Eosinophil Distribution in Eosinophilic Esophagitis and its Impact on Disease Activity and Response to Treatment.

Although mostly accentuated in the distal esophagus, distribution of esophageal eosinophilia in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) seems to be nonuniform.1 Disease extent has been associated with disease severity and disease progression in inflammatory bowel disease.2,3 Whether the same holds true for EoE remains largely unknown. One recent EoE study looked at the distribution of eosinophilia, but without analyzing its potential association with treatment outcomes.4 Here, we characterize the different inflammatory patterns of EoE and investigate their impact on disease presentation and disease outcome, with a particular focus on therapeutic response.

Histological Phenotyping in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Localized Proximal Disease Is Infrequent but Associated with Less Severe Disease and Better Disease Outcome.

INTRODUCTION: It is still unknown whether eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients with localized disease are different from those with extended disease. METHODS: We evaluated prospectively included patients in the Swiss EoE cohort. Data on all patients with active disease at baseline, no concomitant gastroesophageal reflux disease, no strictures at baseline, and at least one follow-up visit were analyzed. We compared patients with histologically localized proximal versus distal versus extended (=proximal and distal) disease with regard to patient, disease characteristics, disease presentation, and development of complications. RESULTS: We included 124 patients with a median of 2.5 years of follow-up (73.4% males, median age 35.0 years). Ten patients had proximal (8.1%), 46 patients had distal (37.1%), and 68 patients had extended disease (54.8%). Patients with proximal disease were significantly more often females (80%) compared with patients with distal (26.1%, p = 0.002) or extended disease (19.1%, p < 0.001) and reported less severe symptoms (VAS 0 vs. VAS 1, p = 0.001). Endoscopic and histological disease was less pronounced in the proximal esophagus of proximal EoE compared to extended disease (EREFS 1.0 vs. 3.0, p = 0.001; 27.0 eos/hpf vs. 52.5 eos/hpf, p = 0.008). Patients with proximal disease were less likely to undergo dilation compared to patients with distal disease in the follow-up (3.3% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.010). In a multivariate Cox regression model, proximal eosinophilia was less likely to be associated with treatment failure compared to distal eosinophilia. CONCLUSION: Although isolated proximal EoE is infrequent, it is associated with less severe disease and better disease outcome. Proximal disease appears to present a unique EoE phenotype.

Pediatric Patients with Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Their Parents Identify Symptoms as the Most Important Treatment Outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Given the lack of data, we aimed to explore which therapeutic endpoints pediatric patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and their parents consider to be relevant. METHODS: We created an educational brochure on EoE and a questionnaire, both of which were content-validated by pediatric patients and parents. Validated documents were sent to 112 patients and parents. They ranked the importance (5 levels) of short (during next 3 months) and long-term (≥1 year) treatment effect on symptoms, quality of life, endoscopic inflammation, stricture formation, histological inflammation, and fibrosis. RESULTS: A total of 45 parents and 30 pediatric patients ≥11 years completed the questionnaires. Pediatric patients identified improvement in the following domains as most important in the short- and long-term, respectively: symptoms (73% vs. 77%), QoL (53% vs. 57%), histologic inflammation (47% vs. 50%), histologic fibrosis (40% vs. 33%), endoscopic inflammation (47% vs. 40%), and strictures (33% vs. 40%). Parents of children ≥11 years old classified improvement in the following domains as most important in the short- and long-term, respectively: symptoms (70% vs. 83%), QoL (63% vs. 80%), histologic inflammation (67% vs. 77%), histologic fibrosis (47% vs. 63%), endoscopic inflammation (77% vs. 80%), and strictures (40% vs. 53%). Agreement between caregiver and children on the short-term importance of treatment outcomes was as follows: symptoms (77%), QoL (40%), histologic inflammation and fibrosis (47% and 43%), endoscopic inflammation and strictures (50% and 40%). CONCLUSION: Pediatric patients and parents attributed most importance to improvement in symptoms and QoL. Agreement between parents and patients regarding therapy goals is limited.

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.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis beyond Eosinophils - an Emerging Phenomenon Overlapping with Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Collegium Internationale Allergologicum (CIA) Update 2023.

Having long been considered the mainstay in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) diagnosis and pathogenesis, the role of eosinophils has been questioned and might be less important than previously thought. It is well known now that EoE is a Th2-mediated disease with many more disease features than eosinophilic infiltration. With more knowledge on EoE, less pronounced phenotypes or nuances of the disease have become apparent. In fact, EoE might be only the tip of the iceberg (and the most extreme phenotype) with several variant forms, at least three, lying on a disease spectrum. Although a common (food induced) pathogenesis has yet to be confirmed, gastroenterologists and allergologists should be aware of these new phenomena in order to further characterize these patients. In the following review, we discuss the pathogenesis of EoE, particularly those mechanisms beyond eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa, non-eosinophilic inflammatory cell populations, the new disease entity EoE-like disease, variant forms of EoE, and the recently coined term mast cell esophagitis.

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.

Development of a core outcome set for therapeutic studies in eosinophilic esophagitis (COREOS).

BACKGROUND: End points used to determine treatment efficacy in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have evolved over time. With multiple novel therapies in development for EoE, harmonization of outcomes measures will facilitate evidence synthesis and appraisal when comparing different treatments. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for controlled and observational studies of pharmacologic and diet interventions in adult and pediatric patients with EoE. METHODS: Candidate outcomes were generated from systematic literature reviews and patient engagement interviews and surveys. Consensus was established using an iterative Delphi process, with items voted on using a 9-point Likert scale and with feedback from other participants to allow score refinement. Consensus meetings were held to ratify the outcome domains of importance and the core outcome measures. Stakeholders were recruited internationally and included adult and pediatric gastroenterologists, allergists, dieticians, pathologists, psychologists, researchers, and methodologists. RESULTS: The COS consists of 4 outcome domains for controlled and observational studies: histopathology, endoscopy, patient-reported symptoms, and EoE-specific quality of life. A total of 69 stakeholders (response rate 95.8%) prioritized 42 outcomes in a 2-round Delphi process, and the final ratification meeting generated consensus on 33 outcome measures. These included measurement of the peak eosinophil count, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, and patient-reported measures of dysphagia and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This interdisciplinary collaboration involving global stakeholders has produced a COS that can be applied to adult and pediatric studies of pharmacologic and diet therapies for EoE and will facilitate meaningful treatment comparisons and improve the quality of data synthesis.

Fluticasone Propionate Orally Disintegrating Tablet (APT-1011) for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Topical steroids are effective treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The FLUTE (Fluticasone in EoE) trial evaluated safety and efficacy of APT-1011 (fluticasone propionate oral disintegrating tablet) vs placebo for treatment of EoE. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 2b trial, 106 adults with EoE received 1 of 4 APT-1011 doses or placebo for a 12-week induction period and 40 weeks of maintenance. Primary outcome was histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) at Week 12. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic features and dysphagia frequency. RESULTS: Histologic response rates were 0% for placebo, 80% for APT-1011 3 mg twice daily (BID), 67% for 3 mg at bedtime (HS), 86% for 1.5 mg BID, 48% for 1.5 mg HS (P < .001 for all groups vs placebo). At Week 12, mean Edema/Rings/Exudates/Furrows/Strictures (EoE Endoscopic Reference Score) total score (max, 9.0) improved from 4.5 to 2.3 for 3 mg BID, 5.3 to 2.1 for 3 mg HS, 4.6 to 1.7 for 1.5 mg BID, 5.3 to 2.9 for 1.5 mg HS vs 5.2 to 4.5 for placebo. Mean dysphagia frequency over 14 days improved from baseline to Week 12 with all active groups improving more than placebo. Improvements were sustained to Week 52. APT-1011 was safe and well-tolerated, with higher incidence of candidiasis noted at the higher twice daily doses. CONCLUSION: APT-1011 dosing regimens were superior for histologic and endoscopic responses, and for reduction in dysphagia frequency vs placebo. Based on the symptom improvement and assessment of adverse events together with the histologic response rate, 3 mg once daily at bedtime dose showed the most favorable risk-benefit profile. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03191864.

Long-Lasting Dissociation of Esophageal Eosinophilia and Symptoms After Dilation in Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Esophageal dilation improves dysphagia but not inflammation in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients. We investigated if dilation modifies the association between symptoms and peak esophageal eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf). METHODS: Adults enrolled in a multisite prospective Consortium of Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Disease Researchers Outcome Measures for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases Across Ages observational study (NCT02523118) completed the symptom-based EoE activity index (EEsAI) patient-reported outcome instrument and underwent endoscopy with biopsy specimens. Patients were stratified based on dilation status as absent, performed 1 year or less before endoscopy, and performed more than 1 year before endoscopy. Assessments included Spearman correlations of the relationship between symptoms and eos/hpf and linear regression with EEsAI as the outcome, eos/hpf as predictor, and interaction for dilation and eos/hpf. RESULTS: Among 100 patients (n = 61 males; median age, 37 y), 15 and 40 patients underwent dilation 1 year or less and more than 1 year before index endoscopy, respectively. In nondilated patients, the association between eos/hpf and symptoms was moderate (ρ = 0.49; P < .001); for a 10-eos/hpf increase, the predicted EEsAI increased by 2.69 (P = .002). In patients dilated 1 or less and more than 1 year before index endoscopy, this association was abolished (ρ = -0.38; P = .157 for ≤1 y and ρ = 0.02; P = .883 >1 y); for a 10-eos/hpf increase, the predicted EEsAI changed by -1.64 (P = .183) and 0.78 (P = .494), respectively. Dilation modified the association between symptoms and eos/hpf (P = .005 and P = .187 for interaction terms of eos/hpf and dilation 1 or less years before and more than 1 year before index endoscopy, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In nondilated EoE adults, eos/hpf correlate modestly with symptoms; this correlation was no longer appreciated in dilated patients, and the dilation effects lasted longer than 1 year. Dilation status should be considered in studies evaluating EoE treatment and for clinical follow-up evaluation.

Disease Burden and Unmet Need in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease of increasing prevalence, characterized by symptoms of dysphagia and reduced quality of life. A dysregulated type 2 immune response to food and aeroallergen leads to barrier dysfunction, chronic esophageal inflammation, remodeling, and fibrosis. Patients with EoE have impaired quality of life because of dysphagia and other symptoms. They may also suffer social and psychological implications of food-related illness and expensive out-of-pocket costs associated with treatment. Disease burden in EoE is often compounded by the presence of comorbid type 2 inflammatory diseases. Current conventional treatments include elimination diet, proton pump inhibitors, and swallowed topical corticosteroids, as well as esophageal dilation in patients who have developed strictures. These treatments demonstrate variable response rates and may not always provide long-term disease control. There is an unmet need for long-term histologic, endoscopic, and symptomatic disease control; for targeted therapies that can normalize the immune response to triggers, reduce chronic inflammation, and limit or prevent remodeling and fibrosis; and for earlier diagnosis, defined treatment outcomes, and a greater understanding of patient perspectives on treatment. In addition, healthcare professionals need a better understanding of the patient perspective on disease burden, the disconnect between symptoms and disease activity, and the progressive nature of EoE and the need for continuous monitoring and maintenance treatment. In this review, we explore the progression of disease over the patient's lifespan, highlight the patient perspective on disease, and discuss the unmet need for effective long-term treatments.

Diagnostic Delay in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis Has Not Changed Since the First Description 30 Years Ago: Diagnostic Delay in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic progressive disease. Diagnostic delay (DD) is associated with increased risk of esophageal strictures and food impactions. We aimed to assess the evolution of DD since the first description of EoE in 1993 until 2021. METHODS: We analyzed data from patients prospectively included in the Swiss EoE database. DD was calculated as the time interval between the first occurrence of EoE symptoms and the confirmed diagnosis. DD was analyzed annually over time (1989-2021) and according to milestone publications in the field (1993: first description; 2007: first consensus recommendations; and 2011: updated consensus recommendations). In addition, a Cox proportional hazards model has been used to describe the relation between DD and covariates. RESULTS: Complete data of 1,152 patients (857 male [74%]; median age at diagnosis: 38 years, interquartile range: 28-49, range: 1-86) were analyzed. Overall, median DD was 4 years (interquartile range: 1-11, range, 0-56), with DD ≥ 10 years in 32% of the population. Over time, DD did not significantly change, neither annually nor according to release dates of milestone publications with a persistently stable fraction of roughly one-third of all patients with a DD of ≥10 years. Both ages at diagnosis ( P < 0.001, with an increase in DD up to the age of 31-40 years) and at symptom onset (younger patients had a longer DD; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with DD. DISCUSSION: DD has not changed since the first description of EoE almost 30 years ago and remains substantial. Even today, one-third of patients have a persistently high DD of ≥10 years. Substantial efforts are warranted to increase awareness for EoE and its hallmark symptom, solid food dysphagia, as an age-independent red-flag symptom among healthcare professionals and presumably the general population alike to lower risk of long-term complications.

Characterization of eosinophilic esophagitis variants by clinical, histological, and molecular analyses: A cross-sectional multi-center study.

OBJECTIVE: Physicians are increasingly confronted with patients presenting with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction resembling eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but absence of significant esophageal eosinophilia. The purpose of this study was to characterize and classify this group of EoE variants. DESIGN: Patients from six EoE-centers with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, but peak eosinophil counts of <60/mm2 (<15/hpf) in esophageal biopsies and absence of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) were included. Clinical, endoscopic, (immuno)-histological, and molecular features were determined and compared with EoE, GERD, and healthy controls. RESULTS: We included 69 patients with EoE variants. Endoscopic abnormalities were found in 53.6%. We identified three histological subtypes: EoE-like esophagitis (36/69, 52.2%), lymphocytic esophagitis (14/69, 20.3%), and non-specific esophagitis (19/69, 27.5%). Immunohistochemistry revealed-in contrast to EoE-no significant increase in inflammatory cell infiltrates compared with GERD and healthy controls, except for lymphocytes in lymphocytic esophagitis. EoE-typical Th2-response was absent in all EoE variants. However, considerable structural changes were detected based on histology and protein expression. Using next generation mRNA sequencing, we found the three EoE variants to have distinct molecular fingerprints partially sharing pronounced traits of EoE. Hierarchical sample clustering of RNA sequencing data confirmed the presence of an EoE-like (characterized by eotaxin-3 expression), non-specific, and lymphocytic variant cluster (characterized by CD3 cells and TSLP expression). CONCLUSION: All EoE variants are clinically and histologically active conditions despite the absence of esophageal eosinophilia. EoE variants appear to be part of a disease spectrum, where classical EoE represents the most common and apparent phenotype.

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

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

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.

Emerging treatment options for extraintestinal manifestations in IBD.

Extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) are frequently observed in IBDs and contribute considerably to morbidity and mortality. They have long been considered a difficult to treat entity due to limited therapy options, but the increasing use of anti-tumour necrosis factors has dramatically changed the therapeutic approach to EIM in recent years. Newly emerging therapies such as JAK inhibitors and anti-interleukin 12/23 will further shape the available armamentarium. Clinicians dealing with EIMs in everyday IBD practice may be puzzled by the numerous available biological agents and small molecules, their efficacy for EIMs and their potential off-label indications. Current guidelines on EIMs in IBD do not include treatment algorithms to help practitioners in the treatment decision-making process. Herein, we summarise knowledge on emerging biological treatment options and small molecules for EIMs, highlight current research gaps, provide therapeutic algorithms for EIM management and shed light on future strategies in the context of IBD-related EIMs.

Increasing Incidence of Microscopic Colitis in a Population-Based Cohort Study in Switzerland.

Microscopic colitis (MC) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon that presents with chronic, nonbloody watery diarrhea and only few or no endoscopic abnormalities. Histologic examination discriminates lymphocytic colitis (LyC; presence of ≥20 intraepithelial lymphocytes per 100 surface epithelial cells) and collagenous colitis (CC; colonic subepithelial collagen band >10 µm in diameter).1,2 MC not otherwise specified describes a subgroup of patients who do not fulfill the diagnostic criteria for either CC or LyC.1,2 Population-based epidemiologic data regarding MC are scarce. We aimed to evaluate the clinical presentation at diagnosis, incidence, and prevalence of MC in Cantons of Vaud and Fribourg, Switzerland.

Effectiveness and Safety of High- vs Low-Dose Swallowed Topical Steroids for Maintenance Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Data evaluating efficacy of different doses of swallowed topical corticosteroids (STC) in the long-term management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are lacking. We assessed long-term effectiveness and safety of different STC doses for adults with EoE after achievement of histological remission. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter study at five EoE referral centers (US and Switzerland). We analyzed data on 82 patients with EoE in histological remission and ongoing STC treatment with therapeutic adherence of ≥75% (58 males; mean age at diagnosis, 37.2±14.4 years). Patients were followed for a median of 2.2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.0-3.8 years). We collected data from 217 follow-up endoscopy visits. The primary endpoint was time to histological relapse. RESULTS: Histological relapse occurred in 67% of patients. Relapse rates were comparable in patients taking low dose (≤0.5 mg per day, n = 58) and high dose STC (>0.5 mg per day, n = 24) with 72 vs 54% (ns). However, histological relapse occurred significantly earlier with low dose STC (1.0 vs 1.8 years, P = .030). There was no difference regarding rates of and time to stricture formation for low vs high dose STC. Esophageal candidiasis was observed in 6% of patients (5% for low dose, 8% for high dose, ns). No dysplasia or mucosal atrophy was detected. CONCLUSION: Histological relapse frequently occurs in EoE despite ongoing STC treatment regardless of STC doses. However, relapse develops later in patients on high dose STC without an increase in side-effects. Doses higher than 0.5 mg/day may be considered for EoE maintenance treatment, but advantage over lower doses appears to be small.

Efficacy of Dupilumab in a Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Adults With Active Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an allergen-mediated inflammatory disease with no approved treatment in the United States. Dupilumab, a VelocImmune-derived human monoclonal antibody against the interleukin (IL) 4 receptor, inhibits IL4 and IL13 signaling. Dupilumab is effective in the treatment of allergic, atopic, and type 2 diseases, so we assessed its efficacy and safety in patients with EoE. METHODS: We performed a phase 2 study of adults with active EoE (2 episodes of dysphagia/week with peak esophageal eosinophil density of 15 or more eosinophils per high-power field), from May 12, 2015, through November 9, 2016, at 14 sites. Participants were randomly assigned to groups that received weekly subcutaneous injections of dupilumab (300 mg, n = 23) or placebo (n = 24) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 10 in Straumann Dysphagia Instrument (SDI) patient-reported outcome (PRO) score. We also assessed histologic features of EoE (peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and EoE histologic scores), endoscopically visualized features (endoscopic reference score), esophageal distensibility, and safety. RESULTS: The mean SDI PRO score was 6.4 when the study began. In the dupilumab group, SDI PRO scores were reduced by a mean value of 3.0 at week 10 compared with a mean reduction of 1.3 in the placebo group (P = .0304). At week 12, dupilumab reduced the peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count by a mean 86.8 eosinophils per high-power field (reduction of 107.1%; P < .0001 vs placebo), the EoE-histologic scoring system (HSS) severity score by 68.3% (P < .0001 vs placebo), and the endoscopic reference score by 1.6 (P = .0006 vs placebo). Dupilumab increased esophageal distensibility by 18% vs placebo (P < .0001). Higher proportions of patients in the dupilumab group developed injection-site erythema (35% vs 8% in the placebo group) and nasopharyngitis (17% vs 4% in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS: In a phase 2 trial of patients with active EoE, dupilumab reduced dysphagia, histologic features of disease (including eosinophilic infiltration and a marker of type 2 inflammation), and abnormal endoscopic features compared with placebo. Dupilumab increased esophageal distensibility and was generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02379052.

Systematic Review of Outcome Measures Used in Observational Studies of Adults with Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 20 years, diverse outcome measures have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This systematic review aims to identify the readouts used in observational studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation in adult EoE patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase for prospective and retrospective studies (cohorts/case series, randomized open-label, and case-control) evaluating the use of diets, dilation, and topical corticosteroids in adults with EoE. Two authors independently assessed the articles and extracted information about histologic, endoscopic, and patient-reported outcomes and tools used to assess treatment effects. RESULTS: We included 69 studies that met inclusion criteria. EoE-associated endoscopic findings (assessed either as absence/presence or using Endoscopic Reference Score) were evaluated in 24/35, 11/17, and 9/17 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively. Esophageal eosinophil density was recorded in 32/35, 17/17, and 11/17 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively. Patient-reported outcomes were not uniformly used (only in 14, 8, and 3 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively), and most tools were not validated for use in adults with EoE. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of an agreed set of core outcomes that should be recorded and reported in studies in adult EoE patients, endoscopic EoE-associated findings and esophageal eosinophil density are commonly used to assess disease activity in observational studies. Standardization of outcomes and data supporting the use of outcomes are needed to facilitate interpretation of evidence, its synthesis, and comparisons of interventions in meta-analyses of therapeutic trials in adults with EoE.