Twice-Daily Proton Pump Inhibitor Induces Higher Remission Rate in Eosinophilic Esophagitis Than Once-Daily Regimen Regardless of Total Daily Dose.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal proton pump inhibitor (PPI) regimen for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is unclear. We compared histologic response rates of different dosing combinations. METHODS: A total of 305 patients with newly diagnosed EoE received standard (omeprazole 20 mg daily), once-daily moderate (40 mg daily), twice-daily moderate (20 mg twice daily), or high (40 mg twice daily) dose PPI for ≥8 weeks. RESULTS: Approximately 42.3% achieved histologic response to PPI, with higher rates for twice-daily (moderate 52.8%/high 54.3%) than once-daily (standard 11.8%/moderate 10%) dosing ( P < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, twice-daily moderate (adjusted odds ratio 6.75, confidence interval 2.53-18.0, P = 0.0008) and high (adjusted odds ratio 12.8, confidence interval 4.69-34.8, P < 0.0001) doses independently predicted histologic response. DISCUSSION: Twice-daily PPI is associated with higher EoE histologic response rates than once-daily regimen.

Obesity Is Associated with Altered Rectal Sensitivity in Chronic Constipation.

BACKGROUND: Defecation dysfunction may contribute to chronic constipation (CC), but the impact of obesity on anorectal physiology in CC remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between obesity and anorectal function on physiologic testing in patients presenting with CC. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adults who underwent high resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) at a tertiary center for CC. Patient demographics, clinical history, surgical/obstetric history, medications, and HRAM results were reviewed. Patients were classified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) vs non-obese (BMI < 30 kg/m2) groups at the time of HRAM. Fisher-exact/student t-test for univariate analyses and general linear regression for multivariable analysis were performed. RESULTS: 383 adults (mean 50.3 years; 85.8% female) with CC were included. On HRAM, patients with obesity had lower anal sphincter resting tone (37.3 vs 48.5 mmHg, p = 0.005) and maximum squeeze pressure (104.8 mmHg vs 120.0 mmHg, p = 0.043). No significant differences in dyssynergia (61% vs 53%, p = 0.294) and failed balloon expulsion (18% vs 25%, p = 0.381) were found between obese and non-obese groups. On balloon distention testing, the maximum tolerated (163.5 vs 147.6 mL, p = 0.042) and urge sensation (113.9 vs 103.7 mL, p = 0.048) volumes were significantly increased among patients with obesity. After adjusting for potential confounders, obesity remained independently associated with increased maximum tolerated volume (ß-coefficient 13.7, p = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Obesity was independently associated with altered rectal sensitivity among patients with CC. Altered rectal sensation may play an important role in CC among patients with obesity. Anorectal physiology testing should be considered to understand the pathophysiology and guide management.

Allergic phenotype identified on allergen testing is associated with proton pump inhibitor nonresponse in eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Food/environmental allergens have been associated with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE); however, the correlation between allergy profiles and disease responsiveness to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy remains unclear. We aimed to assess the association between food/environmental allergies identified on allergen testing and histologic response to PPI in patients with treatment-naive EoE. METHODS: Adults with newly diagnosed EoE who underwent formal testing for food/environmental allergies at a tertiary center were included. All patients underwent twice-daily PPI for 8 weeks with subsequent repeat endoscopy and biopsy to assess histologic response. Patients with <15 eosinophils/hpf on post-PPI mucosal biopsies were classified as responders (PPI-r-EoE), while those with ≥15 eosinophils/hpf were nonresponders (PPI-nr-EoE). RESULTS: Sixty-one patients met inclusion criteria (21 PPI-r-EoE vs 40 PPI-nr-EoE). Demographic, clinical, and endoscopic finding variables were similar between groups. Positive food allergen test was more prevalent among PPI-nr-EoE patients (82.5% vs 42.9%, P = 0.003). On multivariable analysis, positive food allergen testing remained an independent predictor for PPI nonresponse (aOR 0.15, CI: 0.04-0.58, P = 0.0006). Positive environmental allergen testing was highly prevalent, with no significant differences between groups (77.5% vs 95.2%, P = 0.14). However, higher number of positive environmental allergens (23.3% [≥5 allergens] vs 73.3% [<5 allergens], P = 0.003) and specific aeroallergens correlated with PPI-nr-EoE. CONCLUSION: Positive food allergy testing and increased environmental allergens predicted lower likelihood of histologic response to PPI in EoE. Our findings support an allergic phenotype of EoE that may less likely respond to PPI therapy. Formal allergen testing may play a role in therapy selection and tailored management in EoE.

Baseline Peripheral Eosinophil Count Independently Predicts Proton Pump Inhibitor Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

GOALS: To assess the predictive value of baseline peripheral absolute eosinophil counts (AECs) for proton pump inhibitor (PPI) response in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). BACKGROUND: PPI leads to histologic remission in ~50% of EoE patients, although there are few distinguishing clinical features between PPI-responsive (PPI-r-EoE) and nonresponsive (PPI-nr-EoE) diseases. Peripheral eosinophilia is present in ~50% of EoE cases and is associated with eosinophil density on esophageal biopsy and worse clinical outcomes. The association between peripheral eosinophilia and PPI-responsiveness in EoE remains unclear. STUDY: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult EoE patients at a tertiary center between 2012 and 2016. All patients underwent twice daily PPI trials for ≥8 weeks followed by repeat esophageal biopsies and were classified as PPI-r-EoE or PPI-nr-EoE based on histologic response (<15 eosinophils/high power field). Baseline peripheral AEC was obtained within 1 month before index endoscopy. Analyses were performed using Fisher exact/Student t test (univariate) and logistic regression (multivariable). RESULTS: One hundred eighty-three patients (91 PPI-nr-EoE and 92 PPI-r-EoE) were included. Mean peripheral AEC was higher among PPI-nr-EoE patients (0.41 vs 0.24 K/µL, P = 0.013). Baseline peripheral eosinophilia (>0.5 K/µL) was more prevalent among patients with PPI-nr-EoE (70.4% vs 45.5%, P = 0.023) and a history of food impaction (51.9% vs 23.7%, P = 0.0082). On multivariable analyses, peripheral eosinophilia remained an independent predictor for PPI response (adjacent odds ratio = 2.86, CI: 1.07-7.62, P = 0.036) and food impaction (adjacent odds ratio = 2.80, CI: 1.07-7.35, P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline peripheral eosinophilia independently predicts PPI nonresponse and food impaction in EoE patients. Peripheral AEC may help therapy selection in EoE and prevent delays in achieving histologic remission.

Assessment of the clinical and allergy profiles of PPI responsive and non-responsive eosinophilic esophagitis.

A subset of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) respond to proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, however they cannot be distinguished prior to PPI trial and the mechanism of PPI response remains unclear. Improved understanding of the distinct patient phenotypes in PPI-responsive EoE (PPI-r-EoE), PPI-non-responsive EoE (PPI-nr-EoE) and erosive esophagitis (EE) may help guide management. The aim of this paper is to compare the clinical and allergy profiles of PPI-r-EoE versus PPI-nr-EoE and EE. This was a retrospective case-control study of EoE patients (>15 eos/hpf on esophageal biopsies) at a tertiary center. EE controls were identified from the pathology database. EoE patients were classified as PPI-r-EoE or PPI-nr-EoE based on histologic response to twice-daily PPI for ≥8 weeks. Patient demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, allergy history and endoscopic findings were recorded. Univariate analyses were performed using the Fisher-exact test or t-test. Multivariable analyses were performed using logistic regression. In all, 104 EoE (57 PPI-r-EoE/47 PPI-nr-EoE) and 80 EE subjects were included. On multivariable analyses, allergic conditions (aOR 20.1, P < 0.0001) and rings (aOR 108.3, P = 0.001) were independent predictors for PPI-r-EoE versus EE, whereas allergic conditions (aOR 4.8, P = 0.03), rings (aOR 27.5, P = 0.002) and furrows (aOR 17.1, P = 0.04) were independent predictors for PPI-nr-EoE versus EE. Esophageal rings was the only significant predictor found in PPI-nr-EoE versus PPI-r-EoE (OR 2.5, P = 0.03). Allergic conditions and esophageal rings are significantly more prevalent in PPI-r-EoE and PPI-nr-EoE compared with EE. PPI-r-EoE appears clinically similar to PPI-nr-EoE and significantly different from EE. Further studies are needed to delineate the underlying pathophysiology of PPI-r-EoE versus PPI-nr-EoE.

Overlapping Transcriptional Profile in Proton Pump Inhibitor Responsive and Nonresponsive Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: We compared esophageal mucosal gene transcript expression in proton pump inhibitor (PPI) responsive (PPI-R) eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), PPI nonresponsive (PPI-NR) EoE, and healthy controls. METHODS: Transcript expression in midesophagus biopsies was determined using NanoString and a custom panel of EoE-specific genes. The top upregulated and downregulated genes with ≥2-fold difference in expression and statistically significant ( P < 0.05) were identified. RESULTS: Nearly all the top upregulated (17 of 20) and downregulated (5 of 5) genes in EoE, compared with healthy controls, were shared between the PPI-R and PPI-NR groups. DISCUSSION: Esophageal mucosal transcript expressions are remarkably similar in PPI-R EoE and PPI-NR EoE compared with healthy controls.

Opioid-Associated Anorectal Dysfunction in Chronic Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: The role of anorectal and defecatory dysfunction in opioid-related constipation is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between opioid use and rectal sensation, defecatory function, and balloon expulsion on anorectal physiology testing. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adults undergoing high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) at a tertiary center for constipation. Clinical characteristics, medication use, and HRAM findings were obtained. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher-exact/student t-test for univariate analyses and logistic/general linear regression for multivariable analyses to compare patients with no opioid use, recent (< 3 months) use, and distant (> 3 months) use. RESULTS: 424 patients (49.8 ± 17.2 years; 85.6% female) were included. Compared to those without opioid history, patients with recent use had increased volumes for first rectal sensation (70.4 mL vs 59.4, p = 0.043), urge (120.5 mL vs 101.5, p = 0.017), and maximal tolerance (170.2 mL vs 147.2, p = 0.0018), but not patients with distant use. Recent opioid use was associated with increased risk of dyssynergic defecation (DD) (61.8% vs 46.4%, p = 0.035), but not failed balloon expulsion. On multivariable models controlling for potential confounders, recent opioid use, but not distant use, remained independently correlated with increased volumes for first rectal sensation (ß-coefficient 9.78, p = 0.019), urge (ß-coefficient 16.7, p = 0.0060), and maximal tolerance (ß-coefficient 22.9, p = 0.0032), and higher risk for DD (aOR = 2.18, p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Recent opioid use was an independent risk factor for rectal hyposensitivity and DD on HRAM in patients with constipation, but that effect may decrease with discontinuation of use. Anorectal physiology testing should be considered in patients with opioid-associated constipation.

Terlipressin versus other vasoactive drugs for hepatorenal syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome is defined as severe renal failure occurring in people with cirrhosis and ascites. Systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials found that, compared with placebo, terlipressin may reduce mortality and improve renal function in people with hepatorenal syndrome, but we need current evidence from systematic reviews on the benefits and harms of terlipressin versus other vasoactive drugs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of terlipressin versus other vasoactive drugs for people with hepatorenal syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded; conducted manual searches of references in relevant literature; and wrote to experts and pharmaceutical companies (date of last search November 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing terlipressin versus any other type of vasoactive drugs for hepatorenal syndrome. We allowed albumin and other cointerventions if provided equally in the comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently extracted data. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatorenal syndrome (persistent hepatorenal syndrome despite treatment), and serious adverse events. We conducted meta-analyses and present the results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We performed sensitivity, subgroup, and Trial Sequential Analyses and evaluated bias control based on the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 randomised clinical trials with 474 participants. The trials compared terlipressin versus noradrenaline (seven trials), octreotide (one trial), midodrine and octreotide (one trial), or dopamine (one trial). All participants in both groups received albumin as cointervention. We classified two trials at low risk of bias and eight trials at high risk of bias in the assessment of mortality and all trials at high risk of bias for remaining outcomes. In five trials, investigators specifically stated that they did not receive funding from for-profit organisations. We had no information about the funding source from the remaining five trials.Terlipressin was not superior or inferior compared with other vasoactive drugs in regard to mortality when including the two trials with a low risk of bias (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; 94 participants, very low quality evidence) or when including all 10 trials (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06; 474 participants; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence). One meta-analysis including nine trials suggested a beneficial effect of terlipressin on hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99; 394 participants; I² = 26%; very low quality evidence). Due to the high mortality of hepatorenal syndrome, the registration of other serious adverse events is uncertain, but comparing terlipressin and other vasoactive drugs we found no significant difference (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06; 474 participants; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence). Several trials did not report systematically of adverse events, but terlipressin seemed to increase the risks of diarrhoea or abdominal pain, or both (RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 10.27; 221 participants; 5 trials, I² = 0%). However, Trial Sequential Analyses found insufficient evidence to support or refute any differences between interventions for all outcomes. Considering reversal of hepatorenal syndrome, subgroup analyses on the type of other vasoactive drugs found that terlipressin was superior compared with midodrine and octreotide (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.72) or octreotide alone (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.96), but each subgroup only included one small trial. None of the remaining subgroup or sensitivity analyses found differences between terlipressin and other vasoactive drugs. We downgraded the evidence to very low quality because of the high risk of bias, imprecision, and the results of the Trial Sequential Analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found insufficient evidence to support or refute beneficial or harmful effects of terlipressin and albumin versus other vasoactive drugs and albumin. Additional research is needed to evaluate if clinically meaningful differences exist between interventions.

Terlipressin versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome is a potentially reversible renal failure associated with severe liver disease. The disease is relatively common among people with decompensated cirrhosis. Terlipressin is a drug that increases the blood flow to the kidneys by constricting blood vessels. The previous version of this systematic review found a potential beneficial effect of terlipressin on mortality and renal function in people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of terlipressin versus placebo/no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We identified eligible trials through searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded, and manual searches until 21 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving participants with cirrhosis and type 1 or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome allocated to terlipressin versus placebo or no intervention. We allowed co-administration with albumin administered to both comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from trial reports and undertook correspondence with the authors. Primary outcomes were mortality, hepatorenal syndrome, and serious adverse events. We conducted sensitivity analyses of RCTs in which participants received albumin, subgroup analyses of participants with type 1 or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome, and Trial Sequential Analyses to control random errors. We reported random-effects meta-analyses with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias based on the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. We graded the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with a total of 534 participants with cirrhosis and ascites. One RCT had a low risk of bias for mortality and a high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes. All included trials had a high risk of bias for non-mortality outcomes. In total, 473 participants had type 1 hepatorenal syndrome. Seven RCTs specifically evaluated terlipressin and albumin. Terlipressin was associated with a beneficial effect on mortality when including all RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; 534 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 10.3 people; low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis including all RCTs also found a beneficial effect of terlipressin. Additional analyses showed a beneficial effect of terlipressin and albumin on reversal of hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.82; 510 participants; 8 RCTs; NNTB 4 people; low-quality evidence). Terlipressin increased the risk of serious cardiovascular adverse events (RR 7.26, 95% CI 1.70 to 31.05; 234 participants; 4 RCTs), but it had no effect on the risk of serious adverse events when analysed as a composite outcome (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; 534 participants; 9 RCTs; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome 24.5 people; low-quality evidence). Non-serious adverse events were mainly gastrointestinal, including diarrhoea (RR 5.76, 95% CI 2.19 to 15.15; 240 participants; low-quality evidence) and abdominal pain (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.43; 294 participants; low-quality evidence).We identified one ongoing trial on terlipressin versus placebo in participants with cirrhosis, ascites, and hepatorenal syndrome type 1.Three RCTs reported funding from a pharmaceutical company. The remaining trials did not report funding or did not receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that terlipressin may be associated with beneficial effects on mortality and renal function in people with cirrhosis and type 1 hepatorenal syndrome, but it is also associated with serious adverse effects. We downgraded the strength of the evidence due to methodological issues including bias control, clinical heterogeneity, and imprecision. Consequently, additional evidence is needed.

Endoscopic Features and Eosinophil Density Are Associated with Food Impaction in Adults with Esophageal Eosinophilia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Food impaction has been described in both eosinophilic esophagitis and proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia. The association between endoscopic/histologic features of esophageal eosinophilia and food impaction remains unclear. We aimed to identify clinical, endoscopic, and histologic findings associated with a history of food impaction in esophageal eosinophilia. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult esophageal eosinophilia patients at a tertiary center in 6/2005-10/2014. Only patients with ≥15 eosinophils/high-power field on mucosal biopsies were included. Demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, endoscopic/histologic findings on initial endoscopy, and history of food impaction were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact test (univariate) and forward stepwise logistic regression (multivariate). RESULTS: 400 patients (42 ± 14 years, 61 % male) were included, with 78 (20 %) having food impaction history. On univariate analyses, rings (62 vs 42 %, p = 0.003), erosions (12 vs 5 %, p = 0.03), eosinophil density on biopsy (40 [IQR = 30-50] vs 30 [IQR = 15-50], p = 0.004), and dysphagia (88 vs 62 %, p < 0.0001) were more prevalent among patients with food impaction history, while heartburn (10 vs 33 %, p < 0.0001) and abdominal pain (1 vs 12 %, p = 0.002) were less common. On multivariate analysis, rings (OR 2.6, p = 0.002), erosions (OR 3.2, p = 0.02), and eosinophil density (ß-coefficient = 0.01, p = 0.04) remained associated with food impaction. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of rings and erosions on endoscopy and increased eosinophil density on histology were independently associated with a history of food impaction in adult esophageal eosinophilia patients. Food impaction may result from both active inflammation (erosions and increased eosinophil density) and chronic fibrostenotic changes (rings).

Current Approach to the Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Adults.

OPINION STATEMENT: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly diagnosed, immune-mediated disease characterized by inflammation of the esophagus in both children and adult, causing significant morbidity. Adults typically present with dysphagia and a history of food impaction. Diagnosis should be considered in patients with histological evidence of eosinophilia (≥15 eosinophils per high-power field) on esophageal biopsy. More recently, it has been observed that a significant percentage of patients with esophageal eosinophilia respond both clinically and histologically to PPI therapy. This disorder has been named PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE). Recent studies suggest that patients with PPI-REE have similar clinical and endoscopic features of patients with EoE. Specifically, both PPI-REE and EoE patients have a strong disposition to allergy compared to patients without eosinophilia. As such, PPI-REE may represent a subset or variant of EoE. Effective treatment of EoE requires a multidisciplinary approach with gastroenterologists, pathologists, allergists, and nutritionists. Treatments include elimination and elemental diets, topical glucocorticoids (fluticasone and budesonide), and endoscopic dilation.