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.).

Clinical and molecular correlates of the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: The Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE) is a new expert-defined clinical tool that classifies disease severity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether I-SEE is associated with patient characteristics, molecular features of EoE, or both. METHODS: We analyzed a prospective cohort of patients with EoE from the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR). Associations between I-SEE and clinical and molecular features (assessed by an EoE diagnostic panel [EDP]) were assessed. RESULTS: In 318 patients with chronic EoE (209 adults, 109 children), median total I-SEE score was 7.0, with a higher symptoms and complications score in children than adults (4.0 vs 1.0; P < .001) and higher inflammatory and fibrostenotic features scores in adults than children (3.0 vs 1.0 and 3.0 vs 0, respectively; both P < .001). Total I-SEE score had a bimodal distribution with the inactive to moderate categories and severe category. EDP score correlated with total I-SEE score (r = -0.352, P < .001) and both inflammatory and fibrostenotic features scores (r = -0.665, P < .001; r = -0.446, P < .001, respectively), but not with symptoms and complications scores (r = 0.047, P = .408). Molecular severity increased from inactive to mild and moderate, but not severe, categories. Longitudinal changes of modified I-SEE scores and inflammatory and fibrostenotic features scores reflected histologic and molecular activity. CONCLUSIONS: I-SEE score is associated with select clinical features across severity categories and with EoE molecular features for nonsevere categories, warranting further validation.

Achalasia is Strongly Associated With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Other Allergic Disorders.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Achalasia has been assumed to be an autoimmune disease targeting esophageal myenteric neurons. Recently, we proposed an alternative hypothesis that achalasia sometimes might be allergy-driven, caused by a form of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in which activated eosinophils and/or mast cells infiltrating esophageal muscle release products that disrupt motility and damage myenteric neurons. To seek epidemiologic support for this hypothesis, we identified patients with achalasia in the Utah Population Database, and explored their frequency of having EoE and other allergic disorders. METHODS: We used International Classification of Diseases codes to identify patients with achalasia and allergic disorders including EoE, asthma, atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, hives/urticaria, and anaphylaxis. We calculated relative risk (RR) for each allergic disorder by comparing the number observed in patients with achalasia with the expected number in individuals matched for birthyear and sex, and we performed subanalyses for patients age ≤40 versus age >40 years. RESULTS: Among 844 patients with achalasia identified (55% female; median age at diagnosis, 58 years), 402 (47.6%) had ≥1 allergic disorder. Fifty-five patients with achalasia (6.5%) had EoE (1.67 EoE cases expected), for a RR of 32.9 (95% confidence interval, 24.8-42.8; P < .001). In 208 patients with achalasia age ≤40 years, the RR for EoE was 69.6 (95% confidence interval, 46.6-100.0; P < .001). RR also was increased significantly for all other allergic disorders evaluated (all greater than 3-fold higher than population rates). CONCLUSIONS: Achalasia is strongly associated with EoE and other allergic disorders. These data support the hypothesis that achalasia sometimes might have an allergic etiology.

Mepolizumab for treatment of adolescents and adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether mepolizumab, an anti-IL-5 antibody, was more effective than placebo for improving dysphagia symptoms and decreasing oesophageal eosinophil counts in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial. In the first part, patients aged 16-75 with EoE and dysphagia symptoms (per EoE Symptom Activity Index (EEsAI)) were randomised 1:1 to 3 months of mepolizumab 300 mg monthly or placebo. Primary outcome was change in EEsAI from baseline to month 3 (M3). Secondary outcomes included histological, endoscopic and safety metrics. In part 2, patients initially randomised to mepolizumab continued 300 mg monthly for 3 additional months (mepo/mepo), placebo patients started mepolizumab 100 mg monthly (pbo/mepo), and outcomes were reassessed at month 6 (M6). RESULTS: Of 66 patients randomised, 64 completed M3, and 56 completed M6. At M3, EEsAI decreased 15.4±18.1 with mepolizumab and 8.3±18.0 with placebo (p=0.14). Peak eosinophil counts decreased more with mepolizumab (113±77 to 36±43) than placebo (146±94 to 160±133) (p<0.001). With mepolizumab, 42% and 34% achieved histological responses of <15 and ≤6 eos/hpf compared with 3% and 3% with placebo (p<0.001 and 0.02). The change in EoE Endoscopic Reference Score at M3 was also larger with mepolizumab. At M6, EEsAI decreased 18.3±18.1 points for mepo/mepo and 18.6±19.2 for pbo/mepo (p=0.85). The most common adverse events were injection-site reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab did not achieve the primary endpoint of improving dysphagia symptoms compared with placebo. While eosinophil counts and endoscopic severity improved with mepolizumab at 3 months, longer treatment did not yield additional improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03656380.

Anti-Siglec-8 Antibody for Eosinophilic Gastritis and Duodenitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic gastritis and duodenitis are characterized by gastrointestinal mucosal eosinophilia, chronic symptoms, impaired quality of life, and a lack of adequate treatments. Mast-cell activity may contribute to the pathogenesis of the conditions. AK002 (lirentelimab) is an anti-Siglec-8 antibody that depletes eosinophils and inhibits mast cells and that has shown potential in animal models as a treatment for eosinophilic gastritis and duodenitis. METHODS: In this phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned adults who had symptomatic eosinophilic gastritis, eosinophilic duodenitis, or both conditions in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive four monthly infusions of low-dose AK002, high-dose AK002, or placebo. The primary end point was the change in gastrointestinal eosinophil count from baseline to 2 weeks after the final dose; to maximize statistical power, we evaluated this end point in the placebo group as compared with the combined AK002 group. Secondary end points were treatment response (>30% reduction in total symptom score and >75% reduction in gastrointestinal eosinophil count) and the change in total symptom score. RESULTS: Of the 65 patients who underwent randomization, 43 were assigned to receive AK002 and 22 were assigned to receive placebo. The mean percentage change in gastrointestinal eosinophil count was -86% in the combined AK002 group, as compared with 9% in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, -98 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -121 to -76; P<0.001). Treatment response occurred in 63% of the patients who received AK002 and in 5% of the patients who received placebo (difference, 58 percentage points; 95% CI, 36 to 74; P<0.001). The mean change in total symptom score was -48% with AK002 and -22% with placebo (least-squares mean difference, -26 percentage points; 95% CI, -44 to -9; P = 0.004). Adverse events associated with AK002 were similar to those with placebo, with the exception of higher percentages of patients having mild-to-moderate infusion-related reactions with AK002 (60% in the combined AK002 group and 23% in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with eosinophilic gastritis or duodenitis, AK002 reduced gastrointestinal eosinophils and symptoms. Infusion-related reactions were more common with AK002 than with placebo. (Funded by Allakos; ENIGMA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03496571.).

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Diagnosis and Management of Extraesophageal Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and expert advice regarding the clinical management of patients with suspected extraesophageal gastroesophageal reflux disease. METHODS: This article provides practical advice based on the available published evidence including that identified from recently published reviews from leading investigators in the field, prospective and population studies, clinical trials, and recent clinical guidelines and technical reviews. This best practice document is not based on a formal systematic review. The best practice advice as presented in this document applies to patients with symptoms or conditions suspected to be related to extraesophageal reflux (EER). This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these BPA statements do not carry formal ratings of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Gastroenterologists should be aware of potential extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and should inquire about such disorders including laryngitis, chronic cough, asthma, and dental erosions in GERD patients to determine whether GERD may be a contributing factor to these conditions. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Development of a multidisciplinary approach to extraesophageal (EER) manifestations is an important consideration because the conditions are often multifactorial, requiring input from non-gastroenterology (GI) specialties. Results from diagnostic testing (ie, bronchoscopy, thoracic imaging, laryngoscopy, etc) from non-GI disciplines should be taken into consideration when gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is considered as a cause for extraesophageal symptoms. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Currently, there is no single diagnostic tool that can conclusively identify GER as the cause of EER symptoms. Determination of the contribution of GER to EER symptoms should be based on the global clinical impression derived from patients' symptoms, response to GER therapy, and results of endoscopy and reflux testing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Consideration should be given toward diagnostic testing for reflux before initiation of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with potential extraesophageal manifestations of GERD, but without typical GERD symptoms. Initial single-dose PPI trial, titrating up to twice daily in those with typical GERD symptoms, is reasonable. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Symptom improvement of EER manifestations while on PPI therapy may result from mechanisms of action other than acid suppression and should not be regarded as confirmation for GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: In patients with suspected extraesophageal manifestation of GERD who have failed one trial (up to 12 weeks) of PPI therapy, one should consider objective testing for pathologic GER, because additional trials of different PPIs are low yield. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Initial testing to evaluate for reflux should be tailored to patients' clinical presentation and can include upper endoscopy and ambulatory reflux monitoring studies of acid suppressive therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Testing can be considered for those with an established objective diagnosis of GERD who do not respond to high doses of acid suppression. Testing can include pH-impedance monitoring while on acid suppression to evaluate the role of ongoing acid or non-acid reflux. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Alternative treatment methods to acid suppressive therapy (eg, lifestyle modifications, alginate-containing antacids, external upper esophageal sphincter compression device, cognitive-behavioral therapy, neuromodulators) may serve a role in management of EER symptoms. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Shared decision-making should be performed before referral for anti-reflux surgery for EER when the patient has clear, objectively defined evidence of GERD. However, a lack of response to PPI therapy predicts lack of response to anti-reflux surgery and should be incorporated into the decision process.

Development of a Practical Guide to Implement and Monitor Diet Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Dietary therapy for short- and long-term management of eosinophilic esophagitis is an effective yet poorly understood and underutilized treatment strategy. Despite several prospective trials demonstrating the efficacy of dietary therapies, successful clinical implementation is hampered by the need for a multidisciplinary approach including dietitian support and provider expertise. The availability of these resources is not readily available to most gastroenterologists. Without standardized guidance on starting or completing the diet for gastrointestinal providers and/or consulting dietitians, provider attitudes toward dietary therapy vary greatly depending on familiarity and knowledge gaps in using diet therapy. This review aims to summarize evidence in support of dietary therapy in eosinophilic esophagitis while providing guidance on initiation and implementation of dietary therapy for providers.

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.

Eosinophilic Gastritis and Enteritis Are Increased in Families With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on the familial risk of distal eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We analyzed the risk of eosinophilic gastritis/gastroenteritis (EG/EGE) and eosinophilic colitis (EC) as forms of distal EGIDs using International Disease Classification-9/10 codes in subjects with EoE and their relatives. METHODS: The Utah Population Database is a resource that links genealogy information and medical records in Utah. We identified EGIDs in probands and their first-degree (FDRs), second-degree (SDRs), and third-degree (TDRs) relatives in the Utah Population Database. Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were estimated. All individuals with inflammatory bowel disorder were eliminated to avoid misdiagnosis with EGIDs. RESULTS: We included 8,455 subjects with EoE, 396 with EG/EGE, and 172 with EC. Probands with EoE were at increased risk of EG/EGE and EC. Risks of EG/EGE were increased among FDRs and SDRs of probands with EoE , even without concomitant EoE in the relatives. Increased risk of EG/EGE in FDRs and SDRs was also present for EoE probands without EG/EGE or EC. We observed no isolated familial aggregation of EG/EGE after excluding cases with comorbid EoE. EC probands without EoE were at increased risk of EG/EGE, but no evidence of familial risk of EC was observed. DISCUSSION: The relative risk of EG/EGE is significant among relatives of patients with EoE, suggesting that shared genetic factors exist among these EGIDs. EG/EGE and EC showed limited familial clustering, although sample sizes were small.

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.

Determination of Biopsy Yield That Optimally Detects Eosinophilic Gastritis and/or Duodenitis in a Randomized Trial of Lirentelimab.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic gastritis (EG) and eosinophilic duodenitis (EoD), characterized by chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and increased numbers or activation of eosinophils and mast cells in the GI tract, are likely underdiagnosed. We aimed to determine rates of EG and EoD and number of biopsies required to optimize detection using screening data from a randomized trial of lirentelimab (AK002), an antibody against siglec-8 that depletes eosinophils and inhibits mast cells. We also characterized endoscopic features and symptoms of EG and EoD. METHODS: Subjects with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms, assessed daily through a validated patient-reported outcome questionnaire, underwent endoscopy with a systematic gastric and duodenal biopsy protocol and histopathologic evaluation. EG diagnosis required presence of ≥30 eosinophils/high-power field (eos/hpf) in ≥5 hpfs and EoD required ≥30 eos/hpf in ≥3 hpfs. We analyzed diagnostic yields for EG and EoD and histologic, endoscopic, and clinical findings. RESULTS: Of 88 subjects meeting symptom criteria, 72 were found to have EG and/or EoD (EG/EoD), including patients with no prior diagnosis of EG/EoD. We found that GI eosinophilia was patchy and that examination of multiple biopsies was required for diagnosis-an average of only 2.6 per 8 gastric biopsies and 2.2 per 4 duodenal biopsies per subject met thresholds for EG/EoD. Evaluation of multiple nonoverlapping hpfs in each of 8 gastric and 4 duodenal biopsies was required to capture 100% of EG/EoD cases. Neither endoscopic findings nor symptom severity correlated with eosinophil counts. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of patients with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms participating in a clinical trial of lirentelimab for EG/EoD, we found eosinophilia to be patchy in gastric and duodenal biopsies. Counting eosinophils in at least 8 gastric and 4 duodenal biopsies is required to identify patients with EG/EoD, so they can receive appropriate treatment. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03496571).

Provider Beliefs, Practices, and Perceived Barriers to Dietary Elimination Therapy in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite effective dietary treatments, physicians prefer medications for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey of providers to assess the perceived effectiveness, practice patterns, and barriers to EoE dietary therapy. RESULTS: Providers view diet as the least effective treatment. The greatest barrier was the belief that patients are disinterested and unlikely to adhere (58%). With less access to dietitians (56%), nonacademic providers often manage diets without dietitian guidance (41%). DISCUSSION: Given high patient acceptance for diets and multiple treatment options for EoE, clinicians need evidence-based knowledge on EoE diets, access to dietitians, and awareness of patient preferences.

Endoscopic approach to eosinophilic esophagitis: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Consensus Conference.

Endoscopy plays a critical role in caring for and evaluating the patient with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Endoscopy is essential for diagnosis, assessment of response to therapy, treatment of esophageal strictures, and ongoing monitoring of patients in histologic remission. To date, less-invasive testing for identifying or grading EoE severity has not been established, whereas diagnostic endoscopy as integral to both remains the criterion standard. Therapeutic endoscopy in patients with adverse events of EoE may also be required. In particular, dilation may be essential to treat and attenuate progression of the disease in select patients to minimize further fibrosis and stricture formation. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, a group of 20 expert clinicians and investigators in EoE were assembled to provide guidance for the use of endoscopy in EoE. Through an iterative process, the group achieved consensus on 20 statements yielding comprehensive advice on tissue-sampling standards, gross assessment of disease activity, use and performance of endoscopic dilation, and monitoring of disease, despite an absence of high-quality evidence. Key areas of controversy were identified when discussions yielded an inability to reach agreement on the merit of a statement. We expect that with ongoing research, higher-quality evidence will be obtained to enable creation of a guideline for these issues. We further anticipate that forthcoming expert-generated and agreed-on statements will provide valuable practice advice on the role and use of endoscopy in patients with EoE.

Updated International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Proceedings of the AGREE Conference.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Over the last decade, clinical experiences and research studies raised concerns regarding use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as part of the diagnostic strategy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to clarify the use of PPIs in the evaluation and treatment of children and adults with suspected EoE to develop updated international consensus criteria for EoE diagnosis. METHODS: A consensus conference was convened to address the issue of PPI use for esophageal eosinophilia using a process consistent with standards described in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II. Pediatric and adult physicians and researchers from gastroenterology, allergy, and pathology subspecialties representing 14 countries used online communications, teleconferences, and a face-to-face meeting to review the literature and clinical experiences. RESULTS: Substantial evidence documented that PPIs reduce esophageal eosinophilia in children, adolescents, and adults, with several mechanisms potentially explaining the treatment effect. Based on these findings, an updated diagnostic algorithm for EoE was developed, with removal of the PPI trial requirement. CONCLUSIONS: EoE should be diagnosed when there are symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (or approximately 60 eosinophils per mm2) on esophageal biopsy and after a comprehensive assessment of non-EoE disorders that could cause or potentially contribute to esophageal eosinophilia. The evidence suggests that PPIs are better classified as a treatment for esophageal eosinophilia that may be due to EoE than as a diagnostic criterion, and we have developed updated consensus criteria for EoE that reflect this change.

Atrial fibrosis in non-atrial fibrillation individuals and prediction of atrial fibrillation by use of late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging.

INTRODUCTION: Besides the traditional concept of atrial fibrillation (AF) perpetuating atrial structural remodeling, there is increasing evidence that atrial fibrosis might precede AF, highlighting the need for better characterization of the fibrotic substrate. We aimed to assess atrial fibrosis by use of late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (LGE-MRI) in non-AF individuals and to identify predisposing risk factors. A second aim was to establish a risk score for the prevalence of AF using atrial fibrosis in addition to established clinical variables. METHODS AND RESULTS: Non-AF individuals without structural heart disease (n = 91) and matched AF controls (n = 91) underwent MRI for assessment of LGE. According to the established UTAH classification, atrial LGE ≥20% was considered extensive. Mean left atrial (LA) fibrosis in non-AF and AF individuals were 8.8 ± 6.5% and 12.5 ± 5.8%, respectively. Body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m 2 and LA volume were predictors of atrial fibrosis. Diastolic function was not significantly different with respect to atrial fibrosis. A novel scoring system for the prevalence of AF (2 points for arterial hypertension and/or left ventricular ejection fraction <55%; 3 points for atrial fibrosis >6%) was derived demonstrating that patients in the intermediate/high-risk group had a significantly increased risk of AF. CONCLUSION: This study reports unexpectedly high atrial fibrosis in non-AF patients without apparent heart disease, highlighting the concept that structural fibrotic alterations may precede AF onset in a significant proportion of individuals. BMI as a predictor of atrial fibrosis suggests that lifestyle and drug intervention, that is, weight reduction, could positively influence fibrosis development. The derived risk score for AF prevalence provides the basis for prospective studies on AF incidence.

Elevated Tryptase in EoE Is an Independent Phenomenon Associated with Extra-Esophageal Symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disease characterized histologically by > 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf). Esophageal mucosal mast cells have been implicated in EoE pathogenesis. The association of atopy with EoE has been established but has not been correlated with levels of serum tryptase. The lack of concurrent atopy in some patients suggests the possibility that atopy may either be the related subtype of EoE or may be a sign of comorbidities. No study has looked at whether patients present with different phenotypes/comorbid disease when they have evidence of elevated serum tryptase. We hypothesized that these patients differ with respect to presentation and comorbidities with more refractory GI disease. AIMS: To examine whether elevations of serum tryptase associate with different, more severe clinical presentations in EoE patients which may be explained via mast cell activation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified 72 patients with EoE with results for serum tryptase between 2015 and 2016. Patients were classified as TryptaseHI (tryptase > 10.9 µg/l) and TryptaseLO (< 10.9 µg/l). Clinical characteristics and treatment response were compared using univariate analysis and multivariate regression between the groups. RESULTS: Out of 72 patients, 12 were tested as TryptaseHI (16.7%, 95% CI 8.1-25.3%). TryptaseHI was associated frequently with asthma (P = 0.0003), urticaria (P = 0.002), arthralgia (P = 0.005), sinusitis (P = 0.03), nausea/vomiting (P = 0.046), and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease (P = 0.001). Asthma and arthralgia were found to be significantly associated with TryptaseHI (P = 0.0013, P = 0.0098, respectively). Mucosal eosinophil counts and tryptase levels were not correlated (R2 0.095, P = 0.77). Tryptase did not resolve with resolution of esophageal eosinophilia. CONCLUSIONS: We found that EoE patients with elevated tryptase levels more commonly presented with asthma, urticaria, arthralgia, nausea/vomiting, sinusitis, and more distal eosinophilia. This indicates that atopy in EoE patients warrants further exploration. The lack of correlation between histologic remission and reduction of serum tryptase levels post-treatment suggests that mast cell activation may be an independent, yet associated disease. More study into this unique association is warranted.

Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease.

This JAMA Insights Clinical Update discusses the symptoms, diagnosis, and management of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases.

Population-based familial aggregation of eosinophilic esophagitis suggests a genetic contribution.

BACKGROUND: Prior familial clustering studies have observed an increased risk of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) mostly among first-degree relatives, suggesting a genetic contribution to EoE, and twin studies have suggested a powerful contribution from environmental factors. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to clarify the contribution of genetic factors to EoE through estimation of familial aggregation and risk of EoE in extended relatives. METHODS: The Utah Population Database, a population-based genealogy resource linked to electronic medical records for health care systems across the state of Utah, was used to identify EoE cases and age, sex, and birthplace-matched controls at a 5:1 ratio. Logistic regression was used to determine the odds of EoE among relatives of EoE probands compared with the odds of EoE among relatives of controls. RESULTS: There were 4,423 EoE cases and 24,322 controls. The population-attributable risk of EoE was 31% (95% CI, 28% to 34%), suggesting a relatively strong genetic contribution. Risks of EoE were significantly increased among first-degree relatives (odds ratio [OR], 7.19; 95% CI, 5.65-9.14), particularly first-degree relatives of EoE cases diagnosed <18 years of age (OR, 16.3; 95% CI, 9.4-28.3); second-degree relatives (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.49-2.65); and first cousins (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03-1.77), providing evidence of a genetic contribution. However, spouses of EoE probands were observed to be at increased risk of EoE (OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.31-6.25), suggesting either positive assortative mating or a shared environmental contribution to EoE. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports a significant genetic contribution to EoE as evidenced by increased risk of EoE in distant relatives.