Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic and progressive immune-mediated esophageal disorder. Given its increasing incidence, it is now a leading cause of dysphagia and food impaction in the United States. Eosinophilic esophagitis is most common in adult White men and has a high concurrence rate with other atopic conditions like allergic rhinitis, bronchial asthma, and eczema. The initial presentation includes symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, classically solid-food dysphagia. Without treatment, inflammation can progress to fibrosis with the formation of strictures, leading to complications such as food impaction. It is a clinicopathologic disease requiring compatible clinical symptoms and histologic evidence of eosinophil-predominant inflammation of the esophageal epithelium with more than 15 eosinophils per high-power field. The mainstay of management includes the 3 d's (diet, drugs, dilation): dietary modifications to eliminate trigger food groups; medications including proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical glucocorticoids, and dupilumab; and esophageal dilation to manage strictures. Various elimination diets have been found to be effective, including 1-food, 2-food, 4-food, and 6-food elimination diets. Dupilumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that regulates interleukin 4 and 13 signaling pathways, has shown promising results in clinical trials and was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2022 for use in EoE. Symptom alleviation, although important, is not the sole end point of treatment in EoE as persistent inflammation, even in the absence of symptoms, can lead to esophageal fibrosis and stricture formation over time. The chronic nature and high recurrence rates of EoE warrant maintenance therapy in patients with EoE after initial remission is achieved.

Rates of Recurrent Intestinal Metaplasia and Dysplasia After Successful Endoscopic Therapy of Barrett's Neoplasia by EMR vs ESD and Ablation: A Large North American Multicenter Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) combining endoscopic resection (ER) with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) followed by ablation is the standard of care for the treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE). We have previously shown comparable rates of complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) with both approaches. However, data comparing recurrence after CRIM are lacking. We compared rates of recurrence after CRIM with both techniques in a multicenter cohort. METHODS: Patients undergoing EET achieving CRIM at 3 academic institutions were included. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. Outcomes included rates and predictors of any BE and dysplastic BE recurrence in the two groups. Cox proportional hazards models and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis were utilized for analysis. RESULTS: 621 patients (514 EMR, 107 ESD) achieving CRIM were included in the recurrence analysis. The incidence of any BE (15.7, 5.7 per 100 patient years) and dysplastic BE recurrence (7.3, 5.3 per 100 patient-years) were comparable in the EMR and ESD groups, respectively. On multivariable analyses, the chances of BE recurrence were not influenced by ER technique (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.51-1.49; p= 0.62), which was also confirmed by IPTW analysis (ESD vs EMR: HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.56-1.73; p= 0.94). BE length, lesion size, and history of cigarette smoking were independent predictors of BE recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BE dysplasia/neoplasia achieving CRIM, initially treated with EMR/ablation had comparable recurrence rates to ESD/ablation. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these outcomes between the two ER techniques.

Advances in Screening for Barrett Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), the primary form of esophageal cancer in the United States, is a lethal cancer with exponentially increasing incidence. Screening for Barrett esophagus (BE), the only known precursor to EAC, followed by endoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia and early-stage EAC and subsequent endoscopic treatment (to prevent progression of dysplasia to EAC and to treat early-stage EAC effectively) is recommended by several society guidelines. Sedated endoscopy (the primary current tool for BE screening) is both invasive and expensive, limiting its widespread use. In this review, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of recent innovations in the nonendoscopic detection of BE and EAC. These include swallowable cell sampling devices combined with protein and epigenetic biomarkers (which are now guideline endorsed as alternatives to sedated endoscopy), tethered capsule endomicroscopy, emerging peripheral blood-sampled molecular biomarkers, and exhaled volatile organic compounds. We also summarize progress and challenges in assessing BE and EAC risk, which is an important complementary component of the process for the clinical implementation of these innovative nonendoscopic tools, and propose a new paradigm for the strategy to reduce EAC incidence and mortality.

Prevalence and Predictors of Barrett's Esophagus After Negative Initial Endoscopy: Analysis From Two National Databases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines suggest a single screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to determine BE prevalence and predictors on repeat EGD after a negative initial EGD, using 2 large national databases (GI Quality Improvement Consortium [GIQuIC] and TriNetX). METHODS: Patients who underwent at least 2 EGDs were included and those with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma detected at initial EGD were excluded. Patient demographics and prevalence of BE on repeat EGD were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for independent risk factors for BE detected on the repeat EGD. RESULTS: In 214,318 and 153,445 patients undergoing at least 2 EGDs over a median follow-up of 28-35 months, the prevalence of BE on repeat EGD was 1.7% in GIQuIC and 3.4% in TriNetX, respectively (26%-45% of baseline BE prevalence). Most (89%) patients had nondysplastic BE. The prevalence of BE remained stable over time (from 1 to >5 years from negative initial EGD) but increased with increasing number of risk factors. BE prevalence in a high-risk population (gastroesophageal reflux disease plus ≥1 risk factor for BE) was 3%-4%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of >350,000 patients, rates of BE on repeat EGD ranged from 1.7%-3.4%, and were higher in those with multiple risk factors. Most were likely missed at initial evaluation, underscoring the importance of a high-quality initial endoscopic examination. Although routine repeat endoscopic BE screening after a negative initial examination is not recommended, repeat screening may be considered in carefully selected patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and ≥2 risk factors for BE, potentially using nonendoscopic tools.

Development of a model to identify patients who do not need oesophageal biopsies when eosinophilic oesophagitis is suspected.

BACKGROUND: Predictive models for eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) may not fully rule in the diagnosis. AIM: To develop a reverse model that predicts against EoE to eliminate the need for oesophageal biopsies. METHODS: In this two-centre study, a predictive model was developed (Mayo Clinic) and validated (University of North Carolina [UNC]). Cross-sectional data from consecutive adult patients without prior EoE who underwent upper enoscopy with oesophageal biopsies were used. EoE cases had ≥15 eosinophils/high-power field while controls had no eosinophils. Data were collected on patient clinical and endoscopic features. Multiple variable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of non-EoE status while maintaining specificity ≥95%. A secondary model was developed to predict against the need for endoscopy in patients suspected of having EoE without alarm symptoms. RESULTS: The Mayo and UNC cohorts consisted of 345 (EoE = 94, non-EoE = 251) and 297 patients (EoE = 84, non-EoE = 213), respectively. A primary model based on clinical and endoscopic features predicted against EoE with c-statistic 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.96), specificity 95%, and sensitivity 65%. This model was validated (UNC) with c-statistic 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92). A simplified scoring system was created and a threshold of ≥12 points excluded EoE with 95% specificity and 50% sensitivity. A secondary model based on clinical characteristics alone predicted against EoE with c-statistic 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.90), specificity 95% and sensitivity 39% and validated (UNC) with c-statistic 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.85). CONCLUSION: A simplified scoring system accurately identified a group of patients with a low likelihood of EoE where unnecessary oesophageal biopsies can be avoided, potentially resulting in resource and cost savings.

Clinical Outcomes After Endoscopic Management of Low-Risk and High-Risk T1a Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is standard of care for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, data on outcomes in high-risk T1a EAC are limited. We assessed and compared outcomes after EET of low-risk and high-risk T1a EAC, including intraluminal EAC recurrence, extraesophageal metastases, and overall survival. METHODS: Patients who underwent EET for T1a EAC at 3 referral Barrett's esophagus endotherapy units between 1996 and 2022 were included. Patients with submucosal invasion, positive deep margins, or metastases at initial diagnosis were excluded. High-risk T1a EAC was defined as T1a EAC with poor differentiation and/or lymphovascular invasion, with low-risk disease being defined without these features. All pathology was systematically assessed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Baseline and follow-up endoscopy and pathology data were abstracted. Time-to-event analyses were performed to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients with T1a EAC were included (high risk, n = 45; low risk, n = 143) with a median age of 70 years, and 84% were men. Groups were comparable for age, sex, Barrett's esophagus length, lesion size, and EET technique. Rates of delayed extraesophageal metastases (11.1% vs 1.4%) were significantly higher in the high-risk group ( P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the rates of intraluminal EAC recurrence ( P = 0.79) and overall survival ( P = 0.73) between the 2 groups. DISCUSSION: Patients with high-risk T1a EAC undergoing successful EET had a substantially higher rate of extraesophageal metastases compared with those with low-risk T1a EAC on long-term follow-up. These data should be factored into discussions with patients while selecting treatment approaches. Additional prospective data in this area are critical.

A novel method for removal of a partially deflated intragastric balloon.

Video 1Video of EGD showing deflation of balloon and removal.

Bile Acid Sequestrants in Microscopic Colitis: Clinical Outcomes and Utility of Bile Acid Testing.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Bile acid sequestrants (BAS) may be a treatment in microscopic colitis (MC), but efficacy data are limited. We evaluated the effectiveness of BAS in MC and assessed the utility of bile acid testing to predict response. METHODS: Adults with MC treated with BAS (2010-2020) at Mayo Clinic were identified. Bile acid malabsorption was defined by elevated serum 7⍺-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one or by fecal testing using previously validated cutoffs. Response was defined at 12 ± 4 weeks after BAS initiation as: complete (resolution of diarrhea), partial (≥50% improvement in diarrhea), nonresponse (<50% improvement), and intolerance (discontinuation due to side effects). Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of response to BAS. RESULTS: We identified 282 patients (median age, 59 years [range, 20-87 years]; 88.3% women) with median follow-up of 4.5 years (range, 0.4-9.1 years). Patients were treated with the following BAS: 64.9% cholestyramine, 21.6% colesevelam, and 13.5% colestipol. Clinical outcomes were: 49.3% complete response, 16.3% partial response, 24.8% nonresponse, and 9.6% intolerance. There were no differences in outcomes between those on BAS alone or BAS combined with other medications (P = .98). The dose of BAS was not associated with response (P = .51). Bile acid testing was done in 31.9% of patients, and 56.7% were positive. No predictors of response to BAS were identified. After BAS discontinuation, 41.6% had recurrence at a median of 21 weeks (range, 1-172 weeks). CONCLUSION: In one of the largest cohorts evaluating BAS treatment in MC, nearly two-thirds had a partial or complete response. Additional research is needed to determine the role of BAS and bile acid malabsorption in MC.

The natural history of histological changes in microscopic colitis.

Background: Microscopic colitis (MC) causes chronic diarrhea. It has two histologic subtypes: lymphocytic colitis (LC) and collagenous colitis (CC). Little is known about the natural progression of disease with time and with treatment. Objectives: We aimed to assess histological changes over time. Design: We designed a retrospective study including adults diagnosed with MC from January 1992 to January 2020 at Mayo Clinic. Methods: Pathology reports were reviewed until 31 October 2020. Histological assessments at least 8 weeks apart were considered as adequate follow-up. Histological change from one subtype to the other and resolution were tracked with univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Overall, 416 patients with a median age at diagnosis of 63.9 years with >1 histopathological assessment were identified. Histology at initial diagnosis was CC in 218 (52.4%) patients and LC in 198 (47.6%). No medications were associated with a histological change. However, histological resolution was more likely with the use of aspirin [hazard ratio (HR): 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34-3.31, p = 0.001) and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs; HR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.34-3.02, p = 0.001). Histological resolution was more likely with budesonide treatment (HR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.16-3.00, p = 0.010) and less likely with mesalamine (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.19-0.83, p = 0.014), compared to medications such as prednisone, loperamide, and bismuth. Patients with CC were less likely to change their histology compared to patients with LC (HR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.14-0.42, p < 0.001). There was no difference in histological resolution between the two subtypes (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.47-1.05, p = 0.084). Conclusion: Patients with LC have a higher chance of changing their histology as compared to CC. However, histological resolution was associated with the use of PPIs and aspirin, and treatment with budesonide.

Approach to Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.

Disorders of gut-brain interaction, previously known as functional gastrointestinal disorders (eg, functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome), are commonly encountered in both the primary care and gastroenterology clinics. These disorders are often associated with high morbidity and poor patient quality of life and often lead to increased health care use. The management of these disorders can be challenging, as patients often present after having undergone an extensive workup without a definite etiology. In this review, we provide a practical five-step approach to the clinical assessment and management of disorders of gut-brain interaction. The five-step approach includes (1) excluding organic etiologies of the patient's symptoms and using Rome IV criteria for diagnosis, (2) empathizing with the patient to develop trust and a therapeutic relationship, (3) educating the patient about the pathophysiology of these gastrointestinal disorders, (4) expectation setting with a focus on improving function and quality of life, and (5) establishing a treatment plan with central and peripherally acting medications and nonpharmacological modalities. We discuss the pathophysiology of disorders of gut-brain interaction (eg, visceral hypersensitivity), initial assessment and risk stratification, as well as treatment for a variety of diseases with a focus on irritable bowel syndrome and functional dyspepsia.

Rare, Overlooked, or Underappreciated Causes of Recurrent Abdominal Pain: A Primer for Gastroenterologists.

Recurrent abdominal pain is a common reason for repeated visits to outpatient clinics and emergency departments, reflecting a substantial unmet need for timely and accurate diagnosis. A lack of awareness of some of the rarer causes of recurrent abdominal pain may impede diagnosis and delay effective management. This article identifies some of the key rare but diagnosable causes that are frequently missed by gastroenterologists and provides expert recommendations to support recognition, diagnosis, and management with the ultimate aim of improving patient outcomes.

Acute Esophageal Necrosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study Highlighting the Mayo Clinic Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features in patients with acute esophageal necrosis (AEN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients who were diagnosed as having AEN at Mayo Clinic sites in Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona between January 1, 1996, and January 31, 2021, were included. Data were collected on patient clinical characteristics and endoscopic and pathologic findings. RESULTS: The study included 79 patients with AEN with a median (range) age of 64 years (12 to 91 years); 53 (67.1%) were men. Predominant presenting symptoms were hematemesis (49 of 79 [62.0%]), abdominal pain (29 [36.7%]), and melena (20 [25.3%]). Shock was the triggering event for AEN in 49 (62.0%). The 30- and 90-day mortality were 24.0% (19 of 79) and 31.6% (25), respectively. The presence of coexisting infection or bacteremia was significantly associated with 90-day mortality (P<.01). Endoscopically, involvement of the distal third only, distal two-thirds only, and entire esophagus was observed in 31.6% (24 of 76), 39.5% (30), and 29.0% (22), respectively. The length of esophageal involvement correlated with duration of hospitalization (P=.05). The endoscopic appearance of the esophageal mucosa ranged from predominantly white (21 of 44 [47.7%]) to mixed white and black (13 [29.6%]) to predominantly black (10 [22.7%]), and sloughing was present in 18 (40.9%). In the 26 patients with histopathologic findings available for review, 25 (96.1%) had necrosis and/or ulceration with abundant pigmentation. Among the 79 patients, 39 (49.4%) had a follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy; 26 of these 39 patients (66.7%) had resolution while 5 had persistent AEN, 4 of whom had improvement. Esophageal strictures developed in 7 of the 39 patients (18.0%). CONCLUSION: Acute esophageal necrosis is a serious condition observed in critically ill patients. Its endoscopic appearance can be highly variable. In patients with an unclear diagnosis, esophageal biopsies may be helpful given the characteristic histologic findings.