Eosinophilic esophagitis: overview of clinical management.

A validated disease-specific symptom-assessment tool for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has yet to be approved by regulatory authorities for use in clinical trials. Relevant end points for daily practice include EoE-related symptoms and esophageal eosinophilic inflammation. Endoscopic features should also be taken into account when establishing a therapy plan. A reasonable clinical goal is to achieve a reduction in EoE-related symptoms and esophageal eosinophilic inflammation. Evidence is increasing to support an anti-inflammatory maintenance therapy, as this can reduce esophageal remodeling. In EoE patients in clinical remission, annual disease monitoring with symptom, endoscopic, and histologic assessments of sustained treatment response is recommended

Maintenance Treatment Of Eosinophilic Esophagitis With Swallowed Topical Steroids Alters Disease Course Over A 5-Year Follow-up Period In Adult Patients.

Although swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) are effective in inducing remission of active eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), there are few data on maintenance of long-term remission. We evaluated the long-term effectiveness of STC therapy for adults with EoE. We performed a retrospective study using the Swiss EoE database. We analyzed data on 229 patients with EoE treated with STCs (175 male; mean age at diagnosis, 39±15 years; median time until diagnosis, 6 years) from 2000 through 2014. Patients were followed for a median of 5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 3-7 years). We collected data from 819 follow-up visits on clinical, endoscopic and histological disease characteristics. The primary endpoint was proportions of clinical, endoscopic, and histological remission in all patients and groups, based on the status and duration of STC treatment. Patients were taking STCs at 336 of the follow-up visits (41.0% of visits). The median duration of STC use before a follow-up visit was 347 days (IQR, 90-750 days) corresponding to 677 doses (IQR, 280-1413 doses) of 0.25 mg each. At the visits, higher proportions of patients who were still taking STCs were in clinical remission (31.0%) compared to patients not taking STCs (4.5%) (P <.001), as well as endoscopic remission (48.8% vs 17.8%; P < .001), histologic remission (44.8% vs 10.1%; P < .001), and complete remission (16.1% vs 1.3%; P < .001). Higher cumulative doses of STCs and longer durations of treatment were associated with higher proportions of clinical and complete remission. No dysplasia or mucosal atrophy was detected. Esophageal candidiasis was observed at 2.7% of visits in patients taking STCs. In an analysis of data from the Swiss EoE database, we found maintenance therapy with STCs to achieve complete remission at 16.1% of follow-up visits, which was higher than in patients receiving no treatment (1.3%). Given the good safety profile of low-dose STC, we advocate for a prolonged treatment. Dose-finding trials are needed to achieve higher remission rates

Development of a preliminary question prompt list as a communication tool for adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease: A modified delphi study

Background:Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended for patient use, encouraging patients to ask questions to facilitate their consultation with their physician.Aim:The aim of this study was to develop a QPL specific to adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), created by esophageal experts.Methods:The QPL content (78 questions) was derived through a modified Delphi method consisting of 2 rounds. In round 1, 18 esophageal experts provided 5 answers to the prompt "What you wish your patients would ask" and "What questions do patients often not ask, that I wish they would ask?" In round 2, the experts rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale, and responses rated as "essential" or "important," determined by an a priori threshold of 654.0, were accepted for the QPL.Results:Twelve esophageal experts participated. Of 143 questions from round 1, 110 (76.9%) were accepted for inclusion in the QPL, meeting a median value of 654.0, and, subsequently, it reduced to 78, minimizing redundancy. Median values ranged between 4.0 and 5.0, with the highest agreement median (5.0) for questions asking dosing and timing of proton pump inhibitor therapy, and surveillance in Barrett's. Questions were categorized into the following categories: "What does this illness mean," "lifestyle modifications," "general treatment," "treatment with proton pump inhibitors," "What I should expect for my future," and "Barrett's." The largest number of questions covered lifestyle modifications (21.8%), with the highest agreement median (5.0) for "How helpful are lifestyle modifications in GERD?"Conclusions:A preliminary GERD-specific QPL, the first of its kind, was developed by esophageal experts. Modification after more patient consultation and feedback is planned in subsequent versions to create a GERD-QPL for eventual use in clinical gastroenterology

Proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia: an entity challenging current diagnostic criteria for eosinophilic oesophagitis.

Consensus diagnostic recommendations to distinguish GORD from eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) by response to a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) unexpectedly uncovered an entity called 'PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia' (PPI-REE). PPI-REE refers to patients with clinical and histological features of EoE that remit with PPI treatment. Recent and evolving evidence, mostly from adults, shows that patients with PPI-REE and patients with EoE at baseline are clinically, endoscopically and histologically indistinguishable and have a significant overlap in terms of features of Th2 immune-mediated inflammation and gene expression. Furthermore, PPI therapy restores oesophageal mucosal integrity, reduces Th2 inflammation and reverses the abnormal gene expression signature in patients with PPI-REE, similar to the effects of topical steroids in patients with EoE. Additionally, recent series have reported that patients with EoE responsive to diet/topical steroids may also achieve remission on PPI therapy. This mounting evidence supports the concept that PPI-REE represents a continuum of the same immunological mechanisms that underlie EoE. Accordingly, it seems counterintuitive to differentiate PPI-REE from EoE based on a differential response to PPI therapy when their phenotypic, molecular, mechanistic and therapeutic features cannot be reliably distinguished. For patients with symptoms and histological features of EoE, it is reasonable to consider PPI therapy not as a diagnostic test, but as a therapeutic agent. Due to its safety profile, ease of administration and high response rates (up to 50%), PPI can be considered a first-line treatment before diet and topical steroids. The reasons why some patients with EoE respond to PPI, while others do not, remain to be elucidated

Heterogeneity in Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histologic Outcome Measures and Placebo Response Rates in Clinical Trials of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review.

Agents are being developed for treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, it is not clear what outcome measures would best determine the efficacy and safety of these agents in clinical trials. We performed a systematic review of outcomes used in randomized placebo-controlled trials of EoE and we estimate the placebo response and rates of remission. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register from inception through February 20, 2018 for randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic therapies for EoE. Efficacy outcome definitions, measurement tools, and the proportion of patients responding to placebo were collected and stratified by based on histologic, endoscopic, and patient-reported outcomes. We analyzed data from 22 placebo-controlled trials, comprising 1112 patients with EoE. Ten additional active registered trials were identified. Most published trials evaluated topical corticosteroid therapy (13/22, 59.1%). Histologic outcomes measuring eosinophil density and patient-reported outcomes were reported in 21/22 published trials (95.5%). No consistently applied definitions of histologic or patient-reported response or remission were identified. Endoscopic outcomes were described in 60% (12/20) of published trials. The EoE Endoscopic Reference Score is the most commonly applied tool for describing changes in endoscopic appearance. The median histologic response to placebo was 3.7% (range, 0%-31.6%) and the median rate of remission in patients given placebo was 0.0% (range, 0%-11.0%). The median patient-reported response to placebo was 14.4% (range, 8.6%-77.8%) and rate of remission in patients given placebo was 26.2% (range, 13.2%-35.7%). In a systematic review of the literature, we found that no standardized definitions of histologic, endoscopic, or patient-reported outcomes are used to determine whether pharmacologic agents produce a response or remission in patients with EoE. A core outcome set is needed to reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting and facilitate trial interpretation and comparison of results from trials

How do gastroenterologists assess overall activity of eosinophilic esophagitis in adult patients?

OBJECTIVES: There is no "gold standard" for assessing disease activity in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to compare physicians' judgment of EoE activity with patients' judgment of symptom severity. We also aimed to examine the relative contribution of symptoms as well as endoscopic and histologic findings in shaping physicians' judgment of EoE activity. METHODS: Six gastroenterologists (all EoE experts) assessed EoE-associated symptoms in adult patients. Patients completed a symptom instrument and provided global assessment of EoE symptom severity (PatGA) (Likert scale: 0 (inactive) to 10 (most active)). Following esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy sampling, gastroenterologists provided a global assessment of EoE activity (PhysGA) (Likert scale from 0 to 10) based on patient history and endoscopic and histologic findings. Linear regression and analysis of variance was used to quantify the extent to which variations in severity of EoE symptoms and endoscopic and histologic findings explain variations in PhysGA. RESULTS: A total of 149 EoE patients were prospectively included (71.8% male, median age at inclusion 38 years, 71.8% with concomitant allergies). A moderate positive correlation between PhysGA and PatGA (rho=0.442, P<0.001) was observed and the mean difference in the Bland-Altman plot was 1.77. Variations in severity of endoscopic findings, symptoms, and histologic findings alone explained 53%, 49%, and 30%, of the variability in PhysGA, respectively. Together, these findings explained 75% of variability in PhysGA. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists rate EoE activity mainly on the basis of endoscopic findings and symptoms and, to a lesser extent, on histologic findings

Reliability and responsiveness of endoscopic disease activity assessment in eosinophilic esophagitis.

Endoscopic outcomes have become important measures of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity, including as an endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated the operating properties of endoscopic measures for use in EoE RCTs. Modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methods and a panel of 15 international EoE experts identified endoscopic items and definitions with face validity that were used in a 2-round voting process to define simplified (all items graded as absent or present) and expanded versions (additional grades for edema, furrows, and/or exudates) of the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS). Inter- and intrarater reliability of these instruments (expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]) were evaluated using paired endoscopy video assessments of 2 blinded central readers in patients before and after 8 weeks of proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical corticosteroids, or dietary elimination. Responsiveness was measured using the standardized effect size (SES). The appropriateness of 41 statements relevant to EoE endoscopic activity (endoscopic items, item definitions and grading, and other considerations relevant for endoscopy) was considered. The original and expanded EREFS demonstrated moderate-to-substantial inter-rater reliability (ICCs of .472-.736 and .469-.763, respectively) and moderate-to-almost perfect intrarater reliability (ICCs of .580-.828 and .581-.828, respectively). Strictures were least reliably assessed (ICC, .072-.385). The original EREFS was highly responsive (SES, 1.126 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .757-1.534]), although both expanded versions of EREFS, scored based on worst affected area, were numerically most responsive to treatment (expanded furrows: SES, 1.229 [95% CI, .858-1.643]; all items expanded: SES, 1.252 [95% CI, .880-1.667]). The EREFS and its modifications were not more reliably scored by segment and also not more responsive when proximal and distal EREFSs were summed. EREFS and its modifications were reliable and responsive, and the original or expanded versions of the EREFS may be preferred in RCTs. Disease activity scored based on the worst affected area optimizes reliability and responsiveness