Novel transcriptomic panel identifies histologically active oesinophilic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Oesinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is characterised by symptoms of oesophageal 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cohort Profile: The Swiss Eosinophilic Esophagitis Cohort Study (SEECS).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The prospective, observational Swiss Eosinophilic Esophagitis Cohort Study (SEECS) was set up in 2015 with the following goals in mind: (1) to provide up-to-date epidemiologic data; (2) to assess the appropriateness of care; (3) to evaluate the psychosocial impact; and (4) to foster translational research projects. Data capture relies on validated instruments to assess disease activity and focuses on epidemiologic variables and biosamples (esophageal biopsies and blood specimens). An annual inclusion of 70 new patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) or proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) is intended. We herein describe the SEECS cohort profile. METHODS: The SEECS includes adult patients (age ≥18 years) with EoE or PPI-REE diagnosed according to published criteria. After inclusion, the patients are typically seen once a year for a clinical and endoscopic/histologic follow-up examination. Data are captured using validated questionnaires. Biosamples from patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and controls with a healthy esophagus are collected as well. RESULTS: From January 2016 to July 2017, a total of 111 patients with EoE and 10 patients with PPI-REE were recruited. In addition, esophageal biopsies and blood samples from 11 patients with GERD and 20 controls with a healthy esophagus were collected. The mean age of the patients with EoE and those with PPI-REE was 39.6 ± 12.9 and 44.6 ± 15.6 years, respectively. A male predominance was found among both the patients with EoE (77.5%) and those with PPI-REE (70%). Concomitant allergic disorders were found in 79.3% of the patients with EoE and 90% of the patients with PPI-REE. At inclusion, the EoE patients were treated with the following therapeutic regimens: no therapy (0.9%), PPI (36%), swallowed topical corticosteroids (82.9%), elimination diets (15.3%), and esophageal dilation (19.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The SEECS is the first national cohort study of patients with EoE or PPI-REE. The SEECS will provide up-to-date epidemiologic data and foster translational research projects.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Relationship of Subepithelial Eosinophilic Inflammation With Epithelial Histology, Endoscopy, Blood Eosinophils, and Symptoms.

OBJECTIVES: For technical reasons, the histologic characterization of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE)-specific alterations is almost exclusively based on those found in the esophageal epithelium, whereas little is known about subepithelial abnormalities. In this study, we aimed to systematically assess the nature of subepithelial histologic alterations, and analyze their relationship with epithelial histologic findings, endoscopic features, and symptoms. METHODS: Adult patients with established EoE diagnosis were prospectively included during a yearly follow-up visit. Patients underwent assessment of clinical, endoscopic, and histologic disease activity using EoE-specific scores. RESULTS: We included 200 EoE patients (mean age 43.5±15.7 years, 74% males) with a median peak count of 36 intraepithelial eosinophils/hpf (IQR 14-84). The following histologic features were identified in the subepithelial layer: eosinophilic infiltration (median peak count of 20 eosinophils/hpf (IQR 10-51)), eosinophil degranulation (43%), fibrosis (82%), and lymphoid follicles (56%). Peak intraepithelial eosinophil counts were higher, identical, and lower when compared to the subepithelial layer in 62.5%, 7%, and 30.5% of patients, respectively. Anti-eosinophilic treatment at inclusion did not influence the relation between subepithelial and epithelial peak eosinophil counts. Subepithelial histologic activity correlated with epithelial histologic activity (rho 0.331, P<0.001), endoscopic severity (rho 0.208, P=0.003), and symptom severity (rho 0.179, P=0.011). Forty percent (21/52) of patients with <15 intraepithelial eosinophils/hpf had subepithelial peak counts of ≥15/hpf. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant but modest correlation between subepithelial histologic activity and epithelial histologic activity, endoscopic severity, and symptom severity. The long-term clinical impact of assessing subepithelial alterations in EoE needs to be further elucidated.

Normal hemopoiesis and lymphopoiesis in the combined absence of numb and numblike.

The mammalian ortholog of the conserved Drosophila adaptor protein Numb (Nb) and its homolog Numblike (Nbl) modulate neuronal cell fate determination at least in part by antagonizing Notch signaling. Because the Notch pathway has been implicated in regulating hemopoietic stem cell self-renewal and T cell fate specification in mammals, we investigated the role of Nb and Nbl in hemopoiesis using conditional gene targeting. Surprisingly simultaneous deletion of both Nb and Nbl in murine bone marrow precursors did not affect the ability of stem cells to self-renew or to give rise to differentiated myeloid or lymphoid progeny, even under competitive conditions in mixed chimeras. Furthermore, T cell fate specification and intrathymic T cell development were unaffected in the combined absence of Nb and Nbl. Collectively our data indicate that the Nb family of adaptor proteins is dispensable for hemopoiesis and lymphopoiesis in mice, despite their proposed role in neuronal stem cell development.