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.).

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.

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.

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.

New Techniques to Screen for Barrett Esophagus.

Barrett esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a cancer that continues to have a poor 5-year survival rate of 20%. Current BE screening strategies aim to detect BE and EAC at early, curable stages, but the majority of patients with EAC are diagnosed outside of BE screening and surveillance programs. Guidelines around the world suggest screening for BE in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and additional demographic and clinical risk factors using high-definition white-light endoscopy (HDWLE). However, current strategies relying on HDWLE are problematic with high direct and indirect costs, procedural risks, and limitations in patient selection owing to the low sensitivity of GERD as a risk factor for detection of BE. In an effort to address these shortcomings, a variety of other screening strategies are under investigation, including risk prediction algorithms, noninvasive cell collection devices, and other new technologies to make screening more efficient and cost-effective. At this time, only cell collection devices have been integrated into professional guidelines, and clinical implementation of alternatives to endoscopy has lagged. In the future, screening may be personalized using a combination of different screening modalities. This article discusses the current state of BE screening and new approaches that may alter the future of screening.

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.

A Tissue Systems Pathology Test Outperforms the Standard-of-Care Variables in Predicting Progression in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus.

INTRODUCTION: Objective risk stratification is needed for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) to enable risk-aligned management to improve health outcomes. This study evaluated the predictive performance of a tissue systems pathology [TSP-9] test (TissueCypher) vs current clinicopathologic variables in a multicenter cohort of patients with BE. METHODS: Data from 699 patients with BE from 5 published studies on the TSP-9 test were evaluated. Five hundred nine patients did not progress during surveillance, 40 were diagnosed with high-grade dysplasia/esophageal adenocarcinoma (HGD/EAC) within 12 months, and 150 progressed to HGD/EAC after 12 months. Age, sex, segment length, hiatal hernia, original and expert pathology review diagnoses, and TSP-9 risk classes were collected. The predictive performance of clinicopathologic variables and the TSP-9 test was compared, and the TSP-9 test was evaluated in clinically relevant patient subsets. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the TSP-9 test in detecting progressors was 62.3% compared with 28.3% for expert-confirmed low-grade dysplasia (LGD), while the original diagnosis abstracted from medical records did not provide any significant risk stratification. The TSP-9 test identified 57% of progressors with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) ( P < 0.0001). Patients with NDBE who scored TSP-9 high risk progressed at a similar rate (3.2%/yr) to patients with expert-confirmed LGD (3.7%/yr). The TSP-9 test provided significant risk stratification in clinically low-risk patients (NDBE, female, short-segment BE) and clinically high-risk patients (IND/LGD, male, long-segment BE) ( P < 0.0001 for comparison of high-risk classes vs low-risk classes). DISCUSSION: The TSP-9 test predicts risk of progression to HGD/EAC independently of current clinicopathologic variables in patients with BE. The test provides objective risk stratification results that may guide management decisions to improve health outcomes for patients with BE.

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.

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs Among Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, Barrett's Esophagus, and Barrett's Esophagus-Related Neoplasia in the United States.

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a risk factor for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and BE-related neoplasia (BERN). Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with GERD, BE, and BERN in the United States. Methods: Adult patients with GERD, nondysplastic BE (NDBE), and BERN (including indefinite for dysplasia [IND], low-grade dysplasia [LGD], high-grade dysplasia [HGD] or esophageal adenocarcinoma [EAC]), were identified from a large US administrative claims database, the IBM Truven Health MarketScan® databases (Q1/2015-Q4/2019). Patients were categorized into the corresponding mutually exclusive EAC-risk/diagnosis cohorts based on the most advanced stage from GERD to EAC using diagnosis codes in medical claims. Disease-related HRU and costs (2020 USD) were calculated for each cohort. Results: Patients were categorized into the following EAC-risk/diagnosis cohorts: 3 310 385 into GERD, 172 481 into NDBE, 11 516 into IND, 4332 into LGD, 1549 into HGD, and 11 676 into EAC. Disease-related annual mean number of inpatient admissions, office visits, and emergency department visits by cohort were 0.09, 1.45, and 0.19 for GERD; 0.08, 1.55, and 0.10 for NDBE; 0.10, 1.92, and 0.13 for IND; 0.09, 2.05, and 0.10 for LGD; 0.12, 2.16, and 0.14 for HGD; and 1.43, 6.27, and 0.87 for EAC. Disease-related annual mean total healthcare costs by cohort were $6955 for GERD, $8755 for NDBE, $9675 for IND, $12 241 for LGD, $24 239 for HGD, and $146 319 for EAC. Discussion: Patients with GERD, BE, and BERN had important HRU and costs, including inpatient admissions and office visits. As patients progressed to more advanced stages, there was substantially higher disease-related resource utilization, with associated costs being 16 times higher in patients with EAC than those with NDBE. Conclusions: Findings suggest the need for early identification of high-risk individuals prior to progression to EAC to potentially improve clinical and economic outcomes in this population.

Real-world upper endoscopy utilization patterns among patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett esophagus, and Barrett esophagus-related esophageal neoplasia in the United States.

This study fills a gap in literature by providing contemporary real-world evidence on the prevalence of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett esophagus (BE), and Barrett esophagus-related neoplasia (BERN) and their upper endoscopy utilization patterns in the United States. A retrospective cohort study design was used: adults with GERD, nondysplastic Barrett esophagus (NDBE), and BERN (indefinite for dysplasia [IND], low-grade dysplasia [LGD], high-grade dysplasia [HGD], or esophageal adenocarcinoma [EAC]) were identified from the MarketScan databases (January 01, 2015-December 31, 2019). For each disease stage, prevalence of adults in commercial claims by calendar year, annual number of upper endoscopies per patient and time between upper endoscopies were reported. In 2019, in commercial claims (N = 12,363,227), the annual prevalence rate of GERD was 13.7% and 0.70% for BE/BERN, among which, 87.1% had NDBE, 6.8% had IND, 2.3% had LGD, 1.0% had HGD, and 2.8% had EAC. From 2015-2019, the study included 3,310,385 patients with GERD, 172,481 with NDBE, 11,516 with IND, 4332 with LGD, 1549 with HGD, and 11,676 with EAC. Annual mean number of upper endoscopies was 0.20 per patient for GERD, 0.37 per patient for NDBE, 0.43 for IND, 0.58 for LGD, and 0.87 for HGD. Median time (months) to second upper endoscopy was 38.10 for NDBE, 36.63 for IND, 22.63 for LGD, and 11.90 for HGD. Upper endoscopy utilization increased from GERD to BE to BERN, and time between upper endoscopies decreased as the disease stage progressed from BE to BERN, with less frequent utilization in BERN than what would be expected from guideline recommendations for surveillance.

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.

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.

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.

Clonal cell states link Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Barrett's esophagus is a common type of metaplasia and a precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, the cell states and lineage connections underlying the origin, maintenance, and progression of Barrett's esophagus have not been resolved in humans. To address this, we performed single-cell lineage tracing and transcriptional profiling of patient cells isolated from metaplastic and healthy tissue. Our analysis revealed discrete lineages in Barrett's esophagus, normal esophagus, and gastric cardia. Transitional basal progenitor cells of the gastroesophageal junction were unexpectedly related to both esophagus and gastric cardia cells. Barrett's esophagus was polyclonal, with lineages that contained all progenitor and differentiated cell types. In contrast, precancerous dysplastic foci were initiated by the expansion of a single molecularly aberrant Barrett's esophagus clone. Together, these findings provide a comprehensive view of the cell dynamics of Barrett's esophagus, linking cell states along the full disease trajectory, from its origin to cancer.

The Slender Esophagus: Unrecognized Esophageal Narrowing in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Inflammation in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) often leads to esophageal strictures. Evaluating esophageal narrowing is clinically challenging. We evaluated esophageal distensibility as related to disease activity, fibrosis, and dysphagia. METHODS: Adult patients with and without EoE underwent endoscopy and distensibility measurements. Histology, distensibility, and symptoms were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients with EoE had significantly lower distensibilities than controls. We found a cohort with esophageal diameter under 15 mm despite lack of dysphagia. DISCUSSION: This study raises concern that current assessments of fibrostenosis are suboptimal. We describe a cohort with unrecognized slender esophagus that were identified through impedance planimetry measurements. This tool provides additional information beyond symptomatic, histologic, and endoscopic assessments.

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.

Mucosal Microbiota Associated With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Eosinophilic Gastritis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the mucosal microbiota associated with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and eosinophilic gastritis (EoG) in a geographically diverse cohort of patients compared to controls. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of individuals with eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease (EGID) in the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers, including pediatric and adult tertiary care centers. Eligible individuals had clinical data, mucosal biopsies, and stool collected. Total bacterial load was determined from mucosal biopsy samples by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Community composition was determined by small subunit rRNA gene amplicons. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine mucosal biopsies were evaluated corresponding to 93 EoE, 17 EoG, and 29 control specimens (18 esophageal) from 10 sites across the United States. Dominant community members across disease activity differed significantly. When comparing EoE and EoG with controls, the dominant taxa in individuals with EGIDs was increased ( Streptococcus in esophagus; Prevotella in stomach). Specific taxa were associated with active disease for both EoE ( Streptococcus , Gemella ) and EoG ( Leptotrichia ), although highly individualized communities likely impacted statistical testing. Alpha diversity metrics were similar across groups, but with high variability among individuals. Stool analyses did not correlate with bacterial communities found in mucosal biopsy samples and was similar in patients and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Dominant community members ( Streptococcus for EoE, Prevotella for EoG) were different in the mucosal biopsies but not stool of individuals with EGIDs compared to controls; taxa associated with EGIDs were highly variable across individuals. Further study is needed to determine if therapeutic interventions contribute to the observed community differences.

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.

Endoscopic approach to eosinophilic esophagitis: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Consensus Conference.

Endoscopy plays a critical role in caring for and evaluating the patient with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Endoscopy is essential for diagnosis, assessment of response to therapy, treatment of esophageal strictures, and ongoing monitoring of patients in histologic remission. To date, less-invasive testing for identifying or grading EoE severity has not been established, whereas diagnostic endoscopy as integral to both remains the criterion standard. Therapeutic endoscopy in patients with adverse events of EoE may also be required. In particular, dilation may be essential to treat and attenuate progression of the disease in select patients to minimize further fibrosis and stricture formation. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, a group of 20 expert clinicians and investigators in EoE were assembled to provide guidance for the use of endoscopy in EoE. Through an iterative process, the group achieved consensus on 20 statements yielding comprehensive advice on tissue-sampling standards, gross assessment of disease activity, use and performance of endoscopic dilation, and monitoring of disease, despite an absence of high-quality evidence. Key areas of controversy were identified when discussions yielded an inability to reach agreement on the merit of a statement. We expect that with ongoing research, higher-quality evidence will be obtained to enable creation of a guideline for these issues. We further anticipate that forthcoming expert-generated and agreed-on statements will provide valuable practice advice on the role and use of endoscopy in patients with EoE.

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.