Clinical Characteristics, Endoscopic Findings, and Treatment Outcomes in Lymphocytic Esophagitis Compared With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Lymphocytic esophagitis (LyE) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are immune-mediated esophageal diseases. Clinical characteristics, endoscopic findings, and treatment outcomes of LyE were compared with EoE. METHODS: This was an international retrospective study on adults enrolled at 3 centers in Europe. We recorded clinical characteristics and endoscopy findings at baseline and symptoms, histology, and endoscopy outcomes after treatment of patients with LyE and EoE. RESULTS: Demographics, clinical presentation, comorbidities, and endoscopy findings were largely different in 35 patients with LyE compared with 59 patients with EoE. Proton pump inhibitor response was generally lower in LyE. DISCUSSION: LyE is clinically different from EoE, but differences in treatment response need further investigation.

Research gap in esophageal achalasia: a narrative review.

In recent years, new translational evidence, diagnostic techniques, and innovative therapies have shed new light on esophageal achalasia and revamped the attention on this relatively rare motility disorder. This narrative review aims to highlight the most recent progress and the areas where further research is needed. The four senior authors identified five topics commonly discussed in achalasia management: i.e. pathogenesis, role of functional lumen imaging probe in the diagnostic flow chart of achalasia, how to define the outcome of achalasia treatments, how to manage persistent chest pain after the treatment, and if achalasia patients' may benefit from a regular follow-up. We searched the bibliographic databases to identify systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized control trials, and original research articles in English up to December 2023. We provide a summary with the most recent findings in each of the five topics and the critical points where to address future research, such as the immune-genetic patterns of achalasia that might explain the transition among the different phenotypes, the need for a validated clinical definition of treatment success, the use of neuromodulators to manage chest pain, and the need for identifying achalasia patients at risk for cancer and who may benefit of long-term follow-up. Although undoubtedly, progress has been made on the definition and management of achalasia, unmet needs remain. Debated aspects range from mechanistic insights, symptoms, objective measure relationships, and accurate clinical responses to therapeutic interventions. Translational research is eagerly awaited to answer these unresolved questions.

Gastro-esophageal diagnostic workup before bariatric surgery or endoscopic treatment for obesity: position statement of the International Society of Diseases of the Esophagus.

Obesity is a chronic and multifactorial condition characterized by abnormal weight gain due to excessive adipose tissue accumulation that represents a growing worldwide challenge for public health. In addition, obese patients have an increased risk of hiatal hernia, esophageal, and gastric dysfunction, as well as gastroesophageal reflux disease, which has a prevalence over 40% in those seeking endoscopic or surgical intervention. Surgery has been demonstrated to be the most effective treatment for severe obesity in terms of long-term weight loss, comorbidities, and quality of life improvements and overall mortality decrease. The recent emergence of bariatric endoscopic techniques promises less invasive, more cost-effective, and reproducible approaches to the treatment of obesity. With the endorsement of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, we started a Delphi process to develop consensus statements on the most appropriate diagnostic workup to preoperatively assess gastroesophageal function before bariatric surgical or endoscopic interventions. The Consensus Working Group comprised 11 international experts from five countries. The group consisted of gastroenterologists and surgeons with a large expertise with regard to gastroesophageal reflux disease, bariatric surgery and endoscopy, and physiology. Ten statements were selected, on the basis of the agreement level and clinical relevance, which represent an evidence and experience-based consensus of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

Ambulatory pH-Impedance Findings Confirm That Grade B Esophagitis Provides Objective Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

INTRODUCTION: The Lyon Consensus designates Los Angeles (LA) grade C/D esophagitis or acid exposure time (AET) >6% on impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH) as conclusive for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We aimed to evaluate proportions with objective GERD among symptomatic patients with LA grade A, B, and C esophagitis on endoscopy. METHODS: Demographics, clinical data, endoscopy findings, and objective proton-pump inhibitor response were collected from symptomatic prospectively enrolled patients from 2 referral centers. Off-therapy MII-pH parameters included AET, number of reflux episodes, mean nocturnal baseline impedance, and postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index. Objective GERD evidence was compared between LA grades. RESULTS: Of 155 patients (LA grade A: 74 patients, B: 61 patients, and C: 20 patients), demographics and presentation were similar across LA grades. AET >6% was seen in 1.4%, 52.5%, and 75%, respectively, in LA grades A, B, and C. Using additional MII-pH metrics, an additional 16.2% with LA grade A and 47.5% with LA grade B esophagitis had AET 4%-6% with low mean nocturnal baseline impedance and postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index; there were no additional gains using the number of reflux episodes or symptom-reflux association metrics. Compared with LA grade C (100% conclusive GERD based on endoscopic findings), 100% of LA grade B esophagitis also had objective GERD but only 17.6% with LA grade A esophagitis ( P < 0.001 compared with each). Proton-pump inhibitor response was comparable between LA grades B and C (74% and 70%, respectively) but low in LA grade A (39%, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Grade B esophagitis indicates an objective diagnosis of GERD.

Esophageal dysmotility in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis: pathogenesis, assessment tools, manometric characteristics, and clinical implications.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) represents a growing cause of chronic esophageal morbidity whose incidence and prevalence are increasing rapidly. The disease is characterized by eosinophilic infiltrates of the esophagus and organ dysfunction. Typical symptoms include dysphagia, chest pain, and bolus impaction, which are associated to mechanical obstructions in most patients. However, up to one in three EoE patients has no visible obstruction, suggesting that a motor disorder of the esophagus may underlie symptoms. Although potentially relevant for treatment refractoriness and symptomatic burden, esophageal dysmotility is often neglected when assessing EoE patients. The first systematic review investigating esophageal motility patterns in patients with EoE was published only recently. Accordingly, we reviewed the pathogenesis, assessment tools, manometric characteristics, and clinical implications of dysmotility in patients with EoE to highlight its clinical relevance. In summary, eosinophils can influence the amplitude of esophageal contractions via different mechanisms. The prevalence of dysmotility may increase with disease duration, possibly representing a late feature of EoE. Patients with EoE may display a wide range of motility disorders and possible disease-specific manometric pressurization patterns may be useful for raising a clinical suspicion. Intermittent dysmotility events have been found to correlate with symptoms on prolonged esophageal manometry, although high-resolution manometry studies have reported inconsistent results, possibly due to the suboptimal sensitivity of current manometry protocols. Motor abnormalities may recover following EoE treatment in a subset of patients, but invasive management of the motor disorder is required in some instances. In conclusion, esophageal motor abnormalities may have a role in eliciting symptoms, raising clinical suspicion, and influencing treatment outcome in EoE. The assessment of esophageal motility appears valuable in the EoE setting.

Biliary Tree Diagnostics: Advances in Endoscopic Imaging and Tissue Sampling.

The diagnostic approach to the biliary tree disorders can be challenging, especially for biliary strictures. Albeit the great diagnostic impact of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) which allows one to obtain fluoroscopic imaging and tissue sampling through brush cytology and/or forceps biopsy, a considerable proportion of cases remain indeterminate, leading to the risk of under/over treated patients. In the last two decades, several endoscopic techniques have been introduced in clinical practice, shrinking cases of uncertainties and improving diagnostic accuracy. The aim of this review is to discuss recent advances and emerging technologies applied to the management of biliary tree disorders through peroral endoscopy procedures.

Achalasia and Obstructive Motor Disorders Are Not Uncommon in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: An association has been reported between achalasia and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We performed a retrospective study of high-resolution manometry (HRM) patterns in a large cohort of patients with EoE. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We collected data from consecutive patients with a new diagnosis of EoE from 2012 through 2019 undergoing HRM during the initial assessment at different centers in Italy. Demographic, clinical, endoscopic and histological characteristics were recorded at baseline and during management. Diagnoses of EoE and esophageal motility disorders were made according to established criteria. Treatments offered included proton pump inhibitors and topical steroids for EoE, and pneumatic dilation and myotomy for achalasia. Response to therapy was defined as less than 15 eosinophils per high power field in esophageal biopsies. RESULTS: Of 109 consecutive patients (mean age 37 years, 82 male), 68 (62%) had normal findings from HRM. Among 41 patients with motor disorders, 24 (59%) had minor motor disorders and 17 (41%) presented with major motor disorders, including 8 with achalasia (1 with type 1, 4 with type 2, and 3 with type 3). Achalasia and nonachalasia obstructive motor disorders had 14.7% prevalence among patients with EoE. Achalasia was more frequent in women, with longer diagnostic delay and abnormal esophagogram (P < .05) compared with EoE without achalasia or obstructive motor disorders. Clinical features and endoscopic findings did not differ significantly between patients with EoE with vs without achalasia and obstructive motor disorders. A higher proportion of patients without achalasia and obstructive motor disorders responded to topical steroids than patients with these features (P < .005). Invasive achalasia management was required for symptom relief in 50% of patients with achalasia and obstructive motor disorders. CONCLUSION: Achalasia and obstructive motor disorders are found in almost 15% of patients with EoE, and esophageal eosinophilia might cause these disorders. Patients with EoE who do not respond to standard treatments might require targeted muscle disruption.

Real-Life Comparison of Different Anti-TNF Biologic Therapies for Ulcerative Colitis Treatment: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Head-to-head comparison studies evaluating the effectiveness and tolerability of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs in inflammatory bowel disease patients are lacking. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of anti-TNF-α drugs used in clinical practice in a cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: Retrospectively, 122 UC patients treated with infliximab (IFX) originator and biosimilar, adalimumab (ADA), and golimumab (GOL) were included. We performed an ITT analysis to evaluate clinical response and remission, steroid-free clinical remission, and endoscopy response according to the different time points of the follow-up. Baseline and post induction predictor factors of these outcomes were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression models. Moreover, a propensity score-based weighting analysis was performed. Data were analyzed using R and STATA11 software. RESULTS: The overall clinical response was 77% after induction, 81.4% at 30 weeks, and 76.9% at 52 weeks, while the steroid-free clinical remission was 39.7, 46, and 54.6%, respectively. After induction, a higher rate of treatment failure was observed in the GOL group. At the end of follow-up, lower rates of steroid-free clinical remission and clinical response were obtained by GOL. At week 52, endoscopic response was achieved by 46.5% of the population. CONCLUSIONS: Among the different anti-TNF treatments, moderate-to-severe UC seems to respond better to IFX and ADA, whereas GOL seems to be less effective, despite a similar good safety profile.

Mean Nocturnal Baseline Impedance Correlates With Symptom Outcome When Acid Exposure Time Is Inconclusive on Esophageal Reflux Monitoring.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Abnormal acid exposure time (AET) is associated with good outcomes of symptoms from antireflux therapy. Low esophageal mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) is an additional marker of reflux disease. We aimed to evaluate the value of MNBI when analysis of AET produces borderline or inconclusive results. METHODS: We studied a retrospective cohort of 371 patients (mean age, 54.5 ± 0.7 y; 60.0% female) who had persistent reflux symptoms after treatment and underwent ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring off antisecretory therapy at 1 tertiary center in Europe or 1 in the United States. Total AET was determined from pH impedance studies (pathologic, >6%; physiologic, <4%; borderline or inconclusive, 4%-6%). Baseline impedance values were calculated at the 5-cm impedance channel at 3 nocturnal 10-minute periods and averaged to yield MNBI (abnormal, <2292 ohms). The primary outcome was response to antireflux therapy, defined as global symptom improvement of 50% or greater on patients' answers on standardized visual analog scales. RESULTS: Among the 371 patients, 107 (28.8%) had pathologic AET and 234 (63.1%) had abnormal MNBI. Low MNBI was concordant in 99.1% of patients with pathologic AET, in 91.2% with borderline AET, and in 33.7% with physiologic AET. During 38.7 ± 0.8 months of follow-up evaluation, 43.0% of patients had improved symptoms with medical therapy and 76.2% had improved symptoms with surgical antireflux therapy (P < .0001). When MNBI was low, response to medical therapy did not differ significantly between patients with borderline AET and patients with pathologic AET (P = .44), but did differ significantly when each group was compared with patients with physiologic AET, regardless of whether MNBI was normal or low (P < .0001 for each comparison). CONCLUSIONS: When low, MNBI identifies patients with pathologic and borderline AET who respond to antireflux therapy. MNBI analysis complements AET in defining esophageal reflux burden. MNBI correlates with response of symptoms to antireflux therapy.

Pharmacological management of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: state of the art in 2024.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic disease of the esophagus characterized by the regurgitation of stomach contents into the esophagus, causing troublesome symptoms and/or complications. Among patients with GERD, around 30% of patients have visible mucosal damage, while 70% have normal esophageal mucosa. Accordingly, the optimal pharmacological treatment of GERD should address different disease manifestations, including symptoms, the mucosal damage when present, and possible chronic complications, including strictures, Barrett's esophagus, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. AREAS COVERED: Available medical treatments for GERD include proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs), histamine receptor antagonists (H2-RAs), prokinetics, and mucosal protectants, such as alginates, hyaluronic acid/chondroitin-sulfate, and poliprotect. Each compound has its own advantages and disadvantages, and knowledge of expected benefits and tips for their use is paramount for the success of treatment. In addition, the appropriateness of indications for initiating treatment is also crucial to achieve positive results when managing GERD patients. EXPERT OPINION: PPIs, PCABs, H2-RAs, prokinetics, and mucosal protectants can all be used in patients with GERD, but careful assessment of patients' characteristics as well as advantages and disadvantages of each therapeutic compound is essential to ensure successful treatment of GERD.

Optimal Assessment, Treatment, and Monitoring of Adults with Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Strategies to Improve Outcomes.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic type 2 inflammation-mediated disease characterized by an eosinophil-predominant inflammation of the esophagus and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. Relevant treatment outcomes in the setting of EoE include the improvement of histology, symptoms, and endoscopy findings, quality of life (QoL), and the psychological burden of the disease. Established validated tools for the assessment of EoE include questionnaires on dysphagia and QoL (ie, DSQ, EEsAI, and EoE-IQ). More recently, esophageal symptom-specific anxiety and hypervigilance, assessed using the esophageal hypervigilance and anxiety scale (EHAS), have emerged as contributors to disease burden, confirming the importance of psychological aspects in EoE patients. The EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS) is the only validated endoscopy score in EoE and can quantify mucosal disease burden. However, esophageal panometry using the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) and high-resolution manometry (HRM) have shown potential to optimize the assessment of fibrostenotic features of EoE, providing novel insights into the pathophysiology of symptoms. There is a growing number of licenced and off-label therapeutic options in EoE, with various randomized controlled trials demonstrating the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors, topical steroids, food elimination diets, biological drugs, and esophageal dilatation. However, standardized optimal management strategies of EoE are currently lacking. In this review, we provide an overview of established and novel assessment tools in EoE including patient reported outcomes, FLIP panometry, HRM, endoscopy, and histology outcome measures to improve the outcomes of EoE patients. In addition, we summarize available therapeutic options for EoE based on the most recent evidence.

Distribution of esophageal inflammation in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis and its impact on diagnosis and outcome.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the distribution of esophageal inflammation in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and its impact on diagnosis and outcome. AIMS AND METHODS: Data from consecutive adult EoE patients who were followed-up at four Italian referral centers from October 2022 to October 2023 were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: One hundred forty-nine patients were included. Proximal EoE was observed in 8.1 % of patients; distal EoE in 27.5 %; and diffuse EoE in 64.4 %. Allergic rhinitis was more prevalent in distal and diffuse than proximal EoE (72.5 % vs. 61.5 % vs 33.3 %; P = 0.049). The prevalence of asthma, atopic dermatitis, oral allergy syndrome, and gastroesophageal reflux disease was not significantly different among the three EoE extent groups. Endoscopic inflammatory features at diagnosis were more prevalent in proximal EoE (91.7 % vs. 53.8 % distal [P = 0.01] vs. 66 % diffuse[P = 0.05]). No significant differences in fibrotic features and esophageal stenoses were observed. The clinical and histological remission rates after first-line therapy were comparable in all groups. CONCLUSION: Esophageal inflammation in EoE more frequently involves the entire esophagus, followed by isolated distal and proximal involvement. No clear correlation was observed between the histological extent of EoE at diagnosis and comorbidities or treatment response.

Prokinetics-safety and efficacy: The European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility/The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society expert review.

BACKGROUND: Prokinetics are a class of pharmacological drugs designed to improve gastrointestinal (GI) motility, either regionally or across the whole gut. Each drug has its merits and drawbacks, and based on current evidence as high-quality studies are limited, we have no clear recommendation on one class or other. However, there remains a large unmet need for both regionally selective and/or globally acting prokinetic drugs that work primarily intraluminally and are safe and without systemic side effects. PURPOSE: Here, we describe the strengths and weaknesses of six classes of prokinetic drugs, including their pharmacokinetic properties, efficacy, safety and tolerability and potential indications.

Artificial Intelligence Tools for the Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Adults Reporting Dysphagia: Development, External Validation, and Software Creation for Point-of-Care Use.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased awareness of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), the diagnostic delay has remained stable over the past 3 decades. There is a need to improve the diagnostic performance and optimize resources allocation in the setting of EoE. OBJECTIVE: We developed and validated 2 point-of-care machine learning (ML) tools to predict a diagnosis of EoE before histology results during office visits. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study in 3 European tertiary referral centers for EoE. We built predictive ML models using retrospectively extracted clinical and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDS) data collected from 273 EoE and 55 non-EoE dysphagia patients. We validated the models on an independent cohort of 93 consecutive patients with dysphagia undergoing EGDS with biopsies at 2 different centers. Models' performance was assessed by area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV). The models were integrated into a point-of-care software package. RESULTS: The model trained on clinical data alone showed an AUC of 0.90 and a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 0.90, 0.75, 0.80, and 0.87, respectively, for the diagnosis of EoE in the external validation cohort. The model trained on a combination of clinical and endoscopic data showed an AUC of 0.94, and a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 0.94, 0.68, 0.77, and 0.91, respectively, in the external validation cohort. CONCLUSION: Our software-integrated models (https://webapplicationing.shinyapps.io/PointOfCare-EoE/) can be used at point-of-care to improve the diagnostic workup of EoE and optimize resources allocation.