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.

Long-term Durability Between Parent and Child Patient Reported Outcomes in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Because young children cannot self-report symptoms, there is a need for parent surrogate reports. While early work suggested parent child alignment for eosinophil esophagitis (EoE) patient reported outcomes (PROs), the longitudinal alignment is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the agreement and longitudinal stability of PROs between children with EoE and their parents. METHODS: 292 parent-child respondents completed 723 completed questionnaires over 5 years in an observational trial in the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers. The change in and agreement between parent and child Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Symptom Score version 2 (PEESSv2.0) and Pediatric Quality of Life Eosinophilic Esophagitis Module (PedsQL-EoE) PROs over time were assessed using Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. Clinical factors influencing PROs and their agreement were evaluated using linear mixed models. RESULTS: The cohort had a median disease duration equalling 3.7 years and was predominantly male (73.6%) and white (85.3%). Child and parent PEESSv2.0 response groups were identified and were stable over time. There was strong correlation between child and parent report (PEESSv2.0 0.83, PedsQL-EoE 0.74) with minimal pairwise differences for symptoms. Longitudinally, parent-reported PedsQL-EoE scores were stable (p ≥ 0.32), whereas child-reported PedsQL-EoE scores improved (p = 0.026). A larger difference in parent and child PedsQL-EoE reports was associated with younger age (p < 0.001) and differences were driven by psychosocial PRO domains. CONCLUSION: There is strong longitudinal alignment between child and parent report using EoE PROs. These data provide evidence that parent report is a stable proxy for objective EoE symptoms in their children.

Prevalence and Predictors of Barrett's Esophagus After Negative Initial Endoscopy: Analysis From Two National Databases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines suggest a single screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to determine BE prevalence and predictors on repeat EGD after a negative initial EGD, using 2 large national databases (GI Quality Improvement Consortium [GIQuIC] and TriNetX). METHODS: Patients who underwent at least 2 EGDs were included and those with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma detected at initial EGD were excluded. Patient demographics and prevalence of BE on repeat EGD were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for independent risk factors for BE detected on the repeat EGD. RESULTS: In 214,318 and 153,445 patients undergoing at least 2 EGDs over a median follow-up of 28-35 months, the prevalence of BE on repeat EGD was 1.7% in GIQuIC and 3.4% in TriNetX, respectively (26%-45% of baseline BE prevalence). Most (89%) patients had nondysplastic BE. The prevalence of BE remained stable over time (from 1 to >5 years from negative initial EGD) but increased with increasing number of risk factors. BE prevalence in a high-risk population (gastroesophageal reflux disease plus ≥1 risk factor for BE) was 3%-4%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of >350,000 patients, rates of BE on repeat EGD ranged from 1.7%-3.4%, and were higher in those with multiple risk factors. Most were likely missed at initial evaluation, underscoring the importance of a high-quality initial endoscopic examination. Although routine repeat endoscopic BE screening after a negative initial examination is not recommended, repeat screening may be considered in carefully selected patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and ≥2 risk factors for BE, potentially using nonendoscopic tools.

Algorithm Training and Testing for a Nonendoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Detection Test in Prospective Multicenter Cohorts.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) detection is invasive and expensive. Nonendoscopic BE/EAC detection tools are guideline-endorsed alternatives. We previously described a 5-methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel assayed on encapsulated sponge cell collection device (CCD) specimens. We aimed to train a new algorithm using a 3-MDM panel and test its performance in an independent cohort. METHODS: Algorithm training and test samples were from 2 prospective multicenter cohorts. All BE cases had esophageal intestinal metaplasia (with or without dysplasia/EAC); control subjects had no endoscopic evidence of BE. The CCD procedure was followed by endoscopy. From CCD cell lysates, DNA was extracted, bisulfite treated, and MDMs were blindly assayed. The algorithm was set and locked using cross-validated logistic regression (training set) and its performance was assessed in an independent test set. RESULTS: Training (N = 352) and test (N = 125) set clinical characteristics were comparable. The final panel included 3 MDMs (NDRG4, VAV3, ZNF682). Overall sensitivity was 82% (95% CI, 68%-94%) at 90% (79%-98%) specificity and 88% (78%-94%) sensitivity at 84% (70%-93%) specificity in training and test sets, respectively. Sensitivity was 90% and 68% for all long- and short-segment BE, respectively. Sensitivity for BE with high-grade dysplasia and EAC was 100% in training and test sets. Overall sensitivity for nondysplastic BE was 82%. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for BE detection were 0.92 and 0.94 in the training and test sets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A locked 3-MDM panel algorithm for BE/EAC detection using a nonendoscopic CCD demonstrated excellent sensitivity for high-risk BE cases in independent validation samples. (Clinical trials.gov: NCT02560623, NCT03060642.).

Reducing Eosinophil Counts in Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children Is Associated With Reduction in Later Stricture Development.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited longitudinal data on the impact of chronic therapy on the natural history of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a chronic allergic disease of the esophagus. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if patients with well-controlled EoE were less likely to develop fibrostenotic complications. METHODS: Subjects were identified from a database of pediatric patients with EoE at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia started in 2000. Patients were then searched in adult medical records to identify patients who transitioned care. All office visits, emergency department visits, and endoscopic, histologic, and imaging reports were reviewed for the primary outcome of strictures and the secondary outcomes of food impactions and dysphagia. Cox proportional hazard regression was performed for outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred five patients were identified with the mean follow-up of 11.4 ± 4.9 years. 52.3% (n = 55) had a period of histologic disease control defined as ≥2 consecutive endoscopies with histologic remission. These patients were less likely to develop strictures compared with patients who did not have a period of histologic control (HR 0.232; 95% CI 0.084-0.64, P = 0.005). Patients who were diagnosed at younger ages were less likely to develop strictures. Presentation with dysphagia or impaction was associated with higher rate of stricture development. DISCUSSION: In this cohort study with > 10 years of follow-up, children with EoE with a period of histologic disease control and diagnosed at younger ages were less likely to develop esophageal strictures. While this suggests histologic remission is associated with reduction of remodeling complications, additional prospective data with long-term follow-up are needed.

A Delphi Method for Development of a Barrett's Esophagus Question Prompt List as a Communication Tool for Optimal Patient-physician Communication.

BACKGROUND METHODS: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?" Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as "essential" or "important" were included in Barrett's esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). RESULTS: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. CONCLUSIONS: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.

Exploring X: barriers to care for eosinophilic esophagitis.

Patients with chronic diseases have increasingly turned to social media to discuss symptoms and share the challenges they face with disease management. The primary aim of this study is to use naturally occurring data from X (formerly known as Twitter) to identify barriers to care faced by individuals affected by eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). For this qualitative study, the X application programming interface with academic research access was used to search for posts that referenced EoE between 1 January 2019 and 10 August 2022. The posts were identified as being either related to barriers to care for EoE or not. Those related to barriers to care were further categorized by the type of barrier that was expressed. A total of 8636 EoE-related posts were annotated of which 12.1% were related to barriers to care in EoE. The themes that emerged about barriers to care included: dietary challenges, limited treatment options, lack of community support, lack of physician awareness of disease, misinformation, cost of care, lack of patient belief in disease or trust in physician, and limited access to care. Saturation of themes was achieved. This study highlights barriers to care in EoE using readily accessible social media data that is not derived from a curated research setting. Identifying these obstacles is key to improving care for this chronic disease.

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.).

Antibiotic Exposure is Associated With a Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antibiotic exposure leads to changes in the gut microbiota. Our objective was to evaluate the association between antibiotic exposure and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) risk. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control study using data from the Veterans Health Administration from 2004 through 2020. The case group consisted of patients who received an incident diagnosis of EAC. For each case, up to 20 matched controls were selected using incidence density sampling. Our primary exposure of interest was any oral or intravenous antibiotic use. Our secondary exposures included cumulative number of days of exposure and classification of antibiotics by various subgroups. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the crude and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for the risk of EAC associated with antibiotic exposure. RESULTS: The case-control analysis included 8226 EAC cases and 140,670 matched controls. Exposure to any antibiotic was associated with an aOR for EAC of 1.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-1.83) vs no antibiotic exposure. Compared with no antibiotic exposure, the aOR for EAC was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.52-1.74; P < .001) for cumulative exposure to any antibiotic for 1 to 15 days; 1.77 (95% CI, 1.65-1.89; P < 0 .001) for 16 to 47 days; and 1.87 (95% CI, 1.75-2.01; P < .001) for ≥48 days, respectively (P for trend < .001). CONCLUSION: Exposure to any antibiotic is associated with an increased risk of EAC, and this risk increases as the cumulative days of exposure increase. This novel finding is hypothesis-generating for potential mechanisms that may play a role in the development or progression of EAC.

Esophageal Epithelium and Lamina Propria Are Unevenly Involved in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The nature of the involvement of esophageal tissue in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is unclear. We estimated the intrabiopsy site agreements of the EoE Histologic Scoring System (EoEHSS) scores for the grade (degree) and stage (extent) of involvement of the esophageal epithelial and lamina propria and examined if the EoE activity status influenced the intrabiopsy site agreement. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and EoEHSS scores collected as part of the prospective Outcome Measures for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases Across Ages study were analyzed. A weighted Cohen's kappa agreement coefficient (k) was used to calculate the pairwise agreements for proximal:distal, proximal:middle, and middle:distal esophageal biopsy sites, separately for grade and stage scores, for each of the 8 components of EoEHSS. A k > 0.75 was considered uniform involvement. Inactive EoE was defined as fewer than 15 eosinophils per high-powered field. RESULTS: EoEHSS scores from 1263 esophageal biopsy specimens were analyzed. The k for the stage of involvement of the dilated intercellular spaces across all 3 sites in inactive EoE was consistently greater than 0.75 (range, 0.87-0.99). The k for lamina propria fibrosis was greater than 0.75 across some of the biopsy sites but not across all 3. Otherwise, the k for all other features, for both grade and stage, irrespective of the disease activity status, was 0.75 or less (range, 0.00-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Except for the extent of involvement of dilated intercellular spaces in inactive EoE, the remaining epithelial features and lamina propria are involved unevenly across biopsy sites in EoE, irrespective of the disease activity status. This study enhances our understanding of the effects of EoE on esophageal tissue pathology.

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.

Rio de Janeiro Global Consensus on Landmarks, Definitions, and Classifications in Barrett's Esophagus: World Endoscopy Organization Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Despite the significant advances made in the diagnosis and treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE), there is still a need for standardized definitions, appropriate recognition of endoscopic landmarks, and consistent use of classification systems. Current controversies in basic definitions of BE and the relative lack of anatomic knowledge are significant barriers to uniform documentation. We aimed to provide consensus-driven recommendations for uniform reporting and global application. METHODS: The World Endoscopy Organization Barrett's Esophagus Committee appointed leaders to develop an evidence-based Delphi study. A working group of 6 members identified and formulated 23 statements, and 30 internationally recognized experts from 18 countries participated in 3 rounds of voting. We defined consensus as agreement by ≥80% of experts for each statement and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. RESULTS: After 3 rounds of voting, experts achieved consensus on 6 endoscopic landmarks (palisade vessels, gastroesophageal junction, squamocolumnar junction, lesion location, extraluminal compressions, and quadrant orientation), 13 definitions (BE, hiatus hernia, squamous islands, columnar islands, Barrett's endoscopic therapy, endoscopic resection, endoscopic ablation, systematic inspection, complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia, complete eradication of dysplasia, residual disease, recurrent disease, and failure of endoscopic therapy), and 4 classification systems (Prague, Los Angeles, Paris, and Barrett's International NBI Group). In round 1, 18 statements (78%) reached consensus, with 12 (67%) receiving strong agreement from more than half of the experts. In round 2, 4 of the remaining statements (80%) reached consensus, with 1 statement receiving strong agreement from 50% of the experts. In the third round, a consensus was reached on the remaining statement. CONCLUSIONS: We developed evidence-based, consensus-driven statements on endoscopic landmarks, definitions, and classifications of BE. These recommendations may facilitate global uniform reporting in BE.

Loss of Endothelial TSPAN12 Promotes Fibrostenotic Eosinophilic Esophagitis via Endothelial Cell-Fibroblast Crosstalk.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) can progress to fibrostenosis by unclear mechanisms. Herein, we investigated gene dysregulation in fibrostenotic EoE, its association with clinical parameters and specific pathways, and the functional consequences. METHODS: Esophageal biopsies from subjects with EoE were collected across 11 Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers sites (n = 311) and 2 independent replication cohorts (n = 83). Inclusion criteria for fibrostenotic EoE were endoscopic rings, stricture, and/or a history of dilation. Endoscopic, histologic, and molecular features were assessed by the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score, EoE Histology Scoring System, EoE Diagnostic Panel, and RNA sequencing. Esophageal endothelial TSPAN12 expression and functional effects on barrier integrity and gene expression were analyzed in vitro. RESULTS: TSPAN12 was the gene most correlated with fibrostenosis (r = -0.40, P < .001). TSPAN12 was lower in fibrostenotic EoE and correlated with EoE Endoscopic Reference Score, EoE Diagnostic Panel, and EoE Histology Scoring System (r = 0.34-0.47, P < .001). Lower TSPAN12 associated with smaller esophageal diameter (r = 0.44, P = .03), increased lamina propria fibrosis (r = -0.41, P < .001), and genes enriched in cell cycle-related pathways. Interleukin (IL)-13 reduced TSPAN12 expression in endothelial cells. Conversely, anti-IL-13 therapy increased TSPAN12 expression. TSPAN12 gene silencing increased endothelial cell permeability and dysregulated genes associated with extracellular matrix pathways. Endothelial cell-fibroblast crosstalk induced extracellular matrix changes relevant to esophageal remodeling. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with fibrostenotic EoE express decreased levels of endothelial TSPAN12. We propose that IL-13 decreases TSPAN12, likely contributing to the chronicity of EoE by promoting tissue remodeling through fibroblast-endothelial cell crosstalk.

Evaluating Eosinophilic Colitis as a Unique Disease Using Colonic Molecular Profiles: A Multi-Site Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonic eosinophilia, an enigmatic finding often referred to as eosinophilic colitis (EoC), is a poorly understood condition. Whether EoC is a distinct disease or a colonic manifestation of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is undetermined. METHODS: Subjects with EoC (n = 27) and controls (normal [NL, n = 20], Crohn's disease [CD, n = 14]) were enrolled across sites associated with the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers. EoC was diagnosed as colonic eosinophilia (ascending ≥100, descending ≥85, sigmoid ≥65 eosinophils/high-power field) with related symptoms. Colon biopsies were subjected to RNA sequencing. Associations between gene expression and histologic features were analyzed with Spearman correlation; operational pathways and cellular constituents were computationally derived. RESULTS: We identified 987 differentially expressed genes (EoC transcriptome) between EoC and NL (>1.5-fold change, P < .05). Colonic eosinophil count correlated with 31% of EoC transcriptome, most notably with CCL11 and CLC (r = 0.78 and 0.77, P < .0001). Among EoC and other EGIDs, there was minimal transcriptomic overlap and minimal evidence of a strong allergic type 2 immune response in EoC compared with other EGIDs. Decreased cell cycle and increased apoptosis in EoC compared with NL were identified by functional enrichment analysis and immunostaining using Ki-67 and cleaved caspase-3. Pericryptal circumferential eosinophil collars were associated with the EoC transcriptome (P < .001). EoC transcriptome-based scores were reversible with disease remission and differentiated EoC from IBD, even after controlling for colonic eosinophil levels (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: We established EoC transcriptomic profiles, identified mechanistic pathways, and integrated findings with parallel IBD and EGID data. These findings establish EoC as a distinct disease compared with other EGIDs and IBD, thereby providing a basis for improving diagnosis and treatment.

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.

Patient Knowledge, Risk Perception, and Barriers to Barrett's Esophagus Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not have a previous diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE), demonstrating a failure of current screening practices. An understanding of patient attitudes and barriers is essential to develop and implement interventions to improve BE screening adherence. METHODS: We conducted a Web-based survey of patients aged >50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease at 3 academic medical centers and 1 affiliated safety net health systems. Survey domains included patient characteristics, endoscopy history, familiarity with screening practices, perceived BE/EAC risk, and barriers to screening. RESULTS: We obtained a response rate of 22.6% (472/2,084) (74% men, mean age 67.9 years). Self-identified race and ethnicity of participants was 66.5% non-Hispanic White, 20.0% non-Hispanic Black, 13.4% other race, and 7.1% Hispanic. Screening for BE was recommended in only 13.2%, and only 5.3% reported previous screening. Respondents had notable gaps in knowledge about screening indications; only two-thirds correctly identified BE risk factors and only 19.5% believed BE screening was needed for gastroesophageal reflux disease. More than 1 in 5 respondents believed they would get BE (31.9%) or EAC (20.2%) but reported barriers to screening. Compared with White respondents, more Black respondents were concerned about getting BE/EAC and interested in screening but report higher barriers to screening. DISCUSSION: Patients at risk for BE, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, are worried about developing EAC but rarely undergo screening and have poor understanding of screening recommendations.

Patients With Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With Prior Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptoms Are Similar to Those Without Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: A substantial proportion of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not report gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. This study aimed to compare the risk factor profiles and cancer stage at presentation of patients with EAC with and without prior GERD. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, patients with EAC were divided into 2 cohorts: (i) EAC with prior GERD: patients who reported typical GERD symptoms (heartburn or regurgitation) ≥1 year before cancer diagnosis and (ii) EAC without prior GERD: patients who did not report prior GERD symptoms or reported symptoms within 1 year of their cancer diagnosis. Baseline demographics, risk factors, and cancer stage at presentation were compared between the 2 cohorts. In addition, the distribution of patients based on numbers of BE/EAC-associated risk factors (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or more) was examined in the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. RESULTS: Over 13 years, 388 patients with EAC with prior GERD and 245 patients with EAC without prior GERD were recruited. Both groups had similar baseline demographics and risk factors, but patients with EAC with prior GERD were more likely to have a history of BE. Asymptomatic patients had more advanced disease. Patients with 3 or more BE/EAC-related risk factors formed the largest proportion of patients in both the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. DISCUSSION: Patients with EAC with and without prior GERD symptoms are phenotypically similar, suggesting that BE screening efforts to prevent or detect early EAC should not be restricted to just those with GERD.

Real-world evidence of safety and effectiveness of Barrett's endoscopic therapy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Real-world data on the adverse events and the survival benefit of Barrett's endoscopic therapy (BET) are limited. The aim of this study was to examine the safety and effectiveness (survival benefit) of BET in patients with neoplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE). METHODS: An electronic health record-based database (TriNetX) was used to select patients with BE with dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) from 2016 to 2020. Primary outcome was 3-year mortality among patients with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC who underwent BET versus 2 comparison cohorts: patients with HGD or EAC who had not undergone BET and patients with GERD but no BE/EAC. Secondary outcome was adverse events (esophageal perforation, upper GI bleeding, chest pain, and esophageal stricture) after BET. To control for confounding variables, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. RESULTS: We identified 27,556 patients with BE and dysplasia, of whom 5295 underwent BET. After propensity score matching, patients with HGD and EAC who underwent BET had significantly lower 3-year mortality (HGD risk ratio [RR], .59; 95% CI, .49-.71; EAC RR, .53; 95% CI, .44-.65) compared with corresponding cohorts who did not undergo BET (P < .001). There was no difference in median 3-year mortality between control subjects (GERD without BE/EAC) compared with patients with HGD (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, .84-1.27) who underwent BET. Finally, there was no difference in median 3-year mortality between patients who underwent BET compared with patients who underwent esophagectomy among both HGD (RR, .67; 95% CI, .39-1.14; P =.14) and EAC (RR, .73; 95% CI, .47-1.13; P = .14). Esophageal stricture was the most common adverse event (6.5%) after BET. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world, population-based evidence from this large database shows that endoscopic therapy is safe and effective for patients with BE. Endoscopic therapy is associated with a significantly lower 3-year mortality; however, it leads to esophageal strictures in 6.5% of treated patients.

Long-term outcomes following successful endoscopic treatment of T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is guideline endorsed for management of early-stage (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Patients with baseline high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and EAC are at highest risk of recurrence after successful EET, but limited data exist on long-term (>5 year) recurrence outcomes. Our aim was to assess the incidence and predictors of long-term recurrence in a multicenter cohort of patients with T1 EAC treated with EET. METHODS: Patients with T1 EAC achieving successful endoscopic cancer eradication with a minimum of 5 years' clinical follow-up were included. The primary outcome was neoplastic recurrence, defined as dysplasia or EAC, and it was characterized as early (<2 years), intermediate (2-5 years), or late (>5 years). Predictors of recurrence were assessed by time to event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 84 T1 EAC patients (75 T1a, 9 T1b) with a median 9.1 years (range, 5.1-18.3 years) of follow-up were included. The overall incidence of neoplastic recurrence was 2.0 per 100 person-years of follow-up. Seven recurrences (3 dysplasia, 4 EAC) occurred after 5 years of EAC remission. Overall, 88% of recurrences were treated successfully endoscopically. EAC recurrence-related mortality occurred in 3 patients at a median of 5.2 years from EAC remission. Complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia was independently associated with reduced recurrence (hazard ratio, .13). CONCLUSIONS: Following successful EET of T1 EAC, neoplastic recurrence occurred after 5 years in 8.3% of cases. Careful long-term surveillance should be continued in this patient population. Complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia should be the therapeutic end point for EET.

Pooled Phase 2 and 3 Efficacy and Safety Data on Budesonide Oral Suspension in Adolescents with Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) in adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). METHODS: This post hoc analysis pooled data from two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of BOS 2.0 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (phase 2, NCT01642212; phase 3, NCT02605837) in patients aged 11-17 years with EoE and dysphagia. Efficacy endpoints included histologic (≤6, ≤1, and <15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]), dysphagia symptom (≥30% reduction in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ] scores from baseline), and clinicopathologic (≤6 eos/hpf and ≥30% reduction in DSQ scores from baseline) responses at week 12. Change from baseline to week 12 in peak eosinophil counts, DSQ scores, EoE Histology Scoring System (EoEHSS) grade (severity) and stage (extent) total score ratios (TSRs), and total EoE Endoscopic Reference Scores (EREFS) were assessed. Safety outcomes were also examined. RESULTS: Overall, 76 adolescents were included (BOS, n = 45; placebo, n = 31). Significantly more patients who received BOS than placebo achieved histologic responses (≤6 eos/hpf: 46.7% vs 6.5%; ≤1 eos/hpf: 42.2% vs 0.0%; <15 eos/hpf: 53.3% vs 9.7%; P < 0.001) and a clinicopathologic response (31.1% vs 3.2%; P = 0.003) at week 12. More BOS-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a dysphagia symptom response at week 12 (68.9% vs 58.1%; not statistically significant P = 0.314). BOS-treated patients had significantly greater reductions in EoEHSS grade and stage TSRs ( P < 0.001) and total EREFS ( P = 0.021) from baseline to week 12 than placebo-treated patients. BOS was well tolerated, with no clinically meaningful differences in adverse events versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: BOS 2.0 mg b.i.d. significantly improved most efficacy outcomes in adolescents with EoE versus placebo.