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.

Odynophagia and Retrosternal Pain Are Common in Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Associated with an Increased Overall Symptom Severity.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Dysphagia is the hallmark symptom in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, data are limited regarding the overall prevalence and potential implications of atypical symptoms like odynophagia and retrosternal pain. METHODS: Patients enrolled into the Swiss EoE cohort study (SEECS) were analyzed regarding the presence of odynophagia and retrosternal pain. Demographics, other EoE-related symptoms, histologic and endoscopic activity were compared between EoE-patients with vs. without odynophagia and/or retrosternal pain. RESULTS: 474 patients (75.2% male) were analyzed. In their individual course of disease 110 (23.2%) patients stated to have ever experienced odynophagia and 64 (13.5%) retrosternal pain independent of food intake, 24 (5%) patients complained about both symptoms. Patients with odynophagia consistently scored higher in symptom severity (p < 0.001), EREFS score (median 3.0 vs. 2.0, p = 0.006), histologic activity and a lower quality of life (p = 0.001) compared to patients without odynophagia. Sex, age at diagnosis, EoE-specific treatment, complications such as candida or viral esophagitis and disease duration were similar in patients with vs. without odynophagia. Also patients with retrosternal pain scored higher in symptom severity (2.0 vs. 1.0, p = 0.001 and 2.0 vs. 1.0, p < 0.001 in physician and patient questionnaire assessment, respectively). However, there was neither a difference in endoscopic/histologic disease activity nor in quality of life according to presence or absence of retrosternal pain. Due to logistic reasons, a stratification regarding the presence of concomitant dysphagia was not possible. CONCLUSION: Odynophagia and swallowing-independent retrosternal pain are common symptoms in patients with EoE, associate with an overall higher EoE-related symptom severity and for the case of odynophagia lower quality of life. However, the influence of concomitant dysphagia and its severity remains unclear and needs to be included in future analyses.

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.

Barrett's Esophagus in Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Swiss Eosinophilic Esophagitis Cohort Study (SEECS).

INTRODUCTION: There is a complex interrelationship between gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) potentially promoting the occurrence and modulating severity of each other reciprocally. Presence of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a defining factor for the diagnosis of GERD. While several studies investigated the potential impact of concomitant GERD on the presentation and course of EoE, little was known with regards to BE in EoE patients. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected clinical, endoscopic, and histological data from patients enrolled in the Swiss Eosinophilic Esophagitis Cohort Study (SEECS) regarding differences between EoE patients with (EoE/BE+) versus without BE (EoE/BE-) and determined the prevalence of BE in EoE patients. RESULTS: Among a total of 509 EoE patients included in our analysis, 24 (4.7%) had concomitant BE with a high male preponderance (EoE/BE+ 83.3% vs. EoE/BE- 74.4%). While there were no differences in dysphagia, odynophagia was significantly (12.5 vs. 3.1%, p = 0.047) more common in EoE/BE+ versus EoE/BE-. General well-being at last follow-up was significantly lower in EoE/BE+. Endoscopically, we observed an increased incidence of fixed rings in the proximal esophagus in EoE/BE+ (70.8 vs. 46.3% in EoE/BE-, p = 0.019) and a higher fraction of patients with a severe fibrosis in the proximal histological specimen (8.7 vs. 1.6% in EoE/BE, p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Our study reveals that BE is twice as frequent in EoE patients compared to general population. Despite many similarities between EoE patients with and without BE, the finding of a more pronounced remodeling in EoE patients with Barrett is noteworthy.

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.

[Eosinophilic oesophagitis and eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases].

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) was first described as an orphan disease in the 1990s, but its incidence and prevalence has increased dramatically in the last 20 years. EoE is now the most common cause of dysphagia in young adulthood. EoE is diagnosed endoscopically (with biopsies taken from the oesophagus). Treatment options consist of dietary measures and medications. The latter include PPI (as an off-label medication) and the approved drugs Jorveza (budesonide, topical cortisone preparation) and the monoclonal antibody Dupixent (dupilumab, subcutaneous). The response to therapy is high and the long-term outcome, if treated early, is excellent. However, the disease often remains undetected, mostly due to compensation mechanisms on the part of the patients. Much rarer than EoE are the non-EoE eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs), in which the eosinophilic tissue infiltration is found in gastrointestinal segments distal to the oesophagus. Their clinical presentation is often non-specific. Pathophysiologically, overlaps with EoE are present. Therapies are also analogous to EoE. An increasing prevalence and incidence is to be expected.

[Gastroenterology and hepatology: what's new in 2022]. / Gastroentérologie et hépatologie : ce qui a changé en 2022.

The field of gastroenterology and hepatology is evolving constantly. In 2022, numerous landmark studies have been published in all its subspecialities including hepatology, functional diseases, interventional endoscopy, and inflammatory bowel disease. Among the most significant advances are the antiviral treatment for hepatitis D, the new Chicago classification version 4 for esophageal motility disorders, the first biological treatment for eosinophilic esophagitis, a randomized controlled trial about the efficacy of screening colonoscopy, novel endoscopic techniques such as G-POEM or endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and emerging IBD therapies such as ozanimod, upadacitinib or anti-IL23 antibodies.

La gastroentérologie et l'hépatologie sont des disciplines variées et en pleine évolution. Durant l'année 2022, plusieurs études marquantes ont été publiées dans les domaines de l'hépatologie, des maladies fonctionnelles, de l'endoscopie et des maladies inflammatoires chroniques de l'intestin (MICI). Les avancées les plus importantes sont le traitement antiviral contre l'hépatite D, la nouvelle classification de Chicago version 4 pour les troubles moteurs œsophagiens, le traitement biologique de l'œsophagite à éosinophiles, l'efficacité de la coloscopie de dépistage, de nouvelles techniques endoscopiques comme le G-POEM ou la gastrectomie endoscopique et des nouveaux médicaments pour les MICI comme l'ozanimod, l'upadacitinib ou les anticorps anti-IL-23.

Mechanotransduction-induced glycolysis epigenetically regulates a CXCL1-dominant angiocrine signaling program in liver sinusoidal endothelial cells in vitro and in vivo.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs) are ideally situated to sense stiffness and generate angiocrine programs that potentially regulate liver fibrosis and portal hypertension. We explored how specific focal adhesion (FA) proteins parlay LSEC mechanotransduction into stiffness-induced angiocrine signaling in vitro and in vivo. METHODS: Primary human and murine LSECs were placed on gels with incremental stiffness (0.2 kPa vs. 32 kPa). Cell response was studied by FA isolation, actin polymerization assay, RNA-sequencing and electron microscopy. Glycolysis was assessed using radioactive tracers. Epigenetic regulation of stiffness-induced genes was analyzed by chromatin-immunoprecipitation (ChIP) analysis of histone activation marks, ChIP sequencing and circularized chromosome conformation capture (4C). Mice with LSEC-selective deletion of glycolytic enzymes (Hk2fl/fl/Cdh5cre-ERT2) or treatment with the glycolysis inhibitor 3PO were studied in portal hypertension (partial ligation of the inferior vena cava, pIVCL) and early liver fibrosis (CCl4) models. RESULTS: Glycolytic enzymes, particularly phosphofructokinase 1 isoform P (PFKP), are enriched in isolated FAs from LSECs on gels with incremental stiffness. Stiffness resulted in PFKP recruitment to FAs, which paralleled an increase in glycolysis. Glycolysis was associated with expansion of actin dynamics and was attenuated by inhibition of integrin ß1. Inhibition of glycolysis attenuated a stiffness-induced CXCL1-dominant angiocrine program. Mechanistically, glycolysis promoted CXCL1 expression through nuclear pore changes and increases in NF-kB translocation. Biochemically, this CXCL1 expression was mediated through spatial re-organization of nuclear chromatin resulting in formation of super-enhancers, histone acetylation and NF-kB interaction with the CXCL1 promoter. Hk2fl/fl/Cdh5cre-ERT2 mice showed attenuated neutrophil infiltration and portal hypertension after pIVCL. 3PO treatment attenuated liver fibrosis in a CCl4 model. CONCLUSION: Glycolytic enzymes are involved in stiffness-induced angiocrine signaling in LSECs and represent druggable targets in early liver disease. LAY SUMMARY: Treatment options for liver fibrosis and portal hypertension still represent an unmet need. Herein, we uncovered a novel role for glycolytic enzymes in promoting stiffness-induced angiocrine signaling, which resulted in inflammation, fibrosis and portal hypertension. This work has revealed new targets that could be used in the prevention and treatment of liver fibrosis and portal hypertension.

Sex Impacts Disease Activity But Not Symptoms or Quality of Life in Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis has a strong male predominance that appears at least partially due to genetic susceptibility. However, data regarding sex-related differences in patients with EoE are scarce. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected data from adults enrolled into the Swiss Eosinophilic Esophagitis Cohort Study. Patients with and without dilation in the past 12 months completed patient-reported Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index (EEsAI) and EoE-specific quality of life in adults (EoE-QoL-A) and underwent endoscopy with biopsies. We used linear regression with EEsAI or EoE-QoL-A as the outcome, eosinophils per high power field, rings and strictures, current therapy use, and disease duration as predictors. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients (77% male, median age at diagnosis 35.8 years, median disease duration 10.4 years) were seen during 408 visits. Men had a longer diagnostic delay (62 months vs 36 months; P = .022), higher endoscopic disease activity (median endoscopic reference score 3.0 [interquartile range, 1.0-6.0] vs 2.0 [interquartile range, 0.0-4.0]; P = .010), more microabscesses (25% vs 13%; P = .025), and more often fibrosis of the lamina propria (mild/moderate 74.7% vs 61.5%, severe 9.1% vs 5.8%; P = .047) than women. When adjusting for objective measures of disease activity, disease duration, and current therapy use, we did not observe differences in EEsAI or EoE-QoL-A between women and men. CONCLUSIONS: Male EoE patients had higher endoscopic and histologic disease activity than female patients. When adjusting for biologic activity and therapy use, we did not identify differences in symptom severity or EoE-QoL between male and female eosinophilic esophagitis patients.

International Consensus Recommendations for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Nomenclature.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Substantial heterogeneity in terminology used for eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs), particularly the catchall term "eosinophilic gastroenteritis," limits clinical and research advances. We aimed to achieve an international consensus for standardized EGID nomenclature. METHODS: This consensus process utilized Delphi methodology. An initial naming framework was proposed and refined in iterative fashion, then assessed in a first round of Delphi voting. Results were discussed in 2 consensus meetings, and the framework was updated and reassessed in a second Delphi vote, with a 70% threshold set for agreement. RESULTS: Of 91 experts participating, 85 (93%) completed the first and 82 (90%) completed the second Delphi surveys. Consensus was reached on all but 2 statements. "EGID" was the preferred umbrella term for disorders of gastrointestinal (GI) tract eosinophilic inflammation in the absence of secondary causes (100% agreement). Involved GI tract segments will be named specifically and use an "Eo" abbreviation convention: eosinophilic gastritis (now abbreviated EoG), eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and eosinophilic colitis (EoC). The term "eosinophilic gastroenteritis" is no longer preferred as the overall name (96% agreement). When >2 GI tract areas are involved, the name should reflect all of the involved areas. CONCLUSIONS: This international process resulted in consensus for updated EGID nomenclature for both clinical and research use. EGID will be the umbrella term, rather than "eosinophilic gastroenteritis," and specific naming conventions by location of GI tract involvement are recommended. As more data are developed, this framework can be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying science.

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.

Management of eosinophilic esophagitis associated food impaction in Europe and the United States.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most common cause of esophageal food impaction (EFI). Approaches to management of EFI due to EoE have not been well characterized. We conducted a web-based survey to understand approaches to management of EFI due to EoE among endoscopists. Questions focused on management of patients from presentation to post-endoscopy follow-up. The survey was administered to a list of eligible candidates provided by societies of gastroenterology. A total of 308 endoscopists completed the questionnaire. The majority (83%) practiced in Europe and treated adults (78%). Most agreed patients should be advised to seek emergency care (66%) within 1 to 2 hours (41% agreement). There was agreement that medications to induce vomiting should be avoided (84%) and that blood tests or imaging studies were usually not required before endoscopy. By contrast, there was more variability in the type of sedation recommended and the need for endotracheal intubation, especially when comparing more experienced with less experienced EoE-endoscopists. Overall, fewer than half (43%) respondents recommended obtaining esophageal biopsies during the initial endoscopy. However, there were significant differences in the proportion who recommended biopsies based on level of EoE-experience (25, 52, 77%, P < 0.001; less vs. moderate vs. very experienced) and comparing pediatric and adult endoscopists (32, vs. 79%, P < 0.001; adult vs. pediatric). There exists heterogeneity among endoscopists in recommendations to manage EFI in patients with EoE. These findings support development of clinical guidelines and new studies to clarify the rationale for best practices. Key summary: Established knowledge-The optimal management of patients with esophageal food impaction due to eosinophilic esophagitis from presentation at the emergency department to postendoscopy care is unclear. New findings-Considerable recommendation variation exists in the management of EFI in patients with EoE. Our findings provide a rationale for the creation of consensus practice guidelines and further study into best practices.

Is There a Role for Topical Swallowed Steroids upon Emergency Room Admission for Suspected Food Bolus Obstruction in Eosinophilic Esophagitis?

Since most pharmacological treatments in case of esophageal food impaction (EFI) are unsuccessful, an endoscopy is usually required to resolve EFI. We present the first results of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) as a medical treatment option before endoscopy. We evaluated all patients with a suspected EFI to receive BOT before emergent endoscopy at a tertiary hospital between March 2019 and June 2020. A total of eight patients received BOT before endoscopy. Mean age was 50.1 years and 87.5% were male. In 38% (3/8) of patients the EFI resolved without endoscopic intervention. No adverse events occurred. After endoscopy, a diagnosis of EoE was established in 75%. This case series demonstrate the potential of BOT as medical rescue therapy in case of EFI.

[Differential diagnosis and investigation of chronic diarrhea]. / Diagnostic différentiel et investigation de la diarrhée chronique.

Chronic diarrhea is defined by a decrease in stool consistency and a bowel frequency of more than 3 times per day, lasting for at least 4 weeks. Multiple underlying causes may be responsible for chronic diarrhea. There are four main pathomechanisms for chronic diarrhea: osmotic diarrhea, secretory diarrhea, infectious diarrhea and bowel dysmotility. Overlaps between these mechanisms may exist. A stool collection over a 72-hour period frequently allows to classify diarrhea into one of these four entities. Such classification finally helps for the identification of underlying cause(s), thereby allowing rational diagnostic measures. It also limits the costs of diagnostic workup. This article aims to present the main causes of chronic diarrhea, the diagnostic steps to perform and to provide a guideline for clinicians in daily practice.

La diarrhée chronique est définie par une diminution de la consistance des selles (défaites à liquides) et par une émission de selles supérieure à 3 ×/jour pendant plus de 4 semaines. Les raisons peuvent être multiples. Quatre pathomécanismes peuvent être à l'origine de la diarrhée chronique : osmotique, sécrétoire, inflammatoire et motrice. Des chevauchements entre ces mécanismes peuvent exister. La récolte de selles pendant 72 heures permet, dans la majorité des cas, de clarifier la physiopathologie des diarrhées et donc d'identifier la cause sous-­jacente permettant d'effectuer des mesures diagnostiques rationnelles et de limiter les coûts. Cet article a pour objectif de présenter les principales causes de diarrhée chronique, d'énumérer les étapes diagnostiques à réaliser et de donner une ligne directrice aux cliniciens dans la pratique quotidienne.

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.

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.