Efficacy of Atopy Patch Testing in Directed Dietary Therapy of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Atopy patch testing (APT) has shown potential for predicting dietary food triggers in studies of children and adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). AIMS: To assess the efficacy of APT in adults with EoE. METHODS: We conducted a prospective open-label pilot study of patients ≥ 18 years old with diagnosis of EoE at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from November 2014 to January 2016. All patients underwent patch testing using intact food products, followed by a six food elimination diet and stepwise food reintroduction. Response to elimination diet was assessed with serial endoscopy with biopsies as well as clinical symptoms. APT results were directly compared to elimination diet results for assessment of efficacy. Correlation between clinical symptoms, endoscopic score, and histology was also qualitatively evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty percent of the patients had a positive APT, while only 16% had an APT result confirmed histologically during food reintroduction. Sensitivity of APT was calculated to be 5.9%, with specificity of 92.0%. Furthermore, we found significant qualitative inter-patient heterogeneity in the correlation between clinical symptoms, EREFS score, and histology. CONCLUSIONS: APT does not reliably predict food triggers identified by food elimination diet in adult patients with EoE. As a result, APT does not have a clear role in the evaluation of patients with EoE.

Montelukast Does not Maintain Symptom Remission After Topical Steroid Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene type-1 receptor blocker, has been shown in small retrospective studies to reduce symptoms in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to determine whether montelukast maintains symptomatic remission induced by topical steroid therapy in patients with EoE. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of adult patients with EoE (solid-food dysphagia and a peak esophageal eosinophil count of >20 cells/high-powered field) enrolled at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from April 2008 through February 2015. All patients had been treated previously for at least 6 weeks with a topical steroid until their symptoms were in remission. Steroids were discontinued and patients then were assigned randomly to groups given montelukast (20 mg/day, n = 20) or placebo (n = 21) for 26 weeks (groups were matched for age, sex, history of allergic disease, reflux symptoms, and endoscopic findings of EoE). Study participants were assessed via a structured telephone interview at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. Remission was defined as the absence of solid-food dysphagia. RESULTS: Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, after 26 weeks, 40.0% of subjects in the montelukast group and 23.8% in the placebo group were in remission. The odds ratio for remission in the montelukast group was 0.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.10-2.16) (P = .33). No side effects were reported from either group. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized controlled trial of the ability of montelukast to maintain remission in patients in remission from EoE after steroid therapy, we found montelukast to be well tolerated; 40% of patients remained in remission, but this proportion did not differ significantly from that of the placebo group. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00511316.

Accuracy, safety, and tolerability of tissue collection by Cytosponge vs endoscopy for evaluation of eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires repeated endoscopic collection of mucosal samples to assess disease activity and response to therapy. An easier and less expensive means of monitoring of EoE is required. We compared the accuracy, safety, and tolerability of sample collection via Cytosponge (an ingestible gelatin capsule comprising compressed mesh attached to a string) with those of endoscopy for assessment of EoE. METHODS: Esophageal tissues were collected from 20 patients with EoE (all with dysphagia, 15 with stricture, 13 with active EoE) via Cytosponge and then by endoscopy. Number of eosinophils/high-power field and levels of eosinophil-derived neurotoxin were determined; hematoxylin-eosin staining was performed. We compared the adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, safety, and patient preference for sample collection via Cytosponge vs endoscopy procedures. RESULTS: All 20 samples collected by Cytosponge were adequate for analysis. By using a cutoff value of 15 eosinophils/high power field, analysis of samples collected by Cytosponge identified 11 of the 13 individuals with active EoE (83%); additional features such as abscesses were also identified. Numbers of eosinophils in samples collected by Cytosponge correlated with those in samples collected by endoscopy (r = 0.50, P = .025). Analysis of tissues collected by Cytosponge identified 4 of the 7 patients without active EoE (57% specificity), as well as 3 cases of active EoE not identified by analysis of endoscopy samples. Including information on level of eosinophil-derived neurotoxin did not increase the accuracy of diagnosis. No complications occurred during the Cytosponge procedure, which was preferred by all patients, compared with endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: In a feasibility study, the Cytosponge is a safe and well-tolerated method for collecting near mucosal specimens. Analysis of numbers of eosinophils/high-power field identified patients with active EoE with 83% sensitivity. Larger studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of this method of esophageal tissue collection. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01585103.

The diagnosis of esophageal eosinophilia is not increased in the summer months.

Smaller studies have suggested seasonal variation of the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis with more patients being diagnosed in the aeroallergen season. We evaluated a large group of adult patients for a seasonal variation of the diagnosis of symptomatic eosinophilic esophageal infiltration. We performed a retrospective review of adult patients from a large Eosinophilic esophagitis database at the Mayo Clinic Rochester. We only included patients from three states in the upper Midwest, who had 15 or more eosinophils per high-power field on esophageal biopsy, symptomatic dysphagia, and were seen, in our Gastroenterology Clinic between 2000 and 2008. Clinical data were abstracted and the month of diagnosis was determined. The Rayleigh circular test and the Chi-square goodness-of-fit test were used to detect seasonality of symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia diagnosis and seasonality corrected for esophagogastroduodenoscopy monthly volume. The diagnosis of symptomatic eosinophilic esophageal infiltration was made in 372 patients. The mean number of eosinophils was 39.6 per high-power field. The December/January and May/June periods seem to have an increased presentation rate (p = 0.014). Of those tested, reactions to any aeroallergen was present in 69 % (48/70), reactions to >4 aeroallergens in 47 % (33/70) and reactions to any food allergen in 63 % (50/80) of patients. There was no evidence of monthly concentration of symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia diagnosis in the subgroups of patients with any positive aeroallergen, >4 positive aeroallergens, or history of atopy. The diagnosis of symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia is not made more frequently in the summer months.

Swallowed fluticasone improves histologic but not symptomatic response of adults with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We evaluated the effect of aerosolized fluticasone therapy on symptomatic dysphagia and histologic eosinophilia in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). METHODS: We performed a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of fluticasone in 42 adult patients with a new diagnosis of EoE (30 men; mean age, 37.5 y). Participants were assigned randomly to groups that swallowed 880 µg of aerosolized fluticasone twice daily (n = 21), or took a placebo inhaler twice daily (n = 15) for 6 weeks. End points of the study were symptomatic and histologic response. RESULTS: A complete histologic response (>90% decrease in mean eosinophil count) was observed in 11 of 15 subjects who received 6 weeks of fluticasone (62%), compared with none of the 15 subjects who received placebo (P < .001), based on intention-to-treat analysis; histologic responses were observed in 68% of subjects who received fluticasone (13 of 19) compared with none of those who received placebo (0 of 15) by per-protocol analysis (P < .001). Intracellular staining for eosinophil-derived neurotoxin was reduced in 81% of subjects who received fluticasone (13 of 16) compared with 8% who received placebo (1 of 13) (P < .001). Dysphagia was reduced in 57% of subjects who received fluticasone (12 of 21) compared with 33% who received placebo (7 of 21) (P = .22) by intention-to-treat analysis; dysphagia was reduced in 63% of patients who received fluticasone (12 of 19) and 47% of those who received placebo (7 of 15) (P = .49) based on per-protocol analysis. Esophageal candidiasis developed in 26% of subjects who received fluticasone (5 of 19), but in none of the subjects in the placebo group (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Aerosolized, swallowed fluticasone leads to a histologic but not a symptomatic response in adults with EoE.

Prevalence and predictive factors of eosinophilic esophagitis in patients presenting with dysphagia: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) is an increasingly recognized cause of dysphagia. We prospectively assessed the prevalence of EE using midesophageal biopsies in patients presenting with no endoscopically evident cause of dysphagia. We also aimed to determine the clinical and endoscopic factors predictive of EE in outpatients undergoing endoscopy for dysphagia. METHODS: Outpatients (18-60 yr of age) undergoing endoscopy for dysphagia at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between June 2005 and June 2006 were enrolled. Patients completed the validated Mayo Dysphagia Questionnaire (MDQ). Biopsies were obtained from the midesophagus if there was no endoscopically evident cause of dysphagia or there were endoscopic findings suggestive of EE. EE was defined as the presence of >20 eosinophils/high-power field. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of EE. RESULTS: Of 376 patients enrolled, 238 (63%) completed the MDQ and 222 (59%) had midesophageal biopsies; 33 (15%, 95% CI 6%-12%) had EE by biopsy. Ten of 102 (9.8%) patients who appeared endoscopically normal had EE by biopsy, while 8 of 21 (38%) patients with endoscopic changes suggestive of EE had EE on biopsy. Predictors of EE were younger age, endoscopic features suggestive of EE, absence of use of proton pump inhibitors, and a history of any food impaction for greater than 5 min. CONCLUSIONS: Midesophageal biopsies from normal-appearing mucosa should be obtained in all patients with unexplained solid food dysphagia; this may diagnose EE in about one in 10 cases.