A diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis is associated with increased life insurance premiums.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disease that can be diagnosed at any age, but is not associated with malignancy and does not shorten lifespan. It remains unknown whether an EoE diagnosis affects insurability or insurance premium costs. We therefore aimed to determine whether a diagnosis of EoE affects the costs of life insurance. Our investigation was a secret shopper audit study whereby we contacted national insurance companies in the United States to evaluate the effect of a diagnosis of EoE on life insurance premiums. We constructed standardized case scenarios for males and females, including a 25-year-old and a 48-year-old without other comorbid conditions, who either had or did not have a diagnosis of EoE. Companies were asked for their best estimate for a $100,000 whole life insurance policy. Comparisons between median premiums were made using the Mann-Whitney U test. There were 20 national life insurance companies contacted and a total of 73 quotes were obtained. The median premium rate was similar for EoE and non-EoE cases at the younger age ($828 [IQR $576-1,020] vs. $756 [IQR $504-$804]; P = 0.10). However, the premium for the older case without EoE was 19% less expensive compared to a case with EoE ($1990 [IQR $1,248-2,350] vs. $2,375 [IQR $2,100-2568; P = 0.02]. This finding was not explained by sex or state of residence. Based on these findings, we conclude that life insurance premiums are significantly more expensive in the older patient case with EoE when compared to the same case without EoE. Patients with EoE and their providers should be aware of the additional cost associated with this diagnosis.

Validation of a biomarker panel in Barrett's esophagus to predict progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In a prior study, baseline mutational load (ML) predicted progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95. We aimed to validate the test characteristics of this predictive biomarker panel using crude DNA lysates in a larger well-characterized cohort. We performed a nested case-control study of BE patients from three tertiary referral centers in the Netherlands. Cases had baseline nondysplastic BE (NDBE) and developed HGD/EAC ≥ 2 years later. Controls were matched 2:1, had baseline NDBE, and no progression. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based mutational analysis was performed on crude lysates from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. ML was calculated from loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and microsatellite instability (MSI) at 10 genomic loci. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were created to assess the diagnostic utility of various cutoffs of ML for progression. Of 159 subjects, 58 were progressors and 101 were nonprogressors, there was no difference in mean ML in preprogression tissue in progressors and nonprogressors (ML = 0.73 ± 0.69 vs. ML = 0.74 ± 0.61, P = 0.93). ROC curves showed poor discrimination of ML in predicting progression with AUC of 0.50 at ML ≥ 1. AUC did not vary with different ML cut-points. The utility of the ML to stratify BE patients for risk of progression was not confirmed in this study. The etiology for discrepancies between this and prior studies showing high predictiveness is likely due to the use of crude lysates in this study, but requires further investigation.

Impact of smoking, alcohol consumption, and NSAID use on risk for and phenotypes of eosinophilic esophagitis.

There are few data exploring modifiable risk factors for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to determine if smoking, alcohol consumption, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use were risk factors for EoE, and to assess their impact on EoE phenotypes and treatment outcomes. We performed a case-control study analyzing data collected from a prospective cohort of adults undergoing upper endoscopy for symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. Incident EoE cases were diagnosed via consensus guidelines. Exposure data were collected via standardized patient questionnaire. Follow-up assessments for cases were made after treatment, with histologic response defined as <15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf). Exposures were compared between EoE cases and controls, among EoE cases with and without fibrostenosis, and among EoE responders and nonresponders. A total of 115 cases and 225 controls were analyzed. Cases were less likely to have ever smoked cigarettes (23% vs. 47%, P < 0.001) or currently use NSAIDs (17% vs. 40%, P < 0.001) compared to controls. These relations persisted after multivariate analysis. Although alcohol use was more common among cases (75% vs. 51%, P < 0.001), the effect was abrogated after multivariate analysis. Smoking, alcohol, and NSAID use were not associated with the fibrostenotic phenotype. There was a trend toward improved histologic response among EoE patients concomitantly using NSAIDs (87% vs. 63%, P = 0.08; aOR 6.97 (95% CI: 0.81-60.3). In conclusion, NSAID and smoking were inversely associated with EoE compared to endoscopy-based controls. Alcohol use was more prevalent in the EoE cases, although not an independent risk factor. Concomitant NSAID use may improve treatment response and is worthy of future study.

Control of inflammation decreases the need for subsequent esophageal dilation in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.

It is unknown if successful control of esophageal inflammation in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) decreases the need for subsequent esophageal dilation. We aimed to determine whether histologic response to topical steroid treatment decreases the likelihood and frequency of subsequent esophageal dilation. We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients with an incident diagnosis of EoE were included if they had an initial esophageal dilation, received topical steroids, and had a subsequent endoscopy with biopsies. The number of dilations performed in each group was determined, and histologic responders (<15 eos/hpf) were compared to nonresponders. The 55 EoE patients included (27 responders and 28 nonresponders) underwent a mean of 3.0 dilations over a median follow-up of 19 months. Responders required fewer dilations than nonresponders (1.6 vs. 4.6, P = 0.03), after adjusting for potential confounders. Despite undergoing significantly fewer dilations, responders achieved a similar increase in esophageal diameter with dilation (4.9 vs. 5.0 mm; P = 0.92). In EoE patients undergoing esophageal dilation at baseline, control of inflammation with topical steroids was associated with a 65% decrease in the number of subsequent dilations to maintain the same esophageal caliber. This suggests that inflammation control is an important goal in patients with fibrostenotic changes of EoE.