Quantitative Analysis of Tug Sign: An Endoscopic Finding of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disorder characterized by esophageal inflammation and dysfunction, with a rising incidence affecting approximately 1:1000 individuals worldwide.1,2 Chronic inflammation can lead to tissue remodeling in the esophagus with fibrosis in the lamina propria that is partially responsible for symptoms and complications of EoE.3,4 At times, a firmness to the esophagus can be appreciated with a noticeable force required to obtain biopsies from EoE. This sensation has been described as the "tug" or "pull" sign.5,6 Recently, with the advent of endoscopic functional luminal impedance, the fibroelastic properties of the esophagus, including diminished compliance and distensibility, have been described in patients with EoE.7 Quantification of these fibroelastic properties of the esophagus may aid in diagnosis and prognosis of EoE. To this date, a method to quantitatively measure the "tug sign" has not been developed. The primary objective of this study was to measure if a quantifiable difference in force is required to obtain endoscopic esophageal biopsies in patients with EoE compared with those without.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Low Risk of Progression of Barrett's Esophagus to Neoplasia in Women.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Men are at a higher risk for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), but little is known about BE progression to dysplasia and EAC in women. We performed a retrospective, multicenter cohort study to assess risk of BE progression to dysplasia and EAC in women compared with men. We also investigated comorbidities, medication use, and endoscopic features that contribute to sex differences in risk of BE progression. METHODS: We collected data from large cohort of patients with BE seen at 6 centers in the United States and Europe, followed for a median 5.7 years. We obtained demographic information (age, sex, ethnicity), clinical history (tobacco use, body mass index, comorbidities), endoscopy results (procedure date, BE segment length), and histopathology findings. Neoplasia was graded as low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or EAC. Rates of disease progression between women and men were compared using χ2 analysis and the Student t test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between sex and disease progression after adjusting for possible confounding variables. RESULTS: Of the total 4263 patients in the cohort, 2145 met the inclusion criteria, including 324 (15%) women. There was a total of 34 (1.6%) incident EACs, with an overall annual incidence of 0.3% (95% confidence interval: 0.2%-0.4%). We found significant differences between women and men in annual incidence rates of EAC (0.05% for women vs. 0.3% in men; P=0.04) and in the combined endpoint of HGD or EAC (0.1% for women vs. 1.1% for men; P<0.001). Female gender was an independent predictor for reduced progression to HGD or EAC when rates of progression were adjusted for body mass index, smoking history, race, use of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, proton-pump inhibitors, or statins, hypertriglyceridemia, BE length, and histology findings at baseline (hazard ratio: 0.11; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.45; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter study of men versus women with BE, we found a significantly lower risk of disease progression to cancer and HGD in women. The extremely low risk of EAC in women with BE (0.05%/y) indicates that surveillance endoscopy may not be necessary for this subgroup of patients with BE.

Development and Validation of a Model to Determine Risk of Progression of Barrett's Esophagus to Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A system is needed to determine the risk of patients with Barrett's esophagus for progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We developed and validated a model to determine of progression to HGD or EAC in patients with BE, based on demographic data and endoscopic and histologic findings at the time of index endoscopy. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal study of patients with BE at 5 centers in United States and 1 center in Netherlands enrolled in the Barrett's Esophagus Study database from 1985 through 2014. Patients were excluded from the analysis if they had less than 1 year of follow-up, were diagnosed with HGD or EAC within the past year, were missing baseline histologic data, or had no intestinal metaplasia. Seventy percent of the patients were used to derive the model and 30% were used for the validation study. The primary outcome was development of HGD or EAC during the follow-up period (median, 5.9 years). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. We assigned a specific number of points to each BE risk factor, and point totals (scores) were used to create categories of low, intermediate, and high risk. We used Cox regression to compute hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals to determine associations between risk of progression and scores. RESULTS: Of 4584 patients in the database, 2697 were included in our analysis (84.1% men; 87.6% Caucasian; mean age, 55.4 ± 20.1 years; mean body mass index, 27.9 ± 5.5 kg/m2; mean length of BE, 3.7 ± 3.2 cm). During the follow-up period, 154 patients (5.7%) developed HGD or EAC, with an annual rate of progression of 0.95%. Male sex, smoking, length of BE, and baseline-confirmed low-grade dysplasia were significantly associated with progression. Scores assigned identified patients with BE that progressed to HGD or EAC with a c-statistic of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.80; P < .001). The calibration slope was 0.9966 (P = .99), determined from the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a scoring system (Progression in Barrett's Esophagus score) based on male sex, smoking, length of BE, and baseline low-grade dysplasia that identified patients with BE at low, intermediate, and high risk for HGD or EAC. This scoring system might be used in management of patients.

Continuing Medical Education Questions: March 2019.

Article Title: Revisiting Montreal: New Insights Into Symptoms and Their Causes, and Implications for the Future of GERD.

Continuing Medical Education Questions: November 2019.

Article Title: Opioid-Induced Foregut Dysfunction.

Increasing prevalence of high-grade dysplasia and adenocarcinoma on index endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus over the past 2 decades: data from a multicenter U.S. consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Data on time trends of dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) during the index endoscopy (ie, prevalent cases) are limited. Our aim was to determine the prevalence patterns of BE-associated dysplasia on index endoscopy over the past 25 years. METHODS: The Barrett's Esophagus Study is a multicenter outcome project of a large cohort of patients with BE. Proportions of patients with index endoscopy findings of no dysplasia (NDBE), low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and EAC were extracted per year of index endoscopy, and 5-yearly patient cohorts were tabulated over years 1990 to 2010+ (2010-current). Prevalent dysplasia and endoscopic findings were trended over the past 25 years using percentage dysplasia (LGD, HGD, EAC, and HGD/EAC) to assess changes in detection of BE-associated dysplasia over the last 25 years. Statistical analysis was done using SAS version 9.4 software (SAS, Cary, NC). RESULTS: A total of 3643 patients were included in the analysis with index endoscopy showing NDBE in 2513 (70.1%), LGD in 412 (11.5%), HGD in 193 (5.4%), and EAC in 181 (5.1%). Over time, there was an increase in the mean age of patients with BE (51.7 ± 29 years vs 62.6 ± 11.3 years) and the proportion of males (84% vs 92.6%) diagnosed with BE but a decrease in the mean BE length (4.4±4.3 cm vs 2.9±3.0 cm) as time progressed (1990-1994 to 2010-2016 time periods). The presence of LGD on index endoscopy remained stable over 1990 to 2016. However, a significant increase (148% in HGD and 112% in EAC) in the diagnosis of HGD, EAC, and HGD/EAC was noted on index endoscopy over the last 25 years (P < .001). There was also a significant increase in the detection of visible lesions on index endoscopy (1990-1994, 5.1%; to 2005-2009, 6.3%; and 2010+, 16.3%) during the same period. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the prevalence of HGD and EAC has significantly increased over the past 25 years despite a decrease in BE length during the same period. This increase parallels an increase in the detection of visible lesions, suggesting that a careful examination at the index examination is crucial.

Low Risk of High-Grade Dysplasia or Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Among Patients With Barrett's Esophagus Less Than 1 cm (Irregular Z Line) Within 5 Years of Index Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Many patients with a < 1 cm segment of columnar metaplasia in the distal esophagus, also called an irregular Z line, are encountered. These patients, often referred to as patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE), are enrolled in surveillance programs. However, little is known about their risk of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to determine the incidence of HGD and EAC in patients with irregular Z line with intestinal metaplasia. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter cohort study of patients who underwent endoscopic examination for BE at tertiary care referral centers in the United States and Europe. We analyzed data from 1791 patients (mean age, 56 ± 17 years) found to have non-dysplastic BE at the index endoscopy and after 1 year or more of follow-up. Patients were followed for a median of 5.9 years (interquartile range, 3.1-8.3 years). We calculated rates of progression to HGD or EAC between groups of patients with irregular Z line (n = 167) and those with BE of ≥ 1 cm (n = 1624). RESULTS: A higher proportion of patients in the irregular Z-line group were female (26.3%) than in the BE group (14.8% female BE) (P <.001). A lower proportion of patients in the irregular Z-line group were smokers (33.5%) than in the BE group (52.6% smokers). None of the patients with irregular Z line developed HGD or EAC during a median follow-up period of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 3.2-8.3 years). All 71 incident cases of HGD or EAC developed in patients with BE of ≥1 cm in length. On multivariate analysis, patients with irregular Z line and patients with BE of ≥ 1 cm did not differ significantly in age, race, or duration of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective, multicenter cohort study, we found that patients with irregular Z line do not develop HGD or esophageal cancer within 5 years after index endoscopy.

Subclonal diversity arises early even in small colorectal tumours and contributes to differential growth fates.

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: The goal of the study was to determine whether the mutational profile of early colorectal polyps correlated with growth behaviour. The growth of small polyps (6-9 mm) that were first identified during routine screening of patients was monitored over time by interval imaging with CT colonography. Mutations in these lesions with known growth rates were identified by targeted next-generation sequencing. The timing of mutational events was estimated using computer modelling and statistical inference considering several parameters including allele frequency and fitness. RESULTS: The mutational landscape of small polyps is varied both within individual polyps and among the group as a whole but no single alteration was correlated with growth behaviour. Polyps carried 0-3 pathogenic mutations with the most frequent being in APC, KRAS/NRAS, BRAF, FBXW7 and TP53. In polyps with two or more pathogenic mutations, allele frequencies were often variable, indicating the presence of multiple populations within a single tumour. Based on computer modelling, detectable mutations occurred at a mean polyp size of 30±35 crypts, well before the tumour is of a clinically detectable size. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that small colon polyps can have multiple pathogenic mutations in crucial driver genes that arise early in the existence of a tumour. Understanding the molecular pathway of tumourigenesis and clonal evolution in polyps that are at risk for progressing to invasive cancers will allow us to begin to better predict which polyps are more likely to progress into adenocarcinomas and which patients are at greater risk of developing advanced disease.

Longitudinal Evaluation of Noninvasive Biomarkers for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) often requires multiple endoscopies. Serum biomarkers can be elevated in EoE patients, but their clinical utility in diagnosis and assessing response to treatment is not well established. GOALS: To evaluate serum biomarkers in EoE subjects compared with controls and assess longitudinally in response to treatment. STUDY: We conducted a prospective cohort study of children and adults undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy for suspected EoE. After completing an 8-week course of proton-pump inhibitor therapy, esophageal mucosal biopsies were obtained, as well as, serum analysis of absolute eosinophil count (AEC), eotaxin-3, eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN), eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) and interleukin-5. Subjects with normal endoscopic and histologic findings constituted controls. Those meeting criteria for EoE underwent repeat esophagogastroduodenoscopy and biomarker measurements following treatment with topical steroids for 8 weeks. RESULTS: Median levels of AEC (263.50 vs. 102 cu/mm, P<0.001), ECP (26.98 vs. 5.20 ng/mL, P<0.001) and EDN (31.70 vs. 14.18 ng/mL, P=0.004) were significantly elevated in EoE subjects compared with controls and correlated with esophageal eosinophilia. Levels of AEC (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.64) and ECP (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36) were associated with a diagnosis of EoE. Among the 5 biomarkers evaluated, only AEC significantly predicted esophageal eosinophilia following topical steroid therapy in EoE subjects (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: AEC, ECP, and EDN were higher in EoE subjects compared with controls and correlated with degree of esophageal eosinophilia. Furthermore, AEC predicted post-treatment eosinophilia, suggesting a potential role in monitoring EoE disease activity.

Proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia: an entity challenging current diagnostic criteria for eosinophilic oesophagitis.

Consensus diagnostic recommendations to distinguish GORD from eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) by response to a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) unexpectedly uncovered an entity called 'PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia' (PPI-REE). PPI-REE refers to patients with clinical and histological features of EoE that remit with PPI treatment. Recent and evolving evidence, mostly from adults, shows that patients with PPI-REE and patients with EoE at baseline are clinically, endoscopically and histologically indistinguishable and have a significant overlap in terms of features of Th2 immune-mediated inflammation and gene expression. Furthermore, PPI therapy restores oesophageal mucosal integrity, reduces Th2 inflammation and reverses the abnormal gene expression signature in patients with PPI-REE, similar to the effects of topical steroids in patients with EoE. Additionally, recent series have reported that patients with EoE responsive to diet/topical steroids may also achieve remission on PPI therapy. This mounting evidence supports the concept that PPI-REE represents a continuum of the same immunological mechanisms that underlie EoE. Accordingly, it seems counterintuitive to differentiate PPI-REE from EoE based on a differential response to PPI therapy when their phenotypic, molecular, mechanistic and therapeutic features cannot be reliably distinguished. For patients with symptoms and histological features of EoE, it is reasonable to consider PPI therapy not as a diagnostic test, but as a therapeutic agent. Due to its safety profile, ease of administration and high response rates (up to 50%), PPI can be considered a first-line treatment before diet and topical steroids. The reasons why some patients with EoE respond to PPI, while others do not, remain to be elucidated.

Effects of Race and Sex on Features of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinical and endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) differ between children and adults and among racial backgrounds. We investigated whether there were any associations between race or sex and clinical presentation, endoscopic features, and histologic findings from patients with EoE of various racial backgrounds. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter, cross-sectional analysis of 793 patients with EoE (476 adults and 317 children; mean age, 26 years; range, 0.1-84 years; 72% male) from clinical registries at 5 tertiary care centers in the United States. EoE was defined per consensus guidelines. Data with predetermined variables were extracted from clinical registries at each participating institution. RESULTS: Of the study cohort, 660 patients were white (83%), 77 were African American (10%), and 56 were of other races (7%). A significantly larger proportion of white persons than African Americans or other races had dysphagia (74%, 56%, and 53%, respectively; P < .001), food impaction (35%, 13%, and 13%, respectively; P < .001), and features of EoE that included rings (46%, 25%, and 18%, respectively; P < .001) or furrows (70%, 58%, and 55%, respectively; P = .012). Males and females had similar clinical presentations, histories of atopy, findings from endoscopy, and histologic characteristics. A higher proportion of males than females had strictures (17% vs 11%; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: Race, and to a smaller degree sex, are associated with features of EoE. African Americans have different clinical symptoms and fewer endoscopic features of EoE than white persons. EoE should be considered in African Americans even without typical findings.

Comparisons of Fluticasone to Budesonide in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Topical steroids are first-line treatment agents for eosinophilic esophagitis; however, some studies have demonstrated modest efficacy in inducing histologic remission. AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine response to two topical steroids (fluticasone and budesonide), compare their efficacy, and examine patient characteristics which could predict non-response to topical steroids. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of an established EoE registry. Inclusion criteria were patients >1 year of age who were diagnosed with EoE as defined by the most recent consensus guidelines. All patients were treated with an 8-week course of either swallowed fluticasone or viscous budesonide. Responders were defined as achieving <15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) in both proximal and distal esophageal biopsies. Demographic, clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features were examined. RESULTS: The study cohort included 75 EoE patients with a median age of 33 years (range 2-64 years), 71 % adults, 84 % male, and 76 % Caucasian. Overall histologic response rate to topical steroids was 51 %, while clinical response was 71 %. There was no significant differences in histologic response to treatment between children and adults (68 vs. 44 %, p = 0.111). There was no significant difference in response between males and females (47 vs. 73 %, p = 0.191) and between the two types of steroids (48 vs. 56 %, p = 0.632). Responders and non-responders were similar in clinical presentation and baseline endoscopic findings. Following treatment, responders had significantly less peak proximal (4.0 ± 4.4 vs. 46 ± 53, p < 0.001) and distal eosinophil counts (3.5 ± 3.8 vs. 60 ± 47, p < 0.001) compared to non-responders. There were no predictors of response to steroids identified. CONCLUSIONS: Histologic response to treatment was observed in approximately half the cohort, while more than two-thirds experienced clinical response to topical steroids. Response was similar between fluticasone and budesonide. Given the lack of differences in clinical presentation or endoscopic features, predictors of non-response were not seen.

Transcriptome analysis of proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia reveals proton pump inhibitor-reversible allergic inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal eosinophilia can be proton pump inhibitor (PPI) resistant or responsive, representing 2 entities known as eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE), respectively. Although they present with similar clinical features, EoE is accepted to be an antigen-driven, TH2-associated allergic disorder, whereas the cause of PPI-REE remains a mystery. OBJECTIVE: In this study, our aim was to investigate the pathogenesis of PPI-REE by using a recently described EoE diagnostic panel (EDP) composed of a set of 94 esophageal transcripts and to determine whether PPI therapy reverses any esophageal transcriptional abnormalities. METHODS: We evaluated the EDP signature in biopsy samples obtained from adult and pediatric patients with PPI-REE from 4 institutions and compared the pre- and post-PPI therapy expression profiles of these subjects with those of patients with active EoE. RESULTS: The EDP differentiated patients with EoE from control subjects with 100% accuracy among the 4 clinical sites. Bioinformatics analysis revealed largely overlapping transcriptomes between patients with PPI-REE and those with EoE, including the genes for eosinophil chemotaxis (eotaxin 3, CCL26), barrier molecules (desmoglein 1, DSG1), tissue remodeling (periostin, POSTN), and mast cells (carboxypeptidase A, CPA3). PPI monotherapy alone almost completely reversed the allergic inflammatory transcriptome of patients with PPI-REE. Furthermore, we identified a set of candidate genes to differentiate patients with EoE from those with PPI-REE before treatment. CONCLUSION: These findings provide definitive evidence that PPI-REE is a disease entity with significant molecular overlap with EoE, suggesting that many patients with PPI-REE represent a continuum of the same pathogenic allergic mechanisms that underlie EoE and thus might constitute a subphenotype of patients with EoE. The ability of PPI therapy to nearly entirely reverse gene expression associated with PPI-REE, particularly that associated with classic features of allergic inflammation, provides new insight into potential disease etiology and management strategies for patients with significant esophageal eosinophilia.