Dietary elimination therapy is an effective option for adults with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an immune-mediated disorder. Food elimination is an established treatment for children, but data in adults are limited. We aimed to determine the response of adults with EoE to dietary therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the University of North Carolina EoE database from 2006 to 2012. Subjects were age 18 and older, had EoE by consensus guidelines, and had undergone dietary therapy either with a targeted elimination diet or a 6-food elimination diet (SFED). Outcomes were symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic improvement. Demographic, endoscopic, symptomatic, and laboratory predictors of response to dietary therapy were assessed. RESULTS: Of 31 adults who underwent dietary therapy (mean age, 36 y; 48% male; 90% white; mean baseline eosinophil count, 78 eos/hpf), 22 had a targeted elimination diet and 9 had SFED. Symptoms improved in 71% (68% in targeted, 78% in SFED), and endoscopic appearance improved in 54% (53% in targeted, 56% in SFED). After dietary therapy, the mean eosinophil count decreased to 43 eos/hpf (P = .009). Eleven subjects (39%) responded with fewer than 15 eos/hpf (32% in targeted and 56% in SFED; P = .41). No clinical, endoscopic, or histologic factors predicted response to dietary therapy. Of the 11 responders, 9 underwent food re-introduction to identify trigger(s), and 4 (44%) reacted to dairy, 4 (44%) reacted to eggs, 2 (22%) reacted to wheat, 1 (11%) reacted to shellfish, 1 (11%) reacted to legumes, and 1 (11%) reacted to nuts. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary elimination is a successful treatment modality for adults with EoE. Further research should emphasize which factors can predict effective dietary therapy.

A phenotypic analysis shows that eosinophilic esophagitis is a progressive fibrostenotic disease.

BACKGROUND: Phenotypes of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are not well-characterized. OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical features of patients with EoE with predefined phenotypes, determine predictors of these phenotypes, and make inferences about the natural history of EoE. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary-care center. PATIENTS: Incident EoE cases from 2001 to 2011 that met consensus diagnostic guidelines. INTERVENTION: Review of records. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Endoscopic phenotypes, including fibrostenotic, inflammatory, or mixed. Other groups of clinical characteristics examined included atopy, level of esophageal eosinophilia, and age of symptom onset. Multinomial logistic regression assessed predictors of phenotype status. RESULTS: Of 379 cases of EoE identified, there were no significant phenotypic differences by atopic status or level of eosinophilia. Those with the inflammatory phenotype were more likely to be younger than those with mixed or fibrostenotic (13 vs 29 vs 39 years, respectively; P < .001) and less likely to have dysphagia, food impaction, and esophageal dilation (P < .001 for all). The mean symptom length before diagnosis was shorter for inflammatory (5 vs 8 vs 8 years; P = .02). After multivariate analysis, age and dysphagia independently predicted phenotype. The odds ratio (OR) for fibrostenosis for each 10-year increase in age was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.7-2.7). The OR for dysphagia was 7.0 (95% CI, 2.6-18.6). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective, single-center study. CONCLUSION: In this large EoE cohort, the likelihood of fibrostenotic disease increased markedly with age. For every 10-year increase in age, the odds of having a fibrostenotic EoE phenotype more than doubled. This association suggests that the natural history of EoE is a progression from an inflammatory to a fibrostenotic disease.

Epidemiology and management of oesophageal coin impaction in children.

OBJECTIVE: The epidemiology of oesophageal coin impaction in children is poorly understood. We aimed to assess characteristics of patients with coin impaction and identify predictors of type of coin impacted and management strategies. METHODS: Cases of coin impaction from 2002 to 2009 were identified by querying a tertiary care centre's billing, clinical, and endoscopy databases for the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision code "935.1 - foreign body in the oesophagus." Charts were reviewed to confirm case status and to extract pertinent data. RESULTS: Of 113 patients with oesophageal coin impaction (55% male; 45% Caucasian; mean age 2.9 years), 65 (58%) swallowed a penny, 85 (80%) had the impaction in the proximal oesophagus, and 103 (91%) required a procedure. Thirty-five (34%) patients had an upper endoscopy performed by a gastroenterologist and 68 (66%) had a laryngoscopy or oesophagoscopy performed by an otolaryngologist. Only 2 minor complications were noted. There was no significant relationship between the coin type and location of impaction, but 99% of cases performed by otolaryngologists were for proximally impacted coins, compared to 49% for gastroenterologists (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oesophageal coin impaction disproportionately affected young children and extraction was frequently required. Whilst pennies were the most commonly impacted coin, there were no clear predictors on impaction based on coin type.

Esophageal foreign-body impactions: epidemiology, time trends, and the impact of the increasing prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of esophageal foreign-body impaction (EFBI) is poorly described, and the impact of the increasing prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) on this is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics of patients with EFBI, to determine whether EFBI cases increased in proportion to EoE cases, and to identify predictors of EFBI. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Cases of EFBI from 2002 to 2009 were identified by querying billing, clinical, and endoscopy databases for the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification code 935.1, "foreign body in the esophagus." Charts were reviewed to confirm EFBI and to extract pertinent data. Cases of EoE were defined per guidelines. RESULTS: Of 548 patients with EFBI (59% male, 68% white, bimodal age distribution), 482 (88%) required a procedure, 347 (63%) had food impactions, and 51 (9%) had EoE. EFBIs increased over the study time frame, and the number of EGDs performed for EFBI nearly quadrupled. Increasing diagnosis of EoE did not fully account for this trend, but only 27% of patients who underwent EGD had esophageal biopsies. Of patients who underwent biopsy, 46% had EoE. EoE was the strongest predictor of multiple EFBIs (odds ratio 3.5; 95% CI, 1.8-7.0). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective, single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: The number of EGDs performed for EFBI has increased dramatically at our center, but increasing EoE prevalence only partially explains this trend. Because only a minority of EFBI patients underwent biopsies and because nearly half of those who did undergo biopsy had EoE, the incidence of EoE may be substantially underestimated. Physician education is needed to increase the proportion of subjects with EFBI who undergo biopsies.

Toward uniformity in the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE): the effect of guidelines on variability of diagnostic criteria for EoE.

OBJECTIVES: Recent consensus guidelines for diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have been published. Whether these guidelines have standardized diagnostic criteria for EoE is unknown. We aimed to determine if the EoE guidelines had an impact on the diagnostic criteria reported in the EoE literature, and whether the previously observed variability in diagnostic criteria has become more uniform. METHODS: Two investigators independently conducted a MEDLINE search from 1 January 2007 through 30 June 2010 for all publications reporting EoE in human subjects, and also searched the proceedings of the 2007-2010 American College of Gastroenterology and American Gastroenterological Association meetings, using a predefined search strategy. Data were extracted from all relevant publications. RESULTS: Of the 799 publications identified, 149 original reports, 99 reviews, and 165 abstracts were included. In all, 32 original reports (21%) used diagnostic criteria consistent with each of the three components of the consensus guidelines. There was a significant increase when comparing original articles published after the release of the guidelines with those published earlier (31 vs. 6%, P<0.001). The proportion of original articles using 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) as a histological cut-point increased significantly (P=0.001). There was still substantial variability in biopsy protocols and eosinophil count methodology. The majority of original articles did not report microscope high-power field (HPF) area. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of original reports with diagnostic criteria consistent with the consensus guidelines has increased significantly. However, the majority of articles still did not conform to all three of the criteria in the guidelines, and biopsy and eosinophil count protocols continue to demonstrate significant variability. Standardization of biopsy and eosinophil count protocols is needed.