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.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Esophageal Dysfunction Due to Disordered Immunity and Infection: Expert Review.

METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (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. Since systematic reviews were not performed, these BPA statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. DESCRIPTION: Infectious and immune-mediated esophageal disorders are poorly understood and often under-diagnosed conditions that lead to esophageal dysfunction and health care costs due to repeated procedures and a lack of understanding of their etiology and pathogenesis. Without a high index of suspicion, these disorders may be overlooked. Esophageal dysfunction may arise from active, localized infection and immune-mediated disease (ie, candida, etc.) or from an organ-specific manifestation of a more diffuse immune-mediated disease or infection (ie, systemic sclerosis, connective tissue disease, neurologic disease). These conditions can sometimes lead to neuromuscular dysfunction and subsequent esophageal dysmotility. Awareness of local and systemic processes that lead to esophageal dysfunction will improve patient outcomes by focusing therapeutics and limiting unnecessary procedures. Therefore, the purpose of this AGA Clinical Practice Update Expert Review is to provide BPA on diagnostic considerations of immune-mediated disorders that should be considered when encountering patients with dysphagia, heartburn, and odynophagia. Best Practice Advice Statements: BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Gastroenterologists should be aware of the esophageal manifestations of systemic immunologic and infectious diseases to reduce diagnostic delay. Clinicians should identify if there are risks for inflammatory or infectious possibilities for a patient's esophageal symptoms and investigate for these disorders as a potential cause of esophageal dysfunction. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Once esophageal infection is identified, clinicians should identify whether accompanying signs/symptoms suggest immunocompromise leading to a more systemic infection. Consultation with an infectious disease expert will aid in guiding appropriate treatment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: If symptoms do not improve after therapy for infectious esophagitis, evaluation for refractory infection or additional underlying sources of esophageal and immunologic dysfunction should be performed. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: In individuals with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) who continue to experience symptoms of esophageal dysfunction despite histologic and endoscopic disease remission, clinicians should be aware that some patients with EoE may develop motility disorders. Further evaluation of esophageal motility may be warranted. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: In individuals with histologic and endoscopic features of lymphocytic esophagitis, clinicians should consider treatment of lymphocytic-related inflammation with proton-pump inhibitor therapy or swallowed topical corticosteroids and as needed esophageal dilation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: In patients who present with esophageal symptoms in the setting of hypereosinophilia (absolute eosinophil count [AEC] >1500 cells/uL), consider further work-up of non-EoE eosinophilic gastrointestinal (GI) disease, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). Consultation with allergy/immunology may help guide further diagnostic work-up and treatment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: In individuals with rheumatologic diseases of systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or Sjogren's disease, clinicians should be aware that esophageal symptoms can occur due to involvement of the esophageal muscle layer, resulting in dysmotility and/or incompetence of the lower esophageal sphincter. The degree of dysfunction is often especially significant in those with SSc or MCTD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: In individuals with Crohn's disease, clinicians should be aware that a minority of individuals can develop esophageal involvement from inflammatory, stricturing, or fistulizing changes with granulomas seen histologically. Esophageal manifestations of Crohn's disease tend to occur in individuals with active intestinal disease. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In individuals with dermatologic diseases of lichen planus or bullous disorders, clinicians should be aware that dysphagia can occur due to endoscopically visible esophageal mucosal involvement. Esophageal lichen planus, in particular, can occur without skin involvement and can be difficult to define on esophageal histopathology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Clinicians should consider infectious and inflammatory causes of secondary achalasia during initial evaluation. One should query for any history of recent COVID infections, risks for Chagas disease, and symptoms or signs of eosinophilic disease.

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.

Esophageal Expert Development of a Preliminary Question Prompt List for Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended to encourage question-asking by patients and enhance patient-physician communication. To date, an EoE-specific QPL has not been developed for EoE patients. AIM: To develop a preliminary QPL specific to adults with EoE by incorporating input from international esophageal experts. METHODS: Sixteen experts were invited to generate QPL content through a modified Delphi (RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, CA) method consisting of 2 rounds of independent ratings. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "what general questions should patients ask when being seen for EoE?" and "what questions do I not hear patients asking but given my experience, I believe they should be asking?" In round 2, experts rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale, and responses rated as "essential" or "important" (determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥ 4.0) were accepted for the EoE QPL. RESULTS: Ten esophageal experts participated in both rounds. Round 1 generated 100 questions. Questions were combined and modified to reduce redundancy, yielding 57 questions. After round 2, 51 questions (85%) were accepted for inclusion (median value ≥ 4.0) in the final QPL. Questions were then divided into 4 themes based on disease domains: (1) "What is EoE?," (2) "Treatment Options," (3) "Follow-up Surveillance and Long-term Risks," and (4) "Allergy and Genetic Testing." The largest number of questions covered was "What is EoE?" (16/51 or 31%). Questions with the highest agreement median (5.0) included examples such as "what should I do if I get a food impaction?" and "what are the treatment options?" CONCLUSION: This is the first preliminary EoE QPL developed in the field of medicine. We hope implementation enhances effective patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask relevant questions that experts prioritized. Future studies will aim to modify this communication tool by incorporating patient perspectives.

Effect of benralizumab on histopathology and inflammatory signatures in a clinical cohort of eosinophilic esophagitis.

A preliminary report from the recent phase 3 trial of benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin-5 receptor alpha (IL5Rα), in patients with EoE revealed that medication use led to tissue eosinophil eradication but did not meet the clinical endpoint of symptom resolution. Here, we characterized the clinical, endoscopic, histologic, and transcriptional changes in patients with active EoE following benralizumab treatment. We retrospectively examined patients with EoE treated with benralizumab at the University of Utah (n = 11) and reviewed reported clinical symptoms, circulating and tissue eosinophilia, and endoscopic and histologic scores. Gene expression profiles from available esophageal tissue from benralizumab-treated patients were compared to those from patients with remission EoE (n = 5), active EoE (n = 10), and controls (n = 22). Benralizumab treatment resulted in partial symptom improvement and significant reduction in tissue eosinophilia, and endoscopic and histologic disease scoring (P < 0.01). Histologic score reductions were driven by eosinophil feature scores, while scores for epithelial features (basal cell hyperplasia and dilated intercellular spaces) were similar to those in active EoE. The gene signatures in benralizumab-treated patients mimicked those of active EoE (e.g. upregulation of POSTN, CDH26, CCL26, and downregulation of DSG1). RNA profiles and pathways support histologic findings of impaired epithelial function that persists despite benralizumab treatment. In conclusion, despite eosinophil eradication, patients treated with benralizumab had persistent epithelial injury at the histologic and transcriptional level. In this cohort, benralizumab therapy failed to eradicate inflammation and epithelial dysfunction showing that interleukin-5 receptor alpha blockade monotherapy is insufficient to control EoE.

Breakthroughs in understanding and treating eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases presented at the CEGIR/TIGERs Symposium at the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Meeting.

The Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases and The International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Researchers organized a day-long symposium at the 2022 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The symposium featured a review of recent discoveries in the basic biology and pathogenesis of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) in addition to advances in our understanding of the clinical features of EGIDs. Diagnostic and management approaches were reviewed and debated, and clinical trials of emerging therapies were highlighted. Herein, we briefly summarize the breakthrough discoveries in EGIDs.

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.

Quality Indicators for the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite best practice recommendations for managing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), variation in care exists. METHODS: We used established methodology for quality indicator development to identify metrics to define quality for the treatment of EoE. RESULTS: Among 29 proposed quality indicator statements, 9 (31%) were adopted as highly valid across all categories. Two (22%) of these statements were identified as having existing or suspected quality gaps. DISCUSSION: We identified highly valid EoE quality indicators for adult gastroenterologists, which can be used for quality improvement with resulting benefits for patient outcomes.

Mucosal Microbiota Associated With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Eosinophilic Gastritis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the mucosal microbiota associated with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and eosinophilic gastritis (EoG) in a geographically diverse cohort of patients compared to controls. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of individuals with eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease (EGID) in the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers, including pediatric and adult tertiary care centers. Eligible individuals had clinical data, mucosal biopsies, and stool collected. Total bacterial load was determined from mucosal biopsy samples by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Community composition was determined by small subunit rRNA gene amplicons. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine mucosal biopsies were evaluated corresponding to 93 EoE, 17 EoG, and 29 control specimens (18 esophageal) from 10 sites across the United States. Dominant community members across disease activity differed significantly. When comparing EoE and EoG with controls, the dominant taxa in individuals with EGIDs was increased ( Streptococcus in esophagus; Prevotella in stomach). Specific taxa were associated with active disease for both EoE ( Streptococcus , Gemella ) and EoG ( Leptotrichia ), although highly individualized communities likely impacted statistical testing. Alpha diversity metrics were similar across groups, but with high variability among individuals. Stool analyses did not correlate with bacterial communities found in mucosal biopsy samples and was similar in patients and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Dominant community members ( Streptococcus for EoE, Prevotella for EoG) were different in the mucosal biopsies but not stool of individuals with EGIDs compared to controls; taxa associated with EGIDs were highly variable across individuals. Further study is needed to determine if therapeutic interventions contribute to the observed community differences.

Impressions and aspirations from the FDA GREAT VI Workshop on Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders Beyond Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Perspectives for Progress in the Field.

The US Food and Drug Administration hosted a workshop on July 21, 2021, to discuss the disease characteristics, natural history, and end points to assess treatment benefit in patients with eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) beyond eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Notably, EGIDs beyond EoE, such as eosinophilic gastritis, eosinophilic enteritis, and eosinophilic colitis, herein referred to as non-EoE EGIDs, are understudied relative to EoE. This workshop provided a forum for open discussion among stakeholders-medical professionals (including their societies and research groups), Food and Drug Administration representatives, an industry representative, and a patient representative-to facilitate drug development. Experts in many disciplines related to EGIDs, including allergy, immunology, epidemiology, gastroenterology, and pathology, and both adult and pediatric clinicians contributed. Herein, we discuss some of the insights of the material presented at the meeting and present perspectives on moving the field forward toward drug approval.

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.

Development of a core outcome set for therapeutic studies in eosinophilic esophagitis (COREOS).

BACKGROUND: End points used to determine treatment efficacy in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have evolved over time. With multiple novel therapies in development for EoE, harmonization of outcomes measures will facilitate evidence synthesis and appraisal when comparing different treatments. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for controlled and observational studies of pharmacologic and diet interventions in adult and pediatric patients with EoE. METHODS: Candidate outcomes were generated from systematic literature reviews and patient engagement interviews and surveys. Consensus was established using an iterative Delphi process, with items voted on using a 9-point Likert scale and with feedback from other participants to allow score refinement. Consensus meetings were held to ratify the outcome domains of importance and the core outcome measures. Stakeholders were recruited internationally and included adult and pediatric gastroenterologists, allergists, dieticians, pathologists, psychologists, researchers, and methodologists. RESULTS: The COS consists of 4 outcome domains for controlled and observational studies: histopathology, endoscopy, patient-reported symptoms, and EoE-specific quality of life. A total of 69 stakeholders (response rate 95.8%) prioritized 42 outcomes in a 2-round Delphi process, and the final ratification meeting generated consensus on 33 outcome measures. These included measurement of the peak eosinophil count, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, and patient-reported measures of dysphagia and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This interdisciplinary collaboration involving global stakeholders has produced a COS that can be applied to adult and pediatric studies of pharmacologic and diet therapies for EoE and will facilitate meaningful treatment comparisons and improve the quality of data synthesis.

Esophageal Eosinophilia Is Common Among Relatives of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Familial clustering of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been described, and we report on the biopsy-assessed prevalence of esophageal eosinophilia (EE) in first-degree family members. The aim was to determine the prevalence of EE in first-degree adult relatives (FDRs) of EoE patients. METHODS: Index EoE patients diagnosed by EE (>15 eosinophils per high-power field) and proton pump inhibitor nonresponsiveness were identified and family trees were constructed. Adult FDRs were invited to undergo upper endoscopy with esophageal biopsies and to complete reflux, dysphagia, and allergy/atopy questionnaires. Questionnaire information was gathered only for those who responded as per institutional review board purview. Records from other children and adult FDRs with prior EoE diagnoses also were obtained when permission was obtained. Simple and multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the unadjusted and odds ratios of EoE for demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: A total of 239 FDRs from 37 index EoE patients were identified. Seventy-one of 239 adult (age, >18 y) FDRs completed endoscopy and questionnaires and 18 of 71 FDRs had EE. An additional 17 FDRs were confirmed to have EE after external medical record retrieval, resulting in a total of 35 of 239 (14.6%) FDRs with EE. Significantly more male FDRs had EE compared with female FDRs (P = .027). Proton pump inhibitors, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, asthma, and reflux symptoms predicted EE in FDRs. FDRs who had EE reported hay fever, allergic eye symptoms, and food allergy more frequently than those without EE (P = .03, P = .001, and P = .02, respectively). Specifically, younger age, higher serum eosinophils, being male, and having food allergies all were associated with higher odds of EoE (P = .0211, P = .0031, P = .0362, and P = .0089, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of esophageal eosinophilia is extremely high and male-predominant in first-degree relatives of EoE patients. Symptoms of hay fever, allergic eye symptoms, and food allergy were predictors of EE in FDRs. Dysphagia did not predict esophageal eosinophilia. Family members of EoE patients are at risk for EE, particularly those who have atopic symptoms.

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).