Randomized controlled trial comparing aerosolized swallowed fluticasone to esomeprazole for esophageal eosinophilia

Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Symptom Scores (PEESS v2.0) identify histologic and molecular correlates of the key clinical features of disease

BACKGROUND

The Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Symptom Score (PEESS v2.0) measures patient-relevant outcomes. However, whether patient-identified domains (dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD], nausea/vomiting, and pain) align with clinical symptomology and histopathologic and molecular features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether clinical features of EoE, measured through PEESS v2.0, associate with histopathologic and molecular features of EoE. This represents a novel approach for analysis of allergic diseases, given the availability of allergic tissue biopsy specimens.

METHODS

We systematically recruited treated and untreated pediatric patients with EoE (aged 2-18 years) and examined parent proxy-reported symptoms using the PEESS v2.0. Clinical symptomology was collected by questionnaire. Esophageal biopsy samples were quantified for levels of eosinophils, eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) immunohistochemical staining, and mast cells. Molecular features were assessed by using the EoE Diagnostic Panel (94 EoE-related gene transcripts). Associations between domain scores and clinical symptoms and biological features were analyzed with Wilcoxon rank sum and Spearman correlation.

RESULTS

The PEESS v2.0 domains correlated to specific parent-reported symptoms: dysphagia (P = .0012), GERD (P = .0001), and nausea/vomiting (P < .0001). Pain correlated with multiple symptoms (P < .0005). Dysphagia correlated most strongly with overall histopathology, particularly in the proximal esophagus (P ≤ .0049). Markers of esophageal activity (EPX) were significantly associated with dysphagia (strongest r = 0.37, P = .02). Eosinophil levels were more associated with pain (r = 0.27, P = .06) than dysphagia (r = 0.24, P = .13). The dysphagia domain correlated most with esophageal gene transcript levels, predominantly with mast cell-specific genes.

CONCLUSION

We have (1) established a validated, parent proxy-reported measure for pediatric EoE, the PEESS v2.0; (2) verified that the parent proxy effectively captures symptoms; (3) determined that the dysphagia domain most closely aligns with symptoms and tissue-based molecular biomarkers; (4) established that symptoms correlate with EPX staining; and (5) observed association between mast cells and dysphagia.

Steroids therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We designed this systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to clarify the advantage of steroid therapy compared with non-steroid therapy for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, ISI Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing steroid and non-steroid therapy, and retrospective and prospective trials on steroid therapy for EoE. RevMan 5.2 was used for the analysis. Weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated and pooled using meta-analysis methods.

RESULTS

Six RCTs including 193 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, and another two RCTs, three prospective and five retrospective trials were included in systematic review. Meta-analysis showed that topical steroids significantly decreased the mean and peak esophageal eosinophils (EOS) count compared to non-steroid therapy (MDmean  = -23.41, 95% CImean -42.08--4.73, P = 0.01 and MDpeak  = -51.27, 95% CIpeak -78.62--23.92, P = 0.0002). There were 14 trials showing the efficacy of steroids on decreasing the EOS count, 10 showing the amelioration of symptoms, and five showing endoscopic improvement. Only mild adverse events were reported for topical steroids.

CONCLUSIONS

Steroids are effective on decreasing the EOS count in EoE patients. Its value in ameliorating symptoms and endoscopic changes remains undetermined due to the lack of comparable criteria.

Distinguishing GERD from eosinophilic oesophagitis: concepts and controversies

Over the past three decades, the detection of oesophageal mucosal eosinophils has transitioned from a biomarker of GERD to a diagnostic criterion for eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). In GERD, oesophageal eosinophils are considered part of the chronic inflammatory response to acid reflux, whereas the marked eosinophilia in EoE is viewed as a central feature of the immune response to ingested food and/or environmental antigen stimulation. Descriptions of a considerable subset of patients with symptomatic, endoscopic and histological findings of EoE that resolve with PPI therapy has led to confusion and controversy regarding the distinction of EoE from GERD. Study findings indicate that PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) more closely resembles EoE than GERD, both from a clinical and immunological aspect. Although responsiveness to PPI therapy should not be utilized to exclude EoE, PPI therapy is effective at reducing oesophageal eosinophilia in ∼40% of patients, and PPI therapy is both a safe and practical initial step in the management of patients with oesophageal eosinophilia. Ongoing studies elucidating the mechanism behind PPI-REE will improve our understanding and management of EoE. In this Review, the mechanisms and evidence that underlie the controversy in the distinction between GERD and EoE are evaluated.

Proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia and eosinophilic oesophagitis: more similarities than differences

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this study is to discuss the clinical, endoscopic and histologic features, pathogenesis and disease mechanisms of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE), and to highlight similarities and differences with eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE).

RECENT FINDINGS

PPI-REE is a condition in which patients have clinical and histologic findings similar to EoE, but achieve complete remission with PPI treatment. More than one-third of patients who have oesophageal symptoms associated with oesophageal eosinophilia respond to PPI treatment. Emerging data elucidating the pathogenesis of PPI-REE have shown that Th2-related inflammatory factors such as interleukin (IL)-13, IL-5, eotaxin-3 and major basic protein (MBP) are elevated in PPI-REE, similar to EoE. PPI-REE also shares a genetic expression signature with EoE that reverses with PPI treatment. Mechanisms proposed to explain the PPI response include an acid-independent, anti-inflammatory action of PPIs and PPI-induced restoration of oesophageal barrier function.

SUMMARY

Multiple features of PPI-REE overlap extensively with EoE. This raises the question of whether PPI-REE is merely a subtype of EoE rather than an independent condition. This similarity may have future implications for algorithms informing evaluation and treatment of oesophageal eosinophilia.

Comparison of eotaxin-3 biomarker in patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis, proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) is a recently described entity which resembles oeosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), yet responds to acid suppressive treatment.

AIM

To determine whether EoE shares similar staining features with PPI-REE or with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

This retrospective study consisted of patients with an established diagnosis of EoE, PPI-REE, or GERD identified from a database during a 1-year period. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis was performed specifically targeting eotaxin-3 antibodies. All sections were qualitatively (intensity) and quantitatively (percentage of cells stained) assessed independently by two blinded pathologists.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of three groups of patients: EoE (n = 22), PPI-REE (n = 23) and GERD (n = 23) for a total of 68 patients. Study demographics included mean age 39 (14) years, 75% male and 77% Caucasian. There was a significant difference in the eotaxin-3 staining among EoE, PPI-REE and GERD groups [mean score (s.d.): 1.2 (1.2), 0.8 (1.0), 0.3 (0.7), P = 0.006]. Staining scores of EoE patients were significantly higher compared with GERD (P = 0.002) and a trend towards significance was seen between EoE and PPI-REE (P = 0.054). There was also a significant difference in EoE staining intensity score among the three groups (P = 0.006). Intensity scores of EoE were significantly higher compared with GERD [1.0 (0.9) vs. 0.22 (0.52), P < 0.001]. There was no significant difference between EoE and PPI-REE groups [1.0 (0.0) vs. 0.52 (0.75) P = 0.094].

CONCLUSIONS

A difference in eotaxin-3 staining was seen in the three groups of patients with oesophageal eosinophilia. Eotaxin-3 can distinguish EoE from GERD, but not from proton pump inhibitor responsive-oesophageal eosinophilia.

The changing faces of eosinophilic esophagitis: the impact of consensus guidelines at the University of South Florida

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prior to the consensus guideline conference in 2007, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) was uncommon dominated by the fibrostenotic phenotype, but over the past decade has become a common cause of dysphagia with more inflammatory phenotypes diagnosed. We assessed the impact of guideline definitions on the characteristics of EoE phenotypes over the past 26 years at our institution.

METHODS

We reviewed the electronic health record of 75 consecutive patients meeting guideline definition EoE from 1/1988 to 5/2014. We separated groups based on 5-year intervals of diagnosis and phenotype. For continuous data, results were summarized as mean difference and standard deviation with 95 % confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Five groups based on 5-year intervals of diagnosis were identified: group 1-1988-1993 (n = 7), group 2-1994-1999 (n = 7), group 3-2000-2005 (n = 4), group 4-2006-2011 (n = 35), and group 5-2012-2014 (n = 22). Prior to 2000, all patients were diagnosed with fibrostenotic EoE. After the initial 2007 guideline conference, inflammatory EoE has predominated with only one-third diagnosed with fibrostenotic EoE. Prior to 2011, only two were diagnosed with PPI-REE. In the last 3 years, 8 out of 22 patients (32 %) had PPI-REE. Overall, 8 out of 10 (80 %) PPI-REE were the inflammatory phenotype. When comparing pre- (n = 18) and post (n = 57)-consensus definitions, there was a significant difference between age of diagnosis (30.710.2 vs. 41.3 ± 14.3; p = 0.001), age of symptom onset (18.4 +/15.2 vs. 32.4 ± 15.5), and initial esophageal diameter (10.5 ± 2.7 vs. 14.3 ± 4.2; p < 0.0001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Fibrostenotic EoE has steadily decreased, and inflammatory EoE is now the most recognized form. Across our 26-year experience, there was a decrease in delay in diagnosis and severity of esophageal stricture. The pivotal change occurred around 2007 corresponding to the first EoE guideline emphasizing the impact and importance of early detection of disease.

Eosinophilic esophagitis in children

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a relatively common chronic immune-mediated disease of the esophagus characterized clinically by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction that vary by age. Histologically, EoE results in marked esophageal eosinophilia despite treatment with high-dose proton pump inhibition. The cornerstone of treatment is dietary restriction and/or pharmacologic therapy, mainly with topical steroids. This review briefly describes dietary therapy, but focuses on the various medical options in the treatment of EoE, with an emphasis on steroid-based therapy. Numerous landmark studies are reviewed describing the symptomatic and histologic endpoints as well as safety data. The literature strongly supports the use of topical steroid therapy as a means of significantly decreasing eosinophilic mucosal disease. Specifically, high-dose fluticasone propionate appears to be very effective, and has been shown to result in the resolution of mucosal eosinophilia in a large percentage of treated patients. Long-term studies over many years will need to determine whether mucosal healing will change the natural history of this stricture-causing disease. In addition to topical therapy, various other drug-based therapies are reported, including newer immune-based monoclonal antibodies.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: pharmacological interventions for eosinophilic oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is a growing cause of dysphagia. Current therapies include dietary manipulation, steroids and biological drugs.

AIM

To perform a systematic review and summarise the effect of different medical interventions on EoE.

METHODS

Two reviewers searched Pubmed and Embase for studies on treatment for EoE. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) limited to pharmacological interventions. Two reviewers selected studies. Meta-analysis was done using random effects model to estimate odds ratio (OR). Heterogeneity was determined by Cochran's Q statistic and I(2) .

RESULTS

Seventeen references met our inclusion criteria. Eleven RCTs involving 455 participants were included in the meta-analysis. 325 participants were evaluated for symptomatic improvement and 330 were evaluated for histological remission. Symptomatic improvement with topical steroids (7 studies, 250 participants) compared to the control group (placebo or PPI) was noted (OR: 3.03, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.57-5.87). Histological remission was also noted in nine studies involving 330 participants (OR: 13.66, 95% CI: 2.65-70.34) comparing topical steroids to a control (placebo or PPI). There was no difference between anti-IL-5 drugs and placebo in terms of symptomatic improvement (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.34-1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical steroids induce significant symptomatic and histological remission, and should be considered as a first line treatment. Anti-IL-5 therapy has a minor effect on eosinophilic oesophagitis. Future research in eosinophilic oesophagitis should standardise methodology according to published guidelines to improve quality and allow direct comparison between therapies.

Basophil infiltration in eosinophilic oesophagitis and proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia

BACKGROUND

The features of proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) are similar to those of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), but PPI-REE demonstrates symptomatic and histological responses to PPI therapy. Several studies have shown that basophils play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases.

AIM

To identify and compare basophil infiltration in the oesophageal epithelium in patients with EoE, PPI-REE, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and normal oesophagus (controls).

METHODS

Biopsy specimens from 43 patients, including 12 with EoE, 11 with PPI-REE, 10 with GERD and 10 normal oesophagus, were analysed. Immunohistochemistry was performed to quantify the number of basophils and mast cells in the oesophageal epithelium. Double immunofluorescence staining for thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) and basophils was performed. Patients with EoE were treated with swallowed fluticasone.

RESULTS

There were no differences in clinical, endoscopic or histological features between patients with EoE and PPI-REE. There were more basophils and mast cells in patients with EoE and PPI-REE than in patients with GERD and control subjects. Basophil infiltration of the oesophageal epithelium in patients with EoE was higher than that in patients with PPI-REE (3.6 ± 2.8 per high power field vs. 1.2 ± 0.9 per high power field respectively; P = 0.02); however, there was no significant difference in mast cell infiltration between the two groups. TSLP was highly expressed in the oesophageal epithelium in areas infiltrated by basophils. Steroid therapy significantly decreased intraepithelial basophils in patients with EoE.

CONCLUSION

Basophils may play an important role in the pathogenesis of eosinophilic oesophagitis.

Topical Steroid Therapy for the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES:

Current guidelines recommend topical steroids as first-line treatment for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, the evidence for this approach has been inconsistent in earlier reports. This meta-analysis aimed to clarify the efficacy of topical steroid treatment in active EoE using updated evidence.

METHODS:

CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to May 2014 that compared topical steroids with control treatments for active EoE. Study bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool, and outcomes were pooled using random effects models. The primary outcome was the mean change in eosinophil counts. Secondary outcomes were symptom responses and adverse events.

RESULTS:

In total, seven RCTs (226 patients) were included. Topical steroids were associated with a significant reduction in esophageal mucosal eosinophil counts compared with control therapy although substantial heterogeneity between studies was observed (weighted mean difference (WMD) −27.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) −45.3 to −9.1, I²=56.2%). Subgroup analysis indicated the reduction in eosinophil counts was only present in studies where a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial was used to exclude other diagnoses (WMD −46.3, 95% CI −61.3 to −31.4, I²=0.0%). Subdivision of studies on the use of a PPI trial also accounted for the majority of heterogeneity among RCTs. No clear trends in symptom resolution were observed. Eleven out of 127 patients who received topical steroids developed asymptomatic esophageal candidiasis.

CONCLUSIONS:

These data provide updated high-quality evidence that support current guidelines for first-line EoE treatment with topical steroids after an initial PPI trial to exclude non-EoE pathologies (PROSPERO ID: CRD42014008828).

Translating new developments in eosinophilic esophagitis pathogenesis into clinical practice

OPINION STATEMENT

New developments in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) pathogenesis are shaping our current therapeutic and management strategies. EoE is a chronic allergic inflammatory disease with progression to fibrostenotic disease. The disease warrants early diagnosis and long-term maintenance therapy. The diagnosis of EoE should be based on the concept of an allergy-mediated disease with esophageal dysfunction and esophageal eosinophilia. Recent findings suggest that proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) is likely a continuum of EoE or a similar T-helper 2 (Th2)-mediated allergic process. PPIs have therapeutic properties that can benefit both gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and EoE. Therefore, PPIs should be considered not a diagnostic tool but, rather, a therapeutic option for EoE. If patients are PPI nonresponsive, then dietary therapy or steroid therapy should be considered. Dilation can be reserved as adjuvant therapy for severe fibrostenotic lesions.

Update on topical steroid therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis

This review aims to summarize evolving evidence on topical steroid (TS) therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Currently, we still use "off-label" TS, originally designed for bronchial or intranasal delivery. Direct oral administration (i.e., oral viscous budesonide) achieves better histological results than the aerosolized swallowed route, due to longer mucosal contact time. High-dose fluticasone (880 μg bid) has recently shown higher cure rates in children and adults. Steroid resistance is present in around 25-40% of patients. Nonetheless, novel steroid formulations specifically designed for EoE have exhibited outstanding preliminary results (cure rates around 100%). Narrow caliber esophagus (<13 mm) might explain persistent dysphagia despite histological remission on TS therapy and endoscopic dilation should be considered. TS are currently considered safe drugs, but we lack long-term safety data. Maintenance anti-inflammatory therapy is recommended in all patients to prevent disease recurrence and esophageal fibrotic remodeling, although this strategy is yet to be defined.

Markers of eosinophilic inflammation for diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis and proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia: a prospective study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Distinguishing between eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), gastroesophageal reflux disease, and proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) is challenging. We assessed whether immunohistochemical analysis of esophageal tissues for major basic protein (MBP), eotaxin-3, and tryptase can be used for diagnosis of EoE and to differentiate EoE from PPI-REE.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 196 consecutive adults who underwent outpatient endoscopy at the University of North Carolina from 2009 through 2012. Incident cases of EoE were diagnosed per consensus guidelines. Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease or dysphagia served as controls. PPI-REE was defined as a symptomatic and histologic response to a PPI. Immunohistochemistry was performed to quantify MBP, eotaxin-3, and tryptase. The maximum density of epithelial staining was determined for each assay; levels were compared between EoE and control groups and then EoE and PPI-REE groups, and receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed.

RESULTS

Esophageal tissues from patients with EoE (n = 50) had a median 951 MBP-positive cells/mm(2), whereas those from controls (n = 123) had a median 2 MBP-positive cells/mm(2) (P < .001). Samples from patients with EoE had a median 155 eotaxin-3-positive cells/mm(2), and those from controls (n = 123) had 18 eotaxin-3-positive cells/mm(2) (P < .001). Samples from patients with EoE had a median 249 tryptase-positive cells/mm(2), and those from controls (n = 123) had 11 tryptase-positive cells/mm(2) (P < .001). Levels of MBP, eotaxin-3, tryptase, and the combination of all 3 identified patients with EoE with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.99, 0.94, 0.99, and 1.00. Analyses of only samples with eosinophil counts of 10-100 eosinophils per high-power field produced similar results. No marker distinguished EoE from PPI-REE. Esophageal tissues from patients with PPI-REE (n = 23) had 987 MBP-positive cells/mm(2) (P = .18, compared with EoE), 160 eotaxin-3-positive cells/mm(2) (P = .33), and 243 tryptase-positive cells/mm(2) (P = .28).

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal tissues from patients with EoE have substantially higher levels of MBP, eotaxin-3, and tryptase than controls on the basis of immunohistochemical analysis. Assays for the 3 markers identify patients with EoE with 100% accuracy but cannot distinguish EoE from PPI-REE.

Advances in clinical management of eosinophilic esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune/antigen-mediated clinicopathologic condition that has become an increasingly important cause of upper gastrointestinal morbidity in adults and children over the past 2 decades. It is diagnosed based on symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, the presence of at least 15 eosinophils/high-power field in esophageal biopsy specimens, and exclusion of competing causes of esophageal eosinophilia, including proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia. We review what we have recently learned about the clinical aspects of EoE, discussing the clinical, endoscopic, and histological features of EoE in adults and children. We explain the current diagnostic criteria and challenges to diagnosis, including the role of gastroesophageal reflux disease and proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia. It is also important to consider the epidemiology of EoE (with a current incidence of 1 new case per 10,000 per year and prevalence of 0.5 to 1 case per 1000 per year) and disease progression. We review the main treatment approaches and new treatment options; EoE can be treated with topical corticosteroids, such as fluticasone and budesonide, or dietary strategies, such as amino acid-based formulas, allergy test-directed elimination diets, and nondirected empiric elimination diets. Endoscopic dilation has also become an important tool for treatment of fibrostenotic complications of EoE. There are a number of unresolved issues in EoE, including phenotypes, optimal treatment end points, the role of maintenance therapy, and treatment of refractory EoE. The care of patients with EoE and the study of the disease span many disciplines; EoE is ideally managed by a multidisciplinary team of gastroenterologists, allergists, pathologists, and dieticians.

Age-based differences in the diagnosis and management of esophageal eosinophilia

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is hallmarked by esophageal eosinophilia, >15 eosinophils(eos)/high-powered field (hpf), unresponsive to acid inhibition, and varied symptomatology. EoE consensus guidelines do not discriminate based on age for initiating treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if age-related differences exist in managing esophageal eosinophilia and EoE within a university population.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study from a referral center, the medical records of 426 pediatric and adult patients with at least 1 presenting symptom of esophagitis, reflux, or upper gastrointestinal dysfunction, who underwent esophageal biopsy between 2009 and 2011 were analyzed for age-based differences in care in diagnosing and managing esophageal eosinophilia.

RESULTS

For these patients, 79.6% (336/426) had ≥15 eos/hpf in biopsy specimens, which was not associated with age. Significantly fewer adults than children with ≥15 eos/hpf were diagnosed with EoE (P < .001), referred for allergy evaluation (P < .001), started on swallowed steroid therapy (P < .001), or underwent repeated biopsy (P < .001). Increasing age, atopy, and increasing biopsy peak eos count moderated these effects, but the adjusted predicted probabilities for these outcomes were significantly lower among adults. Restriction for an 8-week prebiopsy proton-pump inhibitor trial did not alter the age-based relationships for an allergy referral or repeated biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous age-based differences in the management of symptomatic patients with esophageal eosinophilia existed in this cohort. Adults were significantly less likely than children to receive a clinical diagnosis of EoE, allergy referral, or steroid treatment, or to have a repeated biopsy. Even when stratified for an 8-week prebiopsy proton-pump inhibitor trial, advancing age was associated with lower odds of referral or repeated biopsy. Further study is necessary to better understand why discrepancies exist and their potential ramifications.

Proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia correlates with downregulation of eotaxin-3 and Th2 cytokines overexpression

BACKGROUND

The molecular basis and effects of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy on PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) and eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) remain unknown.

AIM

To compare symptom-histological and cytokine gene expression in PPI-REE and EoE patients, at baseline and after specific treatment.

METHODS

In consecutive adult patients with an EoE phenotype (dysphagia/food impaction, typical endoscopic findings and > 15 eos/HPF), gene expression of eotaxin-3, IL-13, and IL-5 were determined in distal and proximal oesophagus, at baseline and after omeprazole 40 mg b.d. for 8 weeks. PPI-REE was defined by clinicohistological response. PPI nonresponders (EoE) were offered treatment with topical steroids.

RESULTS

Fifty three patients were re-evaluated on PPI therapy. 23 patients (43%) had PPI-REE and 30 patients (57%) had EoE. At baseline, eotaxin-3/IL-13/IL-5 gene expression was indistinguishable between EoE and PPI-REE, excepting increased IL-5 expression in proximal oesophagus (12.54 vs. 57, P = 0.029). PPI therapy significantly decreased eotaxin-3/IL-13 in PPI-REE, at both oesophageal sites (P ≤ 0.008), and IL-5 in distal (P = 0.016), but not in proximal oesophagus. Patients with steroid-responsive EoE also showed a significant decrease in eotaxin-3/IL-5 expression at both oesophageal sites. In EoE patients, initial PPI trial significantly decreased distal oesophageal eosinophilia (63.78 to 41.79 eos/HPF, P = 0.025) and led to symptom remission in 16%, but did not influence Th2 markers.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline cytokine gene expression in PPI-REE was nearly indistinguishable from EoE. PPI therapy significantly downregulated oesophageal eotaxin-3/Th2-cytokine gene expression in PPI-REE, similarly to that seen in steroid-responsive EoE. A subset of EoE patients showed clinicohistological improvement on PPI therapy.

Pharmacologic treatments for esophageal disorders

The following, from the 12th OESO World Conference: Cancers of the Esophagus, includes commentaries on the role for ketamine and other alternative treatments in esophageal disorders; the use of linaclotide in the treatment of esophageal pain; the alginate test as a diagnostic criterion in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD); the use of baclofen in treatment of GERD; the effects of opioids on the esophagus; the use of antagonists on the receptor level in GERD; the effect of local formulation of drugs on the esophageal mucosa; and the use of electroencephalographic fingerprints to predict the effect of pharmacological treatment.

Which patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) should receive elemental diets versus other therapies?

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has increasingly been identified in both children and adults. The aim of therapies is to alleviate symptoms while reducing the esophageal inflammation. Mechanical dilation is effective at relieving symptoms, but without the benefit of controlling disease inflammation. Topical steroids appear to be effective at controlling both symptoms and esophageal eosinophilia. Recurrence rates are high once steroids are discontinued. For dietary modification, both the elimination of select, specific foods and the complete elimination of food proteins via amino acid formulas have been looked at. Both forms of dietary modification are effective. Elemental diet, although not an ideal first-line therapy for EoE, provides insight into the etiology of unusual or refractory EoE. The contribution of unusual food antigens to EoE may be determined via the use of amino-acid-based formulas in patients with EoE.

Cellular and molecular immunological mechanisms in eosinophilic esophagitis: an updated overview of their clinical implications

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a pathophysiologically complex disorder driven by distinct, multiple mechanisms involving a large number of cells, molecules, and genes. Associated with food allergy from its initial descriptions, a key role for the Th2-type cytokines IL-5 and IL-13 in recruiting and activating eosinophils has been described. Epithelial cells have been recognized as major effectors in initiating EoE, both through their recruitment of iNKT cells towards the esophageal epithelium, which constitutes a major cytokine source, and through the release of eotaxin-3 and other chemoattractants. Epithelial and mesenchymal-released TSLP is a key regulator for which a connecting role between the adaptive and innate mucosal-associated immune response has been suggested. Finally, activated eosinophil- and mast cell-derived TGF β1 secretion is crucial in EoE-associated tissue remodeling.

Update on basic and clinical aspects of eosinophilic oesophagitis

The identification of a distinct syndrome, designated eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), with its own clinical and histopathological characteristics, was first described in the early 1990s. Meanwhile intense research has uncovered many molecular, immunological and clinical aspects of this chronic-inflammatory disorder. This article focuses exclusively on basic and clinical insights of EoE gathered during the last few years. Regarding aetiopathogenesis it has become clear that EoE is a food-triggered disease with milk and wheat as the dominant culprit food categories. However, it is still debated whether a disturbed mucosal integrity allowing allergens to cross the mucosal barrier, or changes in wheat and milk manufacturing might induce these inflammatory responses. Furthermore, basic science and clinical studies have accordingly confirmed that a chronic eosinophilic inflammation leads to a remodelling of the oesophagus with micro- and macro-morphological alterations, ending in a strictured oesophagus with impaired function. Fortunately, long-term therapeutic trials, using either topical corticosteroids or dietary allergen avoidance, have demonstrated that this sequela can be prevented or even reversed. This finding is of clinical relevance as it supports the initiation of a consistent anti-inflammatory therapy. Nevertheless, EoE is still an enigmatic disease and the long list of unanswered questions will certainly stimulate further research.

Proton pump inhibitors decrease eotaxin-3 expression in the proximal esophagus of children with esophageal eosinophilia

Objective

Besides reducing gastric acid secretion, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) suppress Th2-cytokine-stimulated expression of an eosinophil chemoattractant (eotaxin-3) by esophageal epithelial cells through acid-independent, anti-inflammatory mechanisms. To explore acid-inhibitory and acid-independent, anti-inflammatory PPI effects in reducing esophageal eosinophilia, we studied eotaxin-3 expression by the proximal and distal esophagus of children with esophageal eosinophilia before and after PPI therapy. In vitro, we studied acid and bile salt effects on IL-13-stimulated eotaxin-3 expression by esophageal epithelial cells.

Design

Among 264 children with esophageal eosinophilia seen at a tertiary pediatric hospital from 2008 through 2012, we identified 10 with esophageal biopsies before and after PPI treatment alone. We correlated epithelial cell eotaxin-3 immunostaining with eosinophil numbers in those biopsies. In vitro, we measured eotaxin-3 protein secretion by esophageal squamous cells stimulated with IL-13 and exposed to acid and/or bile salt media, with or without omeprazole.

Results

There was strong correlation between peak eosinophil numbers and peak eotaxin-3-positive epithelial cell numbers in esophageal biopsies. Eotaxin-3 expression decreased significantly with PPIs only in the proximal esophagus. In esophageal cells, exposure to acid-bile salt medium significantly suppressed IL-13-induced eotaxin-3 secretion; omeprazole added to the acid-bile salt medium further suppressed that eotaxin-3 secretion, but not as profoundly as at pH-neutral conditions.

Conclusion

In children with esophageal eosinophilia, PPIs significantly decrease eotaxin-3 expression in the proximal but not the distal esophagus. In esophageal squamous cells, acid and bile salts decrease Th2 cytokine-stimulated eotaxin-3 secretion profoundly, possibly explaining the disparate PPI effects on the proximal and distal esophagus. In the distal esophagus, where acid reflux is greatest, a PPI-induced reduction in acid reflux (an effect that could increase eotaxin-3 secretion induced by Th2 cytokines) might mask the acid-independent, anti-inflammatory PPI effect of decreasing cytokine-stimulated eotaxin-3 secretion.

Steroids versus dietary therapy for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a condition characterized by dense mucosal eosinophilia in conjunction with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. Since both the incidence and prevalence of EoE are on the rise in both children and adults, understanding the various treatment options available is imperative in choosing the proper treatment for each patient. This article will highlight the major strides in both medical and dietary treatment of EoE in the past year.

RECENT FINDINGS

Whereas prior studies have shown that medical therapy with topical corticosteroids is effective in treating EoE, this more recent literature highlights some of the limitations of this approach, raising awareness that development of better drug delivery models is greatly needed. The review also describes the recent advances in the field of dietary therapy for this disease, particularly in adults, and further supports the notion that the pathophysiology of this disease in children and adults is similar, with food antigens driving this disease.

SUMMARY

Both medical and dietary therapy are effective for treating adults and children with EoE. Choosing the optimal treatment approach should be individualized based both on patient goals and on available local resources. Future prospective clinical trials comparing these two treatment modalities are needed to help understand comparable effectiveness as well as to help understand potential predictors of response to treatment and identify optimal therapeutic endpoints.

Steroid treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults

Topical steroid therapy has been used to treat eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) for more than 15 years. We review the treatment trials of topical steroid therapy in adult patients with EoE. Currently, there is no commercially available preparation designed to deliver the steroid to the esophagus. Current regimens consist of swallowing steroid preparations designed for inhalation treatment for asthma. In the short term, steroids are associated with an approximately 15% to 25% incidence of asymptomatic esophageal candidiasis, but otherwise appear to be well tolerated.

Eosinophilic esophagitis: interactions with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are not mutually exclusive. The notion that GERD and EoE can be distinguished by the response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment is based on the mistaken assumption that gastric acid suppression is the only important therapeutic effect of PPIs, and therefore only GERD can respond to PPIs. We believe that a clinical or histologic response to PPIs does not rule in GERD or rule out EoE. We recommend a trial of PPI therapy for patients with symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia, even if the diagnosis of EoE seems clear-cut.

Prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis in a United States military health-care population

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a rapidly emerging chronic immune-mediated condition affecting children and adults, both genders, and all races. A large variation in the prevalence of EoE exists in the literature. The aim of this study is to establish the prevalence of EoE in a military health-care population in the United States using a comprehensive electronic medical record search. Using the International Classification for Diseases-9 code for EoE (530.13), the total number of EoE patients enrolled in the military health-care system from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009 including active-duty military, dependents of military personnel, and retirees were identified. For each case of EoE identified, demographic data (age, gender, and race) and geographic location was obtained. The overall prevalence of EoE was calculated as well as the prevalence within subgroups. The geographic regional locations were reported per the U.S. Census Bureau regions (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West). A total of 987 EoE patients were identified from 10,180,515 military health-care beneficiaries, establishing an overall prevalence of 9.7 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-10.3). Seven hundred twenty-eight out of 7,707,372 adult patients were identified, establishing a prevalence of 9.5 per 100,000 (95% CI 8.8-10.1). Two hundred fifty-nine out of 2,473,143 pediatric patients were identified, establishing a prevalence of 10.5/100,000 (95% CI 9.2-11.8). EoE was more prevalent in males (odds ratio [OR] 2.03 [95% CI 1.78-2.32]) and higher in Caucasian versus African Americans (18.1 vs. 5.2/100,000, OR 3.47 [95% CI 2.40-5.03]). EoE was more prevalent in the Western region of the United States compared with the Northeast, South, and Midwest regions, with a prevalence of 11.9 versuss 5.2, 9.6, and 9.2 per 100,000, respectively. When comparing Northern with Southern states, there was an increased prevalence in the North (10.9 vs. 7.2/100,000, P < 0.05). In this large nationwide study, increase in prevalence of EoE was seen in younger adults, with a higher prevalence in Caucasians. Geographically, the western United States had a significantly higher prevalence with a slightly higher prevalence in the Northern latitude.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis and proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia have similar clinical, endoscopic and histological findings

BACKGROUND

Some patients with a phenotypic appearance of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) respond histologically to PPI, and are described as having PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE). It is unclear if PPI-REE is a GERD-related phenomenon, a subtype of EoE, or a completely unique entity.

AIM

To compare demographic, clinical and histological features of EoE and PPI-REE.

METHODS

Two databases were reviewed from the Walter Reed and Swiss EoE databases. Patients were stratified into two groups, EoE and PPI-REE, based on recent EoE consensus guidelines. Response to PPI was defined as achieving less than 15 eos/hpf and a 50% decrease from baseline following at least a 6-week course of treatment.

RESULTS

One hundred and three patients were identified (63 EoE and 40 PPI-REE; mean age 40.2 years, 75% male and 89% Caucasian). The two cohorts had similar dysphagia (97% vs. 100%, P = 0.520), food impaction (43% vs. 35%, P = 0.536), and heartburn (33% vs. 32%, P = 1.000) and a similar duration of symptoms (6.0 years vs. 5.8 years, P = 0.850). Endoscopic features were also similar between EoE and PPI-REE; rings (68% vs. 68%, P = 1.000), furrows (70% vs. 70%, P = 1.000), plaques (19% vs. 10%, P = 0.272), strictures (49% vs. 30%, P = 0.066). EoE and PPI-REE were similar in the number of proximal (39 eos/hpf vs. 38 eos/hpf, P = 0.919) and distal eosinophils (50 vs. 43 eos/hpf, P = 0.285).

CONCLUSIONS

EoE and PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia are similar in clinical, histological and endoscopic features and therefore are indistinguishable without a PPI trial. Further studies are needed to determine why a subset of patients with oesophageal eosinophilia respond to PPI.

Diagnostics of eosinophilic esophagitis: clinical, endoscopic, and histologic pitfalls

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is currently defined as an immune-mediated chronic esophageal disorder that is diagnosed using both clinical and pathologic information. A series of consensus diagnostic guidelines for EoE have brought a measure of consistency to the field, but in practice the diagnosis of EoE can be challenging. Typical clinical symptoms of EoE, including dysphagia, heartburn, and chest pain, can overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease, which itself is a common indication for performing endoscopic evaluation. The endoscopic findings of EoE, such as esophageal rings, strictures, linear furrows, and white exudates, are not specific. Esophageal eosinophilia, the histologic hallmark of EoE, is also not pathognomonic and can be seen in a range of conditions. Further complicating the diagnosis of EoE is the newly recognized entity of proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia, a condition that must be excluded prior to confirming a diagnosis of EoE. This paper will review the current diagnostic criteria for EoE and discuss multiple clinical, endoscopic, and histologic pitfalls in making the diagnosis of EoE.

Histopathology of eosinophilic esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a chronic relapsing antigen-driven disease, is associated with characteristic esophageal histopathology, including ≥15 intraepithelial eosinophils in at least one high-power field (HPF), and alterations in the epithelium and subepithelial connective tissue. Currently, the pathologic changes in EoE are characteristic but not pathognomonic: the differential diagnosis includes gastroesophageal reflux disease, proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia, EoE with significant eosinophilic inflammation in other parts of the gastrointestinal tract (eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder), etc. EoE biopsy pathology does not vary according to age, sex, or familial predisposition. Genetic analyses of EoE esophageal biopsies have identified a characteristic transcriptome that includes upregulation of several genes that relate to histopathology, such as periostin, thymic stromal lymphopoietin, and desmoglein. Diagnostic pitfalls include the patchy distribution of the characteristic EoE pathology; examining multiple biopsies increases the disease detection rate. The method used to quantitate eosinophils, including the size of the HPF, influences the diagnostic yield, but excellent interobserver variability is achieved among pathologists who agree to a uniform methodology. Therapy for EoE includes diet-based approaches to eliminate offending antigens, topical steroid therapy, and novel biologic agents including monoclonal antibodies. Following appropriate therapy, biopsies may revert to normal histology, but signs and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction may persist. A potential explanation is that endoscopic biopsies obtain very small superficial fragments of tissue from an organ that has complex underlying neuromuscular components; unseen pathology in those loci may influence the clinical state of patients with normal epithelial biopsies.

Emerging therapeutic strategies for eosinophilic esophagitis

OPINION STATEMENT

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is recognized as an increasingly common cause of chronic and recurrent esophageal symptoms that significantly impact quality of life and may occasionally result in severe complications in both pediatric and adult patients. The disease is triggered and maintained by exposure to food antigens in most patients, with an additional role proposed for airborne allergens. Different diet-based approaches focused on restricting potentially offending foods have proven to be effective long-term therapies for EoE. Dietary therapy is thus an attractive, yet challenging treatment option that should be considered for all pediatric and adult EoE patients. However, limitations related to food restriction, patient willingness to undergo repeated endoscopies and biopsies, and the variable results of allergy testing imply that dietary management is for the most part currently restricted to highly motivated healthcare providers treating highly motivated patients reluctant to utilize drug-based therapy on a chronic basis. Pharmacological therapies for EoE mainly comprise swallowed topical steroids, especially fluticasone propionate and budesonide, which were originally developed to treat bronchial asthma and are now extensively used "off label" in EoE patients. In fact, topical steroids currently constitute the prevailing therapeutic option and will probably continue to do so in the near future; indeed, several randomized clinical trials are currently underway to test these drugs for approval as the first pharmacological agents for EoE patients. Immunomodulators and several anti-allergic agents must be further assessed as therapeutic alternatives for refractory cases or patients with complications. Endoscopic dilation represents the third pillar in the therapeutic management of EoE patients, since they frequently present reductions in the esophageal caliber as a result of collagen deposition and a progressive fibrous remodeling process promoted by chronic eosinophilic infiltration. Dilation provides at least temporary symptom relief with similar complication rates to esophageal strictures from a different origin. However, although repeated endoscopic dilation has sometimes been used as the sole therapy for EoE, it best constitutes an adjuvant therapy along with dietary or pharmacological-based interventions, especially since dilation has no effect on the underlying esophageal inflammation. Current therapeutic management of EoE varies widely, with physician experience being a major explanatory factor. New evidence from ongoing research on EoE should thus seek to define a common treatment algorithm to optimize EoE patient management.

Clinical and endoscopic characteristics do not reliably differentiate PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia and eosinophilic esophagitis in patients undergoing upper endoscopy: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Proton-pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) is a newly recognized entity that must be differentiated from eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Little is known about this condition. We aimed to determine the prevalence of PPI-REE and EoE in patients undergoing upper endoscopy and determine features that distinguish the two groups.

METHODS

This prospective study conducted at the University of North Carolina from 2009 to 2011 enrolled consecutive adult patients undergoing outpatient upper endoscopy. Subjects had esophageal biopsies to quantify the maximum eosinophil count per high-power field (eos/hpf; hpf=0.24 mm(2)). If biopsies revealed ≥15 eos/hpf, subjects were treated with twice daily PPI for 8 weeks and endoscopy was repeated. If ≥15 eos/hpf persisted despite PPI therapy, EoE was diagnosed. If there were <15 eos/hpf, PPI-REE was diagnosed. The proportion of patients in each group was calculated, and patients with EoE and PPI-REE were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 223 subjects enrolled, 173 had dysphagia and 50 did not. Of those with dysphagia, 66 (38%) had ≥15 eos/hpf. After the PPI trial, 40 (23%) were confirmed to have EoE, and 24 (14%) had PPI-REE. Of those without dysphagia, 2 (4%) had ≥15 eos/hpf, and after the PPI trial, 1 (2%) had EoE. Compared with EoE, PPI-REE patients were more likely to be older and male and less likely to have typical endoscopic findings of EoE. However, none of the individual factors was independently predictive of PPI-REE status on multivariable analysis. Similarly, although some endoscopic findings were differentially distributed between PPI-REE and EoE, none were significantly associated with disease status on multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal eosinophilia is common among patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy for dysphagia. Although EoE was seen in nearly a quarter of patients with dysphagia, PPI-REE was almost as common, and accounted for over one-third of those with ≥15 eos/hpf. No clinical or endoscopic features independently distinguished PPI-REE from EoE before the PPI trial.

The outcome of patients with oesophageal eosinophilic infiltration after an eight-week trial of a proton pump inhibitor

BACKGROUND

Current diagnostic guidelines recommend that eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) should be diagnosed only after GERD is excluded by a lack of response to a trial of acid suppression. There is limited information available providing outcome data about the effectiveness of this approach.

AIM

To examine the impact of double-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy on symptoms, endoscopic and histological features in patients with documented oesophageal eosinophilia consistent with EoE (≥15 eosinophils/high-power field).

METHODS

Sixty consecutive symptomatic patients with documented oesophageal eosinophilia received open-label omeprazole 20 mg orally twice daily before meals for 8 weeks. Clinical, endoscopic and histological (resolution: 0-5 eosinophils/HPF, partial improvement: 5-14 eosinophils/HPF), or no improvement: (≥15 eosinophils/HPF) evaluation was repeated at the end of this period. An expert GI pathologist, unaware of the study aims, reviewed all slides.

RESULTS

Clinical improvement occurred in 43 (71.6%), endoscopic signs were reduced in 34 (61.8%) and normalised in 12 (21.8%), and histologically, 34 (56.6%) improved, while 15 (25%) obtained complete resolution. Overall, 22 patients (36.7%) obtained both complete clinical and histological remission.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 50% of patients with documented oesophageal eosinophilic infiltration in the EoE range improved when treated with a double-dose PPI trial for 8 weeks. These findings support the published guidelines recommending a PPI trial prior to diagnosing EoE, and confirm the existence of an eosinophilic oesophageal infiltrationPPI-responsive population.

Research advances in esophageal diseases: bench to bedside

Over the last year, significant steps have been made toward understanding the pathogenesis of esophageal diseases and translating this knowledge to clinical practice. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the most common outpatient diagnosis in gastroenterology and has a high prevalence in the general population. As many as 40% of patients with GERD have incomplete response to medical therapy, and the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying lack of response are now better understood. Novel medical and minimally invasive interventions are available to optimize management of GERD. Esophageal cancer, regardless of the histological subtype, has among the worst survival statistics among all malignancies. Taking advantage of technological advances in genome sequencing, the mutational spectra in esophageal cancer are now emerging, offering novel avenues for targeted therapies. Early diagnosis is another strand for improving survival. While genome-wide association studies are providing insights into genetic susceptibility, novel approaches to early detection of cancer are being devised through the use of biomarkers applied to esophageal samples and as part of imaging technologies. Dysmotility and eosinophilic esophagitis are the differential diagnoses in patients with dysphagia. New pathophysiological classifications have improved the management of motility disorders. Meanwhile, exciting progress has been made in the endoscopic management of these conditions. Eosinophilic esophagitis is still a relatively new entity, and the pathogenesis remains poorly understood. However, it is now clear that an allergic reaction to food plays an important role, and dietary interventions as well as biologic agents to block the inflammatory cascade are novel, promising fields of clinical research.

Meta-analysis: the safety and efficacy of dilation in eosinophilic oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal dilation is one of the most effective options in the management of symptoms of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). However, earlier reports described an increased rate of complications.

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis of population-based studies of the risks associated with dilation and the clinical efficacy and duration of response to dilation in EoE.

METHODS

Using MEDLINE and EMBASE, a systematic search was performed for published articles since 1977 describing cohort or randomised controlled trials of dilation in EoE. Summary estimates, including 95% confidence interval (CI), were calculated for the occurrence of complications associated with dilations (perforations, haemorrhage, chest pain, lacerations) and percentage of patients with symptom improvement following dilation. Heterogeneity was calculated using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 232 references, of which 9 studies were included in the final analysis. The studies described 860 EoE patients, of whom 525 patients underwent at least one oesophageal dilation and a total of 992 dilations. There were three cases of perforation (95% CI 0-0.9%, I² 0%) and one haemorrhage (95% CI 0-0.8%, I² 0%). Six studies reported postprocedural chest pain in 2% of cases (95% CI 1-3, I² 53%). Clinical improvement from dilation occurred in 75% of patients (95% CI 58-93%, I² 86%).

CONCLUSIONS

Dilation in patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis is a safe procedure with a low rate of serious complications (<1%), and seems to result in at least a short-term improvement of symptoms in the majority of patients.

Review article: proton pump inhibitor therapy for suspected eosinophilic oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) have confirmed the existence of a new disease phenotype, proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE).

AIM

To summarise evidence supporting the use of PPI therapy in patients with suspected EoE (oesophageal dysfunction plus >15 eos/HPF in oesophageal biopsies).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through MEDLINE, using the MeSH search terms 'eosinophilic oesophagitis', 'proton pump inhibitors' and 'oesophageal eosinophilia'. Relevant articles and their reference lists were identified through manual review.

RESULTS

Ten articles, including 258 patients with suspected EoE (152 children, 106 adults) undergoing clinico-histological re-evaluation after PPI therapy, were identified. In children, clinical response ranged from 78% to 86% and histological remission from 23% to 40%. In adults, symptom response ranged from 25% to 80% and histological remission from 33% to 61%. Among PPI-REE patients with oesophageal pH-monitoring, 35 showed pathological and 10 normal studies. PPI-REE was significantly commoner with documented gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) when compared to patients with negative pH monitoring (70% vs. 29%, P < 0.001). Symptom improvement/resolution occurred in 50-85% of patients without histological remission on PPI therapy. Six PPI-REE patients demonstrated clinico-histological relapse on PPI therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

At least one third of patients with suspected EoE achieve clinico-histological remission on PPI therapy. Response is more limited in children compared with that in adults. pH monitoring does not accurately predict response to PPI therapy, albeit histological remission is significantly higher, up to 70%, upon documented GERD. Symptom improvement is common with PPI therapy despite persistent eosinophilic infiltration.