Esophageal Expert Development of a Preliminary Question Prompt List for Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended to encourage question-asking by patients and enhance patient-physician communication. To date, an EoE-specific QPL has not been developed for EoE patients. AIM: To develop a preliminary QPL specific to adults with EoE by incorporating input from international esophageal experts. METHODS: Sixteen experts were invited to generate QPL content through a modified Delphi (RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, CA) method consisting of 2 rounds of independent ratings. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "what general questions should patients ask when being seen for EoE?" and "what questions do I not hear patients asking but given my experience, I believe they should be asking?" In round 2, experts rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale, and responses rated as "essential" or "important" (determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥ 4.0) were accepted for the EoE QPL. RESULTS: Ten esophageal experts participated in both rounds. Round 1 generated 100 questions. Questions were combined and modified to reduce redundancy, yielding 57 questions. After round 2, 51 questions (85%) were accepted for inclusion (median value ≥ 4.0) in the final QPL. Questions were then divided into 4 themes based on disease domains: (1) "What is EoE?," (2) "Treatment Options," (3) "Follow-up Surveillance and Long-term Risks," and (4) "Allergy and Genetic Testing." The largest number of questions covered was "What is EoE?" (16/51 or 31%). Questions with the highest agreement median (5.0) included examples such as "what should I do if I get a food impaction?" and "what are the treatment options?" CONCLUSION: This is the first preliminary EoE QPL developed in the field of medicine. We hope implementation enhances effective patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask relevant questions that experts prioritized. Future studies will aim to modify this communication tool by incorporating patient perspectives.

Psychometric evaluation of the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire for adults and adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis.

Background: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, inflammatory disease of the esophagus leading to symptoms of esophageal dysfunction; dysphagia is the most common symptom experienced by adults and adolescents. Objective: We sought to perform a psychometric evaluation of the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ), a patient-reported outcome measure for patients with EoE. Methods: Using baseline and week 24 data from the randomized, interventional, multinational phase 3 R668-EE-1774 trial (NCT03633617), the measurement properties of the DSQ-including reliability, construct and known-groups validity, responsiveness, and interpretation of change-were evaluated. Results: The analysis population comprised 239 patients with EoE (age [mean ± SD], 28.1 ± 13.14 years; 63.6% male; 90.4% White). Intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.92 and 0.97 exceeded the acceptable reliability threshold (≥0.70). Construct validity correlations with EoE symptom and impact measures were moderate at baseline (|r| = 0.44-0.55) and week 24 (|r| = 0.55-0.69), and the DSQ biweekly total score discriminated among groups defined by disease severity. Analyses exploring interpretation of change from baseline on the DSQ biweekly total score indicated thresholds for within-patient improvement ranging from 9 to 23 points; a within-patient improvement from baseline of 13 points or greater could be considered clinically meaningful. Conclusions: This analysis confirmed that the DSQ has acceptable distributional properties, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and ability to detect change. Therefore, the DSQ is a valid and reliable measure to assess the patient-reported symptom of dysphagia among adult and adolescent patients with EoE in the context of a clinical trial setting.

Effect of benralizumab on histopathology and inflammatory signatures in a clinical cohort of eosinophilic esophagitis.

A preliminary report from the recent phase 3 trial of benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin-5 receptor alpha (IL5Rα), in patients with EoE revealed that medication use led to tissue eosinophil eradication but did not meet the clinical endpoint of symptom resolution. Here, we characterized the clinical, endoscopic, histologic, and transcriptional changes in patients with active EoE following benralizumab treatment. We retrospectively examined patients with EoE treated with benralizumab at the University of Utah (n = 11) and reviewed reported clinical symptoms, circulating and tissue eosinophilia, and endoscopic and histologic scores. Gene expression profiles from available esophageal tissue from benralizumab-treated patients were compared to those from patients with remission EoE (n = 5), active EoE (n = 10), and controls (n = 22). Benralizumab treatment resulted in partial symptom improvement and significant reduction in tissue eosinophilia, and endoscopic and histologic disease scoring (P < 0.01). Histologic score reductions were driven by eosinophil feature scores, while scores for epithelial features (basal cell hyperplasia and dilated intercellular spaces) were similar to those in active EoE. The gene signatures in benralizumab-treated patients mimicked those of active EoE (e.g. upregulation of POSTN, CDH26, CCL26, and downregulation of DSG1). RNA profiles and pathways support histologic findings of impaired epithelial function that persists despite benralizumab treatment. In conclusion, despite eosinophil eradication, patients treated with benralizumab had persistent epithelial injury at the histologic and transcriptional level. In this cohort, benralizumab therapy failed to eradicate inflammation and epithelial dysfunction showing that interleukin-5 receptor alpha blockade monotherapy is insufficient to control EoE.

Eosinophil Depletion with Benralizumab for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an eosinophil-depleting anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody. The efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis are unclear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients 12 to 65 years of age with symptomatic and histologically active eosinophilic esophagitis in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous benralizumab (30 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks. The two primary efficacy end points were histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the score on the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ; range, 0 to 84, with higher scores indicating more frequent or severe dysphagia) at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients underwent randomization: 104 were assigned to receive benralizumab, and 107 were assigned to receive placebo. At week 24, more patients had a histologic response with benralizumab than with placebo (87.4% vs. 6.5%; difference, 80.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 72.9 to 88.8; P<0.001). However, the change from baseline in the DSQ score did not differ significantly between the two groups (difference in least-squares means, 3.0 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 7.4; P = 0.18). There was no substantial between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, which reflects endoscopic abnormalities. Adverse events were reported in 64.1% of the patients in the benralizumab group and in 61.7% of those in the placebo group. No patients discontinued the trial because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients 12 to 65 years of age with eosinophilic esophagitis, a histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) occurred in significantly more patients in the benralizumab group than in the placebo group. However, treatment with benralizumab did not result in fewer or less severe dysphagia symptoms than placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MESSINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04543409.).

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.

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.

Hypnotic treatment improves sleep architecture and EEG disruptions and rescues memory deficits in a mouse model of fragile X syndrome.

Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is associated with disrupted cognition and sleep abnormalities. Sleep loss negatively impacts cognitive function, and one untested possibility is that disrupted cognition in FXS is exacerbated by abnormal sleep. We tested whether ML297, a hypnotic acting on G-protein-activated inward-rectifying potassium (GIRK) channels, could reverse sleep phenotypes and disrupted memory in Fmr1-/y mice. Fmr1-/y mice exhibit reduced non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep and fragmented NREM architecture, altered sleep electroencephalogram (EEG) oscillations, and reduced EEG coherence between cortical areas; these are partially reversed following ML297 administration. Treatment following contextual fear or spatial learning restores disrupted memory consolidation in Fmr1-/y mice. During memory recall, Fmr1-/y mice show an altered balance of activity among hippocampal principal neurons vs. parvalbumin-expressing interneurons; this is partially reversed by ML297. Because sleep disruption could impact neurophysiological phenotypes in FXS, augmenting sleep may improve disrupted cognition in this disorder.

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.

Endoscopic Features of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures (EREFS) represent the major endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The Endoscopic Reference System (EREFS) grading system is easy to learn and apply during daily clinical practice in the diagnosis and follow-up of EoE patients. When endoscopy is performed by an EoE-experienced physician, the EREFS criteria will identify the majority of EoE patients. The EREFS score from the area of greatest involvement of the esophagus should be reported. The EREFS grading system was formally validated as an endoscopy score and several randomized placebo-controlled trials have shown responsiveness of the EREFS score to therapeutic interventions.

Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease.

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

Eosinophilic esophagitis is associated with increased risk of later inflammatory bowel disease in a nationwide Swedish population cohort.

BACKGROUND: Earlier studies on the possible association between eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been contradictory. METHODS: Patients with biopsy-verified EoE diagnosed between 1990 and 2017 in Sweden (n = 1587) were age- and sex-matched with up to five general population reference individuals (n = 7808). EoE was defined using pathology reports from all 28 pathology centers in Sweden (the ESPRESSO study). Multivariate Cox regression then estimated hazard ratios for future IBD. IBD was defined based on the international classification of disease codes and histopathology codes. In secondary analyses, sibling comparators were used to further reduce potential familial confounding. Additionally, we performed logistic regression examining earlier IBD in EoE. RESULTS: During follow-up until 2020, 16 (0.01%) EoE patients and 21 (0.003%) general population reference individuals diagnosed with IBD, corresponding to a 3.5-fold increased risk of future IBD (aHR = 3.56; 95% CI 1.79-7.11). EoE was linked to Crohn's disease (aHR = 3.39 [95% CI 1.02-9.60]) but not to ulcerative colitis (aHR = 1.37; 95% CI 0.38-4.86). Compared to their siblings, patients with EoE were at a 2.48-fold increased risk of IBD (aHR = 2.48; 95% CI 0.92-6.70). Earlier IBD was 15 times more likely in EoE patients than in matched reference individuals (odds ratio, 15.39; 95% CI 7.68-33.59). CONCLUSION: In this nationwide cohort study, EoE was associated with a 3.5-fold increased risk of later IBD diagnosis. This risk increase may be due to shared genetic or early environmental risk factors, but also surveillance bias could play a role.

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.

Breakthroughs in understanding and treating eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases presented at the CEGIR/TIGERs Symposium at the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Meeting.

The Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases and The International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Researchers organized a day-long symposium at the 2022 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The symposium featured a review of recent discoveries in the basic biology and pathogenesis of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) in addition to advances in our understanding of the clinical features of EGIDs. Diagnostic and management approaches were reviewed and debated, and clinical trials of emerging therapies were highlighted. Herein, we briefly summarize the breakthrough discoveries in EGIDs.

Incidence of retained biopsy specimens after esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.

Background and study aims In gastrointestinal endoscopy, biopsies must transit through the accessory channel and cap, presenting an opportunity for loss of tissue. We sought to determine the incidence of specimen retention in the accessory channel or cap and identify procedure characteristics associated with specimen retention. Patients and methods After completion of standard endoscopic procedures in which biopsies were obtained, the biopsy cap and accessory channel were inspected, brushed, and irrigated for any retained biopsy specimens according to a standard protocol. For controls, the same protocol was applied to procedures in which biopsies were not obtained. Specimen bottles from the recovery protocol were sent for pathological examination regardless of whether any visible tissue was present. Results A total of 216 outpatient procedures were included: 55 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) and 50 colonoscopies in which biopsies were obtained and 56 EGDs and 55 colonoscopies in the control group. Retained specimens were found in either the cap or channel in 50 of 105 (48%). In 20 of 105 (19%), retained specimens were found just in the cap, in six of 105 (5.7%), retained specimens were found just in the channel, while in 24 of 105 (23%), retained specimens were found in both the cap and channel. Retained specimens were more likely to be found in EGDs compared to colonoscopies (58% vs. 36%, P = 0.031). No retained specimens were found in the control group. Conclusions Retained specimens are startingly common in standard gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures and could potentially change diagnoses and management. Quality improvement measures should be instituted to monitor prevalence of retained biopsies and methods to prevent them should be developed.

Hypnotic treatment reverses NREM sleep disruption and EEG desynchronization in a mouse model of Fragile X syndrome to rescue memory consolidation deficits.

Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is a highly-prevalent genetic cause of intellectual disability, associated with disrupted cognition and sleep abnormalities. Sleep loss itself negatively impacts cognitive function, yet the contribution of sleep loss to impaired cognition in FXS is vastly understudied. One untested possibility is that disrupted cognition in FXS is exacerbated by abnormal sleep. We hypothesized that restoration of sleep-dependent mechanisms could improve functions such as memory consolidation in FXS. We examined whether administration of ML297, a hypnotic drug acting on G-protein-activated inward-rectifying potassium channels, could restore sleep phenotypes and improve disrupted memory consolidation in Fmr1 -/y mice. Using 24-h polysomnographic recordings, we found that Fmr1 -/y mice exhibit reduced non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep and fragmented NREM sleep architecture, alterations in NREM EEG spectral power (including reductions in sleep spindles), and reduced EEG coherence between cortical areas. These alterations were reversed in the hours following ML297 administration. Hypnotic treatment following contextual fear or spatial learning also ameliorated disrupted memory consolidation in Fmr1 -/y mice. Hippocampal activation patterns during memory recall was altered in Fmr1 -/y mice, reflecting an altered balance of activity among principal neurons vs. parvalbumin-expressing (PV+) interneurons. This phenotype was partially reversed by post-learning ML297 administration. These studies suggest that sleep disruption could have a major impact on neurophysiological and behavioral phenotypes in FXS, and that hypnotic therapy may significantly improve disrupted cognition in this disorder.

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.

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.