Lavey, Crystal

SummaryBackgroundThe Th2 allergic pathway in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) responds to food antigen exposure.AimTo compare the presence and temporal pattern of food antigen penetration in oesophageal mucosa in active and inactive EoE and controlsMethodsThirty‐two patients with EoE (20 active) and 10 controls were asked to eliminate all wheat and/or dairy 12, 24, 48, 72 or 96 hours before endoscopy. Immunostaining on endoscopic biopsies was performed for gliadin, casein and whey.ResultsGluten, casein and whey were detected by positive staining in 17/32 (53.1%), 21/32 (65.6%), and 30/32 (92.0%) of patients, respectively. In active vs inactive EoE, 70.0% vs 25.0% (P < 0.05), 80.0% vs 41.5%, and 90.0% vs 90.9% patients had detectable gliadin, casein and whey, respectively. Casein and whey (20.0% and 100%, respectively) but not gliadin, were present in controls. The gliadin staining density was greater in active compared to inactive disease at ≤ 24 vs >24 hours after exposure (P = 0.05) but no differences were detected when comparing active and inactive patients for casein and whey. There was greater staining density for whey than casein for all patients at ≤24 hours (mean 2.14 ± 0.91 and 1.07 ± 1.33, P = 0.02). In active EoE, IgG4 was present in 14/20 compared to one inactive patient.ConclusionThe oesophageal epithelium is selectively permeable and has relatively long dwell times for food antigens known to trigger EoE. The precise mechanism of antigen‐specific mucosal entry and the factors that determine the induction or effector trigger of the Th2 pathway activation merit further study.

Summary Topical steroids are commonly used in treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but currently there is lack of data to clarify most effective regimen. We aimed to study the achievement of histologic remission using the same dose of budesonide in two different delivery formulations. Patients with established EoE treated with pharmacy compounded budesonide capsule or budesonide Rincinol gel (both 3 mg twice daily) were studied retrospectively. Those with pre-treatment and post-treatment histologic assessment were included with main endpoint being histologic remission. 103 patients (62 gel, 41 capsule) were included, with higher rate of histologic remission with gel (84 vs. 59%, P=0.004). A subset of patients in both groups had lack of steroid response (&lt;50% drop in eosinophils) (15% for gel, 32% for capsule). Formulation/delivery vehicle of steroid treatments to esophageal mucosa in EoE appears important for treatment efficacy, with budesonide gel having higher likelihood of histologic remission compared to budesonide capsules in our population. A truly steroid refractory group appears likely in our population. Larger, prospective studies may help clarify best regimen of topical steroids in EoE and may work to identify patients likely to benefit from alternative therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal dysmotility including features of achalasia may develop because of bariatric surgery. However, the prevalence of these complications is unknown. We sought to define the prevalence of dysphagia and major esophageal motility disorders including achalasia after bariatric surgery through a large retrospective database review. METHODS: Patients with a history of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass who underwent a diagnostic high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) either before or after bariatric surgery across 3 large tertiary referral sites from June 2012 through February 2019 were identified from a procedural database. HRIM studies were interpreted per the Chicago classification v3.0 by a blinded investigator (K.R.). Demographic/clinical features were collected. In addition, patients who underwent bariatric surgery from January 2014 to April 2015 were contacted and administered a validated symptom assessment survey to gauge the overall prevalence of dysphagia in a postbariatric population. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were identified, including 97 who underwent HRIM after bariatric surgery (laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [n = 39, 40.1%]; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [n = 58, 59.8%]) at a median of 5.84 years (interquartile range 2.1–12.5) postoperatively and 40 preoperative bariatric surgery candidates with medically complicated obesity. A manometric pattern consistent with achalasia was identified in 7 (7.2%) postsurgical patients compared with none in the preoperative group ( P = 0.08). We further identified a separate achalasia-like pattern defined by aperistalsis and increased intragastric pressure (postobesity surgery esophageal dysfunction [POSED]) in 5 (5.2%) postsurgical patients vs none found preoperatively ( P = 0.14). Achalasia or POSED was associated with postbariatric surgery (12.4% vs 0%, P = 0.02). Increasing time since surgery was independently associated with the development of achalasia (median 12.5 vs 5.8 years, P = 0.02), POSED (median 15.0 vs 5.8 years, P = 0.02) and major motility disorders (6.6 vs 4.9 years, P = 0.01). Furthermore, among 271 postbariatric surgery patients contacted for symptom assessment via survey, the prevalence of dysphagia was 13.7% at a mean 3.9 years after surgery. DISCUSSION: Postoperative dysphagia is a common long-term complication of bariatric surgery. This is potentially the consequence of a time-dependent association with the development of postoperative esophageal dysmotility, particularly achalasia and POSED. Consequently, esophageal dysmotility may be an important under-recognized complication of bariatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Histologic response rates to steroids for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) vary from < 50% to >90% in controlled trials. We have used varied steroid preparations and higher doses than typically used and aimed to study if steroid dose and delivery vehicle might explain the wide variation in response. METHODS: A database of patients with EoE created in our esophageal clinic was reviewed and patients treated with at least an 8 week course of topical steroid therapy and undergoing pre and post-steroid histologic evaluation were included. Histologic remission was defined as eosinophil count < 15/hpf. Symptomatic remission was defined as complete resolution of symptoms and eating an unlimited diet. Endoscopy reports were reviewed. RESULTS: 94 patients were included, 45 on 3 mg budesonide-Rincinol gel twice daily (HBRG), 29 on 3 mg budesonide capsules BID (BC), and 20 on lower doses of BRG (1.5 mg daily to 2 mg BID) (LBRG). 88.5% had dysphagia at time of steroid initiation. Mean eosinophil count before steroids was 58.6/hpf. 38.3% had esophageal dilation just prior to steroids. Average EFERS prior to steroid treatment was 1.8. There were not significant differences between the groups in terms of demographics, initial eosinophil counts, symptoms, visual EoE assessment (EREFS) or dilation rates. Histologic remission rate for HBRG was 82.2% vs 55.1% for all others combined ( P < 0.001), 51.7% for BC ( P = 0.005 vs 3 mg BRG BID), and 60.0% for LBRG ( P = 0.06 vs 3 mg BRG BID). Symptomatic remission was similar between groups, as was change in EREFS and change in eosinophil counts. Non-responders to HBRG had mean decrease in eosinophil count of only 0.3/hpf (vs 53.2/hpf for responders, P < 0.003) and mean change in EREFS of +1.6 (vs −1.1 for responders, P < 0.001). 62.5% of non-responders to HBRG actually had increase in eosinophil count after steroids. Response rate to HBRG at < 5 eos/hpf was 77.8% overall and 94.6% in those achieving remission. CONCLUSION: A higher remission rate achieved with a more viscous steroid preparation compared to other formulations suggests the importance of both dose and esophageal delivery in treatment of EoE. Further, with adequate mucosal delivery and dosing of topical steroids, steroid refractory EoE appears to be uncommon. On the other hand, these results suggest the existence of a small truly steroid refractory group of EoE patients with negligible histologic, symptomatic and endoscopic response to high dose steroids that warrant further investigation.