Clinical and molecular correlates of the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: The Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE) is a new expert-defined clinical tool that classifies disease severity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether I-SEE is associated with patient characteristics, molecular features of EoE, or both. METHODS: We analyzed a prospective cohort of patients with EoE from the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR). Associations between I-SEE and clinical and molecular features (assessed by an EoE diagnostic panel [EDP]) were assessed. RESULTS: In 318 patients with chronic EoE (209 adults, 109 children), median total I-SEE score was 7.0, with a higher symptoms and complications score in children than adults (4.0 vs 1.0; P < .001) and higher inflammatory and fibrostenotic features scores in adults than children (3.0 vs 1.0 and 3.0 vs 0, respectively; both P < .001). Total I-SEE score had a bimodal distribution with the inactive to moderate categories and severe category. EDP score correlated with total I-SEE score (r = -0.352, P < .001) and both inflammatory and fibrostenotic features scores (r = -0.665, P < .001; r = -0.446, P < .001, respectively), but not with symptoms and complications scores (r = 0.047, P = .408). Molecular severity increased from inactive to mild and moderate, but not severe, categories. Longitudinal changes of modified I-SEE scores and inflammatory and fibrostenotic features scores reflected histologic and molecular activity. CONCLUSIONS: I-SEE score is associated with select clinical features across severity categories and with EoE molecular features for nonsevere categories, warranting further validation.

Nonepithelial Gene Expression Correlates With Symptom Severity in Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: The mechanistic basis of the variable symptomatology seen in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: We examined the correlation of a validated, patient-reported outcome metric with a broad spectrum of esophageal transcripts to uncover potential symptom pathogenesis. METHODS: We extracted data from 146 adults with EoE through the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers. Patients were subgrouped by esophageal dilation history. We compared a validated patient-reported outcome metric, the EoE Activity Index (EEsAI), with a set of transcripts expressed in the esophagus of patients with EoE, the EoE Diagnostic Panel (EDP). We used single-cell RNA sequencing data to identify the cellular source of EEsAI-related EDP genes and further analyzed patients with mild and severe symptoms. RESULTS: The EEsAI correlated with the EDP total score, especially in patients without recent esophageal dilation (r = -0.31; P = .003). We identified 14 EDP genes that correlated with EEsAI scores (r ≥ 0.3; P < .05). Of these, 11 were expressed in nonepithelial cells and three in epithelial cells. During histologic remission, only four of 11 nonepithelial genes (36%) versus all three epithelial genes (100%) had decreased expression to less than 50% of that in active EoE. Fibroblasts expressed five of 11 nonepithelial EEsAI-associated EDP genes (45%). A subset of nonepithelial genes (eight of 11; 73%), but not EoE-representative genes (none of four; 0%; CCL26, CAPN14, DSG1, and SPINK7), was upregulated in patients with EoE with the highest versus lowest symptom burden. CONCLUSION: The correlation of symptoms and nonepithelial esophageal gene expression substantiates that nonepithelial cells (eg, fibroblasts) likely contribute to symptom severity.

Challenging assumptions about the demographics of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases: A systematic review.

Background: The demographic characteristics of patients with eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are poorly understood. Population-based assessments of EGID demographics may indicate health disparities in diagnosis. Objectives: We aimed to characterize the demographic distribution of EGIDs and evaluate the potential for bias in reporting patient characteristics. Methods: We conducted a systematic review, extracting data on age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance, and urban/rural residence on EGID patients and the source population. Differences in proportions were assessed by chi-square tests. Demographic reporting was compared to recent guidelines. Results: Among 50 studies that met inclusion/exclusion criteria, 12 reported ≥1 demographic feature in both EGID and source populations. Except for age and sex or gender, demographics were rarely described (race = 4, ethnicity = 1, insurance = 1) or were not described (body mass index, urban/rural residence). A higher proportion of male subjects was observed for EoE or esophageal eosinophilia relative to the source population, but no difference in gender or sex distribution was observed for other EGIDs. "Sex" and "gender" were used interchangeably, and frequently only the male proportion was reported. Reporting of race and ethnicity was inconsistent with guidelines. Conclusion: Current data support a male predominance for EoE only. Evidence was insufficient to support enrichment of EGIDs in any particular racial, ethnic, or other demographic group. Population-based studies presenting demographics on both cases and source populations are needed. Implementation of guidelines for more inclusive reporting of demographic characteristics is crucial to prevent disparities in timely diagnosis and management of patients with EGIDs.

Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease.

This JAMA Insights Clinical Update discusses the symptoms, diagnosis, and management of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases.

Achalasia is Strongly Associated With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Other Allergic Disorders.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Achalasia has been assumed to be an autoimmune disease targeting esophageal myenteric neurons. Recently, we proposed an alternative hypothesis that achalasia sometimes might be allergy-driven, caused by a form of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in which activated eosinophils and/or mast cells infiltrating esophageal muscle release products that disrupt motility and damage myenteric neurons. To seek epidemiologic support for this hypothesis, we identified patients with achalasia in the Utah Population Database, and explored their frequency of having EoE and other allergic disorders. METHODS: We used International Classification of Diseases codes to identify patients with achalasia and allergic disorders including EoE, asthma, atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, hives/urticaria, and anaphylaxis. We calculated relative risk (RR) for each allergic disorder by comparing the number observed in patients with achalasia with the expected number in individuals matched for birthyear and sex, and we performed subanalyses for patients age ≤40 versus age >40 years. RESULTS: Among 844 patients with achalasia identified (55% female; median age at diagnosis, 58 years), 402 (47.6%) had ≥1 allergic disorder. Fifty-five patients with achalasia (6.5%) had EoE (1.67 EoE cases expected), for a RR of 32.9 (95% confidence interval, 24.8-42.8; P < .001). In 208 patients with achalasia age ≤40 years, the RR for EoE was 69.6 (95% confidence interval, 46.6-100.0; P < .001). RR also was increased significantly for all other allergic disorders evaluated (all greater than 3-fold higher than population rates). CONCLUSIONS: Achalasia is strongly associated with EoE and other allergic disorders. These data support the hypothesis that achalasia sometimes might have an allergic etiology.

Mepolizumab for treatment of adolescents and adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether mepolizumab, an anti-IL-5 antibody, was more effective than placebo for improving dysphagia symptoms and decreasing oesophageal eosinophil counts in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial. In the first part, patients aged 16-75 with EoE and dysphagia symptoms (per EoE Symptom Activity Index (EEsAI)) were randomised 1:1 to 3 months of mepolizumab 300 mg monthly or placebo. Primary outcome was change in EEsAI from baseline to month 3 (M3). Secondary outcomes included histological, endoscopic and safety metrics. In part 2, patients initially randomised to mepolizumab continued 300 mg monthly for 3 additional months (mepo/mepo), placebo patients started mepolizumab 100 mg monthly (pbo/mepo), and outcomes were reassessed at month 6 (M6). RESULTS: Of 66 patients randomised, 64 completed M3, and 56 completed M6. At M3, EEsAI decreased 15.4±18.1 with mepolizumab and 8.3±18.0 with placebo (p=0.14). Peak eosinophil counts decreased more with mepolizumab (113±77 to 36±43) than placebo (146±94 to 160±133) (p<0.001). With mepolizumab, 42% and 34% achieved histological responses of <15 and ≤6 eos/hpf compared with 3% and 3% with placebo (p<0.001 and 0.02). The change in EoE Endoscopic Reference Score at M3 was also larger with mepolizumab. At M6, EEsAI decreased 18.3±18.1 points for mepo/mepo and 18.6±19.2 for pbo/mepo (p=0.85). The most common adverse events were injection-site reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab did not achieve the primary endpoint of improving dysphagia symptoms compared with placebo. While eosinophil counts and endoscopic severity improved with mepolizumab at 3 months, longer treatment did not yield additional improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03656380.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Diagnosis and Management of Extraesophageal Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and expert advice regarding the clinical management of patients with suspected extraesophageal gastroesophageal reflux disease. METHODS: This article provides practical advice based on the available published evidence including that identified from recently published reviews from leading investigators in the field, prospective and population studies, clinical trials, and recent clinical guidelines and technical reviews. This best practice document is not based on a formal systematic review. The best practice advice as presented in this document applies to patients with symptoms or conditions suspected to be related to extraesophageal reflux (EER). This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these BPA statements do not carry formal ratings of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Gastroenterologists should be aware of potential extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and should inquire about such disorders including laryngitis, chronic cough, asthma, and dental erosions in GERD patients to determine whether GERD may be a contributing factor to these conditions. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Development of a multidisciplinary approach to extraesophageal (EER) manifestations is an important consideration because the conditions are often multifactorial, requiring input from non-gastroenterology (GI) specialties. Results from diagnostic testing (ie, bronchoscopy, thoracic imaging, laryngoscopy, etc) from non-GI disciplines should be taken into consideration when gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is considered as a cause for extraesophageal symptoms. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Currently, there is no single diagnostic tool that can conclusively identify GER as the cause of EER symptoms. Determination of the contribution of GER to EER symptoms should be based on the global clinical impression derived from patients' symptoms, response to GER therapy, and results of endoscopy and reflux testing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Consideration should be given toward diagnostic testing for reflux before initiation of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with potential extraesophageal manifestations of GERD, but without typical GERD symptoms. Initial single-dose PPI trial, titrating up to twice daily in those with typical GERD symptoms, is reasonable. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Symptom improvement of EER manifestations while on PPI therapy may result from mechanisms of action other than acid suppression and should not be regarded as confirmation for GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: In patients with suspected extraesophageal manifestation of GERD who have failed one trial (up to 12 weeks) of PPI therapy, one should consider objective testing for pathologic GER, because additional trials of different PPIs are low yield. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Initial testing to evaluate for reflux should be tailored to patients' clinical presentation and can include upper endoscopy and ambulatory reflux monitoring studies of acid suppressive therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Testing can be considered for those with an established objective diagnosis of GERD who do not respond to high doses of acid suppression. Testing can include pH-impedance monitoring while on acid suppression to evaluate the role of ongoing acid or non-acid reflux. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Alternative treatment methods to acid suppressive therapy (eg, lifestyle modifications, alginate-containing antacids, external upper esophageal sphincter compression device, cognitive-behavioral therapy, neuromodulators) may serve a role in management of EER symptoms. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Shared decision-making should be performed before referral for anti-reflux surgery for EER when the patient has clear, objectively defined evidence of GERD. However, a lack of response to PPI therapy predicts lack of response to anti-reflux surgery and should be incorporated into the decision process.

Development of a Practical Guide to Implement and Monitor Diet Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Dietary therapy for short- and long-term management of eosinophilic esophagitis is an effective yet poorly understood and underutilized treatment strategy. Despite several prospective trials demonstrating the efficacy of dietary therapies, successful clinical implementation is hampered by the need for a multidisciplinary approach including dietitian support and provider expertise. The availability of these resources is not readily available to most gastroenterologists. Without standardized guidance on starting or completing the diet for gastrointestinal providers and/or consulting dietitians, provider attitudes toward dietary therapy vary greatly depending on familiarity and knowledge gaps in using diet therapy. This review aims to summarize evidence in support of dietary therapy in eosinophilic esophagitis while providing guidance on initiation and implementation of dietary therapy for providers.

One-food versus six-food elimination diet therapy for the treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis: a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Empirical elimination diets are effective for achieving histological remission in eosinophilic oesophagitis, but randomised trials comparing diet therapies are lacking. We aimed to compare a six-food elimination diet (6FED) with a one-food elimination diet (1FED) for the treatment of adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial across ten sites of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers in the USA. Adults aged 18-60 years with active, symptomatic eosinophilic oesophagitis were centrally randomly allocated (1:1; block size of four) to 1FED (animal milk) or 6FED (animal milk, wheat, egg, soy, fish and shellfish, and peanut and tree nuts) for 6 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by age, enrolling site, and gender. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with histological remission (peak oesophageal count <15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]). Key secondary endpoints were the proportions with complete histological remission (peak count ≤1 eos/hpf) and partial remission (peak counts ≤10 and ≤6 eos/hpf) and changes from baseline in peak eosinophil count and scores on the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System (EoEHSS), Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS), Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index (EEsAI), and quality of life (Adult Eosinophilic Esophagitis Quality-of-Life and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Global Health questionnaires). Individuals without histological response to 1FED could proceed to 6FED, and those without histological response to 6FED could proceed to swallowed topical fluticasone propionate 880 µg twice per day (with unrestricted diet), for 6 weeks. Histological remission after switching therapy was assessed as a secondary endpoint. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02778867, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 23, 2016, and March 6, 2019, 129 patients (70 [54%] men and 59 [46%] women; mean age 37·0 years [SD 10·3]) were enrolled, randomly assigned to 1FED (n=67) or 6FED (n=62), and included in the ITT population. At 6 weeks, 25 (40%) of 62 patients in the 6FED group had histological remission compared with 23 (34%) of 67 in the 1FED group (difference 6% [95% CI -11 to 23]; p=0·58). We found no significant difference between the groups at stricter thresholds for partial remission (≤10 eos/hpf, difference 7% [-9 to 24], p=0·46; ≤6 eos/hpf, 14% [-0 to 29], p=0·069); the proportion with complete remission was significantly higher in the 6FED group than in the 1FED group (difference 13% [2 to 25]; p=0·031). Peak eosinophil counts decreased in both groups (geometric mean ratio 0·72 [0·43 to 1·20]; p=0·21). For 6FED versus 1FED, mean changes from baseline in EoEHSS (-0·23 vs -0·15; difference -0·08 [-0·21 to 0·05]; p=0·23), EREFS (-1·0 vs -0·6; difference -0·4 [-1·1 to 0·3]; p=0·28), and EEsAI (-8·2 vs -3·0; difference -5·2 [-11·2 to 0·8]; p=0·091) were not significantly different. Changes in quality-of-life scores were small and similar between the groups. No adverse event was observed in more than 5% of patients in either diet group. For patients without histological response to 1FED who proceeded to 6FED, nine (43%) of 21 reached histological remission; for patients without histological response to 6FED who proceeded to fluticasone propionate, nine (82%) of 11 reached histological remission. INTERPRETATION: Histological remission rates and improvements in histological and endoscopic features were similar after 1FED and 6FED in adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis. 6FED had efficacy in just less than half of 1FED non-responders and steroids had efficacy in most 6FED non-responders. Our findings indicate that eliminating animal milk alone is an acceptable initial dietary therapy for eosinophilic oesophagitis. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Eosinophilic Gastritis and Enteritis Are Increased in Families With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on the familial risk of distal eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We analyzed the risk of eosinophilic gastritis/gastroenteritis (EG/EGE) and eosinophilic colitis (EC) as forms of distal EGIDs using International Disease Classification-9/10 codes in subjects with EoE and their relatives. METHODS: The Utah Population Database is a resource that links genealogy information and medical records in Utah. We identified EGIDs in probands and their first-degree (FDRs), second-degree (SDRs), and third-degree (TDRs) relatives in the Utah Population Database. Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were estimated. All individuals with inflammatory bowel disorder were eliminated to avoid misdiagnosis with EGIDs. RESULTS: We included 8,455 subjects with EoE, 396 with EG/EGE, and 172 with EC. Probands with EoE were at increased risk of EG/EGE and EC. Risks of EG/EGE were increased among FDRs and SDRs of probands with EoE , even without concomitant EoE in the relatives. Increased risk of EG/EGE in FDRs and SDRs was also present for EoE probands without EG/EGE or EC. We observed no isolated familial aggregation of EG/EGE after excluding cases with comorbid EoE. EC probands without EoE were at increased risk of EG/EGE, but no evidence of familial risk of EC was observed. DISCUSSION: The relative risk of EG/EGE is significant among relatives of patients with EoE, suggesting that shared genetic factors exist among these EGIDs. EG/EGE and EC showed limited familial clustering, although sample sizes were small.

Human differentiated eosinophils release IL-13 in response to IL-33 stimulation.

Objective: Eosinophils are hallmarks in allergic type 2 inflammation and are known to release cytotoxic granule proteins that contribute to inflammation. Eosinophils develop in the bone marrow from hematopoietic stem cells and once mature, have a limited lifespan in culture, making them difficult to study ex vivo. IL-33 has increasingly been shown as a key regulator of type 2 inflammation via signaling through its receptor, ST2. The present study was conducted to detail a method of eosinophil differentiation from hematopoietic stem cells and determine the response to IL-33. Methods: CD34+ and CD14+ cells were isolated from donor apheresis cones and differentiated into eosinophils or macrophage controls, respectively. Morphologic, transcriptional and protein analyses were performed to validate this method of eosinophil differentiation. The effect of IL-33 on differentiated eosinophils was assessed using qPCR, immunofluorescence, and multiplex cytokine array. Results: CD34 differentiated eosinophils appear morphologically similar by H&E and express eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) protein as well as the conventional eosinophil transcripts EPX, CLC, and MBP. In addition, differentiated eosinophils expressed both isoforms of the IL-33 receptor, ST2L and sST2 throughout the differentiation process. Transcript levels of both IL-33 receptors were up-regulated by treatment with IL-33 at earlier timepoints in the differentiation. These cells also expressed IL-4 and IL-13 mRNA which were up-regulated by IL-33 as well. Notably, IL-13 expression was significantly higher with IL-33 treatment compared to media control at every timepoint measured. IL-33 significantly increased cellular secretion of IL-13 protein at most timepoints throughout differentiation. IL-8, LIF, CCL1, CCL5, CCL7, and CCL8 were also significantly secreted after IL-33 stimulation. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that CD34 differentiated eosinophils are morphologically and phenotypically similar to peripheral eosinophils. The release of specific cytokines in direct response to IL-33 may contribute to the pathogenesis of type 2 inflammation and facilitates new avenues for studying eosinophils as effector cells in vitro.

Provider Beliefs, Practices, and Perceived Barriers to Dietary Elimination Therapy in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite effective dietary treatments, physicians prefer medications for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey of providers to assess the perceived effectiveness, practice patterns, and barriers to EoE dietary therapy. RESULTS: Providers view diet as the least effective treatment. The greatest barrier was the belief that patients are disinterested and unlikely to adhere (58%). With less access to dietitians (56%), nonacademic providers often manage diets without dietitian guidance (41%). DISCUSSION: Given high patient acceptance for diets and multiple treatment options for EoE, clinicians need evidence-based knowledge on EoE diets, access to dietitians, and awareness of patient preferences.

Index diagnoses of gastric intestinal metaplasia in the United States: patient characteristics, endoscopic findings, and clinical practice patterns at a large tertiary care center.

Background: Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is a premalignant gastric mucosal change that is often incidentally detected during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Despite the established higher risk of gastric cancer associated with GIM, the incidence, prevalence, and outcomes data for GIM are limited in the United States (US), and practice patterns are highly variable. Objectives: Our primary objectives were to accurately identify incident histology-confirmed GIM cases and determine patient characteristics, endoscopy findings, Helicobacter pylori (HP) detection, and eradication treatment outcomes, as well as surveillance and follow-up recommendations. Design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative data. Methods: We first developed and validated a rule-based natural language processing tool to identify the patients with GIM on gastrointestinal pathology reports between 2011 and 2016. We then performed a manual chart review of all EGD procedures and associated pathology notes to confirm cases and obtain clinically relevant data. Results: In all, 414 patients with an index diagnosis of GIM were confirmed (prevalence = 2.5% of patients undergoing any EGD). A majority (52.4%) of patients were non-Hispanic white. The most common indication for EGD was abdominal pain (46.9%). A majority (55%) did not receive specific follow-up recommendations or were asked to see their primary care provider. HP testing was documented in 86% of patients, and detected in 94 patients (prevalence = 26.4%). Treatment was documented in 94.7% of cases, and eradication confirmed in only 34.8% of these cases. Conclusion: A large group of US patients with an index diagnosis of GIM was accurately identified. There was wide variability in clinical practice patterns including biopsy practice, HP treatment and eradication confirmation testing, and surveillance recommendations. This work demonstrates that there is a major unmet need for quality improvement efforts to standardize care for patients with GIM, a premalignant condition, and inform future prospective studies in a US population.

Oesophageal secretions reveal local food-specific antibody responses in eosinophilic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is associated with elevated IgG4 in oesophageal tissue and serum. Previously, we showed brush-collected oesophageal secretions of EoE patients contained food antigen-specific antibodies IgA and IgG4. It is unknown whether other food-specific antibodies are present along the surface of the oesophagus in EoE. AIM: To identify whether immunoglobulins other than IgG4 and food-specific antibodies are elevated along the oesophageal mucosal surface in oesophageal secretions in EoE patients METHODS: Concentrations of total IgA, IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgM and IgE were measured in oesophageal secretions from patients with active (n = 19) and inactive EoE (n = 9), and non-EoE controls (n = 10). Food-specific antibodies were measured using beads coupled to protein components from dairy, wheat and egg. Total immunoglobulin and cytokine and chemokine concentrations were measured in serum, saliva and oesophageal secretions of four patients with active EoE. RESULTS: Oesophageal secretions have a unique immune profile. Patients with active EoE had elevated IgG2, IgG4 and IgM concentrations in oesophageal secretions compared to those with inactive EoE. Food-specific IgG1, IgG2, IgG4 and IgM were significantly increased in patients with active EoE compared to inactive EoE and non-EoE patients. Furthermore, active patients with a known dairy trigger display higher dairy-specific IgG1, IgG2, IgG4, IgM, IgA and IgE. CONCLUSIONS: There is a distinct localised profile of immunoglobulins and food-specific antibodies found within oesophageal secretions in EoE. These findings expand our knowledge about the currently identified immune responses in EoE and suggest possible roles for multiple immunoglobulins and food-specific antibodies in the pathophysiology of EoE.

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.

Models and Tools for Investigating Eosinophilic Esophagitis at the Bench.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly common food allergy disease of the esophagus that received its medical designation code in 2008. Despite this recency, great strides have been made in the understanding of EoE pathophysiology and type 2 immunity through basic and translational scientific investigations conducted at the bench. These advances have been critical to our understanding of disease mechanisms and generating new hypotheses, however, there currently is only one very recently approved FDA-approved therapy for EoE, leaving a great deal to be uncovered for patients with this disease. Here we review some of the innovative methods, models and tools that have contributed to the advances in EoE discovery and suggest future directions of investigation to expand upon this foundation.

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.