Budesonide Oral Suspension Improves Symptomatic, Endoscopic, and Histologic Parameters Compared With Placebo in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Background & Aims Pharmacologic treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is limited to off-label use of corticosteroids not optimized for esophageal delivery. We performed a randomized, controlled phase 2 trial to assess the ability of budesonide oral suspension (BOS), a novel muco-adherent topical steroid formulation, to reduce symptoms and esophageal eosinophilia in adolescents and adults with EoE. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, 93 EoE patients between the ages of 11 and 40 years with dysphagia and active esophageal eosinophilia were randomized to receive either BOS 2 mg or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score from baseline, and proportion of patients with a histologic response (≤6 eosinophils/high-power field) after treatment. Endoscopic severity scores and safety parameters were assessed. Results At baseline, mean DSQ scores were 29.3 and 29.0, and mean peak eosinophil counts were 156 and 130 per hpf in the BOS and placebo groups, respectively. After treatment, DSQ scores were 15.0 and 21.5, and mean peak eosinophil counts were 39 and 113 per high-power field, respectively (P < .05 for all). For BOS vs placebo, change in DSQ score was −14.3 vs −7.5 (P = .0096), histologic response rates were 39% vs 3% (P < .0001), and change in endoscopic severity score was −3.8 vs 0.4 (P < .0001). Adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusions Treatment with BOS was well tolerated in adolescent and young adult patients with EoE and resulted in improvement in symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic parameters using validated outcome instruments

Budesonide Oral Suspension Improves Symptomatic, Endoscopic, and Histologic Parameters Compared With Placebo in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pharmacologic treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is limited to off-label use of corticosteroids not optimized for esophageal delivery. We performed a randomized, controlled phase 2 trial to assess the ability of budesonide oral suspension (BOS), a novel muco-adherent topical steroid formulation, to reduce symptoms and esophageal eosinophilia in adolescents and adults with EoE. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, 93 EoE patients between the ages of 11 and 40 years with dysphagia and active esophageal eosinophilia were randomized to receive either BOS 2 mg or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score from baseline, and proportion of patients with a histologic response (≤6 eosinophils/high-power field) after treatment. Endoscopic severity scores and safety parameters were assessed. RESULTS: At baseline, mean DSQ scores were 29.3 and 29.0, and mean peak eosinophil counts were 156 and 130 per hpf in the BOS and placebo groups, respectively. After treatment, DSQ scores were 15.0 and 21.5, and mean peak eosinophil counts were 39 and 113 per high-power field, respectively (P < .05 for all). For BOS vs placebo, change in DSQ score was -14.3 vs -7.5 (P = .0096), histologic response rates were 39% vs 3% (P < .0001), and change in endoscopic severity score was -3.8 vs 0.4 (P < .0001). Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with BOS was well tolerated in adolescent and young adult patients with EoE and resulted in improvement in symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic parameters using validated outcome instruments. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01642212

6-thioguanine treatment in inflammatory bowel disease: A critical appraisal by a European 6-TG working party

Recently, the suggestion to use 6-thioguanine (6-TG) as an alternative thiopurine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been discarded due to reports about possible (hepato) toxicity. During meetings arranged in Vienna and Prague in 2004, European experts applying 6-TG further on in IBD patients presented data on safety and efficacy of 6-TG. After thorough evaluation of its risk-benefit ratio, the group consented that 6-TG may still be considered as a rescue drug in stringently defined indications in IBD, albeit restricted to a clinical research setting. As a potential indication for administering 6-TG, we delineated the requirement for maintenance therapy as well as intolerance and/or resistance to aminosalicylates, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate and infliximab. Furthermore, indications are preferred in which surgery is thought to be inappropriate. The standard 6-TG dosage should not exceed 25 mg daily. Routine laboratory controls are mandatory in short intervals. Liver biopsies should be performed after 6-12 months, three years and then three-yearly accompanied by gastroduodenoscopy, to monitor for potential hepatotoxicity, including nodular regenerative hyperplasia (NRH) and veno-occlusive disease (VOD). Treatment with 6-TG must be discontinued in case of overt or histologically proven hepatotoxicity. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel

Identification of prognostic phenotypes of esophageal adenocarcinoma in two independent cohorts.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) present de novo. Although this may be due to inadequate screening strategies, the precise reason for this observation is not clear.. We compared survival of patients with prevalent EAC with and without synchronous BE/intestinal metaplasia of the esophagus (IM) at the time of EAC diagnosis. METHODS: Clinical data were studied using Cox Proportional Hazards regression to evaluate the effect of synchronous BE/IM on EAC survival independent of age, sex, TNM stage and tumor location. Two cohorts from the Mayo Clinic and a U.K. multicenter prospective cohort were included. RESULTS: The Mayo cohort had 411 EAC patients with 49.3% with BE/IM demonstrating a survival benefit as compared to those without (hazard ratio (HR), 0.44; 95% CI: 0.34 - 0.57, P<0.001). In a multivariable analysis BE/IM was associated with better survival independent of age, sex, stage and tumor location and length (adjusted HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.5-0.88, P=0.005). The UK cohort contained 1417 patients, 45% with BE/IM demonstrating a survival benefit as compared with non-BE/IM patients (HR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.5-0.69, P<0.001) with continued significance in multivariable analysis that included age, sex, stage, and tumor location (adjusted HR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93, P=0.006). CONCLUSION: Two types of esophageal adenocarcinoma can be characterized based on the presence or absence of Barrett's epithelium. These findings have implications for understanding the etiology of EAC and determining prognosis as well as for development of optimal clinical strategies to identify patients at risk

Range of pathologies diagnosed using a minimally invasive capsule sponge to evaluate patients with reflux symptoms.

AIMS: Reflux symptoms are highly prevalent and non-specific; hence, in the absence of alarm symptoms, endoscopy referral decisions are challenging. This study evaluated whether a non-endoscopic Cytosponge could detect benign oesophageal pathologies and thus have future potential in triaging patients with persistent symptoms. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two complementary cohorts were recruited: (i) patients with reflux symptoms and no prior endoscopy (n = 409), and (ii) patients with reflux symptoms referred for endoscopy (n = 411). All patients were investigated using the Cytosponge and endoscopy. Significant epithelial inflammation was present in 130 (16%) Cytosponge samples, 32 of which had ulcer slough. Candida and significant inflammation was detected in a further 22 (2.3%) cases; epithelial infiltration with >15 eosinophils/high-power field reflecting possible eosinophilic oesophagitis (EOE) in five (0.6%); and viral inclusions suggestive of herpes oesophagitis in one (0.1%). No significant pathology was detected in the majority, 662 (81%), of Cytosponge samples. Cytosponge and endoscopy findings were in agreement in 574 (70%) cases, in 165 (67%) of the discordant cases one investigation showed mild inflammation while the other was negative, with an additional 22 (8.9%) differing on the extent of inflammation. Eighteen cases with severe inflammation, six with candida and two with EOE were detected only at endoscopy, while 18 with candida and significant inflammation, 13 with ulcer slough, one probable EOE and one viral oesophagitis were identified on the Cytosponge only. CONCLUSIONS: The Cytosponge detects a range of benign oesophageal pathologies, and therefore has potential clinical utility in the triaging of patients with troublesome reflux symptoms. This warrants further investigation.The BEST study was funded by the Medical Research Council. The BEST2 project was funded by Cancer Research UK. RCF has programmatic funding from the Medical Research Council and infrastructure support from the Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and the Cambridge Experimental Medicine Centre. ALP is an NIHR Academic Clinical Fellow and holds the Pang Kam Ping Fellowship in Medicine at Queens’ College, Cambridge. The Addenbrooke’s Hospital Tissue Bank is supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.1303

Safety and Acceptability of Esophageal Cytosponge Cell Collection Device in a Pooled Analysis of Data From Individual Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have become emerging public health issues. Cytosponge is a novel, minimally invasive esophageal cell collection device. We aimed to assess the data on safety and acceptability of this device. METHODS: We performed a patient-level review of 5 prospective trials assessing Cytosponge performance in patients with reflux disease, BE and EoE in primary and secondary care. Acceptability of Cytosponge and subsequent endoscopy were recorded with visual analogue scale (VAS), wherein 0 and 10 denoted lowest and highest acceptability. Median VAS scores were compared using a Mann-Whitney test. The number of attempts, failures in swallowing the device and occurrence of adverse events were analyzed. Risk factors for failure in swallowing were analyzed using a multivariate regression model. RESULTS: In total, 2672 Cytosponge procedures were performed, in 2418 individuals from 2008 through 2017. There were 2 adverse events related to the device: a minor pharyngeal bleed and a case of detachment (<1:2000). The median acceptability score for the Cytosponge was 6.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.0-8.0), which was higher than the score for endoscopy without sedation (median 5.0; IQR, 3.0-7.0; P < .001) and lower than the score for endoscopy with sedation (median 8.0; IQR, 5.0-9.0; P < .001). Nearly all patients (91.1%) successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, most on the first attempt (90.1%). Failure to swallow the device was more likely to occur in secondary care (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% CI, 1.48-17.79; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The Cytosponge test is a safe procedure with good acceptability ratings in a variety of health care settings

Effect of liver transplantation on inflammatory bowel disease in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis

This report investigates the influence of liver transplantation and concomitant immunosuppression on the course of progression of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and discusses statistical methodology appropriate for such settings. The data on 303 patients who underwent liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) were analyzed using person-time analysis and Cox regression, with the duration of IBD as the time variable and transplantation as a segmented time-dependent covariate, to take into account both posttransplant and pretransplant history of IBD. The need for colectomy and appearance of colorectal cancer were taken as outcome measures. The only significant risk factor in the multivariate model for colectomy was transplantation itself, which increased the risk of colectomy due to intractable disease (Wald statistic; P =. 001). None of the variables available for analysis were found to influence the risk of colon cancer significantly. Graphs showing the dependence of the instantaneous risk of cancer on the time from onset of IBD and its independence from the latter in the case of colectomy are presented. The use of a unique statistical methodology described for the first time in this setting led us to the somewhat surprising conclusion that transplantation and concomitant use of immunosuppression accelerate the progression of IBD. At the same time, transplantation does not affect the incidence of colorectal cancer. These results confirm the findings of some recent studies and can potentially shed new light on the disease pathogenesis