Novel transcriptomic panel identifies histologically active eosinophilic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is characterised by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and oesinophil tissue infiltration. The EoE Diagnostic Panel (EDP) can distinguish between active and non-active EoE using a set of 77 genes. Recently, the existence of distinct EoE variants featuring symptoms similar to EoE, such as oesophageal dysfunction but lacking eosinophil infiltration, had been determined. METHODS: We used oesophageal biopsies from patients with histologically active (n=10) and non-active EoE (n=9) as well as from healthy oesophageal controls (n=5) participating in the Swiss Eosinophilic Esophagitis Cohort Study (SEECS) and analysed the gene expression profile in these biopsies by total RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq). Moreover, we employed the publicly accessible RNA-seq dataset (series GSE148381) as reported by Greuter et al, encompassing a comprehensive genomic profile of patients presenting with EoE variants. RESULTS: A novel, diagnostic gene expression panel that can effectively distinguish patients with histologically active conventional EoE from patients with EoE in histological remission and control individuals, and from three newly discovered EoE variants was identified. Histologically Active EoE Diagnostic Panel (HAEDP) consists of 53 genes that were identified based on differential expression between histologically active EoE, histological remission and controls (p≤0.05). By combining the HAEDP with EDP, we expanded our knowledge about factors that may contribute to the inflammation in EoE and improved our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the disease. Conversely, we suggested a compact group of genes common to both HAEDP and EDP to create a reliable diagnostic tool that might enhance the accuracy of EoE diagnosis. CONCLUSION: We identified a novel set of 53 dysregulated genes that are closely associated with the histological inflammatory activity of EoE. In combination with EDP, our new panel might be a valuable tool for the accurate diagnosis of patients with EoE as well as for monitoring their disease course.

A Randomized Trial of a Transglutaminase 2 Inhibitor for Celiac Disease.

BACKGROUND: In celiac disease, small intestinal transglutaminase 2 causes deamidation of glutamine residues in gluten peptides, which enhances stimulation of T cells and leads to mucosal injury. Inhibition of transglutaminase 2 is a potential treatment for celiac disease. METHODS: In a proof-of-concept trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of a 6-week treatment with ZED1227, a selective oral transglutaminase 2 inhibitor, at three dose levels as compared with placebo, in adults with well-controlled celiac disease who underwent a daily gluten challenge. The primary end point was the attenuation of gluten-induced mucosal damage, as measured by the ratio of villus height to crypt depth. Secondary end points included intraepithelial lymphocyte density, the Celiac Symptom Index score, and the Celiac Disease Questionnaire score (for assessment of health-related quality of life). RESULTS: Of the 41 patients assigned to the 10-mg ZED1227 group, the 41 assigned to the 50-mg group, the 41 assigned to the 100-mg group, and the 40 assigned to the placebo group, 35, 39, 38, and 30 patients, respectively, had adequate duodenal-biopsy samples for the assessment of the primary end point. Treatment with ZED1227 at all three dose levels attenuated gluten-induced duodenal mucosal injury. The estimated difference from placebo in the change in the mean ratio of villus height to crypt depth from baseline to week 6 was 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.73) in the 10-mg group (P = 0.001), 0.49 (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.77) in the 50-mg group (P<0.001), and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.77) in the 100-mg group (P<0.001). The estimated differences from placebo in the change in intraepithelial lymphocyte density were -2.7 cells per 100 epithelial cells (95% CI, -7.6 to 2.2) in the 10-mg group, -4.2 cells per 100 epithelial cells (95% CI, -8.9 to 0.6) in the 50-mg group, and -9.6 cells per 100 epithelial cells (95% CI, -14.4 to -4.8) in the 100-mg group. Use of the 100-mg dose may have improved symptom and quality-of-life scores. The most common adverse events, the incidences of which were similar across all groups, were headache, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Rash developed in 3 of 40 patients (8%) in the 100-mg group. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary trial, treatment with ZED1227 attenuated gluten-induced duodenal mucosal damage in patients with celiac disease. (Funded by Dr. Falk Pharma; CEC-3 EudraCT number, 2017-002241-30.).

The epithelial barrier theory and its associated diseases.

The prevalence of many chronic noncommunicable diseases has been steadily rising over the past six decades. During this time, over 350,000 new chemical substances have been introduced to the lives of humans. In recent years, the epithelial barrier theory came to light explaining the growing prevalence and exacerbations of these diseases worldwide. It attributes their onset to a functionally impaired epithelial barrier triggered by the toxicity of the exposed substances, associated with microbial dysbiosis, immune system activation, and inflammation. Diseases encompassed by the epithelial barrier theory share common features such as an increased prevalence after the 1960s or 2000s that cannot (solely) be accounted for by the emergence of improved diagnostic methods. Other common traits include epithelial barrier defects, microbial dysbiosis with loss of commensals and colonization of opportunistic pathogens, and circulating inflammatory cells and cytokines. In addition, practically unrelated diseases that fulfill these criteria have started to emerge as multimorbidities during the last decades. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of diseases encompassed by the epithelial barrier theory and discuss evidence and similarities for their epidemiology, genetic susceptibility, epithelial barrier dysfunction, microbial dysbiosis, and tissue inflammation.

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.

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.

Risankizumab for Ulcerative Colitis: Two Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The clinical effects of risankizumab (a monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the p19 subunit of IL-23) for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are unknown. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of risankizumab when administered as an induction and a maintenance therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two phase 3 randomized clinical trials were conducted. The induction trial was conducted at 261 clinical centers (in 41 countries) and enrolled 977 patients from November 5, 2020, to August 4, 2022 (final follow-up on May 16, 2023). The maintenance trial was conducted at 238 clinical centers (in 37 countries) and enrolled 754 patients from August 28, 2018, to March 30, 2022 (final follow-up on April 11, 2023). Eligible patients had moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis; a history of intolerance or inadequate response to 1 or more conventional therapies, advanced therapies, or both types of therapies; and no prior exposure to risankizumab. Interventions: For the induction trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive 1200 mg of risankizumab or placebo administered intravenously at weeks 0, 4, and 8. For the maintenance trial, patients with a clinical response (determined using the adapted Mayo score) after intravenous treatment with risankizumab were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous treatment with 180 mg or 360 mg of risankizumab or placebo (no longer receiving risankizumab) every 8 weeks for 52 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinical remission (stool frequency score ≤1 and not greater than baseline, rectal bleeding score of 0, and endoscopic subscore ≤1 without friability) at week 12 for the induction trial and at week 52 for the maintenance trial. Results: Among the 975 patients analyzed in the induction trial (aged 42.1 [SD, 13.8] years; 586/973 [60.1%] were male; and 677 [69.6%] were White), the clinical remission rates at week 12 were 132/650 (20.3%) for 1200 mg of risankizumab and 20/325 (6.2%) for placebo (adjusted between-group difference, 14.0% [95% CI, 10.0%-18.0%], P < .001). Among the 548 patients analyzed in the maintenance trial (aged 40.9 [SD, 14.0] years; 313 [57.1%] were male; and 407 [74.3%] were White), the clinical remission rates at week 52 were 72/179 (40.2%) for 180 mg of risankizumab, 70/186 (37.6%) for 360 mg of risankizumab, and 46/183 (25.1%) for placebo (adjusted between-group difference for 180 mg of risankizumab vs placebo, 16.3% [97.5% CI, 6.1%-26.6%], P < .001; adjusted between-group difference for 360 mg of risankizumab vs placebo, 14.2% [97.5% CI, 4.0%-24.5%], P = .002). No new safety risks were detected in the treatment groups. Conclusion and Relevance: Compared with placebo, risankizumab improved clinical remission rates in an induction trial and in a maintenance trial for patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Further study is needed to identify benefits beyond the 52-week follow-up. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03398148 and NCT03398135.

Monitoring Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Routine Clinical Practice - International Expert Recommendations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are no studies or recommendations on optimal monitoring strategies for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Our objective was to develop guidance on how to monitor patients with EoE in routine clinical practice, on the basis of available clinical evidence and expert opinion. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, international group of EoE experts identified the following important 3 questions during several consensus meetings: why, by what means, and when to monitor patients with EoE. A steering committee was named, and 3 teams were formed to review literature and to formulate statements for each topic. In a Delphi survey, a level of agreement of ≥75% was defined as threshold value for acceptance. In a final conference, results were presented, critical points and comments on the statements were discussed, and statements were rephrased/rewritten if necessary. RESULTS: Eighteen EoE experts (14 adult and pediatric gastroenterologists, 2 pathologists and 2 allergists) with a median of 21.7 years in clinical practice, mostly academic or university-based, completed the Delphi survey, which included 11 statements and a proposed algorithm for monitoring patients with EoE. Each statement attained ≥75% agreement. Participants discussed and debated mostly about the statement concerning surveillance intervals for EoE patients with stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that effective maintenance treatment probably reduces the development of EoE complications, and regular, structured, and, under certain conditions, individualized clinical follow-up is recommended to assess disease activity while opening a window to monitoring side effects, adjusting therapy, and encouraging adherence to treatment. Follow-up should comprise symptom assessment and periodic or repeated endoscopy with histological assessment in specific EoE settings.

Lifestyle factors associated with inflammatory bowel disease: data from the Swiss IBD cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Various environmental risk factors have been associated with the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. In this study we aimed to identify lifestyle factors that affect the onset of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. METHODS: 2294 patients from the Swiss IBD Cohort Study received a questionnaire regarding physical activity, nutritional habits and status of weight. In addition, a control group was formed comprising patients' childhood friends, who grew up in a similar environment. RESULTS: Overall, 1111 questionnaires were returned (response rate: 48.4%). Significantly more patients with inflammatory bowel disease reported no regular practice of sport during childhood and beginning of adulthood compared to the control group (p = 0.0001). No association between intake of refined sugar and onset of inflammatory bowel disease was observed. More patients with Crohn's disease compared to ulcerative colitis and controls suffered from overweight during childhood (12.8% vs. 7.7% and 9.7%, respectively; p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Our study underlines the relevance of environmental factors in the development of inflammatory bowel disease. Our results imply a protective effect of physical activity regarding the onset of inflammatory bowel disease.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Budesonide Orodispersible Tablets Maintain Remission in a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disorder. Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are effective in bringing active EoE into remission. However, it is not clear whether these drugs are effective for long-term maintenance of remission. METHODS: We performed a double-blind trial to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 dosages of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) vs placebo in maintaining remission of EoE. Maintenance of remission was defined as absence of clinical and histologic relapse and no premature withdrawal for any reason. Two hundred and four adults with EoE in clinical and histologic remission, from 29 European study sites, were randomly assigned to groups given BOT 0.5 mg twice daily (n = 68), BOT 1.0 mg twice daily (n = 68), or placebo twice daily (n = 68) for up to 48 weeks. RESULTS: At end of treatment, 73.5% of patients receiving BOT 0.5 mg twice daily and 75% receiving BOT 1.0 mg twice daily were in persistent remission compared with 4.4% of patients in the placebo group (P < .001 for both comparisons of BOT with placebo). Median time to relapse in the placebo group was 87 days. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the BOT and placebo groups. Morning serum levels of cortisol were in the normal range at baseline and did not significantly change during treatment. Four patients receiving BOT developed asymptomatic, low serum levels of cortisol. Clinically manifested candidiasis was suspected in 16.2% of patients in the BOT 0.5 mg group and in 11.8% of patients in the BOT 1.0 mg group; all infections resolved with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In a phase 3 trial, up to 48 weeks of treatment with BOT (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg twice daily) was superior to placebo in maintaining remission of EoE. Both dosages were equally effective and well tolerated. EudraCT number; 2014-001485-99; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02434029.

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.

Food-induced immediate response of the esophagus-A newly identified syndrome in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia is the main symptom of adult eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We describe a novel syndrome, referred to as "food-induced immediate response of the esophagus" (FIRE), observed in EoE patients. METHODS: Food-induced immediate response of the esophagus is an unpleasant/painful sensation, unrelated to dysphagia, occurring immediately after esophageal contact with specific foods. Eosinophilic esophagitis experts were surveyed to estimate the prevalence of FIRE, characterize symptoms, and identify food triggers. We also surveyed a large group of EoE patients enrolled in the Swiss EoE Cohort Study for FIRE. RESULTS: Response rates were 82% (47/57) for the expert and 65% (239/368) for the patient survey, respectively. Almost, 90% of EoE experts had observed the FIRE symptom complex in their patients. Forty percent of EoE patients reported experiencing FIRE, more commonly in patients who developed EoE symptoms at a younger age (mean age of 46.4 years vs 54.1 years without FIRE; P < .01) and in those with high allergic comorbidity. Food-induced immediate response of the esophagus symptoms included narrowing, burning, choking, and pressure in the esophagus appearing within 5 minutes of ingesting a provoking food that lasted less than 2 hours. Symptom severity rated a median 7 points on a visual analogue scale from 1 to 10. Fresh fruits/vegetables and wine were the most frequent triggers. Endoscopic food removal was significantly more commonly reported in male patients with vs without FIRE (44.3% vs 27.6%; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Food-induced immediate response of the esophagus is a novel syndrome frequently reported in EoE patients, characterized by an intense, unpleasant/painful sensation occurring rapidly and reproducibly in 40% of surveyed EoE patients after esophageal contact with specific foods.

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.