Randomized controlled trial comparing esophageal dilation to no dilation among adults with esophageal eosinophilia and dysphagia

Empiric Esophageal Dilatation for Solid-Food Dysphagia: Presence of Mucosal Tear on Relook Endoscopy Predicts Symptomatic Response

We hypothesized that a mucosal tear on relook endoscopy after empiric dilatation predicts symptomatic response. We evaluated symptomatic response (modified Ogilvie dysphagia score) after 161 consecutive esophageal dilatations. Comparing visible strictures, empiric dilatations with mucosal tear, and empiric dilatations without tear, baseline dysphagia scores were similar ( P = 0.34). Successful symptomatic response to dilatation occurred in 82% of visible strictures, 80% of those with tear, compared to only 37% of those with no tear ( P < 0.001). Patients with a mucosal tear after empiric dilatation have a superior symptomatic response to those without, and comparable to patients with visible strictures. We infer the tear represents disruption of an endoscopically inapparent stricture.

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia. The treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications. Currently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies. Fourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low. Corticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty). Nine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission. Biologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty). Biologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty). Biologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo. Biologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.

Mechanisms and clinical management of eosinophilic oesophagitis: an overview

Since the first description of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) less than three decades ago, we have observed a striking increase in the number of patients diagnosed with EoE and the understanding of its clinical and immunopathogenic background. Nonetheless, a plethora of open questions await elucidation. In this Review, we discuss the current state of knowledge regarding the underlying mechanisms, particularly environmental factors and their interaction with genetic susceptibility. Subsequently, we discuss how to translate these factors into the diagnostic and therapeutic management of this chronic, immune-mediated disorder. Finally, we dissect the still long list of unmet needs, such as reasons for and handling refractory EoE and atypical clinical presentations. These open questions can guide us through future research steps and potentially foster reconsideration of the diagnostic guidelines of EoE.

British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) joint consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic oesophagitis in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly common cause of dysphagia in both children and adults, as well as one of the most prevalent oesophageal diseases with a significant impact on physical health and quality of life. We have provided a single comprehensive guideline for both paediatric and adult gastroenterologists on current best practice for the evaluation and management of EoE.

METHODS

The Oesophageal Section of the British Society of Gastroenterology was commissioned by the Clinical Standards Service Committee to develop these guidelines. The Guideline Development Group included adult and paediatric gastroenterologists, surgeons, dietitians, allergists, pathologists and patient representatives. The Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes process was used to generate questions for a systematic review of the evidence. Published evidence was reviewed and updated to June 2021. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations. Two rounds of voting were held to assess the level of agreement and the strength of recommendations, with 80% consensus required for acceptance.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven statements on EoE presentation, diagnosis, investigation, management and complications were produced with further statements created on areas for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

These comprehensive adult and paediatric guidelines of the British Society of Gastroenterology and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition are based on evidence and expert consensus from a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals, including patient advocates and patient support groups, to help clinicians with the management patients with EoE and its complications.

Evidence-based treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis: insights for the clinician

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and eosinophil-predominant inflammation. Left untreated, EoE progresses to fibrous remodeling and stricture formation that impairs quality of life. Therefore, EoE requires either repeated treatments or maintenance therapy. Current guidelines recommend swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs), proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), or dietary intervention as initial options to induce and maintain long-term disease remission. Impractical exclusive elemental diets and suboptimal allergy testing-directed food avoidance paved the way for empirical elimination diets. These are moderately effective and highly reproducible in inducing EoE remission and allow for identification of specific food triggers. Step-up strategies, including two- and four-food rather than six-food elimination diets, should be considered as initial approaches for dietary treatment in patients of all ages, as they reduce the need for endoscopic procedures, shorten diagnostic processing time, and avoid unnecessary restrictions. Formulations of STC originally designed for asthma therapy are suboptimal for EoE treatment, with new effervescent orodispersible tablets and viscose formulations designed to coat the esophageal mucosa providing increased effectiveness at reduced doses. The anti-inflammatory effects of PPI in EoE are independent from gastric acid secretion inhibition; despite evidence from observational research, PPIs are the most commonly prescribed first-line therapy for EoE due to their accessibility, low cost, and safety profile. Double doses of PPI only induce remission in half of EoE patients, irrespective of the drug used or patients' age. Inflammatory rather than stricturing EoE phenotype and treatment duration up to 12 weeks increase chances of achieving EoE remission. Most responders effectively maintain long-term remission with standard PPI doses. Finally, endoscopic dilation should be considered in patients with reduced esophageal caliber or persistent dysphagia despite histological remission. This article provides a state-of-the-art review and updated discussion of current therapies and newly developed options for EoE.

Red Between the Lines: Evolution of Eosinophilic Esophagitis as a Distinct Clinicopathologic Syndrome

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, including dysphagia. While EoE is still considered a rare disease, in practice it seems that more and more cases are diagnosed every week, research in the field is exploding, and the pipeline for treatments contains multiple agents, some of which are quite far along the development pathway. After only scattered cases and small series were published in the late 1970s and 1980, Stephen Attwood, Thomas Smyrk, Tom DeMeester, and James Jones, published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences in 1993 a seminal report that described a clinicopathologic syndrome of esophageal eosinophilia with dysphagia. This review details the origins of this paper and compares and contrast what was observed then and what is known now about multiple aspects of EoE, including the clinical presentation, diagnosis, epidemiology, natural history, and treatments and outcomes. Moreover, it will highlight how the paper presaged a number of controversies in the field that have yet to be resolved, as well as foreshadowed the collaborative, multidisciplinary approach that has led to rapid advances.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Update on Diagnosis and Treatment in Pediatric Patients

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorder characterized by symptomatic esophageal dysfunction and an eosinophil-predominant inflammation of the esophagus. EoE arises from interaction between genetic and environmental factors. In pediatric patients, clinical manifestations vary depending on age, from a gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-like condition to severe dysphagic symptoms. Upper endoscopy is considered the gold standard for diagnosis and monitoring of EoE; however, significant efforts are underway to identify noninvasive diagnostic tools and biomarkers to avoid repetitive invasive procedures. Therapeutic first-line options currently available for EoE are elimination diets, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and steroids. The aim of treatment is to improve clinical symptoms while obtaining mucosal healing and avoiding long-term complications. Dietary treatment options comprise different empiric diets or an exclusively amino acid formula. Despite the efficacy of diets, compliance is often challenging. PPIs and topical steroids represent the main pharmacological options for EoE, and both can induce and maintain remission. Topical steroids have been reported as more effective, but data on long-term safety remain insufficient for both these and PPIs. Endoscopic dilations are currently reserved for severe untreated fibrostenotic disease unresponsive to medical therapies. Several biologic agents are available but not yet approved for EoE.

Systematic review and meta-regressions: management of eosinophilic esophagitis requires histologic assessment

Treatment endpoints in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are response of eosinophilic inflammation and of symptoms. Steroids and diet therapy are effective in inducing histologic response in EoE, but there may be poor correlation between histologic and symptomatic response. Despite this, we find that in clinical practice symptoms are commonly used to guide management without assessing histologic response. We hypothesized that symptom response alone is not reliable in assessing response to therapy and is confounded by endoscopic dilation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-regressions to estimate the association of histologic and symptomatic response, stratified by whether concurrent dilation was permitted. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for studies describing both histologic and symptomatic responses to dilation, steroid, and diet therapies. We abstracted the proportion of histologic response and symptom response. Studies were stratified by whether dilation was permitted. We performed meta-regressions of the association between the proportions with histologic and symptomatic response, stratified by whether dilation was permitted. We identified 1359 articles, of which 62 articles were assessed for eligibility, and 23 were included providing data on 1202 patients with EoE. Unstratified meta-regression of histologic versus symptomatic response showed moderate association and large heterogeneity (inconsistency index [I2] = 89%). In adult studies in which dilation was allowed, there was weak association between symptomatic and histologic response (β1 = 0.21), minimal symptomatic response of 67% and the heterogeneity persisted, I2 = 77%. In studies that prohibited dilation, maximal symptomatic response was 72% and was moderately associated with histologic response (β1 = 0.39) with less heterogeneity, I2 = 59%. Studies of EoE that permit dilation obscure the relation between histologic and symptomatic response and have a high floor effect for symptomatic response. Studies that prohibit dilation demonstrate moderate association between histologic and symptomatic response, but have a ceiling effect for symptomatic response. Our results demonstrate that success of dietary or medical management for EoE cannot be judged by symptoms alone, and require histologic assessment, particularly if dilation has been performed.

Esophageal dilation in eosinophilic esophagitis: risks, benefits, and when to do it

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

For patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), endoscopic dilation has been used primarily to provide immediate symptomatic relief of dysphagia. This report reviews the current position of esophageal dilation in the therapeutic algorithm for EoE, including effectiveness and safety issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

Esophageal strictures in EoE develop as a consequence of long-lasting esophageal eosinophilia, with patient age and diagnostic delay as well established risk factors. Endoscopic dilation leads to immediate symptomatic improvement in 95% of EoE patients who have strictures or narrow caliber esophagus. As dilation has no effect on the underlying eosinophil inflammation, repeated procedures are usually needed to maintain symptoms in remission. Adding an effective drug or dietary-based EoE therapy reduces the need of further dilation. The high rate of severe complications from dilation reported in early literature has not been reproduced in most recent series, with mild postprocedural chest pain as the most common side effect. Current data suggest that the risk of esophageal perforation is less than 1%. Mucosal tears after dilation should no longer be considered a complication, but rather a marker of procedural success.

SUMMARY

Esophageal dilation should be considered in EoE patients with esophageal strictures or narrow caliber esophagus who have persistent dysphagia/food impaction despite an effective anti-inflammatory treatment.

UK guidelines on oesophageal dilatation in clinical practice

These are updated guidelines which supersede the original version published in 2004. This work has been endorsed by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the oesophageal section of the BSG. The original guidelines have undergone extensive revision by the 16 members of the Guideline Development Group with representation from individuals across all relevant disciplines, including the Heartburn Cancer UK charity, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The methodological rigour and transparency of the guideline development processes were appraised using the revised Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool.Dilatation of the oesophagus is a relatively high-risk intervention, and is required by an increasing range of disease states. Moreover, there is scarcity of evidence in the literature to guide clinicians on how to safely perform this procedure. These guidelines deal specifically with the dilatation procedure using balloon or bougie devices as a primary treatment strategy for non-malignant narrowing of the oesophagus. The use of stents is outside the remit of this paper; however, for cases of dilatation failure, alternative techniques-including stents-will be listed. The guideline is divided into the following subheadings: (1) patient preparation; (2) the dilatation procedure; (3) aftercare and (4) disease-specific considerations. A systematic literature search was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Develop-ment and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and decide on the strength of recommendations made.

Improvement in Esophageal Distensibility in Response to Medical and Diet Therapy in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Objectives:

We aimed to evaluate the effect of medical and diet therapies on esophageal distensibility assessed using the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) and the association of changes in esophageal distensibility with clinical outcomes in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

Methods:

Patients with EoE were evaluated with FLIP during endoscopy at baseline and following therapy without interval dilatation. Evaluation also included a validated patient-reported outcome (PRO; a positive PRO was considered at a 30% score improvement), mucosal biopsies, and scoring of endoscopic features of EoE. FLIP data were analyzed to calculate the distensibility plateau (DP).

Results:

In all, 18 patients (ages 19–54 years; 4 female) treated with topical steroid (8), elimination diet (6), and/or proton-pump inhibitor (4 only treated with proton-pump inhibitor) were included. Follow-up testing occurred at a mean (range) of 14.6 (8–28) weeks. Improvement was observed in DP (13.9 (12.2–19.2) to 16.8 mm (15.8–19.2), P=0.007) and peak eosinophil count (45 (29–65) to 23 per high-power field (h.p.f.) (5–53), P=0.042). Nine patients had a positive symptomatic outcome. Six of 8 (75%) patients with a DP increase ≥2 mm had a positive PRO (P=0.077), while 2 of 7 (29%) patients that achieved an eosinophil count <15/h.p.f. had a positive PRO (P=0.167).

Conclusions:

Improvement in esophageal body distensibility can be achieved with medical and diet therapies without dilation in EoE. Improved DP appeared to be better indicator of symptomatic improvement than eosinophil count, supporting FLIP as a valuable outcome measure in EoE.

Esophageal dilation with either bougie or balloon technique as a treatment for eosinophilic esophagitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Esophageal dilation is a now recognized to be an important therapeutic modality in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate the safety of esophageal dilation in EoE, especially regarding perforation risk, and to examine perforation risk by dilator type.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the published literature from January 1, 1950 to June 30, 2016 using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Studies were included if they described patients with EoE who underwent elective esophageal dilation and also reported the presence or absence of at least 1 adverse event (eg, perforation, bleeding, pain, or hospitalization). We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the frequency of each adverse event.

RESULTS

Of 923 identified articles, 37 met inclusion criteria and represented 2034 dilations in 977 patients. On meta-analysis, postprocedure hospitalization occurred in .689% of dilations (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-1.42%), clinically significant GI hemorrhage in .028% (95% CI, 0%-.217%), and clinically significant chest pain in 3.64% (95% CI, 1.73%-5.55%). Nine perforations were documented, at a rate of .033% (95% CI, 0%-.226%) per procedure after meta-analysis. None of the perforations resulted in surgical intervention or mortality. Most (5/9) were reported before 2009 (rate, .41% [95% CI, 0%-2.75%]); from 2009 forward the rate was .030% (95% CI, 0%-.225%). Dilation method was described in 30 studies (1957 dilations), in which 4 perforations were detected. The estimated perforation rate for bougies was .022% (95% CI, 0%-.347%) and for balloons was .059% (95% CI, 0%-.374%).

CONCLUSIONS

Perforation from esophageal dilation in EoE is rare, and there is no evidence of a significant difference in perforation risk related to dilator type. Esophageal dilation should be considered a safe procedure in EoE.

Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Based on Pathophysiological Evidence

Over the past decades eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been increasingly diagnosed, and significant progress has been made in our understanding of its pathophysiology. As EoE cannot be cured yet, treatment goals are suppression of disease activity and symptoms as well as the prevention of progression to a more severe disease phenotype. Disease-modifying treatment options can be divided into dietary therapy and immunosuppressive medications, of which topical steroids have been most investigated, yet are still prescribed off-label. In this review, we will summarize recent advances in our understanding of EoE and discuss the mechanisms of action of current treatment options, with emphasis on the role of the esophageal epithelial barrier and the effects of proton-pump inhibitors in the management of patients with EoE.

Control of inflammation decreases the need for subsequent esophageal dilation in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis

It is unknown if successful control of esophageal inflammation in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) decreases the need for subsequent esophageal dilation. We aimed to determine whether histologic response to topical steroid treatment decreases the likelihood and frequency of subsequent esophageal dilation. We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients with an incident diagnosis of EoE were included if they had an initial esophageal dilation, received topical steroids, and had a subsequent endoscopy with biopsies. The number of dilations performed in each group was determined, and histologic responders (<15 eos/hpf) were compared to nonresponders. The 55 EoE patients included (27 responders and 28 nonresponders) underwent a mean of 3.0 dilations over a median follow-up of 19 months. Responders required fewer dilations than nonresponders (1.6 vs. 4.6, P = 0.03), after adjusting for potential confounders. Despite undergoing significantly fewer dilations, responders achieved a similar increase in esophageal diameter with dilation (4.9 vs. 5.0 mm; P = 0.92). In EoE patients undergoing esophageal dilation at baseline, control of inflammation with topical steroids was associated with a 65% decrease in the number of subsequent dilations to maintain the same esophageal caliber. This suggests that inflammation control is an important goal in patients with fibrostenotic changes of EoE.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: endoscopic dilation is highly effective and safe in children and adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal dilation is frequently used as an adjunct treatment to alleviate symptoms that develop from fibrostenotic remodelling in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). Earlier reports described an increased risk of complications associated with dilation.

AIM

Perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic dilation in children and adults with EoE.

METHODS

Professional librarians searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles in any language describing studies of dilation in EoE through December 2016. Studies were selected and data were abstracted independently and in duplicate. Random effects modelling was used to generate summary estimates for clinical improvement and complications (haemorrhage, perforation, hospitalisation, and death).

RESULTS

The search resulted in 3495 references, of which 27 studies were included in the final analysis. The studies described 845 EoE patients, including 87 paediatric patients, who underwent a total of 1820 oesophageal dilations. The median number of dilations was 3 (range: 1-35). Clinical improvement occurred in 95% of patients (95% CI: 90%-98%, I² : 10%, 17 studies). Perforation occurred in 0.38% (95% CI: 0.18%-0.85%, I² : 0%, 27 studies), haemorrhage in 0.05% (95% CI: 0%-0.3%, I² : 0%, 18 studies), and hospitalisation in 0.67% (95% CI: 0.3%-1.1%, I² : 44%, 24 studies). No deaths occurred (95% CI: 0%-0.2% I² : 0%, 25 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic dilation is consistently effective in children and adults with EoE, resulting in improvement in 95% of patients with very low rates (<1%) of major complications.

Dilation of Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Adverse Events and Short-term Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Although several studies report on the experience with adult eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE)-related stricture, outcomes for pediatric patients with EoE-associated fibrostenosis and stricture is more limited. To address this, we aim to identify the adverse event (AE) rate and short-term outcomes of the largest reported cohort of children with EoE to undergo esophageal dilation for management of symptomatic esophageal narrowing.

METHODS

A retrospective assessment of all children, 18 years and younger, who underwent esophageal dilation at an academic children's hospital during a 5-year period was conducted. Clinical, endoscopic, histologic, and outcomes of dilation were extracted from the medical record. AEs were captured within a standardized endoscopic AE database. Grade 2 AEs (requiring unanticipated medical intervention) were termed significant. Dilation-related events were compared between patients with EoE, without EoE, and those undergoing standard upper endoscopy.

RESULTS

Of the 451 total dilations, 68 dilations were performed in 40 EoE patients (mean age 13.8 years, standard deviation 3.3 years [4.6-18.9 years]). Forty-three percent (17/40) had repeat dilation during the study period. Dilation-related grade 2 AE rates in EoE and in non-EoE patients were 2.9% and 3.1%, respectively (P > 0.5). Chest pain (any grade AE) was reported in 14.7% of EoE dilations. No significant associations were found between postprocedural pain and dilation method, final dilator size, medical therapy, or esophageal eosinophilia. No perforations or significant hemorrhage were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that dilation can be performed safely in children with EoE. In the appropriate clinical setting, cautious dilation may be considered in the management of fibrostenotic EoE.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Adults

Eosinophilic esophagitis is a relatively recently discovered disease of increasing incidence and prevalence and is a common cause of dysphagia and food bolus impaction. The definition of eosinophilic esophagitis continues to evolve, most recently with the characterization of proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia. The number of high-quality prospective, controlled trials guiding therapeutic decisions in eosinophilic esophagitis has increased steadily over the past several years. Treatment options at present focus on dietary therapy, particularly implementation of a 6-food elimination diet, and medical therapy, primarily the use of swallowed, topical corticosteroids. Proton pump inhibitors play an important role in current management. Conservative esophageal dilation is effective at ameliorating dysphagia in symptomatic patients with esophageal strictures. We conducted an evidence-based review of the diagnosis and treatment options in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis. The understanding of eosinophilic esophagitis continues to be refined. Continued validation of appropriate endpoints, however, is essential to establish the efficacy of existing and novel therapeutic approaches.

Recent discoveries and emerging therapeutics in eosinophilic esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an allergy-mediated disease culminating in severe eosinophilic inflammation and dysfunction of the esophagus. This chronic disorder of the esophagus causes significant morbidity, poor quality of life, and complications involving fibrosis and esophageal remodeling. Overlapping features between EoE and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) pose great challenges to differentiating the two conditions, although the two disorders are not mutually exclusive. Recent findings suggest that the confounding condition proton pump inhibitor - responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) is likely a subset of EoE. Since PPIs have therapeutic properties that can benefit EoE, PPIs should be considered as a therapeutic option for EoE rather than a diagnostic screen to differentiate GERD, PPI-REE, and EoE. Other current treatments include dietary therapy, corticosteroids, and dilation. Immunomodulators and biologic agents might have therapeutic value, and larger trials are needed to assess efficacy and safety. Understanding the pathophysiology of EoE is critical to the development of novel therapeutics.