ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the existing literature for several promising minimally invasive tests to measure disease activity in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). DATA SOURCES: Literature searches were performed using PubMed. Keyword combinations included eosinophilic esophagitis and minimally invasive techniques, including the esophageal string test, Cytosponge, transnasal endoscopy, technetium-labeled heparin, and noninvasive biomarkers. STUDY SELECTIONS: Retrospective and prospective observational studies, peer-reviewed reviews, and systematic reviews were selected. Data were reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Various techniques have been developed in recent years to measure disease activity in EoE without the need for conventional endoscopy. Our review summarizes the data on these techniques, the benefits and limitations, and future directions for implementation in both research and clinical care. CONCLUSION: Tremendous progress has been made toward developing minimally invasive techniques to measure disease activity in EoE. Each of the techniques mentioned in this review has advantages and disadvantages, and some are closer to widespread use than others.
Subject(s)
Eosinophilic Esophagitis , Biomarkers , Eosinophilic Esophagitis/diagnosis , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Prospective Studies , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Three COVID-19 vaccines have received FDA-authorization and are in use in the United States, but there is limited head-to-head data on the durability of the immune response elicited by these vaccines. Using a quantitative assay we studied binding IgG antibodies elicited by BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 or Ad26.COV2.S in an employee cohort over a span out to 10 months. Age and sex were explored as response modifiers. Of 234 subjects in the vaccine cohort, 114 received BNT162b2, 114 received mRNA-1273 and six received Ad26.COV2.S. IgG levels measured between seven to 20 days after the second vaccination were similar in recipients of BNT162b2 and mRNA-127 and were ~50-fold higher than in recipients of Ad26.COV2.S. However, by day 21 and at later time points IgG levels elicited by BNT162b2 were lower than mRNA-1273. Accordingly, the IgG decay curve was steeper for BNT162b2 than mRNA-1273. Age was a significant modifier of IgG levels in recipients of BNT162b2, but not mRNA-1273. After six months, IgG levels elicited by BNT162b2, but not mRNA-1273, were lower than IgG levels in patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 six months earlier. Similar findings were observed when comparing vaccine-elicited antibodies with steady-state IgG targeting seasonal human coronaviruses. Differential IgG decay could contribute to differences observed in clinical protection over time between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273.