The Natural History of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases Is Influenced by Age of Onset and Location of Involvement.

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown whether concomitant esophageal involvement or anatomic location of eosinophilic infiltration affects the natural history of eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease (EGID). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the University of North Carolina EGID Clinicopathologic Database. Patients were adults and children with a prior EGID diagnosis based on clinicopathologic features. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment information, and procedural data were extracted from medical records. Clinical course and flare history were characterized. RESULTS: Among 97 patients, 43% had EGID + esophageal involvement and 57% had EGID only. Patients with esophageal involvement had a longer diagnostic delay preceding diagnosis (36.6 vs 11.6 months, P = 0.001), more dysphagia (50% vs 18%; P = 0.001), required more chronic therapy (77% vs 52%, P = 0.016), and exhibited more progressive disease (25% vs 6%, P = 0.027). A continuous disease course was most common in eosinophilic gastritis (78%) while patients with eosinophilic gastritis + eosinophilic enteritis (29%) and eosinophilic enteritis + eosinophilic colitis (50%) had the highest proportion of progressive and relapsing disease, respectively ( P = 0.045). A continuous disease course occurred more frequently in children (71%, P = 0.03) and those with single organ involvement (65%), whereas adults had more relapsing (39%) or progressive disease (18%). DISCUSSION: EGIDs with and without esophageal involvement display many similarities, although patients with esophageal involvement more frequently had dysphagia, had progressive disease courses, and required more chronic therapy. Location of involvement and age of onset affected the natural history with higher proportions of relapsing or progressive disease seen in adults and patients with small bowel or multiorgan involvement while a continuous disease course was more common in children and patients with gastric-only involvement.

Clinical Features and Treatment Response to Topical Steroids in Ethnic and Racial Minority Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Differences in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) presentation and outcomes by ethnicity or race remain understudied. We aimed to determine whether EoE patients of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity or non-White race have differences in presentation at diagnosis or response to topical corticosteroid (tCS) treatment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included subjects of any age with a new diagnosis of EoE and documentation of ethnicity or race. For those who had treatment with tCS and follow-up endoscopy/biopsy, we assessed histologic response (<15 eosinophils/hpf), global symptom response, and endoscopic response. Hispanic EoE patients were compared with non-Hispanics at baseline and before and after treatment. The same analyses were repeated for White vs non-Whites. RESULTS: Of 1,026 EoE patients with ethnicity data, just 23 (2%) were Hispanic. Most clinical features at presentation were similar to non-Hispanic EoE patients but histologic response to tCS was numerically lower (38% vs 57%). Non-White EoE patients (13%) were younger at diagnosis and had less insurance, lower zip code-level income, shorter symptom duration, more vomiting, less dysphagia and food impaction, fewer typical endoscopic features, and less dilation. Of 475 patients with race data treated with tCS, non-Whites had a significantly lower histologic response rate (41% vs 59%; P = 0.01), and odds of histologic response remained lower after controlling for potential confounders (adjusted odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence intervals: 0.19-0.87). DISCUSSION: Few EoE patients at our center were Hispanic, and they had similar clinical presentations as non-Hispanics. The non-White EoE group was larger, and presentation was less dysphagia-specific. Non-White patients were also less than half as likely to respond to tCS.

Association between time from esophageal food impaction to endoscopy and adverse events.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines recommend emergent or urgent EGD for esophageal food impaction (EFI), but data on how time to EGD impacts the risk of adverse events remain limited. We determined whether EFI-to-EGD time was associated with adverse events. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of patients with endoscopically confirmed EFI, adverse events were classified as esophageal (mucosal tear, bleeding, perforation) or extraesophageal (aspiration, respiratory compromise, hypotension, arrhythmia). Esophageal perforation and extraesophageal adverse events requiring intensive care unit admission were classified as serious adverse events. Baseline characteristics, event details, and procedural details were compared between patients with and without adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess for an association between EFI-to-EGD time and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 188 patients with EFI, 22 (12%) had any adverse event and 2 (1%) had a serious adverse event. Patients with adverse events were older and more likely to have an esophageal motility disorder, to tolerate secretions at presentation, and to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score. EFI-to-EGD time was similar in those with and without adverse events. On multivariable analysis, EFI-to-EGD time was not associated with adverse events (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% confidence interval, .97-1.04] for 1-hour increments; odds ratio, 1.03 [95% confidence interval, .86-1.24] for 6-hour increments). Results were similar after stratifying by eosinophilic esophagitis status and after adjusting for possible confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Because the time from EFI to EGD is not associated with adverse events, emergent EGD for EFI may be unnecessary, and other considerations may determine EGD timing.

Increasing Age at the Time of Diagnosis and Evolving Phenotypes of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Over 20 Years.

BACKGROUND: The presentation of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is heterogeneous, but trends over time are not known. AIM: To determine whether clinical and endoscopic phenotypes at EoE diagnosis have changed over the past 2 decades. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, adults and children with newly diagnosed EoE were phenotyped as follows: (1) inflammatory vs fibrostenotic vs mixed on endoscopy; (2) atopic vs non-atopic; (3) age at symptom onset; (4) age at diagnosis; (5) presence of autoimmune or connective tissue disease; and (6) responsive to steroids. The prevalence of different phenotypes was categorized by 5-year intervals. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess for changes in patient features over time. RESULTS: Of 1187 EoE patients, age at diagnosis increased over time (from 22.0 years in 2002-2006 to 31.8 years in 2017-2021; p < 0.001) as did the frequency of dysphagia (67% to 92%; p < 0.001). Endoscopic phenotypes were increasingly mixed (26% vs 68%; p < 0.001) and an increasing proportion of patients had later onset of EoE. However, there were no significant trends for concomitant autoimmune/connective tissue disease or steroid responder phenotypes. On multivariate analysis, after accounting for age, dysphagia, and food impaction, the increase in the mixed endoscopic phenotype persisted (aOR 1.51 per each 5-year interval, 95% CI 1.31-1.73). CONCLUSION: EoE phenotypes have changed over the past two decades, with increasing age at diagnosis and age at symptom onset. The mixed endoscopic phenotype also increased, even after controlling for age and symptomatology. Whether this reflects changes in provider recognition or disease pathophysiology is yet to be elucidated.

Higher Body Mass Index Is Associated With Decreased Treatment Response to Topical Steroids in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Understanding which eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients will respond to treatment with topical corticosteroids (tCS) remains challenging, and it is unknown whether obesity impacts treatment response. This study aimed to determine whether treatment outcomes to tCS in EoE patients vary by body mass index (BMI). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of the University of North Carolina EoE Clinicopathologic database assessed subjects age 14 years or older with a new diagnosis of EoE. Their BMI was calculated and histologic, symptom, and endoscopic responses were recorded after tCS treatment. The treatment response of obese (BMI, ≥30 kg/m2) and nonobese EoE status was compared using bivariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: We identified 296 EoE patients treated with tCS. Baseline characteristics were similar, although obese EoE patients had more heartburn and hiatal hernias. Histologic response was higher for those who were nonobese compared with obese at fewer than 15 (61% vs 47%; P = .049) and 6 or fewer (54% vs 38%; P = .02) eosinophils per high-power field, respectively. In addition, nonobese patients had significantly greater endoscopic and symptomatic responses. On multivariate analysis, increasing BMI was associated independently with decreased histologic response after accounting for age, heartburn, dilation, and hiatal hernia whether BMI was assessed as a continuous variable (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98), as nonobese vs obese (aOR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.68), or in 4 categories (overweight vs normal [aOR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.84] or obese vs normal [aOR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.51]). CONCLUSIONS: As BMI increases in EoE patients, the odds of histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic responses to tCS decreases, with obese patients having an approximately 40% decrease in odds of response.

Eosinophilic esophagitis patients with multiple atopic conditions: Clinical characteristics and treatment response to topical steroids.

BACKGROUND: Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) typically have concomitant atopic conditions, but whether there are differences in presentation or treatment response by the number of atopic diseases is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with EoE having multiple atopic conditions have differences in presentation or response to topical corticosteroid (TCS) treatment. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults and children with newly diagnosed EoE. The total number of atopic comorbidities (allergic rhinitis, asthma, eczema, food allergy) was calculated. Patients with at least 2 atopic conditions other than allergic rhinitis were defined as having multiple atopic conditions and their baseline characteristics were compared with those with less than 2 atopic conditions. Histologic, symptom, and endoscopic responses to TCS treatment were also compared with bivariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Of the 1020 patients with EoE having atopic disease information, 235 (23%) had 1 atopic comorbidity, 211 (21%) had 2, 113 (11%) had 3, and 34 (3%) had 4. At baseline, the 180 (18%) patients with 2 or more atopic diseases were younger and had more vomiting, less abdominal pain, more exudates and edema on endoscopy, and higher peak eosinophil counts. Among those treated with TCS, there was a trend toward better global symptom response in patients with less than 2 atopic conditions, but there was no difference in histologic or endoscopic response compared with those with 2 or more atopic conditions. CONCLUSION: There were differences in the initial presentation of EoE between those with and without multiple atopic conditions, but there were no major differences in histologic treatment response to corticosteroids by atopic status.

Feeding Tube Placement, Complications, and Treatment Responses in a Large Eosinophilic Esophagitis Patient Population.

OBJECTIVES: Feeding tubes can provide a temporary or long-term solution for nutritional therapy. Little is known regarding the use of feeding tubes in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We sought to describe the characteristics and outcomes in EoE patients requiring tube feeding. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of EoE patients at a large tertiary care health system. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and endoscopic findings were extracted from medical records, and patients who had a feeding tube were identified. Patients with and without a feeding tube were compared. Details about the tube, complications, and treatment were extracted. Growth, global symptomatic, endoscopic, and histopathologic (<15 eos/hpf) responses were compared before and after the initiation of feeding tube therapy. RESULTS: We identified 39 of 1216 EoE patients who had a feeding tube (3%). Feeding tube patients were younger (mean age 6.3 years), reported more vomiting, and had a lower total endoscopic reference score than non-feeding tube patients ( P < 0.01 for all). Tubes were used for therapy for an average of 6.8 years, with most patients (95%) receiving both pharmacologic and formula treatment for EoE. An emergency department visit for a tube complication was required in 26%. Tube feeding improved body mass index z score ( P < 0.01), symptomatic response (42%), endoscopic response (53%), and histologic response (71%). CONCLUSIONS: Among EoE patients, only a small subset required a feeding tube and predominantly were young children with failure to thrive. Feeding tubes significantly improved growth and, when used in combination with other treatments, led to reduced esophageal eosinophilic inflammation.

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia. The treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications. Currently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies. Fourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low. Corticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty). Nine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission. Biologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty). Biologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty). Biologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo. Biologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.

Psychiatric Comorbidities Are Highly Prevalent in Nonesophageal Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity in nonesophageal eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) has not been studied. We aimed to ascertain the prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses and psychiatric medication use in children, adolescents, and adults with EGIDs and to assess whether psychiatric comorbidity affects clinical presentation. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed patients with a nonesophageal EGID at the University of North Carolina from 2008 to 2020. Psychiatric diagnoses and medications were extracted from medical records. We compared the clinical and demographic features of EGID patients with and without psychiatric diagnoses. RESULTS: Of 79 patients (mean 23.3 years of age, 53% male, 78% White) with a nonesophageal EGID diagnosis, 40 (51%) were diagnosed with a comorbid psychiatric disease. Anxiety (37%) and depression (28%) were most common. There were also 40 (51%) patients treated medically for a psychiatric diagnosis. Patients with a psychiatric diagnosis were more commonly ≥18 years of age at the time of EGID diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 3.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-13.02) and had endorsed symptoms of nausea (OR, 5.31; 95% CI, 1.33-21.22) and dysphagia (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.18-15.26). CONCLUSION: Psychiatric diagnoses were very common in nonesophageal EGID patients with approximately 7 in 10 adults and one-third of children diagnosed. Similar proportions were found for psychiatric medication use. We also found that psychiatric illness may influence age of clinical presentation and symptoms. Providers should assess for concomitant psychiatric comorbidities in EGID patients.

A Gap in Care Leads to Progression of Fibrosis in Eosinophilic Esophagitis Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are few data assessing disease progression in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) after diagnosis. We aimed to determine outcomes and assess for progression of fibrosis in patients with EoE with a gap in their regular care. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed patients with EoE, a "gap" in care was defined as ≥2 years without medical contact for EoE. For inclusion, a gap in care and both pre- and post-gap endoscopies were required. Patients with and without a gap were compared. Data were also compared in gap patients before the gap and after EoE care resumed, and progression of fibrosis and predictors were assessed. RESULTS: Of 701 patients with EoE, 95 (14%) had a gap in care (mean time without care, 4.8 ± 2.3 years). Post-gap, 12% presented with food impaction requiring emergency evaluation. Compared with pre-gap, patients post-gap had higher endoscopic severity (2.4 vs 1.5; P < .001) and smaller esophageal diameters (11.0 vs 12.7 mm; P = .04). Strictures were more prevalent with longer gap time (P < .05 for trend). Each additional year of gap time increased odds of stricture by 26%, even after accounting for pre-gap dilation. Additionally, of 67 patients without pre-gap fibrosis, 25 (37%) had at least one fibrotic feature (stricture, narrowing, or requiring dilation) post-gap. CONCLUSIONS: A gap in care of ≥2 years in patients with EoE was associated with signs of increased disease activity, and progression to fibrostenosis was noted, particularly with longer gaps in care. Because EoE can progress to fibrosis even after diagnosis, regular care in patients with EoE is required, perhaps at intervals <2 years.

Dilation-predominant approach versus routine care in patients with difficult-to-treat eosinophilic esophagitis: a retrospective comparison.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about esophageal dilation as a long-term treatment approach for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We examined the impact of a "dilate and wait" strategy on symptom management and safety of patients with EoE. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included two patient groups: those who underwent a dilation-predominant approach (≥ 3 dilations as sole therapy or for histologically refractory disease [> 15 eos/hpf]); and those who had routine care (< 3 dilations or histologic response). Group characteristics were compared and outcomes for the dilation-only group assessed. RESULTS: 53/205 patients (26 %) received the dilation-predominant strategy (total 408 dilations), predominantly for histologic treatment nonresponse (75 %). These patients were younger (33 vs. 41 years; P = 0.003), had a narrower baseline esophageal diameter (9.8 vs. 11.5 mm; P = 0.005), underwent more dilations (7.7 vs. 3.4; P < 0.001), but achieved a smaller final diameter (15.7 vs. 16.7 mm; P = 0.01) vs. routine care. With this strategy, 30 patients (57 %) had ongoing symptom improvement, with esophageal caliber change independently associated with symptom response (adjusted odds ratio 1.79, 95 % confidence interval 1.16-2.78); 26 (49 %) used the strategy as a bridge to clinical trials. Over a median follow-up of 1001 days (interquartile range 581-1710), no deaths or dilation-related perforations occurred, but there were nine emergency room visits, including one for post-dilation bleeding and four for food impaction. CONCLUSIONS: A dilation-predominant long-term treatment strategy allowed for symptom control or bridge to clinical trials for patients with difficult-to-treat EoE. Close follow-up and monitoring for complications are required.

Loss to Follow-Up and Health Care Utilization After Initial Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disease, but the extent of patient loss to follow-up (LTFU) and health care utilization has not been fully investigated. AIM: To determine frequency and predictors of LTFU and health care utilization in EoE patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we extracted data from patients with a new diagnosis of EoE. Follow-up time for each patient was calculated as the time from the first diagnostic endoscopy to the last GI-related contact date in the medical record. Patients with and without LTFU were compared, and the volume of EoE-related health care interactions was recorded. RESULTS: Of 944 EoE cases, 249 (26%) met the definition for LTFU. Major reasons for LTFU were never being scheduled (45%) and inability to contact patients (40%). Factors independently associated with regular follow-up were having insurance (aOR 2.89; 95% CI 1.85-4.50), white race (aOR 2.16; 95% CI 1.37-3.41), and longer symptom length (aOR 1.04 per year; 95% CI 1.01-1.08). At the time of last contact, patients with follow-up had better symptom response (55% vs. 12%; p < 0.001), improved esophageal caliber (14.3 vs. 12.4 mm; p = 0.005), and more histologic response (45% vs. 4% at 15 eos/hpf; p < 0.001). Health care utilization was high, with an average of 4.6 endoscopies and 4.0 clinic visits over the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: LTFU of newly diagnosed EoE cases was common and associated with lack of insurance, non-white race, and shorter symptom duration. Those who followed up had high health care utilization but improved response rates. Strategies are needed to help decrease LTFU in EoE.

Association of eosinophilic esophagitis with autoimmune and connective tissue disorders, and the impact on treatment response.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been associated with autoimmune (AI) and connective tissue disorders (CTDs), but clinical correlates and treatment response to topical corticosteroids (tCS) for patients with both conditions are not well known. We aimed to determine the prevalence and clinical features of AI/CTDs in EoE patients, and assess the response to tCS. In this retrospective cohort study of adults and children newly diagnosed with EoE in the University of North Carolina EoE Clinicopathologic database, we extracted clinical characteristics and treatment response data. We compared EoE patients with and without AI/CTDs, identified independently associated factors, and explored treatment responses. Of 1029 EoE patients, 61 (5.9%) had an AI/CTDs. The most common AI/CTDs were psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (P/PA) (1.7%), Hashimoto's (1.2%), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (1%). Compared to those without AI/CTDs, AI/CTDs patients were older (35 vs. 28 years, P = 0.004), more likely to be female (51% vs. 30%, P = 0.001), have insurance (93% vs. 78%, P = 0.004) and a longer symptom duration prior to EoE diagnosis (10 vs. 7 years, P = 0.02). Older age, female sex, having insurance, and having allergic rhinitis were independently associated with AI/CTDs. AI/CTD patients with EoE were less likely to have a symptom response (47% vs. 79%, P = 0.003). Overlap between EoE and AI/CTDs was uncommon, seen in approximately 6%, with P/PA, Hashimoto's, and RA being most frequent. In conclusion, older age, female sex, having insurance, and allergic rhinitis were independently associated with AI/CTDs. EoE patients with AI/CTDs had less symptom response, with trendtowards lower endoscopic and histologic responses, to tCS therapy.

Mast Cell and Eosinophil Counts in Gastric and Duodenal Biopsy Specimens From Patients With and Without Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Mast cells are believed to contribute to the development of eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs). We quantified mast cells and eosinophils in biopsy specimens from patients with EGIDs and without known esophageal or gastrointestinal disease to investigate associations between these cell types and EGID and its features. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with EGID (n = 52) and of children and adults who underwent upper endoscopy and were found to have no evidence of gastrointestinal or systemic conditions (n = 123). We re-reviewed archived gastric and duodenal biopsy specimens to quantify mast cells (by tryptase immunohistochemistry) and eosinophils. We calculated the specificity of cell count thresholds for identification of patients with EGIDs and evaluated the correlation between mast cell and eosinophil counts and clinical and endoscopic features. RESULTS: In the gastric biopsy specimens from patients without esophageal or gastrointestinal diseases, the mean mast cell count was 18.1 ± 7.2 cells per high-power field (hpf), and the peak mast cell count was 21.9 ± 8.2 cells/hpf. In the duodenal biopsy specimens from patients without esophageal or gastrointestinal diseases, the mean mast cell count was 23.6 ± 8.1 cells/hpf and the peak mast cell count was 28.1 ± 9.3 cells/hpf. The mean and peak eosinophil counts in gastric biopsy specimens from patients without disease were 3.8 ± 3.6 eosinophils/hpf and 5.8 ± 5.0 eosinophils/hpf; the mean and peak eosinophil counts in duodenal biopsy specimens were 14.6 ± 8.9 eosinophils/hpf and 19.5 ± 11.0 eosinophils/hpf. A mean count of 20 eosinophils/hpf in gastric biopsy specimens or 30 eosinophils/hpf in duodenal biopsy specimens identified patients with EGIDs with high specificity. Gastric and duodenal biopsy specimens from patients with EGIDs had significant increases in mean mast cell counts compared with biopsy specimens from patients without EGIDs. There was a correlation between mean mast cell and eosinophil counts in duodenal biopsy specimens (R = 0.47; P = .01). The mean mast cell and eosinophil counts did not correlate with symptoms or endoscopic features of EGIDs. CONCLUSIONS: We identified thresholds for each cell type that identified patients with EGIDs with 100% specificity. The increased numbers of mast cells and eosinophils in gastric and duodenal tissues from patients with EGIDs supports the concept that these cell types are involved in pathogenesis. However, cell counts are not associated with symptoms or endoscopic features of EGIDs.

Clinical features and time trends associated with an endoscopically normal esophagus in active eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of patients with active eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have a normal-appearing esophagus on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). We aimed to determine the associations between the baseline clinical features and the endoscopically normal esophagus in EoE, as well as time trends in reporting. METHODS: In this retrospective study of active EoE cases from 2002 - 2018, patients with and without esophageal endoscopic abnormalities were compared. Multivariable logistic regression identified the independent predictors of a normal EGD. The proportion of patients with a normal EGD was determined per year, and before and after the introduction of the first EoE guidelines and the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS). RESULTS: Of 878 EoE patients, 101 (11.5 %) had an endoscopically normal esophagus; they were younger (8.3 vs. 25.4 years), had shorter median symptom duration before diagnosis (2.8 vs. 5.0 years), were less likely to have dysphagia (40 % vs. 76 %) or food impaction (8 % vs. 33 %), and more likely to have abdominal pain (37 % vs. 19 %) (P < 0.01 for all). On multivariable logistic regression, independent predictors of a normal esophagus were younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.96, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.94 - 0.98), abdominal pain (OR 2.03, 95 %CI 1.13 - 3.67), and lack of dysphagia (OR 0.49, 95 %CI 0.26 - 0.93). The proportion of patients with a normal esophagus decreased from 21 % before the first EoE guidelines to 7 % (P < 0.01) after introduction of the EREFS. CONCLUSIONS: An endoscopically normal esophagus is seen in ~10 % of active EoE patients and should not preclude biopsies; younger age, abdominal pain, and lack of dysphagia are independent predictors. The proportion of normal EGDs decreased over time, suggesting improved recognition of endoscopic findings.

Treatment with compounded fluticasone suspension improves the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features of eosinophilic esophagitis.

No approved medication exists for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in the United States, which forces patients to utilize off-label drugs and/or create their own formulations. We assessed the efficacy of a standardized compounded fluticasone suspension. To do this, we performed a retrospective cohort study identifying all EoE patients treated with compounded fluticasone. Compounded fluticasone was prescribed during routine clinical care and dispensed by a specialty compounding pharmacy. Clinical data were extracted from medical records. Outcomes (symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic) were assessed after the initial and last compounded fluticasone treatment in our system. There were 27 included patients (mean age 34.2; 67% male; 96% white) treated for a mean length of 5.4 ± 4.4 months. The majority (89%) previously utilized dietary elimination or topical corticosteroids, and many (75%) had primary non-response or secondary loss of response to these treatments. After starting compounded fluticasone, symptoms and endoscopic findings improved [dysphagia (89 vs. 56%, P = 0.005), food impaction (59 vs. 4%, P = 0.003), heartburn (26 vs. 4%, P = 0.01), chest pain (26 vs. 8%, P = 0.05), white plaques (63 vs. 32%; P = 0.005), furrows (81 vs. 60%; P = 0.06), and edema (15 vs. 4%; P = 0.16)]. The median of the peak eosinophil counts decreased from 52 to 37 eos/hpf (P = 0.10) and 35% of patients achieved <15 eos/hpf. In conclusion, compounded fluticasone provided a significant improvement in symptoms and endoscopic findings, with more than a third achieving histologic response in a treatment refractory EoE population. Compounded fluticasone should be considered as an EoE management option.

Psychiatric Comorbidities and Psychiatric Medication Use Are Highly Prevalent in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Associate With Clinical Presentation.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of psychiatric disease in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is not fully characterized. We aimed to determine the prevalence of psychiatric disease and centrally acting medication use in a cohort of children and adults with EoE and evaluated whether psychiatric disease affects the EoE clinical presentation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of newly diagnosed cases with EoE at the University of North Carolina from 2002 to 2018. Psychiatric comorbidities and relevant treatments were extracted from the medical records. The demographic and clinical features of patients with EoE with and without psychiatric diagnoses, and those with and without psychiatric medication use, were compared. RESULTS: Of 883 patients (mean age 26.6 years, 68% men, 79% white), 241 (28%) had a psychiatric comorbidity. The most common diagnosis was anxiety (23%) followed by depression (17%); 28% of patients were treated pharmacologically. There were 45 patients (5%) treated pharmacologically without a psychiatric diagnosis for chronic pain syndromes, insomnia, and/or epilepsy. Cases with EoE with a psychiatric diagnosis were more likely to be women, white, and 18 years or older and to have a longer symptom duration before diagnosis. DICUSSION: Psychiatric comorbidities were common in EoE, seen in a third of adults and more than 1 in 7 children, and with similar proportions receiving a prescription medication. These illnesses affected the EoE presentation because psychiatric comorbidities were more likely in older, female, and white patients with a longer duration of symptoms preceding diagnosis.

Association Between Endoscopic and Histologic Findings in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort of Patients with Non-esophageal Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the endoscopic and histologic findings of non-esophageal eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGID). AIM: To characterize the presenting endoscopic and histologic findings in patients with eosinophilic gastritis (EG), eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE), and eosinophilic colitis (EC) at diagnosis and 6 months after initiating the treatment. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at 6 US centers associated with the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Researchers. Data abstracted included demographics, endoscopic findings, tissue eosinophil counts, and associated histologic findings at diagnosis and, when available, after initial treatment. RESULTS: Of 373 subjects (317 children and 56 adults), 142 had EG, 123 EGE, and 108 EC. Normal endoscopic appearance was the most common finding across all EGIDs (62% of subjects). Baseline tissue eosinophil counts were quantified in 105 (74%) EG, 36 (29%) EGE, and 80 (74%) EC subjects. The mean peak gastric eosinophil count across all sites was 87 eos/hpf for EG and 78 eos/hpf for EGE. The mean peak colonic eosinophil count for EC subjects was 76 eos/hpf (range 10-500). Of the 29% of subjects with post-treatment follow-up, most had an improvement in clinical, endoscopic, and histologic findings regardless of treatment utilized. Reductions in tissue eosinophilia correlated with improvements in clinical symptoms as well as endoscopic and histologic findings. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort, normal appearance was the most common endoscopic finding, emphasizing the importance of biopsy, regardless of endoscopic appearance. Decreased tissue eosinophilia was associated with improvement in symptoms, endoscopic, and histologic findings, showing that disease activity is reversible.

Distal esophagus is the most commonly involved site for strictures in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.

While strictures are common in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), there are few data on stricture distribution and characteristics. Our primary aim was to characterize strictures by location in the esophagus in EoE and associated clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features. This was a retrospective study from the UNC EoE Clinicopathologic Database of subjects with esophageal strictures or narrowing from 2002 to 2017. Strictures were categorized as distal esophagus/gastroesophageal junction, mid-esophagus, proximal esophagus, or diffusely narrowed. Stricture location was assessed and compared with clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features, and also with treatment response to diet or topical steroids. Efficacy of combination therapy with dilation and intralesional steroid injection was assessed in a sub-group of patients with strictures. Of 776 EoE cases, 219 (28%) had strictures, 45% of which were distal, 30% were proximal, 5% were mid-esophageal, and 20% had diffuse narrowing. Those with mid-esophageal strictures were younger (P = 0.02) and had shorter symptom duration (P < 0.01). Those with diffuse esophageal narrowing were more likely to be women (57%) and have abdominal pain (25%). There was no association between other clinical, endoscopic, and histologic findings and treatment response based on stricture location. Fourteen patients (8%) received intralesional triamcinolone injection and subsequently achieved a higher mean dilation diameter after injection (13.7 vs. 15.5 mm; P < 0.01). In conclusion, almost half of strictures in EoE patients were in the distal esophagus. Therefore, EoE should be a diagnostic consideration in patients with focal distal strictures and not presumed to be secondary to gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Combination Therapy With Elimination Diet and Corticosteroids Is Effective for Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune/antigen-mediated disorder defined by eosinophilic-predominant inflammation and esophageal dysfunction.1,2 EoE represents an important cause of esophageal morbidity and a leading cause of esophagitis.3.