Clinical Evaluation of the Adult with Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) typically present with a history of dysphagia for solids, sometimes with additional reflux-like pain and a history of prior food impactions. In contrast to these alarming symptoms, the general appearance and physical examination of adult patients with EoE is in line with apparently healthy individuals. Therefore, the diagnosis is based on a history of solid-food dysphagia and eosinophilic tissue infiltration. Importantly, the increasing prevalence of EoE variants, that is, typical EoE symptoms in the absence of a relevant eosinophilia, and several studies with eosinophil-targeting drugs, call the pathogenic role of eosinophils into question.

A Multicenter Long-Term Cohort Study of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Variants and Their Progression to Eosinophilic Esophagitis Over Time.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) variants have been recently characterized as conditions with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction resembling EoE, but absence of significant esophageal eosinophilia. Their disease course and severity have yet to be determined. METHODS: Patients from 6 EoE centers with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, but peak eosinophil counts of <15/hpf in esophageal biopsies and absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease with at least one follow-up visit were included. Clinical, (immuno)histological, and molecular features were determined and compared with EoE and healthy controls. RESULTS: We included 54 patients with EoE variants (EoE-like esophagitis 53.7%; lymphocytic esophagitis 13.0%; and nonspecific esophagitis 33.3%). In 8 EoE-like esophagitis patients, EoE developed after a median of 14 months (interquartile range 3.6-37.6). Such progression increased over time (17.6% year 1, 32.0% year 3, and 62.2% year 6). Sequential RNA sequencing analyses revealed only 7 genes associated with this progression (with TSG6 and ALOX15 among the top 3 upregulated genes) with upregulation of a previously attenuated Th2 pathway. Immunostaining confirmed the involvement of eosinophil-associated proteins (TSG6 and ALOX15) and revealed a significantly increased number of GATA3-positive cells during progression, indicating a Th1/Th2 switch. Transition from one EoE variant (baseline) to another variant (during follow-up) was seen in 35.2% (median observation time of 17.3 months). DISCUSSION: Transition of EoE variants to EoE suggests the presence of a disease spectrum. Few genes seem to be associated with the progression to EoE with upregulation of a previously attenuated Th2 signal. These genes, including GATA3 as a Th1/Th2 switch regulator, may represent potential therapeutic targets in early disease pathogenesis.

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.

Eosinophil Distribution in Eosinophilic Esophagitis and its Impact on Disease Activity and Response to Treatment.

Although mostly accentuated in the distal esophagus, distribution of esophageal eosinophilia in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) seems to be nonuniform.1 Disease extent has been associated with disease severity and disease progression in inflammatory bowel disease.2,3 Whether the same holds true for EoE remains largely unknown. One recent EoE study looked at the distribution of eosinophilia, but without analyzing its potential association with treatment outcomes.4 Here, we characterize the different inflammatory patterns of EoE and investigate their impact on disease presentation and disease outcome, with a particular focus on therapeutic response.

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.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis beyond Eosinophils - an Emerging Phenomenon Overlapping with Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Collegium Internationale Allergologicum (CIA) Update 2023.

Having long been considered the mainstay in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) diagnosis and pathogenesis, the role of eosinophils has been questioned and might be less important than previously thought. It is well known now that EoE is a Th2-mediated disease with many more disease features than eosinophilic infiltration. With more knowledge on EoE, less pronounced phenotypes or nuances of the disease have become apparent. In fact, EoE might be only the tip of the iceberg (and the most extreme phenotype) with several variant forms, at least three, lying on a disease spectrum. Although a common (food induced) pathogenesis has yet to be confirmed, gastroenterologists and allergologists should be aware of these new phenomena in order to further characterize these patients. In the following review, we discuss the pathogenesis of EoE, particularly those mechanisms beyond eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa, non-eosinophilic inflammatory cell populations, the new disease entity EoE-like disease, variant forms of EoE, and the recently coined term mast cell esophagitis.

Mechanisms and clinical management of eosinophilic oesophagitis: an overview.

Since the first description of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) less than three decades ago, we have observed a striking increase in the number of patients diagnosed with EoE and the understanding of its clinical and immunopathogenic background. Nonetheless, a plethora of open questions await elucidation. In this Review, we discuss the current state of knowledge regarding the underlying mechanisms, particularly environmental factors and their interaction with genetic susceptibility. Subsequently, we discuss how to translate these factors into the diagnostic and therapeutic management of this chronic, immune-mediated disorder. Finally, we dissect the still long list of unmet needs, such as reasons for and handling refractory EoE and atypical clinical presentations. These open questions can guide us through future research steps and potentially foster reconsideration of the diagnostic guidelines of EoE.

Monitoring Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Routine Clinical Practice - International Expert Recommendations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are no studies or recommendations on optimal monitoring strategies for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Our objective was to develop guidance on how to monitor patients with EoE in routine clinical practice, on the basis of available clinical evidence and expert opinion. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, international group of EoE experts identified the following important 3 questions during several consensus meetings: why, by what means, and when to monitor patients with EoE. A steering committee was named, and 3 teams were formed to review literature and to formulate statements for each topic. In a Delphi survey, a level of agreement of ≥75% was defined as threshold value for acceptance. In a final conference, results were presented, critical points and comments on the statements were discussed, and statements were rephrased/rewritten if necessary. RESULTS: Eighteen EoE experts (14 adult and pediatric gastroenterologists, 2 pathologists and 2 allergists) with a median of 21.7 years in clinical practice, mostly academic or university-based, completed the Delphi survey, which included 11 statements and a proposed algorithm for monitoring patients with EoE. Each statement attained ≥75% agreement. Participants discussed and debated mostly about the statement concerning surveillance intervals for EoE patients with stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that effective maintenance treatment probably reduces the development of EoE complications, and regular, structured, and, under certain conditions, individualized clinical follow-up is recommended to assess disease activity while opening a window to monitoring side effects, adjusting therapy, and encouraging adherence to treatment. Follow-up should comprise symptom assessment and periodic or repeated endoscopy with histological assessment in specific EoE settings.

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.

Endoscopic approach to eosinophilic esophagitis: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Consensus Conference.

Endoscopy plays a critical role in caring for and evaluating the patient with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Endoscopy is essential for diagnosis, assessment of response to therapy, treatment of esophageal strictures, and ongoing monitoring of patients in histologic remission. To date, less-invasive testing for identifying or grading EoE severity has not been established, whereas diagnostic endoscopy as integral to both remains the criterion standard. Therapeutic endoscopy in patients with adverse events of EoE may also be required. In particular, dilation may be essential to treat and attenuate progression of the disease in select patients to minimize further fibrosis and stricture formation. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, a group of 20 expert clinicians and investigators in EoE were assembled to provide guidance for the use of endoscopy in EoE. Through an iterative process, the group achieved consensus on 20 statements yielding comprehensive advice on tissue-sampling standards, gross assessment of disease activity, use and performance of endoscopic dilation, and monitoring of disease, despite an absence of high-quality evidence. Key areas of controversy were identified when discussions yielded an inability to reach agreement on the merit of a statement. We expect that with ongoing research, higher-quality evidence will be obtained to enable creation of a guideline for these issues. We further anticipate that forthcoming expert-generated and agreed-on statements will provide valuable practice advice on the role and use of endoscopy in patients with EoE.

A Clinical Severity Index for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Development, Consensus, and Future Directions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Disease activity and severity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) dictate therapeutic options and management, but the decision-making process for determining severity varies among practitioners. To reduce variability in practice patterns and help clinicians monitor the clinical course of the disease in an office setting, we aimed to create an international consensus severity scoring index for EoE. METHODS: A multidisciplinary international group of adult and pediatric EoE researchers and clinicians, as well as non-EoE allergy immunology and gastroenterology experts, formed 3 teams to review the existing literature on histology, endoscopy, and symptoms of EoE in the context of progression and severity. A steering committee convened a 1-day virtual meeting to reach consensus on each team's opinion on salient features of severity across key clinicopathologic domains and distill features that would allow providers to categorize disease severity. RESULTS: Symptom features and complications and inflammatory and fibrostenotic features on both endoscopic and histologic examination were collated into a simplified scoring system-the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE)-that can be completed at routine clinic visits to assess disease severity using a point scale of 0-6 for mild, 7-14 for moderate, and ≥15 for severe EoE. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary team of experts iteratively created a clinically usable EoE severity scoring system denominated "I-SEE" to guide practitioners in EoE management by standardizing disease components reflecting disease severity beyond eosinophil counts. I-SEE should be validated and refined using data from future clinical trials and routine clinical practice to increase its utilization and functionality.

A Clinical Severity Index for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Development, Consensus, and Future Directions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Disease activity and severity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) dictate therapeutic options and management, but the decision-making process for determining severity varies among practitioners. To reduce variability in practice patterns and help clinicians monitor the clinical course of the disease in an office setting, we aimed to create an international consensus severity scoring index for EoE. METHODS: A multidisciplinary international group of adult and pediatric EoE researchers and clinicians, as well as non-EoE allergy immunology and gastroenterology experts, formed 3 teams to review the existing literature on histology, endoscopy, and symptoms of EoE in the context of progression and severity. A steering committee convened a 1-day virtual meeting to reach consensus on each team's opinion on salient features of severity across key clinicopathologic domains and distill features that would allow providers to categorize disease severity. RESULTS: Symptom features and complications and inflammatory and fibrostenotic features on both endoscopic and histologic examination were collated into a simplified scoring system-the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE)-that can be completed at routine clinic visits to assess disease severity using a point scale of 0-6 for mild, 7-14 for moderate, and ≥15 for severe EoE. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary team of experts iteratively created a clinically usable EoE severity scoring system denominated "I-SEE" to guide practitioners in EoE management by standardizing disease components reflecting disease severity beyond eosinophil counts. I-SEE should be validated and refined using data from future clinical trials and routine clinical practice to increase its utilization and functionality.

Budesonide orodispersible tablets for induction of remission in patients with active eosinophilic oesophagitis: A 6-week open-label trial of the EOS-2 Programme.

BACKGROUND: A novel budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) has been proven effective in adult patients with active eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) in a 6-week placebo-controlled trial (EOS-1). AIMS: To report the efficacy of an open-label induction treatment with BOT in a large prospective cohort of EoE patients within the EOS-2 study. METHODS: Patients with clinico-histological active EoE were treated with BOT 1 mg BID for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinico-histological remission (≤2 points on numerical rating scales [0-10] each for dysphagia and odynophagia, and peak eosinophil count <16 eos/mm2 hpf (corresponds to <5 eos/hpf)). Further study endpoints included clinical and histological remission rates, change in the EEsAI-PRO score, change in peak eosinophil counts, and deep endoscopic remission using a modified Endoscopic Reference Score. RESULTS: Among 181 patients enrolled, 126 (69.6%) achieved clinico-histological remission (histological remission 90.1%, clinical remission 75.1%). The mean peak eosinophil counts decreased by 283 eos/mm2 hpf (i.e., by 89.0%). Mean EEsAI-PRO score decreased from baseline by 29 points and deep endoscopic remission was achieved in 97 (53.6%) patients. The majority of patients judged tolerability as good or very good (85.6%) and compliance was high (96.5%). Local candidiasis was suspected in 8.3% of patients; all were of mild severity, resolved with treatment and none led to premature withdrawal from the study. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective trial, a 6-week open-label treatment with BOT 1 mg BID was highly effective and safe in achieving clinico-histological remission of active EoE and confirmed the results of the placebo-controlled EOS-1 trial.

Close follow-up is associated with fewer stricture formation and results in earlier detection of histological relapse in the long-term management of eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: No recommendations exist regarding optimal follow-up schedule in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) under maintenance treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a long-term surveillance concept at the Swiss EoE clinic, where clinical, endoscopic and histological disease activity is assessed annually regardless of EoE symptoms. Data on 159 adult patients under maintenance steroid treatment with available follow-up were analyzed. Patients were classified as having close (duration between visits <18 months) or non-close follow-up (≥18 months). RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 309 follow-up visits of 159 patients (123 males, age at diagnosis 38.9 ± 15.4 years). 157 (51%) visits were within a close follow-up schedule (median duration between visits of 1.0 years (interquartile range (IQR) 0.9-1.2)), while 152 visits (49%) were not (median duration between visits 2.9 years (IQR 2.0-4.1)). There was no difference regarding ongoing clinical, endoscopic, and histological disease activity, and adherence to prescribed steroid treatment between the two groups. However, stricture formation was significantly less frequently observed at visits within a close follow-up schedule (22.9 vs. 33.6%, p = 0.038). Absence of close follow-up was a significant risk factor for stricture development in a multivariate regression model. Patients who achieved histological remission and were followed within a close-follow-up schedule had significantly earlier detection of histological relapse compared to patients not within such close follow-up. CONCLUSION: Close follow-up is associated with fewer stricture formation and appears to result in earlier detection of histological relapse in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. We advocate for regular assessment of disease activity (every 12-18 months) in order to detect relapsing disease as early as possible, and therefore potentially minimize the risk for EoE complications.

Reliability and responsiveness of endoscopic disease activity assessment in eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic outcomes have become important measures of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity, including as an endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated the operating properties of endoscopic measures for use in EoE RCTs. METHODS: Modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methods and a panel of 15 international EoE experts identified endoscopic items and definitions with face validity that were used in a 2-round voting process to define simplified (all items graded as absent or present) and expanded versions (additional grades for edema, furrows, and/or exudates) of the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS). Inter- and intrarater reliability of these instruments (expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]) were evaluated using paired endoscopy video assessments of 2 blinded central readers in patients before and after 8 weeks of proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical corticosteroids, or dietary elimination. Responsiveness was measured using the standardized effect size (SES). RESULTS: The appropriateness of 41 statements relevant to EoE endoscopic activity (endoscopic items, item definitions and grading, and other considerations relevant for endoscopy) was considered. The original and expanded EREFS demonstrated moderate-to-substantial inter-rater reliability (ICCs of .472-.736 and .469-.763, respectively) and moderate-to-almost perfect intrarater reliability (ICCs of .580-.828 and .581-.828, respectively). Strictures were least reliably assessed (ICC, .072-.385). The original EREFS was highly responsive (SES, 1.126 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .757-1.534]), although both expanded versions of EREFS, scored based on worst affected area, were numerically most responsive to treatment (expanded furrows: SES, 1.229 [95% CI, .858-1.643]; all items expanded: SES, 1.252 [95% CI, .880-1.667]). The EREFS and its modifications were not more reliably scored by segment and also not more responsive when proximal and distal EREFSs were summed. CONCLUSIONS: EREFS and its modifications were reliable and responsive, and the original or expanded versions of the EREFS may be preferred in RCTs. Disease activity scored based on the worst affected area optimizes reliability and responsiveness.

Management of eosinophilic esophagitis associated food impaction in Europe and the United States.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most common cause of esophageal food impaction (EFI). Approaches to management of EFI due to EoE have not been well characterized. We conducted a web-based survey to understand approaches to management of EFI due to EoE among endoscopists. Questions focused on management of patients from presentation to post-endoscopy follow-up. The survey was administered to a list of eligible candidates provided by societies of gastroenterology. A total of 308 endoscopists completed the questionnaire. The majority (83%) practiced in Europe and treated adults (78%). Most agreed patients should be advised to seek emergency care (66%) within 1 to 2 hours (41% agreement). There was agreement that medications to induce vomiting should be avoided (84%) and that blood tests or imaging studies were usually not required before endoscopy. By contrast, there was more variability in the type of sedation recommended and the need for endotracheal intubation, especially when comparing more experienced with less experienced EoE-endoscopists. Overall, fewer than half (43%) respondents recommended obtaining esophageal biopsies during the initial endoscopy. However, there were significant differences in the proportion who recommended biopsies based on level of EoE-experience (25, 52, 77%, P < 0.001; less vs. moderate vs. very experienced) and comparing pediatric and adult endoscopists (32, vs. 79%, P < 0.001; adult vs. pediatric). There exists heterogeneity among endoscopists in recommendations to manage EFI in patients with EoE. These findings support development of clinical guidelines and new studies to clarify the rationale for best practices. Key summary: Established knowledge-The optimal management of patients with esophageal food impaction due to eosinophilic esophagitis from presentation at the emergency department to postendoscopy care is unclear. New findings-Considerable recommendation variation exists in the management of EFI in patients with EoE. Our findings provide a rationale for the creation of consensus practice guidelines and further study into best practices.

Characterization of eosinophilic esophagitis variants by clinical, histological, and molecular analyses: A cross-sectional multi-center study.

OBJECTIVE: Physicians are increasingly confronted with patients presenting with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction resembling eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but absence of significant esophageal eosinophilia. The purpose of this study was to characterize and classify this group of EoE variants. DESIGN: Patients from six EoE-centers with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, but peak eosinophil counts of <60/mm2 (<15/hpf) in esophageal biopsies and absence of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) were included. Clinical, endoscopic, (immuno)-histological, and molecular features were determined and compared with EoE, GERD, and healthy controls. RESULTS: We included 69 patients with EoE variants. Endoscopic abnormalities were found in 53.6%. We identified three histological subtypes: EoE-like esophagitis (36/69, 52.2%), lymphocytic esophagitis (14/69, 20.3%), and non-specific esophagitis (19/69, 27.5%). Immunohistochemistry revealed-in contrast to EoE-no significant increase in inflammatory cell infiltrates compared with GERD and healthy controls, except for lymphocytes in lymphocytic esophagitis. EoE-typical Th2-response was absent in all EoE variants. However, considerable structural changes were detected based on histology and protein expression. Using next generation mRNA sequencing, we found the three EoE variants to have distinct molecular fingerprints partially sharing pronounced traits of EoE. Hierarchical sample clustering of RNA sequencing data confirmed the presence of an EoE-like (characterized by eotaxin-3 expression), non-specific, and lymphocytic variant cluster (characterized by CD3 cells and TSLP expression). CONCLUSION: All EoE variants are clinically and histologically active conditions despite the absence of esophageal eosinophilia. EoE variants appear to be part of a disease spectrum, where classical EoE represents the most common and apparent phenotype.