Eosinophil Knockout Humans: Uncovering the Role of Eosinophils Through Eosinophil-Directed Biological Therapies.

The enigmatic eosinophil has emerged as an exciting component of the immune system, involved in a plethora of homeostatic and inflammatory responses. Substantial progress has been achieved through experimental systems manipulating eosinophils in vivo, initially in mice and more recently in humans. Researchers using eosinophil knockout mice have identified a contributory role for eosinophils in basal and inflammatory processes and protective immunity. Primarily fueled by the purported proinflammatory role of eosinophils in eosinophil-associated diseases, a series of anti-eosinophil therapeutics have emerged as a new class of drugs. These agents, which dramatically deplete eosinophils, provide a valuable opportunity to characterize the consequences of eosinophil knockout humans. Herein, we comparatively describe mouse and human eosinophil knockouts. We put forth the view that human eosinophils negatively contribute to a variety of diseases and, unlike mouse eosinophils, do not yet have an identified role in physiological health; thus, clarifying all roles of eosinophils remains an ongoing pursuit.

Eosinophil Depletion with Benralizumab for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an eosinophil-depleting anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody. The efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis are unclear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients 12 to 65 years of age with symptomatic and histologically active eosinophilic esophagitis in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous benralizumab (30 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks. The two primary efficacy end points were histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the score on the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ; range, 0 to 84, with higher scores indicating more frequent or severe dysphagia) at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients underwent randomization: 104 were assigned to receive benralizumab, and 107 were assigned to receive placebo. At week 24, more patients had a histologic response with benralizumab than with placebo (87.4% vs. 6.5%; difference, 80.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 72.9 to 88.8; P<0.001). However, the change from baseline in the DSQ score did not differ significantly between the two groups (difference in least-squares means, 3.0 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 7.4; P = 0.18). There was no substantial between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, which reflects endoscopic abnormalities. Adverse events were reported in 64.1% of the patients in the benralizumab group and in 61.7% of those in the placebo group. No patients discontinued the trial because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients 12 to 65 years of age with eosinophilic esophagitis, a histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) occurred in significantly more patients in the benralizumab group than in the placebo group. However, treatment with benralizumab did not result in fewer or less severe dysphagia symptoms than placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MESSINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04543409.).

Dupilumab in Adults and Adolescents with Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signaling, which have key roles in eosinophilic esophagitis. METHODS: We conducted a three-part, phase 3 trial in which patients 12 years of age or older underwent randomization in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous dupilumab at a weekly dose of 300 mg or placebo (Part A) or in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 300 mg of dupilumab either weekly or every 2 weeks or weekly placebo (Part B) up to week 24. Eligible patients who completed Part A or Part B continued the trial in Part C, in which those who completed Part A received dupilumab at a weekly dose of 300 mg up to week 52 (the Part A-C group); Part C that included the eligible patients from Part B is ongoing. The two primary end points at week 24 were histologic remission (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score (range, 0 to 84, with higher values indicating more frequent or more severe dysphagia). RESULTS: In Part A, histologic remission occurred in 25 of 42 patients (60%) who received weekly dupilumab and in 2 of 39 patients (5%) who received placebo (difference, 55 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 40 to 71; P<0.001). In Part B, histologic remission occurred in 47 of 80 patients (59%) with weekly dupilumab, in 49 of 81 patients (60%) with dupilumab every 2 weeks, and in 5 of 79 patients (6%) with placebo (difference between weekly dupilumab and placebo, 54 percentage points; 95% CI, 41 to 66 [P<0.001]; difference between dupilumab every 2 weeks and placebo, 56 percentage points; 95% CI, 43 to 69 [not significant per hierarchical testing]). The mean (±SD) DSQ scores at baseline were 33.6±12.41 in Part A and 36.7±11.22 in Part B; the scores improved with weekly dupilumab as compared with placebo, with differences of -12.32 (95% CI, -19.11 to -5.54) in Part A and -9.92 (95% CI, -14.81 to -5.02) in Part B (both P<0.001) but not with dupilumab every 2 weeks (difference in Part B, -0.51; 95% CI, -5.42 to 4.41). Serious adverse events occurred in 9 patients during the Part A or B treatment period (in 7 who received weekly dupilumab, 1 who received dupilumab every 2 weeks, and 1 who received placebo) and in 1 patient in the Part A-C group during the Part C treatment period who received placebo in Part A and weekly dupilumab in Part C. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with eosinophilic esophagitis, subcutaneous dupilumab administered weekly improved histologic outcomes and alleviated symptoms of the disease. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03633617.).

Transcriptomic profiling of the acute mucosal response to local food injections in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Exposure of the esophageal mucosa to food allergens can cause acute mucosal responses in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but the underlying local immune mechanisms driving these acute responses are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: We sought to gain insight into the early transcriptomic changes that occur during an acute mucosal response to food allergens in EoE. METHODS: Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on esophageal biopsy specimens from adult patients with EoE (n = 5) collected before and 20 minutes after intramucosal injection of various food extracts in the esophagus. Baseline biopsy specimens from control subjects without EoE (n = 5) were also included. RESULTS: At baseline, the transcriptome of the patients with EoE showed increased expression of genes related to an EoE signature. After local food injection, we identified 40 genes with a potential role in the early immune response to food allergens (most notably CEBPB, IL1B, TNFSF18, PHLDA2, and SLC15A3). These 40 genes were enriched in processes related to immune activation, such as the acute-phase response, cellular responses to external stimuli, and cell population proliferation. TNFSF18 (also called GITRL), a member of the TNF superfamily that is best studied for its costimulatory effect on T cells, was the most dysregulated early EoE gene, showing a 12-fold increase compared with baseline and an 18-fold increase compared with a negative visual response. Further experiments showed that the esophageal epithelium may be an important source of TNFSF18 in EoE, which was rapidly induced by costimulating esophageal epithelial cells with the EoE-relevant cytokines IL-13 and TNF-α. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide unprecedented insight into the transcriptomic changes that mediate the acute mucosal immune response to food allergens in EoE and suggest that TNFSF18 may be an important effector molecule in this response.

Dupilumab demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated regardless of prior use of swallowed topical corticosteroids in adolescent and adult patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis: a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 LIBERTY EoE TREET study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of long-term dupilumab on histological, symptomatic and endoscopic aspects of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) in adolescent and adult patients with and without prior use of swallowed topical corticosteroids (STC) or prior inadequate response, intolerance or contraindication to STC. DESIGN: Pre-specified analysis of data from the phase 3 LIBERTY EoE TREET study on patients who received dupilumab 300 mg once a week or placebo for 24 weeks (W24) in parts A and B, and an additional 28 weeks (W52) in part C. Patients were categorised as with/without prior STC use and with/without inadequate/intolerance/contraindication to STC. The proportion of patients achieving ≤6 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf), absolute change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score, mean change in Endoscopic Reference Score and Histologic Scoring System grade/stage scores were assessed for each subgroup. RESULTS: Regardless of prior STC use, dupilumab increased the proportion of patients achieving ≤6 eos/hpf and improved DSQ score versus placebo at W24, with improvements maintained or improved at W52. The DSQ score and the proportion of patients achieving ≤6 eos/hpf after switching from placebo to dupilumab at W24 were similar to those observed in the dupilumab group at W24, regardless of prior STC use or inadequate/intolerance/contraindication to STC. Improvements in other outcomes with dupilumab were similar in patients with/without prior STC use or inadequate/intolerance/contraindication to STC. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab 300 mg once a week demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in patients with EoE regardless of prior STC use or inadequate response, intolerance and/or contraindication to STC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03633617.

10-year follow-up results of the European Achalasia Trial: a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing pneumatic dilation with laparoscopic Heller myotomy.

OBJECTIVE: As achalasia is a chronic disorder, long-term follow-up data comparing different treatments are essential to select optimal clinical management. Here, we report on the 10-year follow-up of the European Achalasia Trial comparing endoscopic pneumodilation (PD) with laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). DESIGN: A total of 201 newly diagnosed patients with achalasia were randomised to either a series of PDs (n=96) or LHM (n=105). Patients completed symptom (Eckardt score) and quality-of-life questionnaires, underwent functional tests and upper endoscopy. Primary outcome was therapeutic success defined as Eckardt score <3 at yearly follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the need for retreatment, lower oesophageal sphincter pressure, oesophageal emptying, gastro-oesophageal reflux and the rate of complications. RESULTS: After 10 years of follow-up, LHM (n=40) and PD (n=36) were equally effective in both the full analysis set (74% vs 74%, p=0.84) and the per protocol set (74% vs 86%, respectively, p=0.07). Subgroup analysis revealed that PD was superior to LHM for type 2 achalasia (p=0.03) while there was a trend, although not significant (p=0.05), that LHM performed better for type 3 achalasia. Barium column height after 5 min at timed barium oesophagram was significantly higher for patients treated with PD compared with LHM, while other parameters, including gastro-oesophageal reflux, were not different. CONCLUSIONS: PD and LHM are equally effective even after 10 years of follow-up with limited risk to develop gastro-oesophageal reflux. Based on these data, we conclude that PD and LHM can both be proposed as initial treatment of achalasia.

Treatment of non-constipated irritable bowel syndrome with the histamine 1 receptor antagonist ebastine: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the histamine 1 receptor antagonist ebastine as a potential treatment for patients with non-constipated irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. METHODS: Non-constipated patients with IBS fulfilling the Rome III criteria were randomly assigned to 20 mg ebastine or placebo for 12 weeks. Subjects scored global relief of symptoms (GRS) and abdominal pain intensity (API). A subject was considered a weekly responder for GRS if total or obvious relief was reported and a responder for API if the weekly average pain score was reduced by at least 30% vs baseline. The primary endpoints were the proportion of subjects who were weekly responders for at least 6 out of the 12 treatment weeks for both GRS and API ('GRS+API', composite endpoint) and for GRS and API separately. RESULTS: 202 participants (32±11 years, 68% female) were randomly allocated to receive ebastine (n=101) or placebo (n=101). Treatment with ebastine resulted in significantly more responders (12%, 12/92) for GRS+API compared with placebo (4%, 4/87, p=0.047) while the proportion of responders for GRS and API separately was higher for ebastine compared with placebo, although not statistically significant (placebo vs ebastine, GRS: 7% (6/87) vs 15% (14/91), p=0.072; API: 25% (20/85) vs 37% (34/92), p=0.081). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that ebastine is superior to placebo and should be further evaluated as novel treatment for patients with non-constipated IBS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee of each study site (EudraCT number: 2013-001199-39; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01908465).

The Efficacy of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy vs Pneumatic Dilation as Treatment for Patients With Achalasia Suffering From Persistent or Recurrent Symptoms After Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: For patients with achalasia experiencing persistent or recurrent symptoms after laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), pneumatic dilation (PD) is the most frequently used treatment. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly being investigated as rescue therapy. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of POEM vs PD for patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms after LHM. METHODS: This randomized multicenter controlled trial included patients after LHM with an Eckardt score >3 and substantial stasis (≥2 cm) on timed barium esophagogram and randomized to POEM or PD. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score of ≤3 and without unscheduled re-treatment. Secondary outcomes included the presence of reflux esophagitis, high-resolution manometry, and timed barium esophagogram findings. Follow-up duration was 1 year after initial treatment. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included. POEM had a higher success rate (28 of 45 patients [62.2%]) than PD (12 of 45 patients [26.7%]; absolute difference, 35.6%; 95% CI, 16.4%-54.7%; P = .001; odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.54; relative risk for success, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.37-3.99). Reflux esophagitis was not significantly different between POEM (12 of 35 [34.3%]) and PD (6 of 40 [15%]). Basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure and integrated relaxation pressure (IRP-4) were significantly lower in the POEM group (P = .034; P = .002). Barium column height after 2 and 5 minutes was significantly less in patients treated with POEM (P = .005; P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with achalasia experiencing persistent or recurrent symptoms after LHM, POEM resulted in a significantly higher success rate than PD, with a numerically higher incidence of grade A-B reflux esophagitis. NETHERLANDS TRIAL REGISTRY: NL4361 (NTR4501), https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID = NTR4501.

Focal Distal Esophageal Dilation (Blown-Out Myotomy) After Achalasia Treatment: Prevalence and Associated Symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may result in a distended distal esophagus, referred to as a blown-out myotomy (BOM), the relevance of which is uncertain. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence, risk factors, and associated symptoms of BOM after achalasia treatment. METHODS: A data set of the locally treated patients in a randomized controlled trial comparing POEM with pneumatic dilation (PD) was analyzed. A BOM is defined as a >50% increase in esophageal diameter at its widest point in the distal esophagus between the lower esophageal sphincter and 5 cm above. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were treated in our center, and 5-year follow-up data were available in 55 patients (32 patients [58%] randomized to POEM, 23 [42%] PD). In the group initially treated with POEM, the incidence of BOM increased from 11.5% (4/38) at 3 months, to 21.1% (8/38) at 1 year, 27.8% (10/36) at 2 years, and 31.3% (10/32) at 5 years. None of the patients treated with PD alone developed a BOM. Patients who developed a BOM had a higher total Eckardt score and Eckardt regurgitation component compared with patients who underwent POEM without BOM development (3 [2.75-3.25] vs 2 [1.75-3], P = 0.032, and 1 [0.75-1] vs 0 [0-1], P = 0.041). POEM patients with a BOM more often report reflux symptoms (85% [11/13] vs 46% [2/16], P = 0.023) and had a higher acid exposure time (24.5% [8-47] vs 6% [1.2-18.7], P = 0.027). DISCUSSION: Thirty percent of the patients treated with POEM develop a BOM, which is associated with a higher acid exposure, more reflux symptoms, and symptoms of regurgitation.

Dupilumab Improves Health-Related Quality of Life and a Range of Symptoms in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Improvements in symptomatic experience and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are among the most important treatment benefits in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We assessed the impact of dupilumab treatment on HRQoL, patients' impression of dysphagia, and symptoms beyond dysphagia in adults/adolescents (≥12 years) with EoE in Parts A and B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET (NCT03633617) study. METHODS: The EoE Symptom Questionnaire (EoE-SQ; frequency and severity of non-dysphagia symptoms), EoE Impact Questionnaire (EoE-IQ; impact of EoE on HRQoL), and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of dysphagia were used to assess the efficacy of weekly dupilumab 300 mg vs placebo. RESULTS: At Week 24, dupilumab reduced EoE-SQ Frequency (least squares mean difference vs placebo [95% confidence interval] Part A -1.7 [-2.9, -0.5], Part B -1.4 [-2.3, -0.5]; both P<0.01) and EoE-SQ Severity (Part A -2.0 [-3.9, 0.0], P<0.05, Part B -1.5 [-3.0, 0.1], P=0.07) overall scores, and improved scores across all individual items. Improvement in the dupilumab group was clinically meaningful to patients. Dupilumab also meaningfully improved EoE-IQ average scores and improved individual item scores at Week 24, particularly emotional and sleep disturbance. More dupilumab-treated patients reported improvement in the PGIC of dysphagia vs placebo or reported having no symptoms per the PGIS of dysphagia at Week 24. DISCUSSION: Dupilumab reduced the impact of EoE on multiple aspects of HRQoL, patients' impression of dysphagia, and frequency and severity of symptoms beyond dysphagia in adults/adolescents with EoE.

Inability to belch syndrome: what the gastroenterologist needs to know.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review recent publications on the inability to belch syndrome. RECENT FINDINGS: Five recent retrospective case series indicate that the inability to belch syndrome usually starts in early childhood and is often accompanied by gurgling noises in the chest, pain in the chest or upper abdomen, bloating, and excessive flatulence. Currently, the vast majority of patients who have been identified with inability to belch have self-diagnosed the syndrome on the basis of information available on the internet. A favorable response to injection of botulinum toxin in the cricopharyngeus muscle is regarded as confirmation of the diagnosis. In a mechanistic study in eight patients, absence of reflexogenic relaxation of the upper esophageal sphincter upon rapid gaseous esophageal distension was confirmed to play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of the syndrome. SUMMARY: The inability to belch syndrome, caused by failure of the upper esophageal sphincter to relax when the esophageal body is distended, clearly exists and may not be as rare as thought hitherto. However, overdiagnosis is also likely to occur because the diagnosis is usually made on the basis of symptoms only. The efficacy of botulinum toxin injection in the upper sphincter needs to be assessed in double-blind placebo-controlled studies.

Anti-reflux mucosectomy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: efficacy and the mechanism of action.

Previous studies suggest that anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) is effective in reducing reflux symptoms and total acid exposure, although the mechanism is unknown. Our objective was to investigate the effect of ARMS on reflux parameters and mechanism of action. METHODS: Gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) patients with insufficient symptom control despite twice daily proton pump inhibitor (PPI) underwent a piecemeal multiband mucosectomy of 50% of the circumference of the esophago-gastric-junction (EGJ), extending 2cm into the cardia. The primary endpoint was the total number of reflux episodes during 24-h pH-impedance studies. RESULTS: 11 patients were treated (8 men, age 37 (32-57) years), one patient is lost to follow-up after treatment. ARMS reduced the total number of reflux episodes from 74 (50-82) to 37 (28-66) p=0.008) and total acid exposure from 8.7% (6.4-12.7) to 5.3% (3.5-6.7) (p=0.008). Treatment reduced the number of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs) (from 4 (1-8) to 2 (1-4), p=0.027) during a 90-minute postprandial period. Reflux symptoms were reduced substantially (from 3.6 (3.6-3.9) to 1.6 (0.7-2.7), p=0.007). Treatment did not increase dysphagia (Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire)of 8.2 (±7.3) to 8.5 (±6.5) (p=0.879). Impedance planimetry showed no changes in EGJ distensibility after treatment (4.4 (±2.1) mm2/mmHg to 4.3 (±2.2) mm2/mmHg), p=0.952). One delayed post-procedural bleeding (10%, (1/10)) occurred requiring repeat endoscopy, no strictures developed. CONCLUSION: ARMS is an effective treatment option in PPI refractory GERD patients reducing acid exposure, reflux episodes and symptoms. While its working mechanism could not be explained by a difference in distensibility, a reduction in TLSERs might play a role.

Quality Indicator Development for the Approach to Ineffective Esophageal Motility: A Modified Delphi Study.

GOALS: Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). BACKGROUND: IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging. STUDY: Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process. RESULTS: All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2's virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient's presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning. CONCLUSION: Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.

Ziverel for PPI-refractory reflux symptoms: efficacy and mechanisms of action in humans.

OBJECTIVES: It is thought that esophageal hypersensitivity in combination with an impaired mucosal barrier function contributes to PPI-resistant reflux symptoms. Ziverel, a bioadhesive agent that coats the esophageal wall, was shown to have a positive effect on reflux symptoms. However, the mechanisms of action are unclear. We aimed to assess the effect of Ziverel on esophageal sensitivity to acid and mucosal barrier function. METHODS: We performed a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial in PPI-refractory patients with reflux symptoms. Patients were assigned (1:1) to 14 days of Ziverel followed by 14 days of placebo or opposite treatment order. The effect was evaluated using acid perfusion tests, an upper endoscopy with electrical tissue impedance spectroscopy (ETIS) and esophageal biopsies. The primary outcome was the esophageal sensitivity based on perfusion sensitivity score. Secondary outcomes included mucosal barrier function and reflux symptoms and correlations between the different outcomes. RESULTS: Perfusion sensitivity score was not significantly different during treatment with Ziverel (106 (73-115)) and placebo (102 (67-110)) (p = 0.508) along with total RDQ score (2.6 (1.9-3.3) vs 2.8 (1.6-3.5) p = 0.456). ETIS showed comparable values during treatment with Ziverel (13514 (8846-19734)Ω·m) and placebo (13217 (9127-24942)Ω·m (p = 0.650)). Comparing Ziverel and placebo no difference was seen in transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) 203 (163-267) Ω.cm2 vs 205 (176-240) Ω.cm2 (p = 0.445) and fluorescein flux 775 (17-6964) nmol/cm2/h vs 187 (4-12209) nmol/cm2/h (p = 0.638). CONCLUSION: Ziverel did not show a benefit on acid sensitivity, reflux symptoms or esophageal mucosal integrity compared to placebo in PPI-refractory patients with reflux symptoms.Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register number: NL7670.

Proton Pump Inhibitors: Rational Use and Use-Reduction - The Windsor Workshop.

BACKGROUND: Despite deprescribing initiatives to curb overutilization of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), achieving meaningful reductions in PPI use is proving a challenge. SUMMARY: An international group of primary care doctors and gastroenterologists examined the literature surrounding PPI use and use-reduction to clarify: (i) what constitutes rational PPI prescribing; (ii) when and in whom PPI use-reduction should be attempted; and (iii) what strategies to use when attempting PPI use-reduction. KEY MESSAGES: Before starting a PPI for reflux-like symptoms, patients should be educated on potential causes and alternative approaches including dietary and lifestyle modification, weight loss, and relaxation strategies. When commencing a PPI, patients should understand the reason for treatment, planned duration, and review date. PPI use at hospital discharge should not be continued without a recognized indication for long-term treatment. Long-term PPI therapy should be reviewed at least annually. PPI use-reduction should be based on the lack of a rational indication for long-term PPI use, not concern for PPI-associated adverse events. PPI use-reduction strategies involving switching to on-demand PPI or dose tapering, with rescue therapy for rebound symptoms, are more likely to succeed than abrupt cessation.

Joint ESPGHAN/NASPGHAN Guidelines on Childhood Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders Beyond Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders beyond eosinophilic esophagitis (non-EoE EGIDs) are rare chronic inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Diagnosis is based on clinical symptoms and histologic findings of eosinophilic inflammation after exclusion of a secondary cause or systemic disease. Currently, no guidelines exist for the evaluation of non-EoE EGIDs. Therefore, the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) formed a task force group to provide consensus guidelines for childhood non-EoE EGIDs. METHODS: The working group was composed of pediatric gastroenterologists, adult gastroenterologists, allergists/immunologists, and pathologists. An extensive electronic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted up to February 2022. General methodology was used in the formulation of recommendations according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to meet current standards of evidence assessment. RESULTS: The guidelines provide information on the current concept of non-EoE EGIDs, disease pathogenesis, epidemiology, clinical manifestations, diagnostic and disease surveillance procedures, and current treatment options. Thirty-four statements based on available evidence and 41 recommendations based on expert opinion and best clinical practices were developed. CONCLUSION: Non-EoE EGIDs literature is limited in scope and depth, making clear recommendations difficult. These consensus-based clinical practice guidelines are intended to assist clinicians caring for children affected by non-EoE EGIDs and to facilitate high-quality randomized controlled trials of various treatment modalities using standardized, uniform disease definitions.

Monitoring Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Routine Clinical Practice - International Expert Recommendations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are no studies or recommendations on optimal monitoring strategies for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Our objective was to develop guidance on how to monitor patients with EoE in routine clinical practice, on the basis of available clinical evidence and expert opinion. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, international group of EoE experts identified the following important 3 questions during several consensus meetings: why, by what means, and when to monitor patients with EoE. A steering committee was named, and 3 teams were formed to review literature and to formulate statements for each topic. In a Delphi survey, a level of agreement of ≥75% was defined as threshold value for acceptance. In a final conference, results were presented, critical points and comments on the statements were discussed, and statements were rephrased/rewritten if necessary. RESULTS: Eighteen EoE experts (14 adult and pediatric gastroenterologists, 2 pathologists and 2 allergists) with a median of 21.7 years in clinical practice, mostly academic or university-based, completed the Delphi survey, which included 11 statements and a proposed algorithm for monitoring patients with EoE. Each statement attained ≥75% agreement. Participants discussed and debated mostly about the statement concerning surveillance intervals for EoE patients with stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that effective maintenance treatment probably reduces the development of EoE complications, and regular, structured, and, under certain conditions, individualized clinical follow-up is recommended to assess disease activity while opening a window to monitoring side effects, adjusting therapy, and encouraging adherence to treatment. Follow-up should comprise symptom assessment and periodic or repeated endoscopy with histological assessment in specific EoE settings.

Epidemiologic Burden and Projections for Eosinophilic Esophagitis-Associated Emergency Department Visits in the United States: 2009-2030.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with poorly controlled eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) may require unplanned emergency department (ED) visits for the management of dysphagia or food impactions. We evaluated the epidemiologic burden of EoE on ED utilization in the United States. METHODS: Data from the US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample were used to estimate weighted annual EoE-associated ED visits from 2009 to 2019. Temporal trends in population-adjusted rates of EoE visits were assessed using joinpoint regression. Autoregressive integrated moving average models were used to project EoE-associated ED visits to 2030. We also evaluated endoscopic utilization, requirement for hospitalization, and ED-related charges in patients with EoE presenting to the ED. RESULTS: A total of 11,125 unweighted (49,507 weighted) ED visits for EoE were included (69.0% male; mean age, 32.4 y). The annual volume of EoE-associated ED visits increased from 2934 (95% CI, 2437-3431) in 2009 to 8765 (95% CI, 7514-10,015) in 2019, and is projected to reach 15,445 (95% prediction interval, 14,672-16,218) by 2030. From 2009 to 2019, the number of EoE-associated ED visits increased by an average of 11.5% per year (95% CI, 10.3%-12.7%). The proportion of patients admitted to the hospital from the ED decreased from 25.6% in 2009 to 2011 to 14.0% in 2017 to 2019. Half of EoE patients presenting to the ED required an endoscopy, and nearly 40% required an esophageal foreign body removal. Total mean inflation-adjusted charges for an EoE-associated ED visit were $9025 US dollars in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of EoE-associated ED visits tripled between 2009 and 2019 and is projected to further double by 2030. This represents a substantial burden of unanticipated health care resource utilization and highlights a potential opportunity to optimize outpatient EoE care.

A Clinical Severity Index for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Development, Consensus, and Future Directions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Disease activity and severity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) dictate therapeutic options and management, but the decision-making process for determining severity varies among practitioners. To reduce variability in practice patterns and help clinicians monitor the clinical course of the disease in an office setting, we aimed to create an international consensus severity scoring index for EoE. METHODS: A multidisciplinary international group of adult and pediatric EoE researchers and clinicians, as well as non-EoE allergy immunology and gastroenterology experts, formed 3 teams to review the existing literature on histology, endoscopy, and symptoms of EoE in the context of progression and severity. A steering committee convened a 1-day virtual meeting to reach consensus on each team's opinion on salient features of severity across key clinicopathologic domains and distill features that would allow providers to categorize disease severity. RESULTS: Symptom features and complications and inflammatory and fibrostenotic features on both endoscopic and histologic examination were collated into a simplified scoring system-the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE)-that can be completed at routine clinic visits to assess disease severity using a point scale of 0-6 for mild, 7-14 for moderate, and ≥15 for severe EoE. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary team of experts iteratively created a clinically usable EoE severity scoring system denominated "I-SEE" to guide practitioners in EoE management by standardizing disease components reflecting disease severity beyond eosinophil counts. I-SEE should be validated and refined using data from future clinical trials and routine clinical practice to increase its utilization and functionality.

Postendoscopy Care for Patients Presenting With Esophageal Food Bolus Impaction: A Population-Based Multicenter Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal food bolus impactions (FBI) are a common gastrointestinal emergency. Appropriate management includes not only index endoscopy for disimpaction but also medical follow-up and treatment for the underlying esophageal pathology. We evaluated the appropriateness of postendoscopy care for patients with FBI and assessed patient-related, physician-related, and system-related factors that may contribute to loss to follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based, multicenter cohort study of all adult patients undergoing endoscopy for FBI in the Calgary Health Zone, Canada, from 2016 to 2018. Appropriate postendoscopy care was defined by a composite of a clinical or endoscopic follow-up visit, appropriate investigations (e.g., manometry), or therapy (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors or endoscopic dilation). Predictors of inappropriate care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 519 patients underwent endoscopy for FBI: 25.2% (131/519) did not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. Half of the patients (55.3%, 287/519) underwent follow-up endoscopy or attended clinic, and among this group, 22.3% (64/287) had a change in their initial diagnosis after follow-up, including 3 new cases of esophageal cancer. Patients in whom a suspected underlying esophageal pathology was not identified at the index endoscopy were 7-fold (adjusted odds ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval 4.49-11.78, P < 0.001) more likely to receive inappropriate postendoscopy follow-up and treatment, even after adjusting for age, sex, rural residence, timing of endoscopy, weekend presentation, and endoscopic interventions. DISCUSSION: One-quarter of patients presenting with an FBI do not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. This is strongly associated with failure to identify a potential underlying pathology at index presentation.