Vonoprazan Versus Lansoprazole for Healing and Maintenance of Healing of Erosive Esophagitis: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: For decades, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been the mainstay of treatment for erosive esophagitis. The potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan provides more potent acid inhibition than PPIs, but data on its efficacy for erosive esophagitis are limited. METHODS: Adults with erosive esophagitis were randomized to once-daily vonoprazan, 20 mg, or lansoprazole, 30 mg, for up to 8 weeks. Patients with healing were rerandomized to once-daily vonoprazan, 10 mg, vonoprazan, 20 mg, or lansoprazole, 15 mg, for 24 weeks. Primary end points, percentage with healing by week 8 endoscopy, and maintenance of healing at week 24 endoscopy, were assessed in noninferiority comparisons (noninferiority margins, 10%), with superiority analyses prespecified if noninferiority was demonstrated. Analyses of primary and secondary end points were performed using fixed-sequence testing procedures. RESULTS: Among 1024 patients in the healing phase, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior on the exploratory analysis of healing (92.9 vs 84.6%; difference, 8.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5%-12.2%). Secondary analyses showed vonoprazan was noninferior in heartburn-free days (difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -1.6% to 7.0%), and superior in healing Los Angeles Classification Grade C/D esophagitis at week 2 (difference, 17.6%; 95% CI, 7.4%-27.4%). Among 878 patients in the maintenance phase, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior on the secondary analysis of maintenance of healing (20 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 8.7%; 95% CI, 1.8%-15.5%; 10 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 7.2%; 95% CI, 0.2%-14.1%) and secondary analysis of maintenance of healing Grade C/D esophagitis (20 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 15.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-28.4%; 10 mg vs lansoprazole: difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 0.02%-26.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Vonoprazan was noninferior and superior to the PPI lansoprazole in healing and maintenance of healing of erosive esophagitis. This benefit was seen predominantly in more severe erosive esophagitis. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04124926).

Comparison of Los Angeles Grades of Erosive Esophagitis Scored by Local Investigators vs Central Adjudicators in a Clinical Trial.

Approximately 30% of patients with typical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms have endoscopic evidence of erosive esophagitis (EE).1 The severity of EE is commonly graded using the Los Angeles (LA) classification system as grade A (minimal) to D (very severe), depending on the extent of endoscopically visible mucosal breaks (Supplementary Figure 1).2 Accurate grading of EE severity is crucial in clinical trials of medical EE treatments, as EE severity strongly influences both initial rates of healing and the likelihood of recurrence during maintenance treatment.3,4 Almost all EE treatment studies have relied exclusively on local investigators' grading of EE severity to determine study eligibility and response to treatment. Those few studies that included central adjudication did not assess the reliability of grading by local investigators.5 Unlike typical studies of EE treatment, the phase III clinical trial of vonoprazan versus lansoprazole for the treatment of EE (NCT04124926) mandated central adjudication of endoscopic grading for study participation.6 The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the rate of agreement between local investigators and central adjudicators for EE grading during screening for entrance into that clinical trial.

The Perils and Pitfalls of Esophageal Dysmotility in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroesophageal reflux plays a significant role in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Given the morbidity and mortality associated with IPF, understanding the mechanisms responsible for reflux is essential if patients are to receive optimal treatment and management, especially given the lack of clear benefit of antireflux therapies. Our aim was to understand the inter-relationships between esophageal motility, lung mechanics and reflux (particularly proximal reflux-a prerequisite of aspiration), and pulmonary function in patients with IPF. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 35 patients with IPF (aged 53-75 years; 27 men) who underwent high-resolution impedance manometry and 24-hour pH-impedance, together with pulmonary function assessment. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (63%) exhibited dysmotility, 16 (73%) exhibited ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), and 6 (27%) exhibited esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. Patients with IEM had more severe pulmonary disease (% forced vital capacity: P = 0.032) and more proximal reflux (P = 0.074) than patients with normal motility. In patients with IEM, intrathoracic pressure inversely correlated with the number of proximal events (r = -0.429; P = 0.098). Surprisingly, inspiratory lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) positively correlated with the percentage of reflux events reaching the proximal esophagus (r = 0.583; P = 0.018), whereas in patients with normal motility, it inversely correlated with the bolus exposure time (r = -0.478; P = 0.098) and number of proximal events (r = -0.542; P = 0.056). % forced vital capacity in patients with IEM inversely correlated with the percentage of reflux events reaching the proximal esophagus (r = -0.520; P = 0.039) and inspiratory LESP (r = -0.477; P = 0.062) and positively correlated with intrathoracic pressure (r = 0.633; P = 0.008). DISCUSSION: We have shown that pulmonary function is worse in patients with IEM which is associated with more proximal reflux events, the latter correlating with lower intrathoracic pressures and higher LESPs.

Hiatal Hernia Associated with Higher Odds of Dysplasia in Patients with Barrett's Esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) are more likely to have associated hiatal hernia (HH) compared to the general population. Studies show that HH are typically longer and wider in patients with BE. AIMS: To determine whether patients with HH have associated increased odds of coexistence of BE by examining inpatient prevalence, as well as determining other inpatient outcomes. METHODS: This was a case-control study using the NIS 2016, the largest public inpatient database in the USA. All patients with ICD10CM codes for BE were included. None were excluded. The primary outcome was determining the association between BE and HH in hospitalized patients, stratified by grade of dysplasia. Secondary outcomes included measuring use of endoscopic ablation in patients with BE and HH compared to patients with BE and no HH, determining the degree of association between HH and esophagitis in patients with or without BE, as well as the association between esophagitis and dysplasia in patients with BE and HH. RESULTS: A total of 118,750 patients with BE were identified, of which 24,030 had associated HH. Adjusted odds of having associated BE in patients with HH was 10.9 (p < 0.01) compared to patients without HH. Patients with HH also displayed significantly higher odds of both low-grade dysplasia (aOR 34.5, p < 0.01) and high-grade dysplasia (aOR 14.7, p < 0.01). For secondary outcomes, the odds of undergoing ablation for BE was higher 4.77 (p < 0.01) in patients with HH. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HH have significantly higher odds of having associated BE, regardless of the level of dysplasia. Furthermore, the odds of undergoing ablation are much higher, likely reflecting higher odds of dysplasia. This highlights the importance of BE in patients with HH, and potentially consider these patients as higher risk.

Lymphocytic Esophagitis: Assessing Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocytic esophagitis is a rare esophageal condition. Our knowledge of potential risk factors and treatment outcomes of lymphocytic esophagitis is limited. AIM: To investigate potential risk factors associated with the development of lymphocytic esophagitis and compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients diagnosed with lymphocytic esophagitis to patients diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study. Lymphocytic esophagitis patients were identified based on pathology results between 1997 and 2019. Control groups consisted of patients with normal esophageal biopsies and patients diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis. Thirteen potential risk factors for lymphocytic esophagitis were analyzed using univariate and multivariate models including IBD, achalasia, hyperlipidemia, hypothyroidism, celiac sprue, CVID, H. pylori, thymoma, aspirin, opioids, ACE-I, metformin, and statin use. Comparative statistics were performed. RESULTS: Ninety-four adult patients with lymphocytic esophagitis, 344 with eosinophilic esophagitis, and 5202 control patients with normal esophageal biopsies were analyzed. Age older than 60 [adjusted odd ratio (AOR) 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05, p = 0.001], aspirin use (2.7, 95% CI 1.4-4.9, p = 0.001), statin use (2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.2, p = 0.01), or a diagnosis of achalasia (2.4, 95% 1.08-5.67, p = 0.03) were associated with lymphocytic esophagitis. Compared to eosinophilic esophagitis, lymphocytic esophagitis patients were more likely to respond to medical treatment (95% CI 2.54-12.8, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that lymphocytic esophagitis is more likely to be found in older female patients and is significantly associated with achalasia, statin, and aspirin use. Compared to eosinophilic esophagitis, lymphocytic esophagitis is more likely to respond to treatment with medical therapy.

Creation of a score to predict risk of high conscious sedation requirements in patients undergoing endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The administration of intravenous conscious sedation to patients undergoing GI endoscopy carries a risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events. Our study aim was to create a score that stratifies the risk of occurrence of either high-dose conscious sedation requirements or a failed procedure. METHODS: Patients receiving endoscopy via endoscopist-directed conscious sedation were included. The primary outcome was occurrence of sedation failure, which was defined as one of the following: (1) high-dose sedation, (2) the need for benzodiazepine/narcotic reversal agents, (3) nurse-documented poor patient tolerance to the procedure, or (4) aborted procedure. High-dose sedation was defined as >10 mg of midazolam and/or >200 µg of fentanyl or the meperidine equivalent. Patients with sedation failure (n = 488) were matched to controls (n = 976) without a sedation failure by endoscopist and endoscopy date. RESULTS: Significant associations with sedation failure were identified for age, sex, nonclonazepam benzodiazepine use, opioid use, and procedure type (EGD, colonoscopy, or both). Based on these 5 variables, we created the high conscious sedation requirements (HCSR) score, which predicted the risk of sedation failure with an area under the curve of 0.70. Compared with the patients with a risk score of 0, risk of a sedation failure was highest for patients with a score ≥3.5 (odds ratio, 17.31; P = 2 × 10-14). Estimated area under the curve of the HCSR score was 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.72) in a validation series of 250 cases and 250 controls. CONCLUSIONS: The HCSR risk score, based on 5 key patient and procedure characteristics, can function as a useful tool for physicians when discussing sedation options with patients before endoscopy.

Unilateral Versus Bilateral Lung Transplantation: Do Different Esophageal Risk Factors Predict Chronic Allograft Failure?

GOALS: To assess the effect of unilateral versus bilateral lung transplantation (LTx) on esophageal motility and gastroesophageal reflux, and the association with the development of obstructive chronic lung allograft dysfunction (o-CLAD). BACKGROUND: We have shown that esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, incomplete bolus transit, and proximal reflux are all independent risk factors for the development of chronic allograft failure. However, it remains unclear whether these factors are influenced by the type of surgery and how this relates to allograft failure. STUDY: Patients post-LTx (n=48, 24 female; aged 20 to 73 y) completed high-resolution impedance manometry and 24-hour pH/impedance. RESULTS: Patients who had undergone unilateral LTx were more likely to exhibit esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (47% vs. 18%; P=0.046) and less likely to exhibit hypocontractility (0% vs. 21%; P=0.058) than those who had undergone bilateral LTx. Although the proportion of patients exhibiting gastroesophageal reflux was no different between groups (33% vs. 39%; P=0.505), those undergoing bilateral LTx were more likely to exhibit proximal reflux (8% vs. 37%; P=0.067). Univariate Cox proportion hazards regression analysis did not show a difference between unilateral versus bilateral LTx in the development of o-CLAD (hazard ratio=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-2.85; P=0.723). CONCLUSION: The type of LTx performed seems to lead to different risk factors for the development of o-CLAD. Physicians should be aware of these differences, as they may need to be taken into account when managing patient's post-LTx.

Long-term Outcomes of Patients Receiving a Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device for Gastroesophageal Reflux.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Based on results from year 2 of a 5-year trial, in 2012 the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a magnetic device to augment lower esophageal sphincter function in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We report the final results of 5 years of follow-up evaluation of patients who received this device. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of the safety and efficacy of a magnetic device in 100 adults with GERD for 6 months or more, who were partially responsive to daily proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and had evidence of pathologic esophageal acid exposure, at 14 centers in the United States and The Netherlands. The magnetic device was placed using standard laparoscopic tools and techniques. Eighty-five subjects were followed up for 5 years to evaluate quality of life, reflux control, use of PPIs, and side effects. The GERD-health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire was administered at baseline to patients on and off PPIs, and after placement of the device; patients served as their own controls. A partial response to PPIs was defined as a GERD-HRQL score of 10 or less on PPIs and a score of 15 or higher off PPIs, or a 6-point or more improvement when scores on vs off PPI were compared. RESULTS: Over the follow-up period, no device erosions, migrations, or malfunctions occurred. At baseline, the median GERD-HRQL scores were 27 in patients not taking PPIs and 11 in patients on PPIs; 5 years after device placement this score decreased to 4. All patients used PPIs at baseline; this value decreased to 15.3% at 5 years. Moderate or severe regurgitation occurred in 57% of subjects at baseline, but only 1.2% at 5 years. All patients reported the ability to belch and vomit if needed. Bothersome dysphagia was present in 5% at baseline and in 6% at 5 years. Bothersome gas-bloat was present in 52% at baseline and decreased to 8.3% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Augmentation of the lower esophageal sphincter with a magnetic device provides significant and sustained control of reflux, with minimal side effects or complications. No new safety risks emerged over a 5-year follow-up period. These findings validate the long-term safety and efficacy of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device for patients with GERD. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00776997.

Significant pressure differences between solid-state and water-perfused systems in lower esophageal sphincter measurement.

OBJECTIVE: High-resolution manometry of the esophagus has gained worldwide acceptance, using different solid-state catheters. Thus, normal values for lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure in suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease patients have been established using water-perfused manometry. These standard values are commonly applied using also solid-state techniques, although they have never been compared before. The aim of the study was to compare LES measurements obtained with water-perfused manometry with a solid-state technique. METHODS: Thirty healthy subjects were studied twice on the same day: Technique 1: Station pull through using a water-perfused catheter with ports arranged at 0°, 90°, 180° and 270° which were averaged to give a mean LES pressure. Technique 2: Solid-state circumferential probe with a single station pull through. Data were collected using the same computer system and program. The LES pressures were randomly and blindly analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven subjects out of 30 were analyzed. Using the solid-state system, the mean LES pressure was higher (15.0 vs. 23.3 mmHg, p = 0.003) and 19 of 27 (70%) individual measurements were higher. Two subjects had a hypertensive LES by solid state (58.6 resp. 47.5 mmHg), while their pressures were normal with water-perfused manometry (21.0 resp. 23.4 mmHg). The distal esophageal pressures (mean of pressure at 3 and 8 cm above LES) were the same with the two techniques. CONCLUSION: In normal control subjects, LES measurement using circumferential solid-state transducers yields higher pressures than standard water-perfused manometry. Which system yields the "true" resting pressure of the physiologic LES remains to be determined.

Irritable bowel syndrome in middle-aged and elderly Palestinians: its prevalence and effect of location of residence.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) around the world is variable, ranging from as little as 1.1 to 45%. Limited studies have been carried out in Arab populations. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of IBS and its subtypes in the West Bank, Palestine, and to assess variation by locality of residence. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study. Participants were randomly selected from all districts of the West Bank, including cities, villages, and refugee camps, and they were at least 50 years of age. Participants completed the Rome III IBS questionnaire along with demographic data. The primary outcome was the effect of location of residence on the prevalence of IBS. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess the difference in IBS prevalence based on locality of residence. RESULTS: A total of 1,601 people were approached for interview, of which 1,352 agreed to participate (response rate 84%). Most participants (53%; n=637) lived in urban centers. The overall prevalence of IBS was 30% (28-33%). IBS was more common in refugee camps (34%) and in villages (34%) compared with urban centers (27%) (P<0.05). Mixed IBS (IBS-M) was the most common of IBS subtypes (55%, n=244). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, living in refugee camps (odds ratio (OR) 1.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14-2.40), P=0.005) and in villages (OR 1.33 (1.02-1.72), P=0.033) was associated with increased odds of having IBS when compared with residents of urban centers. IBS, IBS with constipation, and IBS-M were more common in women than in men (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of IBS among middle-aged and elderly residents of Palestine is high. Residents in refugee camps and rural areas have a higher incidence of IBS than those in urban areas.

The impact of lung transplantation on esophageal motility and inter-relationships with reflux and lung mechanics in patients with restrictive and obstructive respiratory disease.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with lung disease the only proven intervention to improve survival and quality of life is lung transplantation (LTx). Esophageal dysmotility and gastroesophageal reflux (GER) are common in patients with respiratory disease, and often associate with worse prognosis following LTx. Which, if any patients, should be excluded from LTx based on esophageal concerns remains unclear. Our aim was to understand the effect of LTx on esophageal motility diagnosis and examine how this and the other physiological and mechanical factors relate to GER and clearance of boluses swallowed. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 62 patients with restrictive (RLD) and obstructive (OLD) lung disease (aged 33-75 years; 42 men) who underwent high resolution impedance manometry and 24-h pH-impedance before and after LTx. KEY RESULTS: RLD patients with normal motility were more likely to remain normal (p = 0.02), or if having abnormal motility to change to normal (p = 0.07) post-LTx than OLD patients. Esophageal length (EL) was greater in OLD than RLD patients' pre-LTx (p < 0.001), reducing only in OLD patients' post-LTx (p = 0.02). Reduced EL post-LTx associated with greater contractile reserve (r = 0.735; p = 0.01) and increased likelihood of motility normalization (p = 0.10). Clearance of reflux improved (p = 0.01) and associated with increased mean nocturnal baseline impedance (p < 0.001) in RLD but not OLD. Peristaltic breaks and thoraco-abdominal pressure gradient impact both esophageal clearance of reflux and boluses swallowed (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: RLD patients are more likely to show improvement in esophageal motility than OLD patients post-LTx. However, the effect on GER is more difficult to predict and requires other GI, anatomical and pulmonary factors to be taken into consideration.

A combination of esomeprazole and aspirin reduces tissue concentrations of prostaglandin E(2) in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND& AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs might prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE), but there are limited data from clinical trials to support this concept. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial to assess the effects of the combination of aspirin (3 different doses) and esomeprazole on tissue concentrations of prostaglandin (PG) E(2) in patients with BE with no dysplasia or low-grade dysplasia. METHODS: Participants were recruited through the multicenter Cancer Prevention Network and randomly assigned to groups that were given 40 mg esomeprazole twice daily in combination with an aspirin placebo once daily (arm A; n = 30), with 81 mg aspirin once daily (arm B; n = 47), or with 325 mg aspirin once daily (arm C; n = 45) for 28 days. We collected esophageal biopsy specimens before and after the intervention period to determine the absolute change in mean concentration of PGE(2) (the primary end point). RESULTS: Based on data from 114 patients, baseline characteristics were similar among groups. The absolute mean tissue concentration of PGE(2) was reduced by 67.6 ± 229.68 pg/mL in arm A, 123.9 ± 284.0 pg/mL in arm B (P = .10 vs arm A), and 174.9 ± 263.62 pg/mL in arm C (P = .02 vs arm A). CONCLUSIONS: In combination with esomeprazole, short-term administration of higher doses of aspirin, but not lower doses or no aspirin, significantly reduced tissue concentrations of PGE(2) in patients with BE with either no dysplasia or low-grade dysplasia. These data support further evaluation of higher doses of aspirin and esomeprazole to prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma in these patients. Clinical trial registration number NCT00474903.

The association between menopausal hormone therapy and gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic condition associated with several risk factors, but little is known about the association between hormone therapy (HT) and GERD in postmenopausal women. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We investigated the association between ever or current menopausal HT use and GERD using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies published between 2008 and August 31, 2022, were pooled using a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model, and outcomes were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with a corresponding 95% CI. FINDINGS: The pooled analysis of five studies found a significant direct association between estrogen use and GERD (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.16-1.66; I2 = 97.6%), and progestogen use and GERD (two studies: aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.15-1.64; I2 = 0.0%). The use of combined HT was also associated with GERD (1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.33; I2 = 87.9%). Overall, HT use was associated with 29% higher odds for GERD (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.42; I2 = 94.8%). The large number of pooled participants, differences in study design, geography, patient characteristics, and outcome assessment resulted in significant high heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is a significant association between ever or current HT use and GERD. However, the results should be interpreted with caution, given the small number of included studies and high heterogeneity. This warrants careful evaluation of GERD risk factors when prescribing HT to reduce the risk of potential GERD complications.

Number of bottles of esophageal biopsies in the evaluation of eosinophilic esophagitis and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The number of bottles of esophageal biopsies needed for the evaluation of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is unclear, despite cost differences. AIMS: Assess the clinical outcomes between patients with one and two bottles of esophageal biopsies for the assessment of EoE. METHODS: Retrospective study of adults who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for esophageal symptoms between January 2015 and June 2021 and findings of ≥15 eosinophils per high power field (eos/hpf). Patients with one bottle (1 bottle-EoE) had biopsies from the entire or proximal esophagus. Patients with two bottles had biopsies separated from the distal and proximal esophagus and were separated into those with ≥ 15 eos/hpf in both bottles (2 bottle Dif-EoE), or the distal bottle alone (2 bottle Lim-EoE). The primary outcomes were endoscopic findings at follow-up EGD as assessed by the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) and the presence of ≥15 eos/hpf. RESULTS: Of 85 patients with esophageal eosinophilia who met inclusion criteria, 49 had 2 bottle Dif-EoE, 18 had 2 bottle Lim-EoE, and 18 had 1 bottle-EoE. At median follow-up of 3.3-5.6 months, more patients with 1 bottle EoE had dysphagia (p = 0.029), however there were no differences in the EREFS (p = 0.14) or presence of ≥15 eos/hpf (p = 0.39). More patients with 2 bottle Dif-EoE were treated with topical steroids (16.3% vs. 0% vs. 0%, p = 0.039) and diet (20.4% vs. 0% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic and histologic outcomes were similar in patients who had one and two bottles for esophageal biopsies in the evaluation of EoE.

A comprehensive review of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults.

Eosinophilic esophagitis is a recently described disease characterized by the presence of upper gastrointestinal tract symptoms in association with a dense esophageal eosinophilic infiltrate. The awareness and interest of physicians and researchers in this disease has been increasing as reflected by the number of publications on this topic in the last 5 years. The aim of this review is to summarize the latest evidence with regard to epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnostic, and management of eosinophilic esophagitis, primarily in adults and selected areas in children.

Extent of eosinophilic esophagitis predicts response to treatment.

Background and study aim The clinical impact of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) limited to the distal esophagus (Lim-EE) vs. diffuse involvement (Dif-EE) is unknown. This study compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of Lim-EE vs. Dif-EE. Patients and methods This retrospective, single-center study of patients with EoE between December 2011 and December 2019 evaluated treatment response based on repeated pathology and/or clinical improvement using comparative statistics. Results 479 patients were identified (126 Lim-EE, 353 Dif-EE). Lim-EE patients had a higher incidence of endoscopically identified esophagitis (23.0 % vs. 14.7 %; P  = 0.04), were older (50.8 [SD 16.2] vs. 46.4 [SD 15.3] years; P  = 0.007), and were more likely to present with iron deficiency anemia (5.6 % vs. 1.7 %; P  = 0.05), dyspepsia (15.1 % vs. 8.8 %; P  = 0.06) or for Barrett's surveillance (10.3 % vs. 3.7 %; P  = 0.02). Patients with Dif-EE presented more frequently with dysphagia (57.2 % vs. 45.2 %; P  = 0.02). Both groups had similar proton pump inhibitor (87.2 % vs. 83.3 %; P  = 0.37) and steroid (12.8 % vs. 21.4 %; P  = 0.14) use. Patients with Lim-EE had a better clinicopathologic response (61.5 % vs. 44.8 %; P  = 0.009). On multivariate analysis, EoE extent predicted treatment response with an odds ratio of 1.89 (95 % confidence interval 1.13-3.20; P  = 0.02). However, treatment response based only on repeat biopsy results showed no statistical difference between Lim-EE (52.5 %) and Dif-EE (39.7 %; P  = 0.15). Conclusions Lim-EE may represent a distinct phenotype separate from Dif-EE, with more overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease and better treatment response.