Diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis: current approach and future directions

The utility of bronchoalveolar lavage findings in the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis in children

INTRODUCTION

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)-nucleated cell counts and the lipid-laden alveolar macrophage index (LLMI) have been investigated in predicting chronic aspiration as well as reflux esophagitis with variable results. To date, BAL neutrophil percentages and the LLMI have not been described in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate BAL neutrophil percentages and LLMI levels in patients with EoE and compare these levels in patients with aerodigestive concerns without biopsy-proven EoE.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients referred to an aerodigestive evaluation team for overlapping aerodigestive complaints (dysphagia, stridor, subglottic stenosis, feeding intolerance, and chronic aspiration). Patients underwent microlaryngoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy, and bronchoscopy and BAL were indicated by symptoms. BAL neutrophil percentages, LLMI levels, esophageal biopsy results, and esophageal dual-probe pH/impedance were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were included in the study that underwent comprehensive workup for aerodigestive complaints. Patients were subdivided into two groups: (1) negative esophageal biopsy (for EoE) and (2) positive esophageal biopsy. There were no significant differences between the groups in percentage neutrophils (p=0.55, unpaired t-test) or LLMI levels (p=0.14, unpaired t-test).

DISCUSSION

BAL neutrophil percentages and the LLMI are unreliable in identifying patients with silent aspiration and gastroesophageal reflux. To date, there is no report of the utility of BAL neutrophil percentages and the LLMI in diagnosing patients with EoE. Our series indicates no correlation in neutrophil percentages or LLMI in patients with EoE versus patients without EoE that are referred to tertiary centers with aerodigestive concerns.

CONCLUSION

BAL neutrophil percentages and LLMI levels are not a reliable predictor of eosinophilic esophagitis in children with complex aerodigestive concerns. Esophageal biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosis of EoE and the challenge remains to find other markers that raise suspicion for EoE for the non-gastroenterologist or that stage the extent of disease beyond the esophagus.

Eosinophilic Laryngitis in Children with Aerodigestive Dysfunction

Objective

To describe the presence of laryngeal eosinophils and associated symptomatology in patients with aerodigestive dysfunction.

Study Design

Case series with chart review.

Setting

Single tertiary pediatric referral center.

Subjects

Eighty-one consecutive pediatric patients referred to a multidisciplinary aerodigestive clinic with upper airway concerns.

Methods

Microlaryngoscopy and posterior arytenoid biopsy, flexible bronchoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and esophageal biopsy, and impedance probe testing were performed as indicated by clinical symptoms. Positive versus negative posterior arytenoid biopsy for eosinophils and the presence or absence of concomitant histopathological laryngitis and/or esophagitis were measured.

Results

Nine of 81 (11%) patients had positive laryngeal biopsy for eosinophils (range, 1-29 eosinophils/high-powered field [HPF]). Three of these 9 patients also had concurrent biopsy-proven eosinophilic esophagitis, while 8 of 81 total patients had biopsy-proven eosinophilic esophagitis. The frequency of biopsy-proven eosinophilic esophagitis was higher in patients with posterior arytenoid eosinophils versus patients without laryngeal eosinophils (33% versus 6.9%, P = .0408).

Conclusions

Eosinophilic inflammation in the larynx has not been described in children with complex aerodigestive complaints. Posterior arytenoid eosinophils may serve as a marker of chronic laryngeal inflammation in children with aerodigestive dysfunction, although their exact role in this inflammation remains unclear. In our population, >15 eosinophils/HPF within posterior arytenoid biopsies was associated with concomitant eosinophilic esophagitis.

Administrative coding is specific, but not sensitive, for identifying eosinophilic esophagitis

The use of administrative databases to conduct population-based studies of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in the United States is limited because it is unknown whether the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code for EoE, 530.13, accurately identifies those who truly have the disease. The aim of this retrospective study was to validate the ICD-9 code for identifying cases of EoE in administrative data. Confirmed cases of EoE as per consensus guidelines (symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field on biopsy after 8 weeks of twice daily proton pump inhibitor therapy) were identified in the University of North Carolina (UNC) EoE Clinicopathologic Database from 2008 to 2010; 2008 was the first year in which the 530.13 code was approved. Using the Carolina Data Warehouse, the administrative database for patients seen in the UNC system, all diagnostic and procedure codes were obtained for these cases. Then, with the EoE cases as the reference standard, we re-queried the Carolina Data Warehouse over the same time frame for all patients seen in the system (n=308,372) and calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the ICD-9 code 530.13 as a case definition of EoE. To attempt to refine the case definition, we added procedural codes in an iterative fashion to optimize sensitivity and specificity, and restricted our analysis to privately insured patients. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis with 2011 data to identify trends in the operating parameters of the code. We identified 226 cases of EoE at UNC to serve as the reference standard. The ICD-9 code 530.13 yielded a sensitivity of 37% (83/226; 95% confidence interval: 31-43%) and specificity of 99% (308,111/308,146; 95% confidence interval: 98-100%). These operating parameters were not substantially altered if the case definition required a procedure code for endoscopy or if cases were limited to those with commercial insurance. However, in 2011, the sensitivity of the code had increased to 61%, while the specificity remained at 99%. The ICD-9 code for EoE, 530.13, had excellent specificity for identifying cases of EoE in administrative data, although this high specificity was achieved at an academic center. Additionally, the sensitivity of the code appears to be increasing over time, and the threshold at which it will stabilize is not known. While use of this administrative code will still miss a number of cases, those identified in this manner are highly likely to have the disease.

The rising incidence of eosinophilic oesophagitis is associated with increasing biopsy rates: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) has evolved from a supposedly rare entity to one whose incidence rates are approaching that of inflammatory bowel disease. The factors responsible for this apparent increase in the incidence remain obscure.

AIM

To assess various endoscopist and pathologist factors that might affect the frequency of EoE being detected in a well-defined North American population.

HYPOTHESIS

Increased endoscopist and pathologist awareness has contributed to the increased clinical recognition of EoE.

METHODS

Cases of EoE were identified systematically using population-based pathology and endoscopy databases from January 2004 to December 2008 in Calgary, Canada (population 1.25 million). EoE frequency was estimated with time trend analysis. Characteristics of individual endoscopists (n = 45) were compared with diagnostic rates.

RESULTS

Crude population incidence of EoE increased from 2.1 per 10(5) in 2004 to 11.0 per 10(5) in 2008: an annual increase of 39% (P < 0.0001). The frequency in men was 4.5 times higher than in women (95% CI: 3.51-5.76). In patients presenting with dysphagia oesophageal biopsy rates increased from 17.0% in 2004 to 41.3% of EGDs in 2008: an annual rise of 26% (P < 0.0001). On multivariate regression analysis, those endoscopists with higher biopsy rates were more likely to make the diagnosis of EoE (P = 0.008). To include or exclude the diagnosis, typical histological features of EoE were reported more often by pathologists in 2008 as compared to 2004 (P = 0.01 & P < 0.0001 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of eosinophilic oesophagitis continues to rise in the general population, in part due to increasing oesophageal biopsy rates and a more detailed histological evaluation of specimens. The biopsy rate of an endoscopist is an indicator for a higher diagnostic yield.

Diagnostic utility of major basic protein, eotaxin-3, and leukotriene enzyme staining in eosinophilic esophagitis

OBJECTIVES

Features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) overlap. We aimed to determine whether staining for tissue biomarkers would differentiate EoE from GERD, suggesting utility for diagnosis of EoE.

METHODS

In this case-control study, EoE patients defined by consensus guidelines were compared to GERD patients with eosinophils on esophageal biopsy. Immunohistochemistry was performed for major basic protein (MBP), eotaxin-3, leukotriene A4 hydrolase (LTA4H), and leukotriene C4 synthase (LTC4S). After masking, the maximum staining density (cells per mm(2)) was quantified for each marker and compared between groups. Receiver operator characteristic curves were constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) calculated to assess the diagnostic utility of each of the biomarkers alone and in combination with eosinophil counts.

RESULTS

There were 51 EoE cases (mean age 24; mean 143 eosinophils per high-power field (eos per h.p.f.)) and 54 GERD controls (mean age 34; mean 20 eos per h.p.f.). The MBP density was higher in EoE than in GERD (1479 vs. 59 cells per mm(2); P<0.001), as was the eotaxin-3 density (2219 vs. 479; P<0.001). There were no differences for LTA4H and LTC4S. MBP density and eosinophil count correlated (R=0.81; P<0.001); correlation with eotaxin-3 was weaker (R=0.25; P=0.01). The AUC for diagnosis of EoE was 0.96 for MBP, 0.87 for eotaxin-3, 0.58 for LTA4H, 0.66 for LTC4S, and 0.99 for the combination of MBP, eotaxin-3, and eosinophil count.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with EoE had substantially higher levels of MBP and eotaxin-3 staining than GERD patients. These markers may have utility as a diagnostic assay for EoE.

Eosinophilic esophagitis-endoscopic distinguishing findings

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) is the most frequent condition found in a group of gastrointestinal disorders called eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases. The hypothetical pathophysiological mechanism is related to a hypersensitivity reaction. Gastroesophageal reflux disease-like complaints not ameliorated by acid blockade or occasional symptoms of dysphagia or food impaction are likely presentations of EE. Due to its unclear pathogenesis and unspecific symptoms, it is difficult to diagnose EE without a strong suspicion. Although histological criteria are necessary to diagnosis EE, there are some characteristic endoscopic features. We present the case of a healthy 55-year-old woman with dysphagia and several episodes of esophageal food impaction over the last six months. This case report stresses the most distinguishing endoscopic findings-mucosa rings, white exudative plaques and linear furrows-that can help in the prompt recognition of this condition.

Eosinophilic colitis: an update on pathophysiology and treatment

BACKGROUND

Primary eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders, a spectrum of inflammatory conditions, occurs when eosinophils selectively infiltrate the gut in the absence of known causes for such tissue eosinophilia. These may be classified into eosinophilic esophagitis, eosinophilic gastroenteritis and eosinophilic colitis (EC). This review focuses on EC: its pathogenesis, epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis and current approach to treatment.

SOURCES OF DATA

A literature review published in English was performed using Pubmed, Ovid, Google scholar search engines with the following keywords: eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder, EC, eosinophils, colitis and gastrointestinal.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

The basis for primary EC appears related to increased sensitivity to allergens, principally as a food allergy in infants and a T lymphocyte-mediated event in adults. Endoscopic changes are generally modest, featuring edema and patchy granularity.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Clear clinical and pathological diagnostic criteria of EC and its management strategy.

GROWING POINTS

Intestinal involvement of EC is primarily mucosal, presenting as a mild self-limited proctitis in infants and self-limited colitis in young adults. Therapeutic approaches based on case reports tend to use either elimination diets to avoid a presumed allergen; agents traditionally used in inflammatory disease or targeted drugs like anti-histamines or leukotriene receptor antagonists.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Prospective randomized controlled trials addressing the disease natural history, possible preventive methods and effective medical approach and long-term prognosis are required.