A practical approach to ineffective esophageal motility.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most frequently diagnosed esophageal motility abnormality and characterized by diminished esophageal peristaltic vigor and frequent weak, absent, and/or fragmented peristalsis on high-resolution esophageal manometry. Despite its commonplace occurrence, this condition can often provoke uncertainty for both patients and clinicians. Although the diagnostic criteria used to define this condition has generally become more stringent over time, it is unclear whether the updated criteria result in a more precise clinical diagnosis. While IEM is often implicated with symptoms of dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux disease, the strength of these associations remains unclear. In this review, we share a practical approach to IEM highlighting its definition and evolution over time, commonly associated clinical symptoms, and important management and treatment considerations. We also share the significance of this condition in patients undergoing evaluation for anti-reflux surgery and consideration for lung transplantation.

Current state of rumination syndrome.

Rumination syndrome (RS) is an underdiagnosed behavioral disorder of recurrent regurgitation. Regurgitation occurs in RS due to increased gastric pressure achieved by subconscious contraction of the abdominal musculature wall, reversing the pressure gradient between the esophagus and the stomach. RS is mainly diagnosed clinically by the Rome Criteria with symptoms of regurgitation without retching of recently ingested food into the mouth and subsequent spitting or re-mastication. When the diagnosis is unable to be made clinically, supportive testing including fed impedance manometry can be considered. RS occurs worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, races, and genders with a prevalence of 3.1-5.8%. There is significant overlap with RS and disorders of a gut-brain interaction and upright gastroesophageal reflux driven by aerophagia and supragastric belching. There is also an association with mood disorder, fibromyalgia, and eating disorders. RS may be misdiagnosed as a variety of other syndromes including gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastroparesis, achalasia, and bulimia nervosa. Once RS is diagnosed, the mainstay of treatment is diaphragmatic breathing to lower the intragastric pressure and increase the lower esophageal pressure. Diaphragmatic breathing can be supported with biofeedback and cognitive behavioral therapy as well as medication options for more refractory cases. Response to therapy overtime and changes in symptoms overtime can now be tracked with a validated questionnaire.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) can be effective in eradicating BE and related neoplasia and has greater risk of harms and resource use than surveillance endoscopy. This clinical practice guideline aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients, conducted an evidence review, and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations regarding the use of EET in patients with BE under the following scenarios: presence of (1) high-grade dysplasia, (2) low-grade dysplasia, (3) no dysplasia, and (4) choice of stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or focal EMR plus ablation, and (5) endoscopic submucosal dissection vs EMR. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 5 recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. Based on the available evidence, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of EET in patients with BE high-grade dysplasia and conditional recommendation against EET in BE without dysplasia. The panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of EET in BE low-grade dysplasia; patients with BE low-grade dysplasia who place a higher value on the potential harms and lower value on the benefits (which are uncertain) regarding reduction of esophageal cancer mortality could reasonably select surveillance endoscopy. In patients with visible lesions, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of focal EMR plus ablation over stepwise EMR. In patients with visible neoplastic lesions undergoing resection, the use of either endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was suggested based on lesion characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the indications for EET in the management of BE and related neoplasia. Guidance is also provided regarding the considerations surrounding implementation of EET. Providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to guide future research opportunities.

Association of celiac disease with eosinophilic esophagitis: Nationwide register-based cohort study with sibling analyses.

Background: Celiac disease (CeD) is associated with several immune-mediated disorders, but it is unclear whether it is associated with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Objective: We sought to examine the risk of EoE in patients with biopsy-verified CeD compared with matched controls and siblings. Methods: Using nationwide population-based histopathology data, we identified 27,338 patients with CeD diagnosed in the period 2002 to 2017 in Sweden. Patients with CeD were age- and sex-matched with up to 5 reference individuals (n = 134,987) from the general population. Cox Regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for developing biopsy-verified EoE. In a secondary analysis, we used unaffected siblings of patients with CeD as comparators to adjust for intrafamilial confounding. Results: The median age at CeD diagnosis was 27 years, and 63.3% were female patients. During a median follow-up of 8.1 years, 17 patients with CeD and 13 matched reference individuals were diagnosed with EoE. This corresponded to incidence rates of 0.08 versus 0.01 per 1000 person-years, respectively, and an adjusted HR for EoE of 6.65 (95% CI, 3.26-13.81). Compared with their siblings without CeD, patients with CeD were however at a no increased risk of EoE (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.55-3.51). Conclusions: In this study, individuals with CeD were at a 6.6-fold increased risk of later EoE compared with the general population. This association might be explained by an altered health-seeking behavior or through shared genetic or early environmental factors because the excess risk disappeared in sibling analyses.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy findings that do no not explain dysphagia are associated with underutilization of high-resolution manometry.

In patients with dysphagia that is not explained by upper endoscopy, high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) is the next logical step in diagnostic testing. This study investigated predictors of failure to refer for HRM after an upper endoscopy that was performed for but did not explain dysphagia. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients >18 years of age who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for dysphagia from 2015 to 2021. Patients with EGD findings that explained dysphagia (e.g. esophageal mass, eosinophilic esophagitis, Schatzki ring, etc.) were excluded from the main analyses. The primary outcome was failure to refer for HRM within 1 year of the index non-diagnostic EGD. We also investigated delayed referral for HRM, defined as HRM performed after the median. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to identify risk factors that independently predicted failure to refer for HRM, conditioned on the providing endoscopist. Among 2132 patients who underwent EGD for dysphagia, 1240 (58.2%) did not have findings to explain dysphagia on the index EGD. Of these 1240 patients, 148 (11.9%) underwent HRM within 1 year of index EGD. Endoscopic findings (e.g. hiatal hernia, tortuous esophagus, Barrett's esophagus, surgically altered anatomy not involving the gastroesophageal junction, and esophageal varices) perceived to explain dysphagia were independently associated with failure to refer for HRM (adjusted odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.25-0.80). Of the 148 patients who underwent HRM within 1 year of index EGD, 29.7% were diagnosed with a disorder of esophagogastric junction outflow, 17.6% with a disorder of peristalsis, and 2.0% with both disorders of esophagogastric outflow and peristalsis. The diagnosis made by HRM was similar among those who had incidental EGD findings that were non-diagnostic for dysphagia compared with those who had completely normal EGD findings. Demographic factors including race/ethnicity, insurance type, and income were not associated with failure to refer for HRM or delayed HRM. Patients with dysphagia and endoscopic findings unrelated to dysphagia have a similar prevalence of esophageal motility disorders to those with normal endoscopic examinations, yet these patients are less likely to undergo HRM. Provider education is indicated to increase HRM referral in these patients.

Number of Older Biological Siblings and Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Risk.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the United States.1 Although CRC incidence has declined in individuals >50 years, incidence is rising in adults <50 years (early onset).1 By 2027, CRC is projected to become the leading cause of cancer mortality in US adults <50 years.2 To combat the rising incidence of early onset CRC (EOCRC), national guidelines recently lowered the screening age from 50 to 45 years for average-risk individuals.3 Understanding the risk profile of EOCRC can help combat the rising burden in young adults, especially in those ineligible for screening.

Endoscopic Surveillance of Intestinal Metaplasia of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Decision Modeling Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJAC) has been rising. Intestinal metaplasia of the esophagogastric junction (EGJIM) is a common finding in gastroesophageal reflux (irregular Z-line) and may represent an early step in the development of EGJAC in the West. Worldwide, EGJIM may represent progression along the Correa cascade triggered by Helicobacter pylori . We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance of EGJIM. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model to compare endoscopic surveillance strategies for 50-year-old patients after diagnosis of non-dysplastic EGJIM: (i) no surveillance (standard of care), (ii) endoscopy every 3 years, (iii) endoscopy every 5 years, or (iv) 1-time endoscopy at 3 years. We modeled 4 progression scenarios to reflect uncertainty: A (0.01% annual cancer incidence), B (0.05%), C (0.12%), and D (0.22%). RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance depended on the progression rate of EGJIM to cancer. At the lowest progression rate (scenario A, 0.01%), no surveillance strategies were cost-effective. In moderate progression scenarios, 1-time surveillance at 3 years was cost-effective, at $30,989 and $16,526 per quality-adjusted life year for scenarios B (0.05%) and C (0.12%), respectively. For scenario D (0.22%), surveillance every 5 years was cost-effective at $77,695 per quality-adjusted life year. DISCUSSION: Endoscopic surveillance is costly and can cause harm; however, low-intensity longitudinal surveillance (every 5 years) is cost-effective in populations with higher EGJAC incidence. No surveillance or 1-time endoscopic surveillance of patients with EGJIM was cost-effective in low-incidence populations. Future studies to better understand the natural history of EGJIM, identify risk factors of progression, and inform appropriate surveillance strategies are required.

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.

Esophageal Lichen Planus: A Descriptive Multicenter Report.

GOALS: To better understand the characteristics, treatment approaches, and outcomes of patients with esophageal lichen planus (ELP). BACKGROUND: ELP is a rare, often unrecognized and misdiagnosed disorder. Data on this unique patient population are currently limited to small, single-center series. STUDY: A multicenter, retrospective descriptive study was conducted of adults diagnosed with ELP over a 5-year period, between January 1, 2015, and October 10, 2020, from 7 centers across the United States. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients (average age 65 y, 86% female, 90% Caucasian) were included. Over half had at least 1 extraesophageal manifestation. Esophageal strictures (54%) and abnormal mucosa (50%) were frequent endoscopic findings, with the proximal esophagus the most common site of stricture. Approximately 20% had normal endoscopic findings. Topical steroids (64%) and/or proton pump inhibitors (74%) dominated management; endoscopic response favored steroids (43% vs. 29% respectively). Almost half of the patients required switching treatment modalities during the study period. Adjunctive therapies varied significantly between centers. CONCLUSIONS: Given its at times subtle clinical and endoscopic signs, a high index of suspicion and biopsy will improve ELP diagnosis, especially in those with extraesophageal manifestations. Effective therapies are lacking and vary significantly. Prospective investigations into optimal treatment regimens are necessary.

H influenzae LPS colocalization with Toll-like receptor 4 in eosinophilic esophagitis.

Background: Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have a unique esophageal microbiome with increased presence of Haemophilus influenzae, but its role in the disease is unclear. Objective: Microbiome-derived bacterial LPS activation of Toll-like receptors (TLR) is a potential mechanism for inducing inflammation in other chronic inflammatory diseases, but it has not been studied in EoE. Our aim was therefore to study microbiome-derived bacterial LPS activation of TLRs in EoE. Methods: We studied 10 patients with active EoE, 9 patients with inactive EoE, and 10 control patients. Esophageal biopsy samples from the controls, patients with active EoE (>15 eosinophils/hpf), and patients with inactive EoE were immunostained for the presence of H influenzae LPS, presence of TLR4, and colocalization of LPS and TLR4. Staining intensity was measured by using confocal laser microscopy and scored on a scale from 0 to 3 as the average score assigned by 2 blinded observers. Results: H influenzae LPS was detected by positive staining in 20 of the 29 patients (69.0%), including 9 of the 10 patients with active EoE (90.0%), 8 of the 9 patients with inactive EoE (89.9%), and 3 of the 10 controls (30%); its level was greater in the patients with active EoE than in the controls (P = .063). TLR4 was detected by positive staining in 19 of the 29 patients (65.5%), including 9 of the 10 patients with active EoE (90.0%), 4 of the 9 patients with inactive EoE (44.4%), and 6 of the 10 controls (60.0%); its level was higher in the patients with active EoE than in those with inactive EoE (P = .096). The result of testing for colocalization of LPS and TLR4 was positive in 8 of 10 patients with active EoE (80.0%), 1 of 9 patients with inactive EoE (11.1%), and 1 of 10 control patients (10.0%), with greater colocalization of H influenzae LPS and TLR4 staining density in the samples from patients with active EoE than in the controls or the patients with inactive EoE (P = .009 and P = .018, respectively). Conclusion: Esophageal microbiome-rich H influenzae LPS colocalizes to TLR4 in active EoE. These data lend further support to a role for the esophageal microbiome in modulating the activity of EoE.

Development of a model to identify patients who do not need oesophageal biopsies when eosinophilic oesophagitis is suspected.

BACKGROUND: Predictive models for eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) may not fully rule in the diagnosis. AIM: To develop a reverse model that predicts against EoE to eliminate the need for oesophageal biopsies. METHODS: In this two-centre study, a predictive model was developed (Mayo Clinic) and validated (University of North Carolina [UNC]). Cross-sectional data from consecutive adult patients without prior EoE who underwent upper enoscopy with oesophageal biopsies were used. EoE cases had ≥15 eosinophils/high-power field while controls had no eosinophils. Data were collected on patient clinical and endoscopic features. Multiple variable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of non-EoE status while maintaining specificity ≥95%. A secondary model was developed to predict against the need for endoscopy in patients suspected of having EoE without alarm symptoms. RESULTS: The Mayo and UNC cohorts consisted of 345 (EoE = 94, non-EoE = 251) and 297 patients (EoE = 84, non-EoE = 213), respectively. A primary model based on clinical and endoscopic features predicted against EoE with c-statistic 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.96), specificity 95%, and sensitivity 65%. This model was validated (UNC) with c-statistic 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92). A simplified scoring system was created and a threshold of ≥12 points excluded EoE with 95% specificity and 50% sensitivity. A secondary model based on clinical characteristics alone predicted against EoE with c-statistic 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.90), specificity 95% and sensitivity 39% and validated (UNC) with c-statistic 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.85). CONCLUSION: A simplified scoring system accurately identified a group of patients with a low likelihood of EoE where unnecessary oesophageal biopsies can be avoided, potentially resulting in resource and cost savings.

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.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histologic Scoring System: Correlation with Histologic, Endoscopic, and Symptomatic Disease and Clinical Use.

BACKGROUND: The eosinophilic esophagitis histologic scoring system (EoEHSS) was developed to enhance the diagnostic standard of peak eosinophil count (PEC) in evaluating disease activity in EoE. AIMS: (1) Correlate the EoEHSS and PEC to measures of symptomatic and endoscopic disease activity, (2) Correlate EoEHSS grade and stage subcomponents to clinical, radiology, and endoscopic markers of fibrotic disease, (3) Evaluate EoEHSS remission in asymptomatic patients with PEC < 15 eosinophils per high powered field (eos/hpf). METHODS: Secondary analysis of prospective cohort data of 22 patients with EoE that underwent dietary therapy and endoscopy at 3 time points. Active disease was defined by EoEHSS grade or stage > 0.125, symptomatic disease by EoE symptom activity index > 20, endoscopic disease by endoscopic reference score > 2, and histologic disease by PEC ≥ 15 eos/hpf. EoEHSS remission was defined by esophageal inflammation (EI) grade of 0-1, EI stage of 0, total grade ≤ 3, and total stage ≤ 3. RESULTS: EoEHSS grade and stage did not correlate with symptomatic disease but did with endoscopic and histologic disease. PEC showed similar correlation pattern. Abnormal grade and stage had strong sensitivity (87-100%) but poor specificity (11-36%) to detect symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic disease activity. Lamina propria fibrosis was evaluated in 36% of biopsies and did not correlate with minimum esophageal diameter. Out of 14 patients who were in complete symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic remission, 8 met criteria for EoEHSS remission. CONCLUSION: The positive and negative correlations of EoEHSS to specific measures of symptomatic, histologic, and endoscopic activity suggest that it provides complementary information in EoE.

High Proportions of Newly Detected Visible Lesions and Pathology Grade Change Among Patients with Barrett's Esophagus Referred to Expert Centers.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related neoplasia is increasingly being performed at tertiary and community centers. While it has been suggested that these patients should be evaluated at expert centers, the impact of this practice has not been evaluated. We aimed to assess the impact of referral of BE-related neoplasia patients to expert centers by assessing the proportion of patients with change in pathological diagnosis and visible lesions detected. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched until December 2021 for studies of patients with BE referred from the community to expert center. The proportions of pathology grade change and newly detected visible lesions at expert centers were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed based on baseline histology and other relevant factors. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included (1630 patients). The pooled proportion of pathology grade change after expert pathologist review was 47% (95% CI 34-59%) overall and 46% (95% CI 31-62%) among patients with baseline low-grade dysplasia. When upper endoscopy was repeated at an expert center, the pooled proportion of pathology grade change was still high 47% (95% 26-69%) overall and 40% (95% CI 34-45%) among patients with baseline LGD. The pooled proportion of newly detected visible lesions was 45% (95% CI 28-63%) and among patients referred with LGD was 27% (95% CI 22-32%). CONCLUSION: An alarmingly high proportion of newly detected visible lesions and pathology grade change were found when patients were referred to expert centers supporting the need for centralized care for BE-related neoplasia patients.

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.

Use of the Esophageal Sponge in Directing Food Reintroduction in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dietary therapy is successful in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) but requires multiple upper endoscopies. The aim of this study was to determine if food reintroduction in EoE can be directed by minimally-invasive esophageal sponge cytology. METHODS: In this prospective non-blinded trial, 22 responders to 6-food elimination diets underwent sequential food reintroduction guided by esophageal sponge cytology. Foods were reintroduced followed by unsedated esophageal sponge cytology assessment. A food trigger was defined by sponge cytology peak eosinophil count of ≥15 eos/high-powered field (hpf). Symptoms (EoE symptom activity index [EEsAI]), endoscopic score (EoE endoscopic reference score [EREFS]), and biopsy histology (peak eosinophil count) were collected pre-dietary therapy and post-dietary therapy, and then 4 weeks post food reintroduction. RESULTS: The EEsAI and EREFS were similar post-dietary therapy to post-food reintroduction: 12.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.0-27.0) vs 16.5 (IQR, 9.0-28.8) (P = .265) and 1.5 (IQR, 0.2-3.0) vs 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-2.0) (P = .185). However, the peak eosinophil count was increased post-food reintroduction compared with post-dietary therapy: 20.0 (IQR, 5.0-51.5) vs 2.0 (IQR, 1.0-4.0) (P < .001), suggesting a failure of identification of all food triggers. The peak eosinophil count was lower post-food reintroduction compared with pre-dietary therapy: 20.0 (IQR, 5.0-51.5) vs 52.0 (IQR, 30.8-76.2) (P = .008). At the post food reintroduction evaluation, sponge cytology and biopsy histology were in agreement in 59% (13/22) of cases using a cutoff of <15 eos/hpf and 68% (15/22) of cases using a cutoff of <6 eos/hpf. CONCLUSIONS: In the first study to evaluate a non-endoscopic technique in the clinical management of EoE, the esophageal sponge was moderately successful at guiding food reintroduction in EoE dietary responders in the outpatient setting. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number NCT02599558.

Management of Adults With Esophageal Atresia.

Esophageal atresia (EA) with or without trachea-esophageal fistula is relatively common congenital malformation with most patients living into adulthood. As a result, care of the adult patient with EA is becoming more common. Although surgical repair has changed EA from a fatal to a livable condition, the residual effects of the anomaly may lead to a lifetime of complications. These include effects related to the underlying deformity such as atonicity of the esophageal segment, fistula recurrence, and esophageal cancer to complications of the surgery including anastomotic stricture, gastroesophageal reflux, and coping with an organ transposition. This review discusses the occurrence and management of these conditions in adulthood and the role of an effective transition from pediatric to adult care to optimize adult care treatment.

Prognostic Impact of the Presence of Barrett's Esophagus and Intestinal Metaplasia on Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Survival.

Background/Aims: Barrett's esophagus (BE), defined by the presence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) on histology, is thought to be the only identifiable precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Recent studies have suggested the possibility of an alternate, non-IM associated EAC that is a more aggressive form of EAC with worse survival. Among EAC patients, we aimed to compare survival of patients with and without IM at the time of diagnosis. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients with histologic confirmed EAC evaluated at a tertiary care center from 2013 to 2019. Cases were categorized according to the presence or absence of IM on histologic specimens (Group I-IM-EAC and Group II-non-IM-EAC). We compared demographic characteristics, clinical stage, therapy, and survival between the 2 groups using the Chi-square and ANOVA tests (for categorical and continuous variables, respectively). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to determine the association of IM with overall survival, adjusting for sex, age at diagnosis, tumor location, histologic grade, and clinical stage. Results: A total of 475 patients were included in this analysis (mean age 64.8 years [SD 10.8], 89% white) and 109 (23.0%) had no evidence of IM. Compared with IM-EAC (Group I), individuals in the non-IM-EAC group were younger (P = .01) and had a greater proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced disease (49.5 vs 20.2% for stage 4, P < .001). These patients were less likely to undergo endoscopic therapy alone (0.92% vs 29.78%, P < .001) or surgery alone (0 vs 9.84%, P = .001). On multivariable analysis, the presence of IM-EAC was associated with improved overall survival compared to non-IM-EAC (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96). Additional factors associated with poor survival was increasing stage of diagnosis (HR 6.49: 95% CI 3.77-11.15 for stage 4, HR 2.19: 95% CI 1.25-3.84 for stage 3, HR 2.04: 95% CI 0.98-4.25 for stage 2 compared to stage 1) and more advanced histologic stage (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.26-3.19) for poorly/undifferentiated compared to well differentiated). Conclusions: EAC without the presence of IM on histology was associated with worse survival compared to those with IM. Future prospective studies with detailed molecular sequencing are required to clarify if 2 separate phenotypes of EAC exist (IM-EAC and non-IM-EAC). If confirmed, this may have significant implications for screening and management strategies.