Incidence and risk factors of reflux esophagitis after peroral endoscopic myotomy.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an effective and safe treatment for achalasia, but often leads to posttreatment gastroesophageal reflux disease. The aim of this study was to examine the incidence and severity of reflux esophagitis after POEM and to identify associated predictive factors. METHODS: Patients who underwent POEM between August 2011 and December 2022 were included. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess predictive factors for reflux esophagitis after POEM. KEY RESULTS: In total, 252 patients were included; of which, 46% were female and age ranged between 18 and 87 years. Reflux esophagitis within 1 year after POEM was observed in 131 patients (52%), which was severe in 29 patients (LA grade C/D, 12%). Length of full-thickness myotomy (cm; OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21), Eckardt scores before POEM (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74-0.96), previous pneumatic dilation (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29-0.91), and previous laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.86) were associated with reflux esophagitis after POEM. Alcohol use (none vs > 7 units per week; OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.35-9.11) and overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2; OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.17-6.09) were positive predictive factors and previous LHM (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.95) was a negative predictive factor for severe reflux esophagitis after POEM (LA grade C/D). CONCLUSION: About half of the patients develop reflux esophagitis after POEM and 12% is graded as severe. Recognizing predictive factors of reflux esophagitis after POEM treatment leads to better patient selection before POEM and provides an opportunity to take preventive measures or start preemptive treatment.

Transcriptomic profiling of the acute mucosal response to local food injections in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Exposure of the esophageal mucosa to food allergens can cause acute mucosal responses in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but the underlying local immune mechanisms driving these acute responses are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: We sought to gain insight into the early transcriptomic changes that occur during an acute mucosal response to food allergens in EoE. METHODS: Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on esophageal biopsy specimens from adult patients with EoE (n = 5) collected before and 20 minutes after intramucosal injection of various food extracts in the esophagus. Baseline biopsy specimens from control subjects without EoE (n = 5) were also included. RESULTS: At baseline, the transcriptome of the patients with EoE showed increased expression of genes related to an EoE signature. After local food injection, we identified 40 genes with a potential role in the early immune response to food allergens (most notably CEBPB, IL1B, TNFSF18, PHLDA2, and SLC15A3). These 40 genes were enriched in processes related to immune activation, such as the acute-phase response, cellular responses to external stimuli, and cell population proliferation. TNFSF18 (also called GITRL), a member of the TNF superfamily that is best studied for its costimulatory effect on T cells, was the most dysregulated early EoE gene, showing a 12-fold increase compared with baseline and an 18-fold increase compared with a negative visual response. Further experiments showed that the esophageal epithelium may be an important source of TNFSF18 in EoE, which was rapidly induced by costimulating esophageal epithelial cells with the EoE-relevant cytokines IL-13 and TNF-α. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide unprecedented insight into the transcriptomic changes that mediate the acute mucosal immune response to food allergens in EoE and suggest that TNFSF18 may be an important effector molecule in this response.

Ziverel for PPI-refractory reflux symptoms: efficacy and mechanisms of action in humans.

OBJECTIVES: It is thought that esophageal hypersensitivity in combination with an impaired mucosal barrier function contributes to PPI-resistant reflux symptoms. Ziverel, a bioadhesive agent that coats the esophageal wall, was shown to have a positive effect on reflux symptoms. However, the mechanisms of action are unclear. We aimed to assess the effect of Ziverel on esophageal sensitivity to acid and mucosal barrier function. METHODS: We performed a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial in PPI-refractory patients with reflux symptoms. Patients were assigned (1:1) to 14 days of Ziverel followed by 14 days of placebo or opposite treatment order. The effect was evaluated using acid perfusion tests, an upper endoscopy with electrical tissue impedance spectroscopy (ETIS) and esophageal biopsies. The primary outcome was the esophageal sensitivity based on perfusion sensitivity score. Secondary outcomes included mucosal barrier function and reflux symptoms and correlations between the different outcomes. RESULTS: Perfusion sensitivity score was not significantly different during treatment with Ziverel (106 (73-115)) and placebo (102 (67-110)) (p = 0.508) along with total RDQ score (2.6 (1.9-3.3) vs 2.8 (1.6-3.5) p = 0.456). ETIS showed comparable values during treatment with Ziverel (13514 (8846-19734)Ω·m) and placebo (13217 (9127-24942)Ω·m (p = 0.650)). Comparing Ziverel and placebo no difference was seen in transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) 203 (163-267) Ω.cm2 vs 205 (176-240) Ω.cm2 (p = 0.445) and fluorescein flux 775 (17-6964) nmol/cm2/h vs 187 (4-12209) nmol/cm2/h (p = 0.638). CONCLUSION: Ziverel did not show a benefit on acid sensitivity, reflux symptoms or esophageal mucosal integrity compared to placebo in PPI-refractory patients with reflux symptoms.Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register number: NL7670.

10-year follow-up results of the European Achalasia Trial: a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing pneumatic dilation with laparoscopic Heller myotomy.

OBJECTIVE: As achalasia is a chronic disorder, long-term follow-up data comparing different treatments are essential to select optimal clinical management. Here, we report on the 10-year follow-up of the European Achalasia Trial comparing endoscopic pneumodilation (PD) with laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). DESIGN: A total of 201 newly diagnosed patients with achalasia were randomised to either a series of PDs (n=96) or LHM (n=105). Patients completed symptom (Eckardt score) and quality-of-life questionnaires, underwent functional tests and upper endoscopy. Primary outcome was therapeutic success defined as Eckardt score <3 at yearly follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the need for retreatment, lower oesophageal sphincter pressure, oesophageal emptying, gastro-oesophageal reflux and the rate of complications. RESULTS: After 10 years of follow-up, LHM (n=40) and PD (n=36) were equally effective in both the full analysis set (74% vs 74%, p=0.84) and the per protocol set (74% vs 86%, respectively, p=0.07). Subgroup analysis revealed that PD was superior to LHM for type 2 achalasia (p=0.03) while there was a trend, although not significant (p=0.05), that LHM performed better for type 3 achalasia. Barium column height after 5 min at timed barium oesophagram was significantly higher for patients treated with PD compared with LHM, while other parameters, including gastro-oesophageal reflux, were not different. CONCLUSIONS: PD and LHM are equally effective even after 10 years of follow-up with limited risk to develop gastro-oesophageal reflux. Based on these data, we conclude that PD and LHM can both be proposed as initial treatment of achalasia.

Management advice for patients with reflux-like symptoms: an evidence-based consensus.

Patients with reflux-like symptoms (heartburn and regurgitation) are often not well advised on implementing individualised strategies to help control their symptoms using dietary changes, lifestyle modifications, behavioural changes or fast-acting rescue therapies. One reason for this may be the lack of emphasis in management guidelines owing to 'low-quality' evidence and a paucity of interventional studies. Thus, a panel of 11 gastroenterologists and primary care doctors used the Delphi method to develop consolidated advice for patients based on expert consensus. A steering committee selected topics for literature searches using the PubMed database, and a modified Delphi process including two online meetings and two rounds of voting was conducted to generate consensus statements based on prespecified criteria (67% voting 'strongly agree' or 'agree with minor reservation'). After expert discussion and two rounds of voting, 21 consensus statements were generated, and assigned strength of evidence and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) rating. Eleven statements achieved the strongest (100%) agreement: five are related to diet and include identification and avoidance of dietary triggers, limiting alcohol, coffee and carbonated beverages, and advising patients troubled by postprandial symptoms not to overeat; the remaining six statements concern advice around smoking cessation, weight loss, raising the head-of-the-bed, avoiding recumbency after meals, stress reduction and alginate use. The aim of developing the consensus statements is that they may serve as a foundation for tools and advice that can routinely help patients with reflux-like symptoms better understand the causes of their symptoms and manage their individual risk factors and triggers.

Protocol for an international multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing treatment success and safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs endoscopic balloon dilation for the treatment of achalasia in children.

INTRODUCTION: Achalasia is a rare neurodegenerative esophageal motility disorder characterized by incomplete lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxation, increased LES tone and absence of esophageal peristalsis. Achalasia requires invasive treatment in all patients. Conventional treatment options include endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) and laparoscopic Heller's myotomy (LHM). Recently, a less invasive endoscopic therapy has been developed; Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM). POEM integrates the theoretical advantages of both EBD and LHM (no skin incisions, less pain, short hospital stay, less blood loss and a durable myotomy). Our aim is to compare efficacy and safety of POEM vs. EBD as primary treatment for achalasia in children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multi-center, and center-stratified block-randomized controlled trial will assess safety and efficacy of POEM vs EBD. Primary outcome measure is the need for retreatment due to treatment failure (i.e. persisting symptoms (Eckardt score > 3) with evidence of recurrence on barium swallow and/or HRM within 12 months follow-up) as assed by a blinded end-point committee (PROBE design). DISCUSSION: This RCT will be the first one to evaluate which endoscopic therapy is most effective and safe for treatment of naïve pediatric patients with achalasia.

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab up to 52 weeks in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic oesophagitis (LIBERTY EoE TREET study): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term management options that specifically target the underlying inflammation in eosinophilic oesophagitis are needed. Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13; we aimed to assess its long-term efficacy and safety in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic oesophagitis enrolled in part B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET study who continued to part C (part B-C). METHODS: LIBERTY EoE TREET was a three-part, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study conducted at 65 hospitals and private clinics across ten countries in Australia, Canada, Europe, and the USA. Adults or adolescents (aged ≥12 years) with a diagnosis of eosinophilic oesophagitis by endoscopic biopsy (peak oesophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]) from at least one oesophageal region despite 8 weeks of high-dose proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and a Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score of at least 10 at baseline were eligible. In part B, patients were randomly (1:1:1) assigned to receive subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg either weekly or every 2 weeks or weekly placebo until week 24. Randomisation was done centrally by interactive voice response system/web response system (IVRS/IWRS) in blocks and stratified according to age (<18 years vs ≥18 years) and use of PPI at randomisation (yes vs no). Patients, study sponsors, and investigators involved in the study were masked to the randomisation outcome. Eligible patients who received placebo in part B and continued to part C were randomly assigned again (1:1) to either weekly dupilumab (placebo/weekly dupilumab group) or dupilumab every 2 weeks (placebo/dupilumab every 2 weeks), with matching placebo alternating with dupilumab doses. Patients who were randomly assigned to one of the dupilumab dose regimens in part B remained on the same regimen in part C for an additional 28 weeks (weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group or dupilumab every 2 weeks/dupilumab every 2 weeks group). Treatment assignment in part C was managed by IVRS/IWRS to maintain blinding of treatment assignment in part B. The primary endpoint of this trial has been reported; here, we report the week 52 outcomes of part B-C. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the part C safety-analysis set, which included all patients who were randomised in part B, entered part C, and received any study drug in part C. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03633617. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2019, and March 11, 2021, 240 patients were randomly assigned into part B, of whom 227 (74 in placebo group, 74 in weekly dupilumab group, and 79 in dupilumab every 2 weeks group) continued into part B-C and were included in the current analysis. 37 patients switched from placebo to weekly dupilumab, and 37 from placebo to dupilumab every 2 weeks; 74 patients continued on weekly dupilumab and 79 continued on dupilumab every 2 weeks. Of the patients who entered part B-C, 75 (33%) were adolescents, 145 (64%) male, 82 (36%) female, and 206 (91%) White. At week 52, 55 (85%) patients in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, 25 (68%) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, 54 (74%) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and 23 (72%) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group achieved a peak oesophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count of 6 eos/hpf or less. Mean percent change from part B baseline in peak eosinophil count was -95·9% (95% CI -96·9 to -94·9) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, -84·2% (-98·3 to -70·2) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, -84·8% (-94·3 to -75·2) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and -91·2% (-95·9 to -86·5) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group at week 52. At week 52, mean change from part B baseline in eosinophilic oesophagitis Histology Scoring System (HSS) grade score was -1·0 point (95% CI -1·1 to -0·9) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group and -0·9 points (-1·0 to -0·8) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group; mean change in eosinophilic oesophagitis HSS stage score was -0·9 points (-1·0 to -0·8) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group and -0·9 points (-1·0 to -0·8) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group. Similar improvements were observed in the every 2 weeks dupilumab groups. Mean absolute change from part B baseline in DSQ score was -30·3 points (95% CI -34·5 to -26·1) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, -27·3 points (-32·1 to -22·4) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, -20·9% (-25·4 to -16·3) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and -23·7% (-29·1 to -18·3) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group at week 52. Mean change from part B baseline in endoscopic reference score was -5·4 points (95% CI -6·1 to -4·6) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, -6·1 points (-7·3 to -4·9) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, -5·2% (-6·0 to -4·4) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and -4·3% (-5·4 to -3·1) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group at week 52. During part B-C, one (3%) patient in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, one (1%) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, and one (3%) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group received rescue medication. One (3%) patient in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group and one (1%) in the dupilumab every 2 weeks/dupilumab every 2 weeks group underwent a rescue oesophageal dilation procedure. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were injection-site reactions (ten [14%] in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group and four [11%] in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group). INTERPRETATION: Improvements in histological, symptomatic, endoscopic, and molecular features of eosinophilic oesophagitis observed after 24 weeks of weekly dupilumab treatment were maintained or continued to improve to week 52. These findings reinforce the importance of weekly dupilumab, rather than every 2 weeks, for the improvement of symptoms in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic oesophagitis. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Performance of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Recognition and Quantitation of Histologic Features of Eosinophilic Esophagitis on Biopsy Samples.

We have developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-based digital pathology model for the evaluation of histologic features related to eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). In this study, we evaluated the performance of our AI model in a cohort of pediatric and adult patients for histologic features included in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histologic Scoring System (EoEHSS). We collected a total of 203 esophageal biopsy samples from patients with mucosal eosinophilia of any degree (91 adult and 112 pediatric patients) and 10 normal controls from a prospectively maintained database. All cases were assessed by a specialized gastrointestinal (GI) pathologist for features in the EoEHSS at the time of original diagnosis and rescored by a central GI pathologist (R.K.M.). We subsequently analyzed whole-slide image digital slides using a supervised AI model operating in a cloud-based, deep learning AI platform (Aiforia Technologies) for peak eosinophil count (PEC) and several histopathologic features in the EoEHSS. The correlation and interobserver agreement between the AI model and pathologists (Pearson correlation coefficient [rs] = 0.89 and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.87 vs original pathologist; rs = 0.91 and ICC = 0.83 vs central pathologist) were similar to the correlation and interobserver agreement between pathologists for PEC (rs = 0.88 and ICC = 0.91) and broadly similar to those for most other histologic features in the EoEHSS. The AI model also accurately identified PEC of >15 eosinophils/high-power field by the original pathologist (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.98) and central pathologist (AUC = 0.98) and had similar AUCs for the presence of EoE-related endoscopic features to pathologists' assessment. Average eosinophils per epithelial unit area had similar performance compared to AI high-power field-based analysis. Our newly developed AI model can accurately identify, quantify, and score several of the main histopathologic features in the EoE spectrum, with agreement regarding EoEHSS scoring which was similar to that seen among GI pathologists.

Postendoscopy Care for Patients Presenting With Esophageal Food Bolus Impaction: A Population-Based Multicenter Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal food bolus impactions (FBI) are a common gastrointestinal emergency. Appropriate management includes not only index endoscopy for disimpaction but also medical follow-up and treatment for the underlying esophageal pathology. We evaluated the appropriateness of postendoscopy care for patients with FBI and assessed patient-related, physician-related, and system-related factors that may contribute to loss to follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based, multicenter cohort study of all adult patients undergoing endoscopy for FBI in the Calgary Health Zone, Canada, from 2016 to 2018. Appropriate postendoscopy care was defined by a composite of a clinical or endoscopic follow-up visit, appropriate investigations (e.g., manometry), or therapy (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors or endoscopic dilation). Predictors of inappropriate care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 519 patients underwent endoscopy for FBI: 25.2% (131/519) did not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. Half of the patients (55.3%, 287/519) underwent follow-up endoscopy or attended clinic, and among this group, 22.3% (64/287) had a change in their initial diagnosis after follow-up, including 3 new cases of esophageal cancer. Patients in whom a suspected underlying esophageal pathology was not identified at the index endoscopy were 7-fold (adjusted odds ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval 4.49-11.78, P < 0.001) more likely to receive inappropriate postendoscopy follow-up and treatment, even after adjusting for age, sex, rural residence, timing of endoscopy, weekend presentation, and endoscopic interventions. DISCUSSION: One-quarter of patients presenting with an FBI do not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. This is strongly associated with failure to identify a potential underlying pathology at index presentation.

The Efficacy of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy vs Pneumatic Dilation as Treatment for Patients With Achalasia Suffering From Persistent or Recurrent Symptoms After Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: For patients with achalasia experiencing persistent or recurrent symptoms after laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), pneumatic dilation (PD) is the most frequently used treatment. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly being investigated as rescue therapy. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of POEM vs PD for patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms after LHM. METHODS: This randomized multicenter controlled trial included patients after LHM with an Eckardt score >3 and substantial stasis (≥2 cm) on timed barium esophagogram and randomized to POEM or PD. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score of ≤3 and without unscheduled re-treatment. Secondary outcomes included the presence of reflux esophagitis, high-resolution manometry, and timed barium esophagogram findings. Follow-up duration was 1 year after initial treatment. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included. POEM had a higher success rate (28 of 45 patients [62.2%]) than PD (12 of 45 patients [26.7%]; absolute difference, 35.6%; 95% CI, 16.4%-54.7%; P = .001; odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.54; relative risk for success, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.37-3.99). Reflux esophagitis was not significantly different between POEM (12 of 35 [34.3%]) and PD (6 of 40 [15%]). Basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure and integrated relaxation pressure (IRP-4) were significantly lower in the POEM group (P = .034; P = .002). Barium column height after 2 and 5 minutes was significantly less in patients treated with POEM (P = .005; P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with achalasia experiencing persistent or recurrent symptoms after LHM, POEM resulted in a significantly higher success rate than PD, with a numerically higher incidence of grade A-B reflux esophagitis. NETHERLANDS TRIAL REGISTRY: NL4361 (NTR4501), https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID = NTR4501.

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.

Monitoring Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Routine Clinical Practice - International Expert Recommendations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are no studies or recommendations on optimal monitoring strategies for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Our objective was to develop guidance on how to monitor patients with EoE in routine clinical practice, on the basis of available clinical evidence and expert opinion. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, international group of EoE experts identified the following important 3 questions during several consensus meetings: why, by what means, and when to monitor patients with EoE. A steering committee was named, and 3 teams were formed to review literature and to formulate statements for each topic. In a Delphi survey, a level of agreement of ≥75% was defined as threshold value for acceptance. In a final conference, results were presented, critical points and comments on the statements were discussed, and statements were rephrased/rewritten if necessary. RESULTS: Eighteen EoE experts (14 adult and pediatric gastroenterologists, 2 pathologists and 2 allergists) with a median of 21.7 years in clinical practice, mostly academic or university-based, completed the Delphi survey, which included 11 statements and a proposed algorithm for monitoring patients with EoE. Each statement attained ≥75% agreement. Participants discussed and debated mostly about the statement concerning surveillance intervals for EoE patients with stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that effective maintenance treatment probably reduces the development of EoE complications, and regular, structured, and, under certain conditions, individualized clinical follow-up is recommended to assess disease activity while opening a window to monitoring side effects, adjusting therapy, and encouraging adherence to treatment. Follow-up should comprise symptom assessment and periodic or repeated endoscopy with histological assessment in specific EoE settings.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus pneumatic dilation in treatment-naive patients with achalasia: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 2-year follow-up data from our randomised controlled trial showed that peroral endoscopic myotomy is associated with a significantly higher efficacy than pneumatic dilation as initial treatment of therapy-naive patients with achalasia. Here we report therapeutic success rates in patients treated with peroral endoscopic myotomy compared with pneumatic dilation at the 5-year follow-up. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in six hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Hong Kong, and the USA. Adults aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed symptomatic achalasia (based on an Eckardt score >3) were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to peroral endoscopic myotomy or pneumatic dilation using web-based randomisation with a random block size of 8 and stratification according to site. Randomisation concealment for treatment type was double blind until official study enrolment. Treatment was unmasked because of the different technical approach of each procedure. Patients in the pneumatic dilation group were dilated with a single series of 30-35 mm balloons. The need for subsequent dilations in the pneumatic dilation group, and the need for dilation after initial treatment in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group, was considered treatment failure. The primary outcome was therapeutic success (Eckardt score ≤3 in the absence of severe treatment-related complications and no need for retreatment). Analysis of the primary outcome was by modified intention to treat, including all patients randomly assigned to a group, excluding those patients who did not receive treatment or were lost to follow-up. Safety was assessed in all included patients. This study is registered at the Dutch Trial Registry, NTR3593, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 21, 2012, and July 20, 2015, 182 patients were assessed for eligibility, 133 of whom were included in the study and randomly assigned to peroral endoscopic myotomy (n=67) or pneumatic dilation (n=66). 5-year follow-up data were available for 62 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group and 63 patients in the pneumatic dilation group. 50 (81%) patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group had treatment success at 5 years, compared with 25 (40%) in the pneumatic dilation group, an adjusted absolute difference of 41% (95% CI 25-57; p<0·0001). Reasons for failure were no initial effect of treatment (one patient in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group vs 12 patients in the pneumatic dilation group) and recurrent symptoms causing treatment failure (11 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group [seven patients between 2 and 5 years] vs 25 patients in the pneumatic dilation group [nine patients between 2 and 5 years]); one patient in the pneumatic dilation group had treatment failure due to an adverse event. Proton-pump inhibitor use (mostly daily) was significantly higher after peroral endoscopic myotomy than after pneumatic dilation among patients still in clinical remission (23 [46%] of 50 patients vs three [13%] of 24 patients; p=0·008). 5-year follow-up endoscopy of patients still in clinical remission showed reflux oesophagitis in 14 (33%) of 42 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group (12 [29%] grade A or B, two [5%] grade C or D) and two (13%) of 16 patients in the pneumatic dilation group (two [13%] grade A or B, none grade C or D; p=0·19). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred between 2 and 5 years after treatment. The following non-intervention-related serious adverse events occurred between 2 and 5 years: a stroke (one [2%]) in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group; and death due to a melanoma (one [2%]) and dementia (one [2%]) in the pneumatic dilation group. INTERPRETATION: Based on this study, peroral endoscopic myotomy should be proposed as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia. Although our study has shown that peroral endoscopic myotomy has greater long-term efficacy with a low risk of major treatment-related complications, this should not lead to abandonment of pneumatic dilation from clinical practice. Ideally, all treatment options should be discussed with treatment-naive patients with achalasia and a shared decision should be made. FUNDING: Fonds NutsOhra and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Gene expression and clinical outcomes after dietary treatment for eosinophilic esophagitis: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an allergen-mediated disease and elimination diets have proven to be effective to obtain clinical and histological remission. However, the effect of elimination diets on specific EoE transcripts and their clinical correlates is relatively unknown. The main aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of dietary treatment (four-food elimination diet [FFED]) with or without addition of amino acid-based formula (AAF) on a variety of pro-/anti-inflammatory, epithelial/barrier function and remodeling/fibrosis-related markers of disease activity and clinical correlates (eosinophils, symptoms, and endoscopic signs) in adult EoE patients. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of biopsy samples and data collected during a randomized controlled trial with an elimination diet in adult patients with active EoE (≥15 eosinophils [eos] per high-power field [hpf]). Demographics, symptoms (SDI-score), endoscopic signs (EREFS) and peak eosinophil counts/hpf were recorded at baseline and after 6 weeks of treatment. Transcripts of 10 indicated genes were measured (qPCR) and compared to clinical correlates at baseline and after treatment. KEY RESULTS: Forty patients (pooled FFED + FFED + AAF) (60% male, age 34.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 29-42.8 years) completed the diet. Peak eosinophil counts/hpf, symptoms and endoscopic signs were significantly decreased after 6 weeks dietary treatment. DSG-1 levels were significantly upregulated from baseline to week 6, whereas IL-13, CAPN-14, IL-5, IL-10, CCL-26, POSTN, TSLP, CPA-3, and TGF-ß were significantly downregulated after 6 weeks of diet (all; <0.01). Prior to treatment, upregulation of CAPN-14 and lower levels of DSG-1 were associated with clinical fibrotic phenotypes, whereas upregulation of IL-10 was linked to food impaction phenotypes. CONCLUSION: These findings strongly suggest that elimination diets, besides a clinical and histological response, are associated with a broad transcriptional response at the level of the esophageal epithelium.

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.

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.

Reliability and responsiveness of endoscopic disease activity assessment in eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic outcomes have become important measures of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity, including as an endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated the operating properties of endoscopic measures for use in EoE RCTs. METHODS: Modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methods and a panel of 15 international EoE experts identified endoscopic items and definitions with face validity that were used in a 2-round voting process to define simplified (all items graded as absent or present) and expanded versions (additional grades for edema, furrows, and/or exudates) of the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS). Inter- and intrarater reliability of these instruments (expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]) were evaluated using paired endoscopy video assessments of 2 blinded central readers in patients before and after 8 weeks of proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical corticosteroids, or dietary elimination. Responsiveness was measured using the standardized effect size (SES). RESULTS: The appropriateness of 41 statements relevant to EoE endoscopic activity (endoscopic items, item definitions and grading, and other considerations relevant for endoscopy) was considered. The original and expanded EREFS demonstrated moderate-to-substantial inter-rater reliability (ICCs of .472-.736 and .469-.763, respectively) and moderate-to-almost perfect intrarater reliability (ICCs of .580-.828 and .581-.828, respectively). Strictures were least reliably assessed (ICC, .072-.385). The original EREFS was highly responsive (SES, 1.126 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .757-1.534]), although both expanded versions of EREFS, scored based on worst affected area, were numerically most responsive to treatment (expanded furrows: SES, 1.229 [95% CI, .858-1.643]; all items expanded: SES, 1.252 [95% CI, .880-1.667]). The EREFS and its modifications were not more reliably scored by segment and also not more responsive when proximal and distal EREFSs were summed. CONCLUSIONS: EREFS and its modifications were reliable and responsive, and the original or expanded versions of the EREFS may be preferred in RCTs. Disease activity scored based on the worst affected area optimizes reliability and responsiveness.

Management of eosinophilic esophagitis associated food impaction in Europe and the United States.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most common cause of esophageal food impaction (EFI). Approaches to management of EFI due to EoE have not been well characterized. We conducted a web-based survey to understand approaches to management of EFI due to EoE among endoscopists. Questions focused on management of patients from presentation to post-endoscopy follow-up. The survey was administered to a list of eligible candidates provided by societies of gastroenterology. A total of 308 endoscopists completed the questionnaire. The majority (83%) practiced in Europe and treated adults (78%). Most agreed patients should be advised to seek emergency care (66%) within 1 to 2 hours (41% agreement). There was agreement that medications to induce vomiting should be avoided (84%) and that blood tests or imaging studies were usually not required before endoscopy. By contrast, there was more variability in the type of sedation recommended and the need for endotracheal intubation, especially when comparing more experienced with less experienced EoE-endoscopists. Overall, fewer than half (43%) respondents recommended obtaining esophageal biopsies during the initial endoscopy. However, there were significant differences in the proportion who recommended biopsies based on level of EoE-experience (25, 52, 77%, P < 0.001; less vs. moderate vs. very experienced) and comparing pediatric and adult endoscopists (32, vs. 79%, P < 0.001; adult vs. pediatric). There exists heterogeneity among endoscopists in recommendations to manage EFI in patients with EoE. These findings support development of clinical guidelines and new studies to clarify the rationale for best practices. Key summary: Established knowledge-The optimal management of patients with esophageal food impaction due to eosinophilic esophagitis from presentation at the emergency department to postendoscopy care is unclear. New findings-Considerable recommendation variation exists in the management of EFI in patients with EoE. Our findings provide a rationale for the creation of consensus practice guidelines and further study into best practices.

Pneumatic dilation for persistent dysphagia after antireflux surgery, a multicentre single-blind randomised sham-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: There is no evidence-based treatment for persistent dysphagia after laparoscopic fundoplication. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pneumatic dilation on persistent dysphagia after laparoscopic fundoplication. DESIGN: We performed a multicentre, single-blind, randomised sham-controlled trial of patients with persistent dysphagia (>3 months) after laparoscopic fundoplication. Patients with an Eckardt symptom score ≥4 were randomly assigned to pneumatic dilation (PD) using a 35 mm balloon or sham dilation. Primary outcome was treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score <4 and a minimal reduction of 2 points in the Eckardt score after 30 days. Secondary outcomes included change in stasis on timed barium oesophagogram, change in high-resolution manometry parameters and questionnaires on quality of life, reflux and dysphagia symptoms. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were randomised. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the success rates of PD (7/21 patients (33%)) and sham dilation (8/21 patients (38%)) were similar after 30 days (risk difference -4.7% (95% CI (-33.7% to 24.2%) p=0.747). There was no significant difference in change of stasis on the timed barium oesophagogram after 2 min (PD vs sham: median 0.0 cm, p25-p75 range 0.0-4.3 cm vs median 0.0 cm, p25-p75 range 0.0-0.0; p=0.122) or change in lower oesophageal sphincter relaxation pressure (PD vs sham: 10.54±6.25 vs 14.60±6.17 mm Hg; p=0.052). Quality of life, reflux and dysphagia symptoms were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Pneumatic dilation with a 35 mm balloon is not superior to sham dilation for the treatment of persistent dysphagia after fundoplication.

Effect of amino acid-based formula added to four-food elimination in adult eosinophilic esophagitis patients: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Elimination of key foods restricts dietary options in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients. Addition of amino acid-based formula (AAF) to an elimination diet might facilitate adherence and, therefore, enhance efficacy of dietary management. AIM: To evaluate whether addition of AAF to a four-food elimination diet (FFED) is more effective than FFED alone in decreasing eosinophilia, endoscopic signs, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial enrolled 41 adult patients with active EoE (≥15 eosinophils (eos) per high power field (hpf)) at baseline biopsy. Subjects were randomized (1:1 ratio) to groups given a FFED or FFED with addition of AAF providing 30% of their daily energy needs (FFED + AAF). Histological disease activity, endoscopic signs, symptoms, and disease-related quality of life (EoEQoL) were measured at baseline and after 6 weeks of intervention. RESULTS: Patients (60% male, age 34.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 29-42.8 years)) were randomized to FFED (n = 20) or FFED + AAF (n = 21); 40 participants completed the diet. Complete histological remission (<15 eos/hpf) was achieved in 48% of FFED + AAF subjects (n = 21) vs. 25% of FFED subjects (n = 20), respectively (p = 0.204). Peak eosinophil counts (PEC) decreased significantly in both groups between baseline and week 6, but the change in PEC between groups was not different (p = 0.130). A significant but similar endoscopic and symptomatic reduction was observed in both groups (all; p<0.05). Total EoEQoL scores significantly improved in the FFED + AAF group between baseline and week 6 (p = 0.007), and not in the FFED group. CONCLUSION: The addition of AAF to a FFED did not lead to a larger decrease in PEC between baseline and 6 weeks, but may result in a significant improvement of QoL in adult EoE patients NL6014 (NTR6778).