High prevalence of gastrointestinal disorders in a large cohort of patients with joint hypermobility.

The gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations in children with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome/joint hypermobility syndrome (hEDS/JHS) are not well described. We investigated the prevalence of GI disorders in children and young adults with hEDS/JHS through a single-center retrospective review. Demographic data, clinical history, symptoms, and diagnostic studies were reviewed. Of 435 patients with hEDS/JHS, 66% were females (age 5-28 years). We noted a high prevalence of constipation (61%), dysphagia (32%), dyspepsia and/or gastroparesis (25%), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) (21%), and celiac disease (4%) in our cohort. Upper endoscopy and gastric emptying scans had the highest yield to detect abnormalities. Motility studies were abnormal in 31% of the 80 patients who underwent them. Dysphagia symptoms are significantly associated with EoE. Thirty-three percent of dysphagia patients had EoE, versus 16% of non-dysphagia patients (p < 0.001). Screening hEDS/JHS patients for GI issues should be routine, with further investigations and referrals guided by identified symptoms.

Pooled Phase 2 and 3 Efficacy and Safety Data on Budesonide Oral Suspension in Adolescents with Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) in adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). METHODS: This post hoc analysis pooled data from two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of BOS 2.0 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (phase 2, NCT01642212; phase 3, NCT02605837) in patients aged 11-17 years with EoE and dysphagia. Efficacy endpoints included histologic (≤6, ≤1, and <15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]), dysphagia symptom (≥30% reduction in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ] scores from baseline), and clinicopathologic (≤6 eos/hpf and ≥30% reduction in DSQ scores from baseline) responses at week 12. Change from baseline to week 12 in peak eosinophil counts, DSQ scores, EoE Histology Scoring System (EoEHSS) grade (severity) and stage (extent) total score ratios (TSRs), and total EoE Endoscopic Reference Scores (EREFS) were assessed. Safety outcomes were also examined. RESULTS: Overall, 76 adolescents were included (BOS, n = 45; placebo, n = 31). Significantly more patients who received BOS than placebo achieved histologic responses (≤6 eos/hpf: 46.7% vs 6.5%; ≤1 eos/hpf: 42.2% vs 0.0%; <15 eos/hpf: 53.3% vs 9.7%; P < 0.001) and a clinicopathologic response (31.1% vs 3.2%; P = 0.003) at week 12. More BOS-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a dysphagia symptom response at week 12 (68.9% vs 58.1%; not statistically significant P = 0.314). BOS-treated patients had significantly greater reductions in EoEHSS grade and stage TSRs ( P < 0.001) and total EREFS ( P = 0.021) from baseline to week 12 than placebo-treated patients. BOS was well tolerated, with no clinically meaningful differences in adverse events versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: BOS 2.0 mg b.i.d. significantly improved most efficacy outcomes in adolescents with EoE versus placebo.

Treatment of Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Traditional and Novel Therapies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review presents and summarizes the existing studies on the treatment goals and options for pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis utilizing rigorous peer-reviewed literature. RECENT FINDINGS: In addition to traditional treatments, emerging biologic therapies continue to evolve the approach to treating pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis. Well defined treatment goals will aid the continued development of new therapies. Further, innovative assessment tools have changed how the clinician is able to assess the effectiveness of therapies with a trend toward less invasive options. The management of pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis continues to evolve with the advent of both novel treatment options and assessment tools. Treatment choices, with benefits and risks involved, should be presented to families upon diagnosis and tailored towards the individual patient and likelihood of adherence and success. Biologic therapy for EoE presents an exciting option for both first line therapy and escalation for those with severe or unresponsive disease.

Benralizumab for eosinophilic gastritis: a single-site, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, the role of eosinophils in disease pathogenesis and the effect of eosinophil depletion on patient outcomes are unclear. Benralizumab, an eosinophil-depleting monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin-5 receptor α, might eliminate gastric tissue eosinophils and improve outcomes in eosinophilic gastritis. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with eosinophilic gastritis. METHODS: We conducted a single-site, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (Cincinnati, OH, USA). Individuals aged 12-60 years with symptomatic, histologically active eosinophilic gastritis (peak gastric eosinophil count ≥30 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf] in at least five hpfs) and blood eosinophilia (>500 eosinophils per µL [eos/µL]) were randomly assigned (1:1, block size of four) to benralizumab 30 mg or placebo, stratified by the use of glucocorticoids for gastric disease. Investigators, study staff, and study participants were masked to treatment assignment; statisticians were unmasked when analysing data. Treatments were administered subcutaneously once every 4 weeks for a 12-week double-blind period (three total injections). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved histological remission (peak gastric eosinophil count <30 eos/hpf) at week 12. Key secondary endpoints were the changes from baseline to week 12 in peak gastric eosinophil count, blood eosinophil count, eosinophilic gastritis histology (total, inflammatory, and structural feature scores), Eosinophilic Gastritis Endoscopic Reference System (EG-REFS) score, and patient-reported outcome symptom measures (Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment [SODA] and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System [PROMIS] short-form questionnaire). After the 12-week double-blind period, patients were eligible for entry into two open-label extension (OLE) periods up to week 88, in which all patients received benralizumab. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03473977, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between April 23, 2018, and Jan 13, 2020, 34 patients were screened, and 26 were subsequently randomly assigned to benralizumab (n=13) or placebo (n=13) and included in the ITT and safety populations (mean age 19·5 years [SD 7·3]; 19 [73%] male patients and seven [27%] female patients). At week 12, ten (77% [95% CI 50 to 92]) of 13 patients who received benralizumab and one (8% [1 to 33]) of 13 who received placebo achieved histological remission (difference 69 percentage points [95% CI 32 to 85]; p=0·0010). Changes from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater in the benralizumab group versus the placebo group for peak gastric eosinophil counts (mean -137 eos/hpf [95% CI -186 to -88] vs -38 eos/hpf [-94 to 18]; p=0·0080), eosinophilic gastritis histology total score (mean -0·31 [-0·42 to -0·20] vs -0·02 [-0·16 to 0·12]; p=0·0016), histology inflammatory score (mean -0·46 [-0·60 to -0·31] vs -0·04 [-0·22 to 0·13]; p=0·0006), and blood eosinophil counts (median -1060 eos/µL [IQR -1740 to -830] vs -160 eos/µL [-710 to 120]; p=0·0044). Changes were not significantly different between the groups for eosinophilic gastritis histology structural score (mean -0·07 [95% CI -0·19 to 0·05] vs 0·03 [-0·09 to 0·15]; p=0·23), EG-REFS score (mean -1·0 [-2·3 to 0·3] vs -0·5 [-2·0 to 1·0]; p=0·62), or in patient-reported outcomes (SODA and PROMIS). During the double-blind period, treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 11 (85%) of 13 patients in the benralizumab group and six (46%) of 13 in the placebo group; the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were headache (six [46%] vs two [15%] patients), nausea (three [23%] vs two [15%]), and vomiting (two [15%] vs three [23%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. Two patients had serious adverse events (dizziness and rhabdomyolysis in one patient; aspiration in one patient) during the OLE periods, which were considered unrelated to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: Benralizumab treatment induced histological remission, as defined by absence of tissue eosinophilia, in most patients with eosinophilic gastritis. However, the persistence of histological, endoscopic, and other features of the disease suggest a co-existing, eosinophil-independent pathogenic mechanism and the need for broader targeting of type 2 immunity. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and the Division of Intramural Research (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US National Institutes of Health).

One-food versus six-food elimination diet therapy for the treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis: a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Empirical elimination diets are effective for achieving histological remission in eosinophilic oesophagitis, but randomised trials comparing diet therapies are lacking. We aimed to compare a six-food elimination diet (6FED) with a one-food elimination diet (1FED) for the treatment of adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial across ten sites of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers in the USA. Adults aged 18-60 years with active, symptomatic eosinophilic oesophagitis were centrally randomly allocated (1:1; block size of four) to 1FED (animal milk) or 6FED (animal milk, wheat, egg, soy, fish and shellfish, and peanut and tree nuts) for 6 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by age, enrolling site, and gender. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with histological remission (peak oesophageal count <15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]). Key secondary endpoints were the proportions with complete histological remission (peak count ≤1 eos/hpf) and partial remission (peak counts ≤10 and ≤6 eos/hpf) and changes from baseline in peak eosinophil count and scores on the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System (EoEHSS), Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS), Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index (EEsAI), and quality of life (Adult Eosinophilic Esophagitis Quality-of-Life and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Global Health questionnaires). Individuals without histological response to 1FED could proceed to 6FED, and those without histological response to 6FED could proceed to swallowed topical fluticasone propionate 880 µg twice per day (with unrestricted diet), for 6 weeks. Histological remission after switching therapy was assessed as a secondary endpoint. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02778867, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 23, 2016, and March 6, 2019, 129 patients (70 [54%] men and 59 [46%] women; mean age 37·0 years [SD 10·3]) were enrolled, randomly assigned to 1FED (n=67) or 6FED (n=62), and included in the ITT population. At 6 weeks, 25 (40%) of 62 patients in the 6FED group had histological remission compared with 23 (34%) of 67 in the 1FED group (difference 6% [95% CI -11 to 23]; p=0·58). We found no significant difference between the groups at stricter thresholds for partial remission (≤10 eos/hpf, difference 7% [-9 to 24], p=0·46; ≤6 eos/hpf, 14% [-0 to 29], p=0·069); the proportion with complete remission was significantly higher in the 6FED group than in the 1FED group (difference 13% [2 to 25]; p=0·031). Peak eosinophil counts decreased in both groups (geometric mean ratio 0·72 [0·43 to 1·20]; p=0·21). For 6FED versus 1FED, mean changes from baseline in EoEHSS (-0·23 vs -0·15; difference -0·08 [-0·21 to 0·05]; p=0·23), EREFS (-1·0 vs -0·6; difference -0·4 [-1·1 to 0·3]; p=0·28), and EEsAI (-8·2 vs -3·0; difference -5·2 [-11·2 to 0·8]; p=0·091) were not significantly different. Changes in quality-of-life scores were small and similar between the groups. No adverse event was observed in more than 5% of patients in either diet group. For patients without histological response to 1FED who proceeded to 6FED, nine (43%) of 21 reached histological remission; for patients without histological response to 6FED who proceeded to fluticasone propionate, nine (82%) of 11 reached histological remission. INTERPRETATION: Histological remission rates and improvements in histological and endoscopic features were similar after 1FED and 6FED in adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis. 6FED had efficacy in just less than half of 1FED non-responders and steroids had efficacy in most 6FED non-responders. Our findings indicate that eliminating animal milk alone is an acceptable initial dietary therapy for eosinophilic oesophagitis. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Esophageal Epithelium and Lamina Propria Are Unevenly Involved in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The nature of the involvement of esophageal tissue in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is unclear. We estimated the intrabiopsy site agreements of the EoE Histologic Scoring System (EoEHSS) scores for the grade (degree) and stage (extent) of involvement of the esophageal epithelial and lamina propria and examined if the EoE activity status influenced the intrabiopsy site agreement. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and EoEHSS scores collected as part of the prospective Outcome Measures for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases Across Ages study were analyzed. A weighted Cohen's kappa agreement coefficient (k) was used to calculate the pairwise agreements for proximal:distal, proximal:middle, and middle:distal esophageal biopsy sites, separately for grade and stage scores, for each of the 8 components of EoEHSS. A k > 0.75 was considered uniform involvement. Inactive EoE was defined as fewer than 15 eosinophils per high-powered field. RESULTS: EoEHSS scores from 1263 esophageal biopsy specimens were analyzed. The k for the stage of involvement of the dilated intercellular spaces across all 3 sites in inactive EoE was consistently greater than 0.75 (range, 0.87-0.99). The k for lamina propria fibrosis was greater than 0.75 across some of the biopsy sites but not across all 3. Otherwise, the k for all other features, for both grade and stage, irrespective of the disease activity status, was 0.75 or less (range, 0.00-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Except for the extent of involvement of dilated intercellular spaces in inactive EoE, the remaining epithelial features and lamina propria are involved unevenly across biopsy sites in EoE, irrespective of the disease activity status. This study enhances our understanding of the effects of EoE on esophageal tissue pathology.

Molecular analysis of duodenal eosinophilia.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic duodenitis (EoD), characterized by nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and increased numbers of duodenal eosinophils, may be in the eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease spectrum. However, diagnostic thresholds and pathogenic processes of duodenal tissue eosinophilia are inadequately characterized. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to define an EoD transcriptome and pathologic pathways. METHODS: RNA sequencing and histologic features of human duodenal biopsy samples were analyzed as a function of duodenal eosinophils levels. For analyses, we defined EoD as more than 52 peak eosinophils/hpf (n = 8), duodenal eosinophilia as 30 to 52 eosinophils/hpf (n = 11), and normal controls as fewer than 30 eosinophils/hpf (n = 8). Associations between gene expression and histologic features were analyzed with Spearman correlation. RESULTS: We identified 382 differentially expressed genes (EoD transcriptome) between EoD and normal controls (>2-fold change [adjusted P < .05]). The EoD transcriptome distinguished EoD from controls (duodenal eosinophilia and normal controls). The duodenal eosinophil count was correlated with a distinct EoD transcriptome when 50 to 60 peak eosinophils/hpf were present. The EoD transcriptome was enriched in genes involved in IL-4/IL-13 signaling, mast cells, and myeloid progenitor cells. Among duodenal histologic features, lamina propria eosinophil sheets was the most associated with transcriptomic changes (r = 0.66; P < .01). EoD gene signatures were shared with eosinophilic esophagitis and eosinophilic gastritis but not with eosinophilic colitis or celiac disease. CONCLUSION: We have identified an EoD transcriptomic signature that emerges at 50 to 60 peak eosinophils/hpf and established EoD as part of a spectrum of upper eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder associated with type 2 immunity and distinct from eosinophilic colitis and celiac disease. These findings provide a basis for improving diagnosis and treatment.

Mucosal Microbiota Associated With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Eosinophilic Gastritis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the mucosal microbiota associated with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and eosinophilic gastritis (EoG) in a geographically diverse cohort of patients compared to controls. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of individuals with eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease (EGID) in the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers, including pediatric and adult tertiary care centers. Eligible individuals had clinical data, mucosal biopsies, and stool collected. Total bacterial load was determined from mucosal biopsy samples by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Community composition was determined by small subunit rRNA gene amplicons. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine mucosal biopsies were evaluated corresponding to 93 EoE, 17 EoG, and 29 control specimens (18 esophageal) from 10 sites across the United States. Dominant community members across disease activity differed significantly. When comparing EoE and EoG with controls, the dominant taxa in individuals with EGIDs was increased ( Streptococcus in esophagus; Prevotella in stomach). Specific taxa were associated with active disease for both EoE ( Streptococcus , Gemella ) and EoG ( Leptotrichia ), although highly individualized communities likely impacted statistical testing. Alpha diversity metrics were similar across groups, but with high variability among individuals. Stool analyses did not correlate with bacterial communities found in mucosal biopsy samples and was similar in patients and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Dominant community members ( Streptococcus for EoE, Prevotella for EoG) were different in the mucosal biopsies but not stool of individuals with EGIDs compared to controls; taxa associated with EGIDs were highly variable across individuals. Further study is needed to determine if therapeutic interventions contribute to the observed community differences.

Single-cell RNA sequencing of mast cells in eosinophilic esophagitis reveals heterogeneity, local proliferation, and activation that persists in remission.

BACKGROUND: Mast cells (MCs) are pleiotropic cells that accumulate in the esophagus of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and are thought to contribute to disease pathogenesis, yet their properties and functions in this organ are largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to perform a comprehensive molecular and spatial characterization of esophageal MCs in EoE. METHODS: Esophageal biopsies obtained from patients with active EoE, patients with EoE in histologic remission, and individuals with histologically normal esophageal biopsies and no history of esophageal disease (ie, control individuals) were subject to single-cell RNA sequencing, flow cytometry, and immunofluorescence analyses. RESULTS: This study probed 39,562 single esophageal cells by single-cell RNA sequencing; approximately 5% of these cells were MCs. Dynamic MC expansion was identified across disease states. During homeostasis, TPSAB1highAREGhigh resident MCs were mainly detected in the lamina propria and exhibited a quiescent phenotype. In patients with active EoE, resident MCs assumed an activated phenotype, and 2 additional proinflammatory MC populations emerged in the intraepithelial compartment, each linked to a proliferating MKI67high cluster. One proinflammatory activated MC population, marked as KIThighIL1RL1highFCER1Alow, was not detected in disease remission (termed "transient MC"), whereas the other population, marked as CMA1highCTSGhigh, was detected in disease remission where it maintained an activated state (termed "persistent MC"). MCs were prominent producers of esophageal IL-13 mRNA and protein, a key therapeutic target in EoE. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal MCs comprise heterogeneous populations with transcriptional signatures associated with distinct spatial compartmentalization and EoE disease status. In active EoE, they assume a proinflammatory state and locally proliferate, and they remain activated and poised to reinitiate inflammation even during disease remission.

International Consensus Recommendations for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Nomenclature.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Substantial heterogeneity in terminology used for eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs), particularly the catchall term "eosinophilic gastroenteritis," limits clinical and research advances. We aimed to achieve an international consensus for standardized EGID nomenclature. METHODS: This consensus process utilized Delphi methodology. An initial naming framework was proposed and refined in iterative fashion, then assessed in a first round of Delphi voting. Results were discussed in 2 consensus meetings, and the framework was updated and reassessed in a second Delphi vote, with a 70% threshold set for agreement. RESULTS: Of 91 experts participating, 85 (93%) completed the first and 82 (90%) completed the second Delphi surveys. Consensus was reached on all but 2 statements. "EGID" was the preferred umbrella term for disorders of gastrointestinal (GI) tract eosinophilic inflammation in the absence of secondary causes (100% agreement). Involved GI tract segments will be named specifically and use an "Eo" abbreviation convention: eosinophilic gastritis (now abbreviated EoG), eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and eosinophilic colitis (EoC). The term "eosinophilic gastroenteritis" is no longer preferred as the overall name (96% agreement). When >2 GI tract areas are involved, the name should reflect all of the involved areas. CONCLUSIONS: This international process resulted in consensus for updated EGID nomenclature for both clinical and research use. EGID will be the umbrella term, rather than "eosinophilic gastroenteritis," and specific naming conventions by location of GI tract involvement are recommended. As more data are developed, this framework can be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying science.

Prospective Endoscopic Activity Assessment for Eosinophilic Gastritis in a Multisite Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic gastritis (EG) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the stomach characterized by eosinophil-predominant gastric mucosal inflammation and gastrointestinal symptoms. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate endoscopic features in a large series of children and adults with EG to better understand the endoscopic manifestations and develop a standardized instrument for investigations. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected as part of the Consortium for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers, a national collaborative network. Endoscopic features were prospectively recorded using a system specifically developed for EG, the EG Endoscopic Reference System (EG-REFS). Correlations were made between EG-REFS and clinical and histologic features. RESULTS: Of 98 patients with EG, 65 underwent assessments using EG-REFS. The most common findings were erythema (72%), raised lesions (49%), erosions (46%), and granularity (35%); only 8% of patients with active histology (≥30 eosinophils/high-power field) exhibited no endoscopic findings. A strong correlation between EG-REFS scores and physician global assessment of endoscopy severity was demonstrated (Spearman r = 0.84, P < 0.0001). The overall score and specific components of EG-REFS were more common in the antrum than in the fundus or body. EG-REFS severity was significantly correlated with active histology, defined by a threshold of ≥30 eosinophils/high-power field (P = 0.0002). DISCUSSION: Prospective application of EG-REFS identified gastric features with a strong correlation with physician global assessment of endoscopic activity in EG. Endoscopic features demonstrated greater severity in patients with active histology and a predilection for the gastric antrum. Further development of EG-REFS should improve its utility in clinical studies.

Evaluating Eosinophilic Colitis as a Unique Disease Using Colonic Molecular Profiles: A Multi-Site Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonic eosinophilia, an enigmatic finding often referred to as eosinophilic colitis (EoC), is a poorly understood condition. Whether EoC is a distinct disease or a colonic manifestation of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is undetermined. METHODS: Subjects with EoC (n = 27) and controls (normal [NL, n = 20], Crohn's disease [CD, n = 14]) were enrolled across sites associated with the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers. EoC was diagnosed as colonic eosinophilia (ascending ≥100, descending ≥85, sigmoid ≥65 eosinophils/high-power field) with related symptoms. Colon biopsies were subjected to RNA sequencing. Associations between gene expression and histologic features were analyzed with Spearman correlation; operational pathways and cellular constituents were computationally derived. RESULTS: We identified 987 differentially expressed genes (EoC transcriptome) between EoC and NL (>1.5-fold change, P < .05). Colonic eosinophil count correlated with 31% of EoC transcriptome, most notably with CCL11 and CLC (r = 0.78 and 0.77, P < .0001). Among EoC and other EGIDs, there was minimal transcriptomic overlap and minimal evidence of a strong allergic type 2 immune response in EoC compared with other EGIDs. Decreased cell cycle and increased apoptosis in EoC compared with NL were identified by functional enrichment analysis and immunostaining using Ki-67 and cleaved caspase-3. Pericryptal circumferential eosinophil collars were associated with the EoC transcriptome (P < .001). EoC transcriptome-based scores were reversible with disease remission and differentiated EoC from IBD, even after controlling for colonic eosinophil levels (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: We established EoC transcriptomic profiles, identified mechanistic pathways, and integrated findings with parallel IBD and EGID data. These findings establish EoC as a distinct disease compared with other EGIDs and IBD, thereby providing a basis for improving diagnosis and treatment.

Loss of Endothelial TSPAN12 Promotes Fibrostenotic Eosinophilic Esophagitis via Endothelial Cell-Fibroblast Crosstalk.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) can progress to fibrostenosis by unclear mechanisms. Herein, we investigated gene dysregulation in fibrostenotic EoE, its association with clinical parameters and specific pathways, and the functional consequences. METHODS: Esophageal biopsies from subjects with EoE were collected across 11 Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers sites (n = 311) and 2 independent replication cohorts (n = 83). Inclusion criteria for fibrostenotic EoE were endoscopic rings, stricture, and/or a history of dilation. Endoscopic, histologic, and molecular features were assessed by the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score, EoE Histology Scoring System, EoE Diagnostic Panel, and RNA sequencing. Esophageal endothelial TSPAN12 expression and functional effects on barrier integrity and gene expression were analyzed in vitro. RESULTS: TSPAN12 was the gene most correlated with fibrostenosis (r = -0.40, P < .001). TSPAN12 was lower in fibrostenotic EoE and correlated with EoE Endoscopic Reference Score, EoE Diagnostic Panel, and EoE Histology Scoring System (r = 0.34-0.47, P < .001). Lower TSPAN12 associated with smaller esophageal diameter (r = 0.44, P = .03), increased lamina propria fibrosis (r = -0.41, P < .001), and genes enriched in cell cycle-related pathways. Interleukin (IL)-13 reduced TSPAN12 expression in endothelial cells. Conversely, anti-IL-13 therapy increased TSPAN12 expression. TSPAN12 gene silencing increased endothelial cell permeability and dysregulated genes associated with extracellular matrix pathways. Endothelial cell-fibroblast crosstalk induced extracellular matrix changes relevant to esophageal remodeling. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with fibrostenotic EoE express decreased levels of endothelial TSPAN12. We propose that IL-13 decreases TSPAN12, likely contributing to the chronicity of EoE by promoting tissue remodeling through fibroblast-endothelial cell crosstalk.

Acquired Esophageal Strictures in Children: Morphometric and Immunohistochemical Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal strictures (ES) in children are not well characterized pathologically. We report unique histopathologic analyses of resected acquired ES and control esophagi (CE). METHODS: Muscle layer thicknesses were measured in intact well-oriented areas; inflammatory cells were counted in the most inflamed high power field (hpf). Sections were stained with relevant antibodies. Results were expressed as median, lower and upper quartiles. Wilcoxon Rank Sums non-parametric test was used to compare groups; P ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: All ES (N = 10) showed focal replacement of lamina propria, muscularis mucosa and submucosa by actin+ fibers emanating from muscularis propria. Compared to CE (N = 8), ES displayed significantly thickened muscularis mucosa and propria, and increased mast cells (tryptase- and chymase-positive), and eosinophils in muscle layers (all P ≤ 0.01). Matrix proteins periostin and fibronectin were identified in the muscle layers of CE, and in the extracellular matrix in areas of disrupted architecture in ES. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CE, acquired ES in children show significant structural alterations, including obliterative muscularization, inflammatory cell mural infiltrates, and extracellular matrix protein deposits. Therapies targeting connective tissue expansion, mast cells, eosinophils and inflammation may be beneficial to treat ES.

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.

Long-Term Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis With Budesonide Oral Suspension.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We evaluated treatment withdrawal, long-term outcomes, and safety of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) 2.0 mg twice daily in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis who completed a 12-week induction study. METHODS: Induction full responders (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf] and ≥30% reduction in the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire score) to BOS 2.0 mg twice daily (ORBIT1/SHP621-301/NCT02605837) were randomized to continue BOS (BOS-BOS) or withdraw to placebo (BOS-PBO) for 36 weeks (ORBIT2/SHP621-302/NCT02736409). Induction partial responders and nonresponders, and patients who received induction placebo, received BOS for 36 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of BOS-BOS and BOS-PBO patients who relapsed (≥15 eos/hpf and ≥4 days of dysphagia [Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire] over 2 weeks) by week 36. The key secondary end point was the proportion of induction partial responders and nonresponders who fully responded after 52 weeks of total BOS therapy. Other secondary end points included the proportion of induction full responders with histologic responses (≤1, ≤6, <15 eos/hpf) at week 12 of the extension study, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: The randomized withdrawal period enrolled 48 patients (BOS-BOS, n = 25; BOS-PBO, n = 23); 106 induction partial responders and nonresponders, and 65 induction placebo patients received BOS. More BOS-PBO than BOS-BOS patients relapsed over 36 weeks (43.5% vs 24.0%; P = .131) and had histologic responses at week 12 of therapy (P < .001). Overall, 13.2% of induction partial responders and nonresponders fully responded at week 36. BOS was well tolerated; therapy duration was not associated with new safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: For induction full responders, continuing BOS numerically improved maintenance of efficacy vs withdrawal. A longer therapy duration did not raise safety concerns. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02736409.).

Long-Lasting Dissociation of Esophageal Eosinophilia and Symptoms After Dilation in Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Esophageal dilation improves dysphagia but not inflammation in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients. We investigated if dilation modifies the association between symptoms and peak esophageal eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf). METHODS: Adults enrolled in a multisite prospective Consortium of Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Disease Researchers Outcome Measures for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases Across Ages observational study (NCT02523118) completed the symptom-based EoE activity index (EEsAI) patient-reported outcome instrument and underwent endoscopy with biopsy specimens. Patients were stratified based on dilation status as absent, performed 1 year or less before endoscopy, and performed more than 1 year before endoscopy. Assessments included Spearman correlations of the relationship between symptoms and eos/hpf and linear regression with EEsAI as the outcome, eos/hpf as predictor, and interaction for dilation and eos/hpf. RESULTS: Among 100 patients (n = 61 males; median age, 37 y), 15 and 40 patients underwent dilation 1 year or less and more than 1 year before index endoscopy, respectively. In nondilated patients, the association between eos/hpf and symptoms was moderate (ρ = 0.49; P < .001); for a 10-eos/hpf increase, the predicted EEsAI increased by 2.69 (P = .002). In patients dilated 1 or less and more than 1 year before index endoscopy, this association was abolished (ρ = -0.38; P = .157 for ≤1 y and ρ = 0.02; P = .883 >1 y); for a 10-eos/hpf increase, the predicted EEsAI changed by -1.64 (P = .183) and 0.78 (P = .494), respectively. Dilation modified the association between symptoms and eos/hpf (P = .005 and P = .187 for interaction terms of eos/hpf and dilation 1 or less years before and more than 1 year before index endoscopy, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In nondilated EoE adults, eos/hpf correlate modestly with symptoms; this correlation was no longer appreciated in dilated patients, and the dilation effects lasted longer than 1 year. Dilation status should be considered in studies evaluating EoE treatment and for clinical follow-up evaluation.

Budesonide Oral Suspension Improves Outcomes in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Results from a Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, immune-mediated disease for which there is currently no pharmacologic therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients 11-55 years of age with EoE and dysphagia were randomized 2:1 to receive budesonide oral suspension (BOS) 2.0 mg twice daily or placebo for 12 weeks at academic or community care practices. Co-primary endpoints were the proportion of stringent histologic responders (≤6 eosinophils/high-power field) or dysphagia symptom responders (≥30% reduction in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ] score) over 12 weeks. Changes in DSQ score (key secondary endpoint) and EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) (secondary endpoint) from baseline to week 12, and safety parameters were examined. RESULTS: Overall, 318 patients (BOS, n = 213; placebo, n = 105) were randomized and received ≥1 dose of study treatment. More BOS-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a stringent histologic response (53.1% vs 1.0%; Δ52% [95% confidence interval (CI), 43.3%-59.1%]; P < .001) or symptom response (52.6% vs 39.1%; Δ13% [95% CI, 1.6%-24.3%]; P = .024) over 12 weeks. BOS-treated patients also had greater improvements in least-squares mean DSQ scores and EREFS over 12 weeks than placebo-treated patients: DSQ, -13.0 (SEM 1.2) vs -9.1 (SEM 1.5) (Δ-3.9 [95% CI, -7.1 to -0.8]; P = .015); EREFS, -4.0 (SEM 0.3) vs -2.2 (SEM 0.4) (Δ-1.8 [95% CI, -2.6 to -1.1]; P < .001). BOS was well tolerated; most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with EoE, BOS 2.0 mg twice daily was superior to placebo in improving histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes over 12 weeks. BOS 2.0 mg twice daily was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02605837.