Increasing Age at the Time of Diagnosis and Evolving Phenotypes of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Over 20 Years.

BACKGROUND: The presentation of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is heterogeneous, but trends over time are not known. AIM: To determine whether clinical and endoscopic phenotypes at EoE diagnosis have changed over the past 2 decades. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, adults and children with newly diagnosed EoE were phenotyped as follows: (1) inflammatory vs fibrostenotic vs mixed on endoscopy; (2) atopic vs non-atopic; (3) age at symptom onset; (4) age at diagnosis; (5) presence of autoimmune or connective tissue disease; and (6) responsive to steroids. The prevalence of different phenotypes was categorized by 5-year intervals. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess for changes in patient features over time. RESULTS: Of 1187 EoE patients, age at diagnosis increased over time (from 22.0 years in 2002-2006 to 31.8 years in 2017-2021; p < 0.001) as did the frequency of dysphagia (67% to 92%; p < 0.001). Endoscopic phenotypes were increasingly mixed (26% vs 68%; p < 0.001) and an increasing proportion of patients had later onset of EoE. However, there were no significant trends for concomitant autoimmune/connective tissue disease or steroid responder phenotypes. On multivariate analysis, after accounting for age, dysphagia, and food impaction, the increase in the mixed endoscopic phenotype persisted (aOR 1.51 per each 5-year interval, 95% CI 1.31-1.73). CONCLUSION: EoE phenotypes have changed over the past two decades, with increasing age at diagnosis and age at symptom onset. The mixed endoscopic phenotype also increased, even after controlling for age and symptomatology. Whether this reflects changes in provider recognition or disease pathophysiology is yet to be elucidated.

Retrospective cohort study: Effect of age as a barrier to diagnosis of eosinophilic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Prior work suggests eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is rare in those aged over 65 years. However, elderly patients with EoE experience a substantial diagnostic delay from symptom onset to diagnosis. AIMS: To assess if age predicted whether oesophageal biopsies were obtained in patients with EoE symptoms, what clinical features predict EoE in the elderly, and if EoE phenotype differs between elderly and non-elderly patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilising the University of North Carolina (UNC) electronic medical record, EoE clinicopathologic database and UNC endoscopy software from July 2008 to April 2021. A sample of 193 elderly and non-elderly patients with dysphagia, chest pain and/or heartburn were assembled. Patients with EoE were newly diagnosed per contemporaneous guidelines. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics and procedural data were extracted. Summary statistics, bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 193 patients, we included 91 elderly (47%) and 102 non-elderly (53%). Age independently predicted the odds of biopsies (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.44 elderly vs. non-elderly; 95% CI: 0.21-0.92). Endoscopic features of EoE, but not symptoms, were more common in elderly than non-EoE elderly patients. Elderly patients with EoE differed from non-elderly only by time to diagnosis (aOR per year of symptoms preceding diagnosis: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with EoE have <50% the odds of oesophageal biopsies. There were no significant differences between elderly and non-elderly EoE patients, although endoscopic features helped discriminate the two groups. Our findings suggest that older age represents a barrier to EoE diagnosis.

Association between time from esophageal food impaction to endoscopy and adverse events.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines recommend emergent or urgent EGD for esophageal food impaction (EFI), but data on how time to EGD impacts the risk of adverse events remain limited. We determined whether EFI-to-EGD time was associated with adverse events. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of patients with endoscopically confirmed EFI, adverse events were classified as esophageal (mucosal tear, bleeding, perforation) or extraesophageal (aspiration, respiratory compromise, hypotension, arrhythmia). Esophageal perforation and extraesophageal adverse events requiring intensive care unit admission were classified as serious adverse events. Baseline characteristics, event details, and procedural details were compared between patients with and without adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess for an association between EFI-to-EGD time and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 188 patients with EFI, 22 (12%) had any adverse event and 2 (1%) had a serious adverse event. Patients with adverse events were older and more likely to have an esophageal motility disorder, to tolerate secretions at presentation, and to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score. EFI-to-EGD time was similar in those with and without adverse events. On multivariable analysis, EFI-to-EGD time was not associated with adverse events (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% confidence interval, .97-1.04] for 1-hour increments; odds ratio, 1.03 [95% confidence interval, .86-1.24] for 6-hour increments). Results were similar after stratifying by eosinophilic esophagitis status and after adjusting for possible confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Because the time from EFI to EGD is not associated with adverse events, emergent EGD for EFI may be unnecessary, and other considerations may determine EGD timing.

Feeding Tube Placement, Complications, and Treatment Responses in a Large Eosinophilic Esophagitis Patient Population.

OBJECTIVES: Feeding tubes can provide a temporary or long-term solution for nutritional therapy. Little is known regarding the use of feeding tubes in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We sought to describe the characteristics and outcomes in EoE patients requiring tube feeding. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of EoE patients at a large tertiary care health system. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and endoscopic findings were extracted from medical records, and patients who had a feeding tube were identified. Patients with and without a feeding tube were compared. Details about the tube, complications, and treatment were extracted. Growth, global symptomatic, endoscopic, and histopathologic (<15 eos/hpf) responses were compared before and after the initiation of feeding tube therapy. RESULTS: We identified 39 of 1216 EoE patients who had a feeding tube (3%). Feeding tube patients were younger (mean age 6.3 years), reported more vomiting, and had a lower total endoscopic reference score than non-feeding tube patients ( P < 0.01 for all). Tubes were used for therapy for an average of 6.8 years, with most patients (95%) receiving both pharmacologic and formula treatment for EoE. An emergency department visit for a tube complication was required in 26%. Tube feeding improved body mass index z score ( P < 0.01), symptomatic response (42%), endoscopic response (53%), and histologic response (71%). CONCLUSIONS: Among EoE patients, only a small subset required a feeding tube and predominantly were young children with failure to thrive. Feeding tubes significantly improved growth and, when used in combination with other treatments, led to reduced esophageal eosinophilic inflammation.

Adherence to study drug in a stroke prevention trial"?>.

OBJECTIVE: Standards for reporting and analyzing adherence to medical therapy have recently improved due to international consensus efforts. If applied to clinical trial research in patients with stroke, these improvements have the potential to identify when in the sequence of trial operations participants are at risk for non-adherence and opportunities to safeguard adherence. METHODS: We analyzed three phases of adherence according to the European Society for Patient Adherence, COMpliance, and Persistence (ESPACOMP) Medication Adherence Reporting Guideline (EMERGE) taxonomy in the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) trial: initiation (did patient start drug), implementation (did patient take a drug holiday, defined as temporary cessation lasting ≥14 days), and persistence (did patient prematurely and permanently discontinue drug). IRIS was a randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind trial testing pioglitazone to prevent stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with a recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Adherence was classified by self-report. Researchers used coaching algorithms to seek adherence recovery if participants went off drug. RESULTS: During 2005-2013, 3876 participants were enrolled from 179 sites in seven countries and followed for a mean of 4.8 years. Less than 1% of participants in each group did not initiate study drug. 20% of patients assigned to pioglitazone and 17% assigned to placebo took at least one drug holiday. 36% and 30%, respectively, discontinued the study drug prematurely with or without a prior holiday. The risk for stopping the study drug (temporarily or permanently) in the first year after randomization was twice the risk in each of the subsequent four years. This was true both for patients assigned to active therapy and placebo. More participants assigned to pioglitazone, compared to placebo, took a drug holiday or permanently stopped study drug, but the difference in rates of discontinuation was only evident in year one. In years two through five, rates of discontinuation were similar in the two treatment groups. The difference in rates during year one was the result of adverse effects related to the active study drug, pioglitazone. During the remainder of the trial, the attribution of discontinuations to adverse effects potentially related to pioglitazone was reduced but still higher in those assigned to active drug. Other reasons for discontinuation were similar between treatment groups and were largely unrelated to pharmacodynamic effects of the study drug. Rates of discontinuation varied widely among research sites. CONCLUSION: Patients in a drug trial for stroke prevention are at greatest risk for premature drug discontinuation early after randomization. Reasons for discontinuation change over time. Variable discontinuation rates among sites suggests that adherence can be improved by using best practices from high-performing sites.