ABSTRACT
Abstract Objective: To assess intra- and interobserver agreement among non-expert pathologists in identifying features of the eosinophilic esophagitis histologic scoring system (EoEHSS) in pediatric patients. Patients and methods: The authors used 50 slides from patients (aged 1-15 years; 72% male) with EoE. EoEHSS evaluates eosinophilic inflammation and other features including epithelial basal zone hyperplasia, eosinophilic abscesses, eosinophil surface layering, dilated intercellular spaces, surface epithelial alteration, dyskeratotic epithelial cells, and lamina propria fibrosis. Grade and stage of abnormalities are scored using a 4-point scale (0 normal; 3 maximum change). Four pathologists determined EoEHSS findings on two occasions. Intra- and interobserver agreement was assessed using Kappa (κ) statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients. Results: Intra- and interobserver agreement for the identification of eosinophil counts ≥ 15/high power field (HPF) was excellent, however varied when assessing additional features of the EoEHSS. For the more experienced pathologist, agreement for most EoEHSS items and the composite scores was substantial to excellent. For the less experienced pathologists, intraobserver agreement ranged from absent to substantial for individual features and ranged from moderate to substantial for the composite scores. Conclusion: Most items of the EoEHSS had substantial to excellent reliability when assessed by a pathologist experienced in the diagnosis of EoE but presented lower repeatability among less experienced pathologists. These findings suggest that specific training of pathologists is required for the identification of EoEHSS characteristics beyond eosinophil count, as these features are considered useful in the evaluation of response to treatment and correlation with clinical manifestations and endoscopic findings.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Infant , Child, Preschool , Child , Adolescent , Adult , Eosinophilic Esophagitis/diagnosis , Eosinophilic Esophagitis/drug therapy , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of Results , Eosinophils/pathologyABSTRACT
Abstract Objective: To compare endoscopic and histologic features of pediatric patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) responding to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) to those not responding to PPI. Methods: Endoscopic reports and photographs of patients with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and ≥15 eosinophils per high-powered field (eos/hpf) in esophageal biopsies prior to PPI trial were reviewed. Patients were classified as responsive to PPI (PPIREoE) or non-responsive to PPI (PPINREoE) according to response totreatment (<15 eos/hpf) at second endoscopy after 8 weeks. Results: Of the 231 patients (72.3% male), 64 (27.7%) were responsive to the proton pump inhibitors. Edema (77.3% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.031) and vertical lines (69.5% vs. 51.6%, p = 0.014) were more frequent in PPINREoE patients. An eosinophil count in the mid-esophagus ≥ 35 eos/HPF (25.1% vs. 12.5%) was more frequent in these patients (p = 0.001). Those with eosinophil count < 15 eos/HPF in the mid-esophagus at the first endoscopy were more likely to respond to treatment with proton pump inhibitors compared to patients with 15-34 eos/HPF (p = 0.004, OR: 3.26, 95% CI: 1.46-7.24) and to patients with ≥ 35 eos/HPF (p = 0.006, OR: 3.20, 95% CI: 1.39-7.41). Conclusion: Edema and vertical lines at the endoscopy and a higher eosinophil count in the mid-esophagus were more frequent in patients who were non-responsive to proton pump inhibitors. As there were no significant differences in the other findings between the groups, it cannot be affirmed that these characteristics are sufficient to differentiate between PPINREoE and PPIREoE patients.
Resumo Objetivo: Comparar características endoscópicas e histológicas entre pacientes com esofagite eosinofílica responsiva (EoERIBP) e não responsiva (EoENRIBP) ao tratamento com inibidores de bomba de prótons. Métodos: Avaliados laudos e imagens endoscópicas de pacientes com sintomas de disfunção esofágica associados a contagem ≥ 15 eosinófilos por campo de grande aumento (eos/CGA) em biópsia do esôfago. Os pacientes foram classificados em responsivos (EoERIBP) ou não responsivos (EoENRIBP) aos inibidores de bomba de prótons conforme resposta ao tratamento na segunda endoscopia (< 15 eos/CGA) após 8 semanas. Resultados: Dos 231 pacientes (72,3% masculino), 64 (27,7%) foram responsivos aos inibidores de bomba de prótons. Edema (77,3% vs. 62,5%, p = 0,031) e linhas verticais (69,5% vs. 51,6%, p = 0,014) foram mais frequentes nos EoENRIBP. A contagem de eosinófilos em esôfago médio ≥ 35 eos/CGA (25,1% vs. 12,5%) foi mais frequente nesses pacientes (p = 0,001). Os que apresentaram contagem de eosinófilos < 15 eos/CGA no esôfago médio à primeira endoscopia apresentaram maior chance de responder ao tratamento com inibidores de bomba de prótons em comparação aos pacientes com 15-34 eos/CGA (p = 0,004; OR: 3,26; IC95%: 1,46-7,24) e aos pacientes com ≥ 35 eos/CGA (p = 0,006; OR: 3,20; IC95%: 1,39-7,41). Conclusão: Edema e linhas verticais à endoscopia e maior contagem de eosinófilos em esôfago médio foram mais frequentes nos pacientes não responsivos aos inibidores de bomba de prótons. Uma vez que não houve diferenças significativas nos outros achados entre os grupos, não se pode afirmar que essas características sejam suficientes para distinguir pacientes com EoENRIBP dos pacientes com EoERIBP.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Child , Eosinophilic Esophagitis/drug therapy , Biopsy , Endoscopy , Proton Pump Inhibitors/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Abstract Objective: To evaluate the pediatrician's knowledge regarding the diagnostic and therapeutic approach of childhood functional constipation. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed with the application of a self-administered questionnaire concerning a hypothetical clinical case of childhood functional constipation with fecal incontinence to physicians (n=297) randomly interviewed at the 36th Brazilian Congress of Pediatrics in 2013. Results: The majority of the participants were females, the mean age was 44.1 years, the mean time of professional practice was 18.8 years; 56.9% were Board Certified by the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics. Additional tests were ordered by 40.4%; including abdominal radiography (19.5%), barium enema (10.4%), laboratory tests (9.8%), abdominal ultrasound (6.7%), colonoscopy (2.4%), manometry and rectal biopsy (both 1.7%). The most common interventions included lactulose (26.6%), mineral oil (17.5%), polyethylene glycol (14.5%), fiber supplement (9.1%) and milk of magnesia (5.4%). Nutritional guidance (84.8%), fecal disimpaction (17.2%) and toilet training (19.5%) were also indicated. Conclusions: Our results show that pediatricians do not adhere to current recommendations for the management of childhood functional constipation, as unnecessary tests were ordered and the first-line treatment was not prescribed.
Resumo Objetivo: Identificar o conhecimento do pediatra quanto ao manejo diagnóstico e terapêutico da criança com constipação intestinal funcional. Métodos: Estudo transversal descritivo com amostra constituída de médicos (n=297) entrevistados no 36º Congresso Brasileiro de Pediatria de 2013. Foi usado um questionário autoadministrado referente a um caso clínico hipotético de constipação intestinal. Resultados: Foi observada maior proporção de pediatras do sexo feminino, média de 44,1 anos, tempo de formação médio de 18,8 anos, 56,9% portadores de título de especialista pela Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria. Exames complementares foram solicitados por 40,4%, a radiografia abdominal foi o mais requisitado (19,5%), seguido por enema opaco (10,4%), exames laboratoriais (9,8%), ultrassonografia de abdome (6,7%), colonoscopia (2,4%), manometria e biópsia (ambas 1,7%). Para o manejo foi sugerida a prescrição de lactulose (26,6%), óleo mineral (17,5%), polietilenoglicol (14,5%), suplemento de fibras (9,1%) e leite de magnésia (5,4%). Orientação alimentar (84,8%), desimpactação fecal (17,2%) e treinamento de toalete (19,5%) também foram indicadas. Conclusões: Evidencia-se uma discordância entre o manejo sugerido pelos pediatras e a conduta preconizada pela literatura disponível atualmente, uma vez que foram solicitados exames complementares desnecessários e não foi recomendada a orientação terapêutica considerada de primeira linha.