Use of the Esophageal Sponge in Directing Food Reintroduction in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dietary therapy is successful in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) but requires multiple upper endoscopies. The aim of this study was to determine if food reintroduction in EoE can be directed by minimally-invasive esophageal sponge cytology. METHODS: In this prospective non-blinded trial, 22 responders to 6-food elimination diets underwent sequential food reintroduction guided by esophageal sponge cytology. Foods were reintroduced followed by unsedated esophageal sponge cytology assessment. A food trigger was defined by sponge cytology peak eosinophil count of ≥15 eos/high-powered field (hpf). Symptoms (EoE symptom activity index [EEsAI]), endoscopic score (EoE endoscopic reference score [EREFS]), and biopsy histology (peak eosinophil count) were collected pre-dietary therapy and post-dietary therapy, and then 4 weeks post food reintroduction. RESULTS: The EEsAI and EREFS were similar post-dietary therapy to post-food reintroduction: 12.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.0-27.0) vs 16.5 (IQR, 9.0-28.8) (P = .265) and 1.5 (IQR, 0.2-3.0) vs 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-2.0) (P = .185). However, the peak eosinophil count was increased post-food reintroduction compared with post-dietary therapy: 20.0 (IQR, 5.0-51.5) vs 2.0 (IQR, 1.0-4.0) (P < .001), suggesting a failure of identification of all food triggers. The peak eosinophil count was lower post-food reintroduction compared with pre-dietary therapy: 20.0 (IQR, 5.0-51.5) vs 52.0 (IQR, 30.8-76.2) (P = .008). At the post food reintroduction evaluation, sponge cytology and biopsy histology were in agreement in 59% (13/22) of cases using a cutoff of <15 eos/hpf and 68% (15/22) of cases using a cutoff of <6 eos/hpf. CONCLUSIONS: In the first study to evaluate a non-endoscopic technique in the clinical management of EoE, the esophageal sponge was moderately successful at guiding food reintroduction in EoE dietary responders in the outpatient setting. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number NCT02599558.

Histologic response to steroids in eosinophilic esophagitis is dependent on delivery compound.

Topical steroids are commonly used in treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but currently there is lack of data to clarify most effective regimen. We aimed to study the achievement of histologic remission using the same dose of budesonide in two different delivery formulations. Patients with established EoE treated with pharmacy compounded budesonide capsule or budesonide Rincinol gel (both 3 mg twice daily) were studied retrospectively. Those with pre-treatment and post-treatment histologic assessment were included with main endpoint being histologic remission. 103 patients (62 gel, 41 capsule) were included, with higher rate of histologic remission with gel (84 vs. 59%, P=0.004). A subset of patients in both groups had lack of steroid response (<50% drop in eosinophils) (15% for gel, 32% for capsule). Formulation/delivery vehicle of steroid treatments to esophageal mucosa in EoE appears important for treatment efficacy, with budesonide gel having higher likelihood of histologic remission compared to budesonide capsules in our population. A truly steroid refractory group appears likely in our population. Larger, prospective studies may help clarify best regimen of topical steroids in EoE and may work to identify patients likely to benefit from alternative therapies.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Predictors of Nonresponse.

BACKGROUND: Identification of clinical predictors of response to first-line therapies for EoE is needed to guide initial medical management. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with EoE from 2011 to 2018 was conducted. Clinical and diagnostic variables including demographics, endoscopic, and esophagram findings were compared between PPI responders and PPI nonresponders. All patients underwent a standard 8-week twice-daily PPI trial, with PPI responsiveness defined as < 15 eos/hpf on repeat EGD. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to identify risk factors for nonresponse, and ROC curves were created to identify cutoff values. RESULTS: A total of 223 EoE patients (135 male, median age 39 (29-51)) were identified, with PPI nonresponse (PPI-NR) in 71% of patients. PPI-NR was seen in all 10 patients with failure of scope passage, with an OR of 9.06 by univariate analysis (P = 0.1485). In a multivariable model, age per 10 years (OR 0.71; P = 0.007), BMI per 1 kg/m2 (OR 0.94; P = 0.03), and peripheral eosinophil count per 100 per mm3 (OR 1.37; P = 0.003) were independent risk factors. Dichotomization to maximize sensitivity and specificity identified age ≤ 36 years old, BMI ≤ 25.2 kg/m2, and peripheral eos > 460 per mm3 as predictive thresholds for PPI-NR. The probability of PPI-NR was 72.4-84.5% with 1 risk factor, 87.9-93.8% with 2 risk factors, and 97.2% with all 3 risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Young age, reduced BMI, elevated peripheral eosinophil count, and likely inability to pass an endoscope predict lack of response to PPIs in patients with EoE.

Effect of Maintenance Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis on Need for Recurrent Dilation.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis is an inflammatory condition in which eosinophil infiltration leads to esophageal remodeling and stricturing, with dilation therapy often needed. Achieving histologic remission reduces the need for repeat dilation, although little is known about the effects of long-term maintenance therapy. AIMS: To further assess the relationship between short-term histologic remission and maintenance therapy on need for repeat dilation in eosinophilic esophagitis. METHODS: A total of 77 patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (59.7% male; mean age 41.6 years) seen at a single medical center from June 2000 to August 2017 were included. Information on history of dilation and therapy [proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), steroids, elimination diet] was collected. Mean follow-up was 164 weeks. Fifty-one patients achieved histologic remission and 42 of these remained on maintenance therapy (23 PPIs, 14 topical steroids, and 5 dietary therapy). Standard phone interview was completed in cases with lack of follow-up. Only patients who underwent esophageal dilation to ≥ 17 mm were included. RESULTS: A significantly lower proportion of patients on maintenance therapy required repeat dilation (12/42) compared with patients not on maintenance therapy (8/9) (hazard ratio 0.12; p < 0.001). Of patients who received maintenance therapy, 9.1% required re-dilation. The difference in need for repeat dilation in patients who achieved histologic remission on therapy (14/26) versus those who did not (20/51) was not significant (hazard ratio 1.34; p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: In a retrospective analysis of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis, we found that a significantly lower proportion who received maintenance therapy (PPIs, steroids, or dietary exclusions) required repeat dilation.

Postobesity Surgery Esophageal Dysfunction: A Combined Cross-Sectional Prevalence Study and Retrospective Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal dysmotility including features of achalasia may develop because of bariatric surgery. However, the prevalence of these complications is unknown. We sought to define the prevalence of dysphagia and major esophageal motility disorders including achalasia after bariatric surgery through a large retrospective database review. METHODS: Patients with a history of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass who underwent a diagnostic high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) either before or after bariatric surgery across 3 large tertiary referral sites from June 2012 through February 2019 were identified from a procedural database. HRIM studies were interpreted per the Chicago classification v3.0 by a blinded investigator (K.R.). Demographic/clinical features were collected. In addition, patients who underwent bariatric surgery from January 2014 to April 2015 were contacted and administered a validated symptom assessment survey to gauge the overall prevalence of dysphagia in a postbariatric population. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were identified, including 97 who underwent HRIM after bariatric surgery (laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [n = 39, 40.1%]; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [n = 58, 59.8%]) at a median of 5.84 years (interquartile range 2.1-12.5) postoperatively and 40 preoperative bariatric surgery candidates with medically complicated obesity. A manometric pattern consistent with achalasia was identified in 7 (7.2%) postsurgical patients compared with none in the preoperative group (P = 0.08). We further identified a separate achalasia-like pattern defined by aperistalsis and increased intragastric pressure (postobesity surgery esophageal dysfunction [POSED]) in 5 (5.2%) postsurgical patients vs none found preoperatively (P = 0.14). Achalasia or POSED was associated with postbariatric surgery (12.4% vs 0%, P = 0.02). Increasing time since surgery was independently associated with the development of achalasia (median 12.5 vs 5.8 years, P = 0.02), POSED (median 15.0 vs 5.8 years, P = 0.02) and major motility disorders (6.6 vs 4.9 years, P = 0.01). Furthermore, among 271 postbariatric surgery patients contacted for symptom assessment via survey, the prevalence of dysphagia was 13.7% at a mean 3.9 years after surgery. DISCUSSION: Postoperative dysphagia is a common long-term complication of bariatric surgery. This is potentially the consequence of a time-dependent association with the development of postoperative esophageal dysmotility, particularly achalasia and POSED. Consequently, esophageal dysmotility may be an important under-recognized complication of bariatric surgery.

Erosive Esophagitis Portends a Benign Clinical Course in the Majority of Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Indefinite proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and endoscopic evaluation for Barrett's esophagus is recommended for erosive esophagitis (EE). However, the clinical course of EE remains undefined. METHODS: Adults with EE on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were identified at Mayo Clinic Rochester between January 2003 and September 2005. Patients with repeat EGD performed after index endoscopy were included. Patients with a history of upper gastrointestinal surgery, esophageal cancer, achalasia, or Barrett's on initial EGD were excluded. RESULTS: Of 219 patients identified, 98 had LA grade A, 72 LA grade B, and 49 LA grade C esophagitis. Persistent EE was found in 27% on repeat endoscopy. No patients progressed to more severe grades of esophagitis. While discontinuation of PPI was associated with persistent esophagitis, long-term healing of esophagitis occurred in the majority of patients despite discontinuation of PPI. Grade A or B esophagitis and the absence of hiatal hernia were also independent predictors of esophagitis healing on multivariate analysis. The rate of Barrett's esophagus was similar among patients with LA grade A/B and C esophagitis on initial EGD (5% vs. 14%, p = 0.6). CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with EE demonstrated healing at follow-up endoscopy regardless of continued PPI use. A small proportion developed Barrett's esophagus, including those with LA grade A and B esophagitis, highlighting a potential role for repeat endoscopy in all grades of EE. A more conservative long-term PPI strategy may be reasonable in patients with LA grade A or B esophagitis in the absence of hiatal hernia.

Measurement of Observed Eating Behaviors in Patients With Active and Inactive Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Subjective measures of eating difficulties in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) such as the presence of dysphagia, food modifications, and prolonged eating times are well documented. Although it is assumed that these measures reflect adaptive measures for eating with EoE, this is not well studied. The aim of this study was to directly observe and measure eating behaviors in patients with EoE and assess the degree of correlation to subjective assessment and validated EoE scoring systems.

Comparison of mucosal impedance measurements throughout the esophagus and mucosal eosinophil counts in endoscopic biopsy specimens in eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Assessing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) activity from limited esophageal mucosal biopsy samples has been questioned. Here our aim was to compare mucosal impedance (MI) throughout the esophagus and eosinophil counts in endoscopic biopsy samples in EoE. METHODS: We compared 20-site MI using a balloon catheter in the esophagus and eosinophils per high-power field (eos/HPF) in esophageal mucosal biopsy samples. Data are summarized as median (interquartile range) comparing control subjects and EoE using Mann-Whitney rank sum test and between endoscopic reference score and MI (minimal and average) using rank Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Ten adult control patients (ages 38-70) and 23 EoE patients (ages 21-80, 18 active) were studied. The mean (range) pan-esophageal MI in control subjects was significantly higher (6435 ohms [4546-7301]) compared with EoE patients (2004 ohms [1437-2546], P < .001). In control patients 172 of 180 (95.6%) individual impedance measurements (18 per patient) were normal when compared with 126 of 432 (29.2%) measurements in EoE. No EoE patient had uniformly normal MI. MI varied widely, with 19 of 23 patients having values above and below 2300 ohms (normal) regardless of EoE activity. Correlation of maximim eos/HPF with minimum and average MI per patient was r = -.243, P = .072 and r = -.358, P = .086, respectively. Of 5 patients with inactive EoE, 3 had >50% abnormal MI segments. Correlation coefficients of the endoscopic reference score with minimum and average MI were r = -.154, P = .47 and r = -.27, P = .20, respectively. The procedure was <5 minutes without adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: MI is lower in the esophagus of EoE patients compared with control subjects with poor correlation between peak esophageal eosinophil counts, EoE activity, and MI. Segmental esophageal MI provides a unique marker of esophageal dysfunction in EoE. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02995395.).

Poor Relationship Between Fractionated Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Disease Activity in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Current eosinophilic esophagitis care requires monitoring with repeat endoscopy and biopsy, which has significant cost, risk, and inconvenience for patients. Fractionated exhaled nitric oxide testing (FeNO) is a standardized non-invasive test with proven utility in evaluation of asthma. Elevated FeNO has reported use in other eosinophilic inflammatory conditions; however, its use in eosinophilic esophagitis has not been fully evaluated. To assess the utility of FeNO in predicting severity of eosinophilic esophagitis activity. Fifty patients received fractionated exhaled nitric oxide testing within 1 week of endoscopic evaluation with biopsy for determination of peak eosinophil counts. Presence of furrows was also evaluated with respect to FeNO levels. Spearman correlation was calculated between FeNO and peak eosinophil counts (PEC) with subgroup analysis performed based on PPI use. Spearman correlation was performed on the change in FeNO and PEC on the patients receiving repeat testing. FeNO was poorly correlated to PEC (Spearman correlation 0.22). With a cut-off FeNO value of > 40 ppb, specificity of FeNO for detecting presence of ≥ 15 eos/hpf was 0.94 and sensitivity was 0.16. FeNO showed weak relationship to presence of furrows. Within the subgroup of patients not taking PPI, the spearman correlation was 0.21. Delta- FeNO versus Delta-PEC had spearman correlation of 0.72 for patients receiving repeat testing. FeNO likely has limited clinical utility for predicting severity of esophageal eosinophilia. In patients with FeNO levels > 40 ppb, specificity of testing was high, but very few patients reached this FeNO level.

Corrigendum: Accuracy and Safety of the Cytosponge for Assessing Histologic Activity in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Two-Center Study.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2017.244.

Efficacy of Atopy Patch Testing in Directed Dietary Therapy of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Atopy patch testing (APT) has shown potential for predicting dietary food triggers in studies of children and adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). AIMS: To assess the efficacy of APT in adults with EoE. METHODS: We conducted a prospective open-label pilot study of patients ≥ 18 years old with diagnosis of EoE at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from November 2014 to January 2016. All patients underwent patch testing using intact food products, followed by a six food elimination diet and stepwise food reintroduction. Response to elimination diet was assessed with serial endoscopy with biopsies as well as clinical symptoms. APT results were directly compared to elimination diet results for assessment of efficacy. Correlation between clinical symptoms, endoscopic score, and histology was also qualitatively evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty percent of the patients had a positive APT, while only 16% had an APT result confirmed histologically during food reintroduction. Sensitivity of APT was calculated to be 5.9%, with specificity of 92.0%. Furthermore, we found significant qualitative inter-patient heterogeneity in the correlation between clinical symptoms, EREFS score, and histology. CONCLUSIONS: APT does not reliably predict food triggers identified by food elimination diet in adult patients with EoE. As a result, APT does not have a clear role in the evaluation of patients with EoE.

Montelukast Does not Maintain Symptom Remission After Topical Steroid Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene type-1 receptor blocker, has been shown in small retrospective studies to reduce symptoms in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to determine whether montelukast maintains symptomatic remission induced by topical steroid therapy in patients with EoE. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of adult patients with EoE (solid-food dysphagia and a peak esophageal eosinophil count of >20 cells/high-powered field) enrolled at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from April 2008 through February 2015. All patients had been treated previously for at least 6 weeks with a topical steroid until their symptoms were in remission. Steroids were discontinued and patients then were assigned randomly to groups given montelukast (20 mg/day, n = 20) or placebo (n = 21) for 26 weeks (groups were matched for age, sex, history of allergic disease, reflux symptoms, and endoscopic findings of EoE). Study participants were assessed via a structured telephone interview at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. Remission was defined as the absence of solid-food dysphagia. RESULTS: Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, after 26 weeks, 40.0% of subjects in the montelukast group and 23.8% in the placebo group were in remission. The odds ratio for remission in the montelukast group was 0.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.10-2.16) (P = .33). No side effects were reported from either group. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized controlled trial of the ability of montelukast to maintain remission in patients in remission from EoE after steroid therapy, we found montelukast to be well tolerated; 40% of patients remained in remission, but this proportion did not differ significantly from that of the placebo group. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00511316.

Accuracy and Safety of the Cytosponge for Assessing Histologic Activity in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Two-Center Study.

OBJECTIVES: Management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires repeated endoscopic mucosal sampling to assess disease activity. A less invasive and expensive means of monitoring of EoE is required. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy, safety, and tolerability of the cytosponge compared to endoscopy and biopsy for histologic assessment of EoE. METHODS: In this prospective two-center cross-sectional study, patients with known EoE underwent cytosponge sampling followed by endoscopy and biopsy. Sample adequacy and eosinophil counts (eos/HPF) were determined for both cytosponge and endoscopic samples. The cytosponge was assessed for diagnostic accuracy, safety, and patient preference as compared to endoscopy. RESULTS: Six patients (7%) failed to swallow the sponge. One hundred and five procedures were successfully performed in 80 patients (66% male, 100% white, 19% stricture). The cytosponge sample was adequate in 102 and the biopsy in 104; 101 procedures had adequate samples by both techniques. Fifty-seven biopsies were graded as active EoE with ≥15 eos/HPF as the gold standard. Eosinophil counts highly correlated between the biopsy and cytosponge (r=0.78, P<0.0001). Using a cutoff of ≤15 eos/HPF for inactive disease, the sensitivity and specificity of the cytosponge was 75% and 86%, respectively. Six patients had active EoE on cytosponge not found on biopsy. For biopsies with inactive EoE, the cytosponge identified 38/44. No complications occurred, and cytosponge endoscopic abrasion scores were low (0.34/4). Patients preferred cytosponge to endoscopy with higher rating scores (7.27 vs. 6.11, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to endoscopy with biopsy, cytosponge provided a minimally invasive, safe, well tolerated, and accurate method to assess EoE histologic activity. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT01585103).

Small intestinal permeability in patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis during active phase and remission.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is presumed to be an isolated oesophageal disease; yet other allergic diseases associated with eosinophilic infiltration of target tissues, such as asthma and eczema, show perturbed functions of other sites that may be involved in the diathesis of allergy modulation. AIM: To analyse small intestinal permeability in patients with active EoE and in a separate group of patients in remission. METHODS: Small bowel permeability was determined using a dual sugar method by calculating lactulose:mannitol (L:M) ratio in 17 patients who met consensus criteria for active EoE (>15 eos/HPF) and 8 patients in remission (<5 eos/HPF). Data from 28 healthy controls was used for comparison. RESULTS: Patients with active EoE had significantly higher L:M ratios when compared to controls (0.045 vs. 0.033, p<0.001) and to EoE in remission (0.041 vs. 0.027, p<.001). There was no significant difference in L:M between the group with EoEin remission and healthy controls. The current data show that L:M ratio of 0.033 also provides a reasonable cut-off that defined the active EoE group compared to patients in remission. The main component explaining the change in L:M ratio was increased absorption (and excretion) of lactulose ((1601 ± 106 ug) when compared to the EoE remission (969 ± 91 ug) and control (1043 ± 92 ug, p<.001) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Small bowel permeability is overall increased in patients with active EoE, and is normal in patients with EoE in remission when compared to healthy controls. The role of the small bowel in active EoE deserves further investigation.

Endoscopic Mucosal Impedance Measurements Correlate With Eosinophilia and Dilation of Intercellular Spaces in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Penetration of the esophageal epithelium by food antigens is an early event in the pathogenesis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but the precise relationship among eosinophilia, dilated intercellular spaces (DIS), and decreased barrier function is unclear. We investigated the correlation between site-specific mucosal impedance (MI) measurements of ion flux and esophageal histology, and whether MI measurements can be used to distinguish between patients with active and inactive EoE. METHODS: MI was measured (in Ω) in 10 patients with active EoE (>15 eosinophils [eos]/high-power field [HPF]) and in 10 with inactive EoE (<15 eos/HPF, as a result of treatment), and mucosal biopsy specimens were collected from 4 esophageal sites (2, 5, 10, and 15 cm above the Z-line). MI also was measured in 10 individuals without esophageal symptoms (controls). MI measurements, eos/HPF, and DIS grade were compared among patients with EoE and controls. RESULTS: The esophageal MI values were significantly lower in patients with active EoE (1909 Ω) compared with inactive EoE (4349 Ω) or controls (5530 Ω) (P < .001). Biopsy specimens from 4 patients with active EoE contained fewer than 15 eos/HPF and lower-grade DIS than in patients with active disease. There were significant inverse correlations between MI and eos/HPF (rs = -.584), as well as between MI and DIS (rs = -.531; P < .001). The MI cut-off value of 2300 Ω identified patients with active EoE with 90% sensitivity and 91% specificity, and high-grade DIS with 89% sensitivity and 82% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with EoE, eosinophilia and DIS correlate with MI measurements of ion flux. Endoscopic MI measurement in the esophagus is safe and easy to perform, and can be used to assess activity of diseases such as EoE.

Accuracy, safety, and tolerability of tissue collection by Cytosponge vs endoscopy for evaluation of eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires repeated endoscopic collection of mucosal samples to assess disease activity and response to therapy. An easier and less expensive means of monitoring of EoE is required. We compared the accuracy, safety, and tolerability of sample collection via Cytosponge (an ingestible gelatin capsule comprising compressed mesh attached to a string) with those of endoscopy for assessment of EoE. METHODS: Esophageal tissues were collected from 20 patients with EoE (all with dysphagia, 15 with stricture, 13 with active EoE) via Cytosponge and then by endoscopy. Number of eosinophils/high-power field and levels of eosinophil-derived neurotoxin were determined; hematoxylin-eosin staining was performed. We compared the adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, safety, and patient preference for sample collection via Cytosponge vs endoscopy procedures. RESULTS: All 20 samples collected by Cytosponge were adequate for analysis. By using a cutoff value of 15 eosinophils/high power field, analysis of samples collected by Cytosponge identified 11 of the 13 individuals with active EoE (83%); additional features such as abscesses were also identified. Numbers of eosinophils in samples collected by Cytosponge correlated with those in samples collected by endoscopy (r = 0.50, P = .025). Analysis of tissues collected by Cytosponge identified 4 of the 7 patients without active EoE (57% specificity), as well as 3 cases of active EoE not identified by analysis of endoscopy samples. Including information on level of eosinophil-derived neurotoxin did not increase the accuracy of diagnosis. No complications occurred during the Cytosponge procedure, which was preferred by all patients, compared with endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: In a feasibility study, the Cytosponge is a safe and well-tolerated method for collecting near mucosal specimens. Analysis of numbers of eosinophils/high-power field identified patients with active EoE with 83% sensitivity. Larger studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of this method of esophageal tissue collection. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01585103.

Once-daily omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate heals severe refractory reflux esophagitis with morning or nighttime dosing.

BACKGROUND: Morning dose or twice-daily proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use is often prescribed to heal severe reflux esophagitis. AIM: Compare the effect of single dose morning (control arm) versus nighttime (experimental arm) omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate (Zegerid(®)) (IR-OME) on esophagitis and gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. METHODS: Adult outpatients with Los Angeles grade C or D esophagitis were allocated to open-label 40 mg IR-OME once a day for 8 weeks in a prospective, randomized, parallel design, single center study. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and validated self-report symptom questionnaires were completed at baseline and follow-up. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed. RESULTS: Ninety-two of 128 (72 %) eligible subjects participated [64 (70 %) male, mean age 58 (range 19-86), median BMI 29 (range 21-51), 58 C:34 D]. Overall, 81 (88 %) subjects healed [n = 70 (76 %)] or improved [n = 11 (12 %)] erosions. There was no significant difference (morning vs. night) in mucosal healing [81 vs. 71 %, (p = 0.44)] or symptom resolution [heartburn (77 vs. 65 %, p = 0.12), acid regurgitation (82 vs. 73 %, p = 0.28)]. Prevalence of newly identified Barrett's esophagus was 14 % with half diagnosed only after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily IR-OME (taken morning or night) effectively heals severe reflux esophagitis and improves GERD symptoms. Results support the clinical practice recommendation to repeat EGD after 8 weeks PPI therapy in severe esophagitis patients to assure healing and exclude Barrett's esophagus.

Epidemiology and natural history of intestinal metaplasia of the gastroesophageal junction and Barrett's esophagus: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: Population-based data on the epidemiology and outcomes of subjects with intestinal metaplasia of the gastroesophageal junction (IMGEJ) and Barrett's esophagus (BE) are limited. The objectives of this study were to (i) estimate the incidence of IMGEJ and BE diagnosed from clinically indicated endoscopy in Olmsted County, MN, over three decades (1976-2006) and prevalence as of 1 January 2007, (ii) compare baseline characteristics of subjects with IMGEJ and BE, and (iii) study the natural history and survival of both cohorts. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study. The study setting was Olmsted County, MN. Patients with BE (columnar segment >1 cm with intestinal metaplasia) and IMGEJ (intestinal metaplasia in biopsies from the gastroesophageal junction) from 1976 to 2006 in Olmsted County, MN, were identified using Rochester Epidemiology Project resources. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted from medical records and pathology confirmed by gastrointestinal pathologists. The association of baseline characteristics with overall and progression-free survival was assessed using proportional hazards regression models. Outcome measures were baseline characteristics and overall survival of subjects with IMGEJ compared to those with BE. RESULTS: In all, 487 patients (401 with BE and 86 with IMGEJ) were identified and followed for a median interval of 7 (BE subjects) to 8 (IMGEJ subjects) years. Subjects with BE were older, heavier, reported reflux symptoms more often, and had higher prevalence of advanced neoplasia than those with IMGEJ. No patient with IMGEJ progressed to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in contrast to BE subjects who had a cumulative risk of progression of 7% at 10 years and increased risk of death from EAC (standardized mortality ratio 9.62). The overall survival of subjects with BE and IMGEJ did not differ from that expected in similar age- and sex-distributed white Minnesota populations. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with IMGEJ appear to have distinct clinical characteristics and substantially lower cancer progression risk compared to those with BE.