Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease.

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

Eosinophilic esophagitis: A review of the pediatric population and consideration of upcoming therapies.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a disease entity that has become increasingly recognized in the pediatric population over the last decade and was first recognized as early as 1990. EoE is a clinicopathologic diagnosis with signs and symptoms varying between age groups. The clinical presentation of EoE is variable ranging from milder nonspecific symptoms, such as abdominal pain, vomiting, and dyspepsia, to more severe presentations such as failure to thrive, dysphagia and even food impaction and is dependent on age of diagnosis 2. There is growing body of evidence with regards to the pathophysiology, diagnostic modalities, and treatment options for EoE in the past decade. In this review article, we aim to discuss the disease burden, pathophysiology, diagnostic strategies, and currently available treatment options for EoE based on existing literature.

Simultaneous Examination of Eosinophil Infiltration in Esophageal Mucosa and Muscle in Patients with Achalasia: Direct Biopsy of the Esophageal Muscle at Per-oral Endoscopic Myotomy.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and achalasia is not completely understood. There have been reports of eosinophilic infiltration of all esophageal layers in patients with achalasia. However, a routine endoscopic biopsy of the muscular layer is usually not feasible. We evaluate the safety and efficacy of muscle layer biopsy during per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) as well as the prevalence of eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa and muscular layer in patients with achalasia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All enrolled patients had diagnosed achalasia and had simultaneous biopsies of the muscular layer at the middle esophagus and distal esophageal sphincter as well as the mucosal layer of the proximal and distal esophagus during POEM. All POEM procedures took place from August 2018 to December 2018 or September 2019 to November 2019. Various demographic, disease-related, and procedure-related data were collected from chart review. Eosinophilic infiltration in the biopsy specimen was examined. KEY RESULTS: Twenty consecutive patients (65% female, age range: 21-84) with a pre-procedure Eckardt score of >6 were enrolled during the study period, with the duration of their achalasia ranging from 1 to 32 years. Eighteen patients had clinical symptomatic improvement after POEM, as defined by an Eckardt score <3. Endoscopic examination did not reveal any signs of eosinophilic esophagitis. Pathologic examination of biopsies revealed eosinophilic infiltration in three of 20 patients (15%) in the distal esophageal mucosa (all <15 eosinophils/HPF) and none in the proximal esophageal mucosa. There was no eosinophilic infiltration in the distal esophageal sphincter and the middle esophageal muscle. No complication was noted due to muscle biopsy. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Submucosal tunneling during POEM provides a safe access for direct esophageal muscle biopsy. This is the first report of the simultaneous biopsy of the esophageal mucosa and muscle in patients with achalasia. Contrary to all previously published studies, the association of esophageal eosinophilic infiltration and achalasia was not observed in this small sample study. Based on our findings, immune or autoimmune reaction rather than direct eosinophilic infiltration in the muscle is more likely the cause of achalasia.

Esophageal Hypervigilance and Symptom-Specific Anxiety in Patients with Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patient symptom reporting often does not correlate with the pathophysiological markers of esophageal disease, including eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Esophageal hypervigilance and symptom-specific anxiety are emerging as important considerations in understanding symptom reporting. As such, we aimed to conduct the first study of these constructs in EoE. METHODS: A retrospective review of an EoE patient registry was conducted and included eosinophils per high power field (from esophagogastroduodenoscopy biopsy: proximal, distal), endoscopic reference score, distal distensibility plateau (functional luminal imaging probe), Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire, Visual Dysphagia Question of EoE Activity Index, Northwestern Esophageal Quality of Life scale, and the Esophageal Hypervigilance and Anxiety Scale. Correlational and regression analyses evaluated relationships of hypervigilance and anxiety with Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire, Visual Dysphagia Question of EoE Activity Index, and Northwestern Esophageal Quality of Life scale when controlling for histology and endoscopic severity. RESULTS: One hundred and three patients had complete data, 69.9% were male, and the mean (SD) age was 40.66 (13.85) years. Forty-one percent had elevated dysphagia and 46% had elevated hypervigilance and anxiety. Esophageal symptom-specific anxiety emerged as the most important predictor of Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire severity (44.8% of the variance), Visual Dysphagia Question of EoE Activity Index severity (26%), and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (55.3%). Hypervigilance was also important, but to a lesser extent. Pathophysiological variables did not significantly predict symptoms or HRQoL. Recent food impaction can predict symptom-specific anxiety and proton pump inhibitor use can reduce hypervigilance. CONCLUSIONS: Hypervigilance and symptom-specific anxiety are important for our understanding of self-reported patient outcomes in EoE. These processes outweigh endoscopic and histologic markers of EoE disease activity across dysphagia, difficulty eating, and HRQoL. Clinicians should assess hypervigilance and anxiety, especially in patients with refractory symptoms and poor HRQoL.

Diagnostic delay and misdiagnosis in eosinophilic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) may lead to severe complications if not promptly recognised. AIMS: To assess the diagnostic delay in patients with EoE and to explore its risk factors. METHODS: EoE patients followed-up at eight clinics were included via retrospective chart review. Diagnostic delay was estimated as the time lapse occurring between the appearance of the first likely symptoms indicative of EoE and the final diagnosis. Patient-dependent and physician-dependent diagnostic delays were assessed. Multivariable regression models were computed. RESULTS: 261 patients with EoE (mean age 34±14 years; M:F ratio=3:1) were included. The median overall diagnostic delay was 36 months (IQR 12-88), while patient- and physician-dependent diagnostic delays were 18 months (IQR 5-49) and 6 months (IQR 1-24). Patient-dependent delay was greater compared to physician-dependent delay (95% CI 5.1-19.3, p<0.001). A previous misdiagnosis was formulated in 109 cases (41.8%; gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in 67 patients, 25.7%). The variables significantly associated with greater overall diagnostic delay were being a non-smoker, >1 episode of food impaction, previous endoscopy with no biopsies, regurgitation, and ≥2 assessing physicians. Being single was significantly associated with lower overall and patient-dependent diagnostic delay. CONCLUSION: EoE is burdened by substantial diagnostic delay, depending on both patient-related and physician-related factors.

Estimation of mechanical work done to open the esophagogastric junction using functional lumen imaging probe panometry.

In this study, we quantify the work done by the esophagus to open the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) and create a passage for bolus flow into the stomach. Work done on the EGJ was computed using functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry. Eighty-five individuals underwent FLIP panometry with a 16-cm catheter during sedated endoscopy including asymptomatic controls (n = 14), 45 patients with achalasia (n = 15 each, three subtypes), those with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD; n = 13), those with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE; n = 8), and those with systemic sclerosis (SSc; n = 5). Luminal cross-sectional area (CSA) and pressure were measured by the FLIP catheter positioned across the EGJ. Work done on the EGJ (EGJW) was computed (millijoules, mJ) at 40-mL distension. Additionally, a separate method was developed to estimate the "work required" to fully open the EGJ (EGJROW) when it did not open during the procedure. EGJW for controls had a median [interquartile range (IQR)] value of 75 (56-141) mJ. All achalasia subtypes showed low EGJW compared with controls (P < 0.001). Subjects with GERD and EoE had EGJW 54.1 (6.9-96.3) and 65.9 (10.8-102.3) mJ, similar to controls (P < 0.08 and P < 0.4, respectively). The scleroderma group showed low values of EGJW, 12 mJ (P < 0.001). For patients with achalasia, EGJROW was the greatest and had a value of 210.4 (115.2-375.4) mJ. Disease groups with minimal or absent EGJ opening showed low values of EGJW. For patients with achalasia, EGJROW significantly exceeded EGJW values of all other groups, highlighting its unique pathophysiology. Balancing the relationship between EGJW and EGJROW is potentially useful for calibrating achalasia treatments and evaluating treatment response.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Changes in pressure and diameter occur at the EGJ during esophageal emptying. Similar changes can be observed during FLIP panometry. Data from healthy and diseased individuals were used to estimate the mechanical work done on the EGJ during distension-induced relaxation or, in instances of failed opening, work required to open the EGJ. Quantifying these parameters is potentially valuable to calibrate treatments and gauge treatment efficacy for subjects with disorders of EGJ function, especially achalasia.

Classification of patients with esophageal eosinophilia by patterns of sensitization revealed by a diagnostic assay for multiple allergen-specific IgEs.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is considered to be an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergic disorder. Our goal was to examine IgE-mediated allergic sensitization patterns in patients with esophageal eosinophilia (EE). METHODS: We enrolled subjects with EE who underwent evaluation with a diagnostic panel to document multiple allergen-specific IgEs. Statistically significant groups were identified by cluster analysis. We also defined allergens based on their characteristics including outdoor, indoor, plant, and animal allergens. RESULTS: We classified patients with EE into 3 distinct groups, including cluster 1 (n = 62) who were minimally sensitized to most allergens except pollen and house dust, cluster 2 (n = 30) who were hypersensitized to outdoor and plant allergens, and cluster 3 (n = 15) who were hypersensitized to most allergens, most notably to indoor and animal allergens. Dysphagia reported among those in clusters 1, 2, and 3 at 35.5%, 46.7%, and 73.3%, respectively, (p = 0.028) and EoE endoscopic reference scores (EREFS) at 3.0, 6.0, and 8.0, respectively, (p < 0.001) differed significantly between the 3 clusters. Those in cluster 3 had a significantly higher prevalence of dysphagia (35.5% vs. 73.3%, p = 0.030), and higher EREFS with respect to rings (0.3 vs. 0.9, p = 0.003) and strictures (0.0 vs. 0.13, p = 0.011) compared to those in cluster 1. CONCLUSIONS: IgE-mediated allergic sensitization patterns are associated with clinical features of patients with EE. Use of a diagnostic panel that detects multiple allergen-specific IgEs can help to explain the heterogeneous phenotype of this patient cohort.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis and IgG4: Is There a Relationship?

Our knowledge of the pathophysiology of eosinophilic esophagitis is constantly evolving. There is significant association between eosinophilic esophagitis and atopy; however, multiple studies have refuted the role of IgE in its pathogenesis. Instead, new data have demonstrated an elevated IgG4 level in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. We review the current understanding of eosinophilic esophagitis pathogenesis and highlight the increasing evidence for the role of IgG4.

Disease Course and Treatment Response of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases in Children With Liver Transplantation: Long-Term Follow-Up.

INTRODUCTION: To describe the clinical and laboratory profile, natural course, treatment outcome, and risk factors of posttransplant esophageal and nonesophageal eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs). METHODS: All children (aged <18 years) who underwent liver transplantation, between 2011 and 2019, in a single transplant center with a follow-up period of 1 year or more posttransplant and with a history of posttransplant endoscopic evaluation were included in this study. RESULTS: During the study period, 89 children met the inclusion criteria. Patients were followed for a median of 8.0 years. A total of 39 (44%) patients were diagnosed with EGID after transplantation. Of these, 29 (33%) had eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), and 10 (11%) had eosinophilic gastritis, gastroenteritis or enterocolitis. In comparison with the non-EGID group, patients with EGID were younger at transplant (P ≤ 0.0001), transplanted more frequently due to biliary atresia (P ≤ 0.0001), and had higher rates of pretransplant allergy (P = 0.019). In the posttransplant period, they had higher rates of mammalian Target of Rapamycin inhibitor use (P = 0.006), Epstein-Barr virus viremia (P = 0.03), post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (P = 0.005), and allergen sensitization (P ≤ 0.0001). In regression analysis, young age at transplant, age at diagnosis, pretransplant atopic dermatitis, and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease were associated with an increased risk of EGID or EoE. Laboratory abnormalities such as anemia (P = 0.007), thrombocytosis (P = 0.012), and hypoalbuminemia (P = 0.031) were more commonly observed in the eosinophilic gastritis, gastroenteritis or enterocolitis group than in the EoE group. Following treatment, most patients had symptomatic resolution at 3 months and histologic resolution at 6 months postdiagnosis. Among the patients who had 5 years of follow-up, none recurred. DISCUSSION: EGID is a common posttransplant diagnosis, which seems to affect patients who are transplanted earlier and who have pretransplant atopy. Posttransplant EGID is responsive to treatment, but as histologic remission occurs after symptomatic resolution, the decision to perform control endoscopy should be delayed.

Use of the Functional Lumen Imaging Probe in Clinical Esophagology.

The functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) measures luminal dimensions using impedance planimetry, performed most often during sedated upper endoscopy. Mechanical properties of the esophageal wall and opening dynamics of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) can be objectively evaluated in esophageal motor disorders, eosinophilic esophagitis, esophageal strictures, during esophageal surgery and in postsurgical symptomatic states. Distensibility index, the ratio of EGJ cross sectional area to intraballoon pressure, is the most useful FLIP metric. Secondary peristalsis from balloon distension can be displayed topographically as repetitive anterograde or retrograde contractile activity in the esophageal body, similar to high-resolution manometry. Real-time interpretation and postprocessing of FLIP metadata can complement the identification of esophageal outflow obstruction and achalasia, especially when findings are inconclusive from alternate esophageal tests in symptomatic patients. FLIP can complement the diagnosis of achalasia when manometry and barium studies are inconclusive or negative in patients with typical symptoms. FLIP can direct adequacy of disruption of the EGJ in achalasia when used during and immediately after myotomy and pneumatic dilation. Lumen diameter measured using FLIP in eosinophilic esophagitis and in complex strictures can potentially guide management. An abbreviated modification of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to determine the quality of available evidence and recommendations regarding FLIP utilization. FLIP metrics that are diagnostic or suggestive of an abnormal motor pattern and metrics that define normal esophageal physiology were developed by consensus and are described in this review.

Achalasia: physiology and diagnosis.

Achalasia is a rare motility disorder with incomplete relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter and ineffective contractions of the esophageal body. It has been hypothesized that achalasia does not result from only one pathway but rather involves a combination of infectious, autoimmune, and familial etiological components. On the basis of other observations, a novel hypothesis suggests that a muscular form of eosinophilic esophagitis is involved in the pathophysiology of achalasia in some patients. This appears to progressively diminish the myenteric plexus at stage III, gradually destroy it at stage II, and finally eliminate it at stage I, the most advanced and final stage of achalasia. Although high-resolution manometry has identified these three different types of achalasia, another subset of patients with a normal-appearing sphincter relaxation has been proposed. Provocative maneuvers, such as the rapid drinking challenge, have recently been demonstrated to improve diagnosis in certain borderline patients, but have to be studied in more detail. However, whether the different types of achalasia will have a long-term impact on tailored therapies is still a matter of debate. Additionally, novel aspects of the standard timed barium swallow appear to be an important adjunct of diagnosis, as it has been shown to have a diagnostic as well as a predictive value.

Red Between the Lines: Evolution of Eosinophilic Esophagitis as a Distinct Clinicopathologic Syndrome.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, including dysphagia. While EoE is still considered a rare disease, in practice it seems that more and more cases are diagnosed every week, research in the field is exploding, and the pipeline for treatments contains multiple agents, some of which are quite far along the development pathway. After only scattered cases and small series were published in the late 1970s and 1980, Stephen Attwood, Thomas Smyrk, Tom DeMeester, and James Jones, published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences in 1993 a seminal report that described a clinicopathologic syndrome of esophageal eosinophilia with dysphagia. This review details the origins of this paper and compares and contrast what was observed then and what is known now about multiple aspects of EoE, including the clinical presentation, diagnosis, epidemiology, natural history, and treatments and outcomes. Moreover, it will highlight how the paper presaged a number of controversies in the field that have yet to be resolved, as well as foreshadowed the collaborative, multidisciplinary approach that has led to rapid advances.

Clinical Features of Esophageal Eosinophilia According to Endoscopic Phenotypes.

Objective Esophageal eosinophilia (EE), a histological hallmark of eosinophilic esophagitis, is classified into two endoscopic phenotypes: localized and diffuse EE. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of EE localized in the lower esophagus and to describe its clinical features in comparison with diffuse EE. Methods Data from 81 consecutive patients with EE were retrospectively investigated. EE was histologically defined as ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field. Based on the endoscopic appearance with a histological assessment, EE was classified as either diffuse or localized type. We compared the clinical features, including the medical treatment and natural course, between the two types. Results Of the 81 patients, 52 (64.2%) had diffuse EE, and 29 (35.8%) had localized EE. Among men patients, localized EE was significantly more common than diffuse EE. In localized EE, dysphagia and food impaction were less prevalent, and the presence of rings was significantly less common than in diffuse EE. Acid-suppressive therapy was administered to only 3 of the 29 patients with localized EE. In asymptomatic patients, especially those with localized EE, endoscopic abnormalities did not worsen but rather improved in some findings, such as with regard to furrows or exudate, during the natural course of three years without medical treatment. Conclusion Localized EE has a strong predilection for men patients and accounted for more than one third of all cases of EE. This condition appears to be less symptomatic and necessitates milder medical treatment than diffuse EE and might not worsen progressively.

EndoFLIP in the Esophagus: Assessing Sphincter Function, Wall Stiffness, and Motility to Guide Treatment.

The functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) uses high-resolution planimetry to provide a three-dimensional image of the esophageal lumen by measuring diameter, volume, and pressure changes. Literature surrounding use of FLIP has demonstrated its clinical utility as a diagnostic tool and as a device to guide and measure response to therapy. FLIP can assess and guide treatments for esophageal disease states including gastroesophageal reflux disease, achalasia, and eosinophilic esophagitis. FLIP may become the initial test for patients with undifferentiated dysphagia at their index endoscopy. This article summarizes use of FLIP in assessing sphincter function, wall stiffness, and motility to guide treatments.

Mucosal impedance for esophageal disease: evaluating the evidence.

Impedance has traditionally been employed in esophageal disease as a means to assess bolus flow and reflux episodes. Recent and ongoing research has provided new and novel applications for this technology. Measurement of esophageal mucosal impedance, via either multichannel intraluminal impedance catheters or specially designed endoscopically deployed impedance catheters, provides a marker of mucosal integrity. Mucosal impedance has been shown to segregate gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and eosinophilic esophagitis from non-GERD controls and may play a role in predicting response to reflux intervention. More data are needed with regard to other esophageal subgroups, outcome studies, and functional disease. Our paper reviews the history of impedance in esophageal disease, the means of assessing baseline and mucosal impedance, data with regard to the newly developed mucosal impedance probes, the clinical utility of mucosal impedance in specific clinical conditions, and limitations in our existing knowledge, along with suggestions for future studies.

Psychiatric Comorbidities and Psychiatric Medication Use Are Highly Prevalent in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Associate With Clinical Presentation.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of psychiatric disease in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is not fully characterized. We aimed to determine the prevalence of psychiatric disease and centrally acting medication use in a cohort of children and adults with EoE and evaluated whether psychiatric disease affects the EoE clinical presentation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of newly diagnosed cases with EoE at the University of North Carolina from 2002 to 2018. Psychiatric comorbidities and relevant treatments were extracted from the medical records. The demographic and clinical features of patients with EoE with and without psychiatric diagnoses, and those with and without psychiatric medication use, were compared. RESULTS: Of 883 patients (mean age 26.6 years, 68% men, 79% white), 241 (28%) had a psychiatric comorbidity. The most common diagnosis was anxiety (23%) followed by depression (17%); 28% of patients were treated pharmacologically. There were 45 patients (5%) treated pharmacologically without a psychiatric diagnosis for chronic pain syndromes, insomnia, and/or epilepsy. Cases with EoE with a psychiatric diagnosis were more likely to be women, white, and 18 years or older and to have a longer symptom duration before diagnosis. DICUSSION: Psychiatric comorbidities were common in EoE, seen in a third of adults and more than 1 in 7 children, and with similar proportions receiving a prescription medication. These illnesses affected the EoE presentation because psychiatric comorbidities were more likely in older, female, and white patients with a longer duration of symptoms preceding diagnosis.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Diagnosis and Current Management.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an eosinophil-rich, Th2 antigen-mediated disease of increasing worldwide prevalence. Originally considered common in children and young adults, it can be seen at any age, with the highest prevalence between 30 and 40 years. Symptoms reflect esophageal dysfunction, and typical endoscopic pictures consist of rings, furrows, exudates and edema. Progressive disease leads to pathologic tissue remodeling, with ensuing esophageal rigidity and loss of luminal diameter caused by strictures. The definitive diagnosis is histological (at least 15 eosinophils/HPF, high power field), upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with multiple esophageal biopsies being mandatory. Current therapeutic options include dietary and pharmacologic treatments. Despite being successful in a high proportion of patients, elemental diet has multiple disadvantages. Therefore, a step-up approach (using a two-, four- and six food elimination diets) is preferred, being globally effective in up to 79% of cases and avoiding unnecessary restrictions. Drug therapy relies on proton pump inhibitors and topical corticosteroids. Esophageal dilation may be required to increase luminal patency, leading to immediate symptomatic improvement in 95% of EoE patients, who have strictures or narrow caliber esophagus. The chronic nature of the disease necessitates long-term therapy. In this review, current diagnostic and treatment options are discussed and a treatment algorithm is proposed.