1.7% (6/351) patients were able to discontinue STCs in the long term. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term EoE treatment with STCs was well tolerated, but only a minority achieved deep remission. Female gender is the only prognostic factor for attainment of such remission. After treatment cessation, the majority experienced a clinical relapse.

Guidelines on eosinophilic esophagitis: evidence-based statements and recommendations for diagnosis and management in children and adults.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is one of the most prevalent esophageal diseases and the leading cause of dysphagia and food impaction in children and young adults. This underlines the importance of optimizing diagnosys and treatment of the condition, especially after the increasing amount of knowledge on EoE recently published. Therefore, the UEG, EAACI ESPGHAN, and EUREOS deemed it necessary to update the current guidelines regarding conceptual and epidemiological aspects, diagnosis, and treatment of EoE. METHODS: General methodology according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used in order to comply with current standards of evidence assessment in formulation of recommendations. An extensive literature search was conducted up to August 2015 and periodically updated. The working group consisted of gastroenterologists, allergists, pediatricians, otolaryngologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists. Systematic evidence-based reviews were performed based upon relevant clinical questions with respect to patient-important outcomes. RESULTS: The guidelines include updated concept of EoE, evaluated information on disease epidemiology, risk factors, associated conditions, and natural history of EoE in children and adults. Diagnostic conditions and criteria, the yield of diagnostic and disease monitoring procedures, and evidence-based statements and recommendation on the utility of the several treatment options for patients EoE are provided. Recommendations on how to choose and implement treatment and long-term management are provided based on expert opinion and best clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based recommendations for EoE diagnosis, treatment modalities, and patients' follow up are proposed in the guideline.

Comparison of different biopsy forceps models for tissue sampling in eosinophilic esophagitis.

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.

Acute Herpes Simplex Viral Esophagitis Occurring in 5 Immunocompetent Individuals With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Herpes simplex esophagitis (HSE) is an acute, severe viral infection of the esophagus, rarely occurring in immunocompetent individuals. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a rare immune-mediated esophageal disorder. We recently observed 5 severe HSE cases in diagnosed EoE patients. Four of the 5 patients had active, untreated EoE at the time of infection, so HSE is not likely a side effect of swallowed topical corticosteroids, the first-line medical treatment of EoE. However, this coincidence of these 2 rare conditions raises the question of a causal relationship between these 2 forms of esophagitis, and whether active EoE might predispose to HSE infection.

Symptoms Have Modest Accuracy in Detecting Endoscopic and Histologic Remission in Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

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.

A randomised, double-blind trial comparing budesonide formulations and dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of two different budesonide formulations (effervescent tablet for orodispersible use (BET) and viscous suspension (BVS)) with different daily dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). DESIGN: Adults with active EoE (n=76) randomly received 14 days' treatment with either BET 2×1 mg/day (BET1, n=19) or BET 2×2 mg/day (BET2, n=19), or BVS 2×5 mL (0.4 mg/mL)/day (BVS, n=19) or placebo (n=19) in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion, with a 2-week follow-up. Primary end point was histological remission (mean of <16 eosinophils/mm(2 )hpf). Secondary end points included endoscopy score, dysphagia score, drug safety and patient's preference for drug formulation. RESULTS: Histological remission occurred in 100%, 94.7% and 94.7% of budesonide (BET1, BET2, BVS, respectively) and in 0% of placebo recipients (p<0.0001). The improvement in total endoscopic intensity score was significantly higher in the three budesonide groups compared with placebo. Dysphagia improved in all groups at the end of treatment; however, improvement of dysphagia persisted only in those treated with BET1 (p=0.0196 vs placebo). There were no serious adverse events. Local fungal infection (stained fungi) occurred in two patients of each budesonide group (10.5%). The effervescent tablet was preferred by 80% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: BET or BVS was highly effective and safe for short-term treatment of EoE. The 1 mg (twice daily) dosage was equally effective as the 2 mg twice daily dosage. The majority of patients preferred the effervescent tablet formulation. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER: NCT02280616; EudraCT number, 2009-016692-29.

How do gastroenterologists assess overall activity of eosinophilic esophagitis in adult patients?

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.

Exercise-induced chest pain: an atypical manifestation of eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic-inflammatory immune-mediated disease of the esophagus. The most common symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis are dysphagia for solids and bolus obstruction. Approximately half of the patients complain about spontaneously occurring chest pain. However, some patients with eosinophilic esophagitis suffer from, in addition to the described symptoms, exercise-induced chest pain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Here we report on several patients presenting with exercise-induced chest pain, with 2 patients presenting exclusively only with this symptom. After a comprehensive evaluation including exclusion of gastroesophageal reflux disease and heart disease, a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis based on endoscopical and histological criteria was unequivocally established. The condition improved rapidly after initiation of a treatment with topical corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: Eosinophilic esophagitis should be considered in the differential diagnosis in patients presenting with exercise-induced chest pain, particularly in younger male individuals.

Development and validation of a symptom-based activity index for adults with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Standardized instruments are needed to assess the activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and to provide end points for clinical trials and observational studies. We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument and score, based on items that could account for variations in patient assessments of disease severity. We also evaluated relationships between patient assessment of disease severity and EoE-associated endoscopic, histologic, and laboratory findings. METHODS: We collected information from 186 patients with EoE in Switzerland and the United States (69.4% male; median age, 43 y) via surveys (n = 135), focus groups (n = 27), and semistructured interviews (n = 24). Items were generated for the instruments to assess biologic activity based on physician input. Linear regression was used to quantify the extent to which variations in patient-reported disease characteristics could account for variations in patient assessment of EoE severity. The PRO instrument was used prospectively in 153 adult patients with EoE (72.5% male; median age, 38 y), and validated in an independent group of 120 patients with EoE (60.8% male; median age, 40.5 y). RESULTS: Seven PRO factors that are used to assess characteristics of dysphagia, behavioral adaptations to living with dysphagia, and pain while swallowing accounted for 67% of the variation in patient assessment of disease severity. Based on statistical consideration and patient input, a 7-day recall period was selected. Highly active EoE, based on endoscopic and histologic findings, was associated with an increase in patient-assessed disease severity. In the validation study, the mean difference between patient assessment of EoE severity (range, 0-10) and PRO score (range, 0-8.52) was 0.15. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated an EoE scoring system based on 7 PRO items that assess symptoms over a 7-day recall period. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00939263.

Requirements of the pathologist to the endoscopist (biopsy sampling).

The diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis is based upon corresponding histological and clinical findings. To obtain a reliable diagnosis, the clinician should ideally submit four biopsies each of the proximal and distal esophagus, respectively. The biopsies should not only encompass the full thickness of the epithelium, but parts of the lamina propria as well.

Delay in diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis increases risk for stricture formation in a time-dependent manner.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Development of strictures is a major concern for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). At diagnosis, EoE can present with an inflammatory phenotype (characterized by whitish exudates, furrows, and edema), a stricturing phenotype (characterized by rings and stenosis), or a combination of these. Little is known about progression of stricture formation; we evaluated stricture development over time in the absence of treatment and investigated risk factors for stricture formation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using the Swiss EoE Database, collecting data on 200 patients with symptomatic EoE (153 men; mean age at diagnosis, 39 ± 15 years old). Stricture severity was graded based on the degree of difficulty associated with passing of the standard adult endoscope. RESULTS: The median delay in diagnosis of EoE was 6 years (interquartile range, 2-12 years). With increasing duration of delay in diagnosis, the prevalence of fibrotic features of EoE, based on endoscopy, increased from 46.5% (diagnostic delay, 0-2 years) to 87.5% (diagnostic delay, >20 years; P = .020). Similarly, the prevalence of esophageal strictures increased with duration of diagnostic delay, from 17.2% (diagnostic delay, 0-2 years) to 70.8% (diagnostic delay, >20 years; P < .001). Diagnostic delay was the only risk factor for strictures at the time of EoE diagnosis (odds ratio = 1.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.040-1.122; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of esophageal strictures correlates with the duration of untreated disease. These findings indicate the need to minimize delay in diagnosis of EoE.