Fecobionics in proctology: review and perspectives.

Fecobionics is a novel integrated technology for assessment of anorectal function. It is a defecatory test with simultaneous measurements of pressures, orientation, and device angle (a proxy of the anorectal angle). Furthermore, the latest Fecobionics prototypes measure diameters (shape) using impedance planimetry during evacuation of the device. The simultaneous measurement of multiple variables in the integrated test allows new metrics to be developed including more advanced novel defecation indices, enabling mechanistic insight in the defecation process at an unprecedented level in patients with anorectal disorders including patients suffering from obstructed defecation, fecal incontinence, and low anterior resection syndrome. The device has the consistency and shape of a normal stool (type 3-4 on the Bristol Stool Form Scale). Fecobionics has been validated on the bench and in animal studies and used in clinical trials to study defecation phenotypes in normal human subjects and patients with obstructed defecation, fecal incontinence, and low anterior resection syndrome after rectal cancer surgery. Subtypes have been defined, especially of patients with obstructed defecation. Furthermore, Fecobionics has been used to monitor biofeedback therapy in patients with fecal incontinence to predict the outcome of the therapy (responder versus non-responder). Most Fecobionics studies showed a closer correlation to symptoms as compared to current technologies for anorectal assessment. The present article outlines previous and ongoing work, and perspectives for future studies in proctology, including in physiological assessment of function, diagnostics, monitoring of therapy, and as a tool for biofeedback therapy.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: endoscopic dilation is highly effective and safe in children and adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal dilation is frequently used as an adjunct treatment to alleviate symptoms that develop from fibrostenotic remodelling in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). Earlier reports described an increased risk of complications associated with dilation. AIM: Perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic dilation in children and adults with EoE. METHODS: Professional librarians searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles in any language describing studies of dilation in EoE through December 2016. Studies were selected and data were abstracted independently and in duplicate. Random effects modelling was used to generate summary estimates for clinical improvement and complications (haemorrhage, perforation, hospitalisation, and death). RESULTS: The search resulted in 3495 references, of which 27 studies were included in the final analysis. The studies described 845 EoE patients, including 87 paediatric patients, who underwent a total of 1820 oesophageal dilations. The median number of dilations was 3 (range: 1-35). Clinical improvement occurred in 95% of patients (95% CI: 90%-98%, I2 : 10%, 17 studies). Perforation occurred in 0.38% (95% CI: 0.18%-0.85%, I2 : 0%, 27 studies), haemorrhage in 0.05% (95% CI: 0%-0.3%, I2 : 0%, 18 studies), and hospitalisation in 0.67% (95% CI: 0.3%-1.1%, I2 : 44%, 24 studies). No deaths occurred (95% CI: 0%-0.2% I2 : 0%, 25 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic dilation is consistently effective in children and adults with EoE, resulting in improvement in 95% of patients with very low rates (<1%) of major complications.

Comparison of eotaxin-3 biomarker in patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis, proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) is a recently described entity which resembles oeosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), yet responds to acid suppressive treatment. AIM: To determine whether EoE shares similar staining features with PPI-REE or with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: This retrospective study consisted of patients with an established diagnosis of EoE, PPI-REE, or GERD identified from a database during a 1-year period. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis was performed specifically targeting eotaxin-3 antibodies. All sections were qualitatively (intensity) and quantitatively (percentage of cells stained) assessed independently by two blinded pathologists. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of three groups of patients: EoE (n = 22), PPI-REE (n = 23) and GERD (n = 23) for a total of 68 patients. Study demographics included mean age 39 (14) years, 75% male and 77% Caucasian. There was a significant difference in the eotaxin-3 staining among EoE, PPI-REE and GERD groups [mean score (s.d.): 1.2 (1.2), 0.8 (1.0), 0.3 (0.7), P = 0.006]. Staining scores of EoE patients were significantly higher compared with GERD (P = 0.002) and a trend towards significance was seen between EoE and PPI-REE (P = 0.054). There was also a significant difference in EoE staining intensity score among the three groups (P = 0.006). Intensity scores of EoE were significantly higher compared with GERD [1.0 (0.9) vs. 0.22 (0.52), P < 0.001]. There was no significant difference between EoE and PPI-REE groups [1.0 (0.0) vs. 0.52 (0.75) P = 0.094]. CONCLUSIONS: A difference in eotaxin-3 staining was seen in the three groups of patients with oesophageal eosinophilia. Eotaxin-3 can distinguish EoE from GERD, but not from proton pump inhibitor responsive-oesophageal eosinophilia.

Prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis in a United States military health-care population.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a rapidly emerging chronic immune-mediated condition affecting children and adults, both genders, and all races. A large variation in the prevalence of EoE exists in the literature. The aim of this study is to establish the prevalence of EoE in a military health-care population in the United States using a comprehensive electronic medical record search. Using the International Classification for Diseases-9 code for EoE (530.13), the total number of EoE patients enrolled in the military health-care system from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009 including active-duty military, dependents of military personnel, and retirees were identified. For each case of EoE identified, demographic data (age, gender, and race) and geographic location was obtained. The overall prevalence of EoE was calculated as well as the prevalence within subgroups. The geographic regional locations were reported per the U.S. Census Bureau regions (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West). A total of 987 EoE patients were identified from 10,180,515 military health-care beneficiaries, establishing an overall prevalence of 9.7 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-10.3). Seven hundred twenty-eight out of 7,707,372 adult patients were identified, establishing a prevalence of 9.5 per 100,000 (95% CI 8.8-10.1). Two hundred fifty-nine out of 2,473,143 pediatric patients were identified, establishing a prevalence of 10.5/100,000 (95% CI 9.2-11.8). EoE was more prevalent in males (odds ratio [OR] 2.03 [95% CI 1.78-2.32]) and higher in Caucasian versus African Americans (18.1 vs. 5.2/100,000, OR 3.47 [95% CI 2.40-5.03]). EoE was more prevalent in the Western region of the United States compared with the Northeast, South, and Midwest regions, with a prevalence of 11.9 versuss 5.2, 9.6, and 9.2 per 100,000, respectively. When comparing Northern with Southern states, there was an increased prevalence in the North (10.9 vs. 7.2/100,000, P < 0.05). In this large nationwide study, increase in prevalence of EoE was seen in younger adults, with a higher prevalence in Caucasians. Geographically, the western United States had a significantly higher prevalence with a slightly higher prevalence in the Northern latitude.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis and proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia have similar clinical, endoscopic and histological findings.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with a phenotypic appearance of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) respond histologically to PPI, and are described as having PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE). It is unclear if PPI-REE is a GERD-related phenomenon, a subtype of EoE, or a completely unique entity. AIM: To compare demographic, clinical and histological features of EoE and PPI-REE. METHODS: Two databases were reviewed from the Walter Reed and Swiss EoE databases. Patients were stratified into two groups, EoE and PPI-REE, based on recent EoE consensus guidelines. Response to PPI was defined as achieving less than 15 eos/hpf and a 50% decrease from baseline following at least a 6-week course of treatment. RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were identified (63 EoE and 40 PPI-REE; mean age 40.2 years, 75% male and 89% Caucasian). The two cohorts had similar dysphagia (97% vs. 100%, P = 0.520), food impaction (43% vs. 35%, P = 0.536), and heartburn (33% vs. 32%, P = 1.000) and a similar duration of symptoms (6.0 years vs. 5.8 years, P = 0.850). Endoscopic features were also similar between EoE and PPI-REE; rings (68% vs. 68%, P = 1.000), furrows (70% vs. 70%, P = 1.000), plaques (19% vs. 10%, P = 0.272), strictures (49% vs. 30%, P = 0.066). EoE and PPI-REE were similar in the number of proximal (39 eos/hpf vs. 38 eos/hpf, P = 0.919) and distal eosinophils (50 vs. 43 eos/hpf, P = 0.285). CONCLUSIONS: EoE and PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia are similar in clinical, histological and endoscopic features and therefore are indistinguishable without a PPI trial. Further studies are needed to determine why a subset of patients with oesophageal eosinophilia respond to PPI.

Meta-analysis: the safety and efficacy of dilation in eosinophilic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal dilation is one of the most effective options in the management of symptoms of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). However, earlier reports described an increased rate of complications. AIM: To perform a meta-analysis of population-based studies of the risks associated with dilation and the clinical efficacy and duration of response to dilation in EoE. METHODS: Using MEDLINE and EMBASE, a systematic search was performed for published articles since 1977 describing cohort or randomised controlled trials of dilation in EoE. Summary estimates, including 95% confidence interval (CI), were calculated for the occurrence of complications associated with dilations (perforations, haemorrhage, chest pain, lacerations) and percentage of patients with symptom improvement following dilation. Heterogeneity was calculated using the I² statistic. RESULTS: The search resulted in 232 references, of which 9 studies were included in the final analysis. The studies described 860 EoE patients, of whom 525 patients underwent at least one oesophageal dilation and a total of 992 dilations. There were three cases of perforation (95% CI 0-0.9%, I² 0%) and one haemorrhage (95% CI 0-0.8%, I² 0%). Six studies reported postprocedural chest pain in 2% of cases (95% CI 1-3, I² 53%). Clinical improvement from dilation occurred in 75% of patients (95% CI 58-93%, I² 86%). CONCLUSIONS: Dilation in patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis is a safe procedure with a low rate of serious complications (<1%), and seems to result in at least a short-term improvement of symptoms in the majority of patients.

Reflux episodes detected by impedance in patients on and off esomeprazole: a randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Combined with 24-h pH monitoring, the use of impedance is the most sensitive method available for detecting oesophageal reflux. Normal values for impedance have been previously established in healthy controls studied on and off proton pump inhibitors (PPI). AIMS: To determine the effects of PPIs on the total number of reflux episodes in the distal oesophagus measured by impedance in patients with and without gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: In this prospective randomised double-blinded placebo controlled crossover study, all patients underwent two 24-h pH with impedance studies at least 2 weeks apart. Based on a randomisation scheme, patients received either 40 mg of esomeprazole twice daily for 1 week or identical capsule placebo for 1 week, then all patients were crossed over to the other treatment arm. GERD was defined by the validated Johnson-DeMeester score. Reflux by impedance was defined as a 50% decrease from baseline in retrograde movement of liquid between two impedance sites. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were enrolled and 41 patients completed the study [mean age 52 ± 12 years, 42% (17/41) men, 56% (23/41) Caucasian and 34% (14/41) African American]. Overall, there was no significant decrease in the total number of distal impedance episodes with esomeprazole compared with placebo (mean change 6.1 ± 22, P = 0.100). When analysed separately by GERD status, among GERD-positive patients, there was a significant decrease in distal impedance episodes while on esomeprazole compared with placebo (mean change -16 ± 22, P = 0.023), but not in GERD-negative patients (mean change -0.35 ± 20, P = 0.872). CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole decreases significantly the number of reflux episodes detected by impedance, but only in patients with GERD.

Safety of dilation in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis.

Esophageal dilation is an effective therapy for dysphagia in patients with stenosing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Historically, there have been significant concerns of increased perforation rates when dilating EoE patients. More recent studies suggest that improved techniques and increased awareness have decreased complication rates. The aim of this study was to explore the safety of dilation in our population of EoE patients. A retrospective review of all adult EoE patients enrolled in a registry from 2006 to 2010 was performed. All patients who underwent esophageal dilation during this time period were identified and included in the analysis. Our hospital inpatient/outpatient medical records, radiology reports, and endoscopy reports were searched for evidence of any complication following dilation. Perforation, hemorrhage, and hospitalization were identified as a major complication, and chest pain was considered a minor complication. One hundred and ninety-six patients (41 years [12]; mean age [standard deviation], 80% white, 85% male) were identified. In this cohort, 54 patients (28%) underwent 66 total dilations (seven patients underwent two dilations, one patient underwent three dilations, and one patient underwent four dilations). Three dilation techniques were used (Maloney [24], Savary [29] and through-the-scope [13]). There were no major complications encountered. Chest pain was noted in two patients (4%). There were no endoscopic features (rings, furrows, plaques) associated with any complication. Type of dilator, size of dilator, number of prior dilations, and age of patient were also not associated with complications. Endoscopic dilation using a variety of dilators can be safely performed with minimal complications in patients with EoE.

Correlation between eosinophilic oesophagitis and aeroallergens.

BACKGROUND: Aeroallergens have been implicated in the pathogenesis of eosinophilic oesophagitis. AIM: To determine whether a seasonal variation exists in the diagnoses of eosinophilic oesophagitis and whether there is a correlation with seasonal pollen count. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed from January 2006 to November 2008 to identify eosinophilic oesophagitis patients. Cases were classified by endoscopic date. Daily pollen counts for grass, trees and weeds were obtained from a certified counting station. Per cent of eosinophilic oesophagitis cases were collated seasonally and compared with mean pollen counts for grass, trees and weeds during the same time period. RESULTS: A total of 127 eosinophilic oesophagitis cases were identified (median age 41, range 19-92 years, 84% men). The highest percentage of cases (33.0%; Binomial P = 0.022) was diagnosed in the spring, while the least percentage (16%; Binomial P = 0.0.010) occurred in the winter. There was a significant association between per cent eosinophilic oesophagitis cases diagnosed seasonally and mean grass pollen count (r(s) = 1.000, P < 0.01), but not with trees (r(s) = 0.400, P = 0.600) or weeds (r(s) = 0.800, P = 0.200). CONCLUSIONS: A seasonal variation was seen in the diagnosis of eosinophilic oesophagitis which correlated with pollen counts. These findings have important implications regarding the pathogenesis of eosinophilic oesophagitis, suggesting a potential role for aeroallergens.