Bonis, Peter A

Summary Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most common cause of esophageal food impaction (EFI). Approaches to management of EFI due to EoE have not been well characterized. We conducted a web-based survey to understand approaches to management of EFI due to EoE among endoscopists. Questions focused on management of patients from presentation to post-endoscopy follow-up. The survey was administered to a list of eligible candidates provided by societies of gastroenterology. A total of 308 endoscopists completed the questionnaire. The majority (83%) practiced in Europe and treated adults (78%). Most agreed patients should be advised to seek emergency care (66%) within 1 to 2 hours (41% agreement). There was agreement that medications to induce vomiting should be avoided (84%) and that blood tests or imaging studies were usually not required before endoscopy. By contrast, there was more variability in the type of sedation recommended and the need for endotracheal intubation, especially when comparing more experienced with less experienced EoE-endoscopists. Overall, fewer than half (43%) respondents recommended obtaining esophageal biopsies during the initial endoscopy. However, there were significant differences in the proportion who recommended biopsies based on level of EoE-experience (25, 52, 77%, P < 0.001; less vs. moderate vs. very experienced) and comparing pediatric and adult endoscopists (32, vs. 79%, P < 0.001; adult vs. pediatric). There exists heterogeneity among endoscopists in recommendations to manage EFI in patients with EoE. These findings support development of clinical guidelines and new studies to clarify the rationale for best practices. Key summary: Established knowledge—The optimal management of patients with esophageal food impaction due to eosinophilic esophagitis from presentation at the emergency department to postendoscopy care is unclear. New findings—Considerable recommendation variation exists in the management of EFI in patients with EoE. Our findings provide a rationale for the creation of consensus practice guidelines and further study into best practices.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic gastritis (EG) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the stomach characterized by eosinophil-predominant gastric mucosal inflammation and gastrointestinal symptoms. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate endoscopic features in a large series of children and adults with EG to better understand the endoscopic manifestations and develop a standardized instrument for investigations. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected as part of the Consortium for Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers, a national collaborative network. Endoscopic features were prospectively recorded using a system specifically developed for EG, the EG Endoscopic Reference System (EG-REFS). Correlations were made between EG-REFS and clinical and histologic features. RESULTS: Of 98 patients with EG, 65 underwent assessments using EG-REFS. The most common findings were erythema (72%), raised lesions (49%), erosions (46%), and granularity (35%); only 8% of patients with active histology (≥30 eosinophils/high-power field) exhibited no endoscopic findings. A strong correlation between EG-REFS scores and physician global assessment of endoscopy severity was demonstrated (Spearman r = 0.84, P < 0.0001). The overall score and specific components of EG-REFS were more common in the antrum than in the fundus or body. EG-REFS severity was significantly correlated with active histology, defined by a threshold of ≥30 eosinophils/high-power field ( P = 0.0002). DISCUSSION: Prospective application of EG-REFS identified gastric features with a strong correlation with physician global assessment of endoscopic activity in EG. Endoscopic features demonstrated greater severity in patients with active histology and a predilection for the gastric antrum. Further development of EG-REFS should improve its utility in clinical studies.

ABSTRACT Objectives: Clinical features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have been well‐described in the literature, however, characterization of features experienced by patients with other eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) is lacking. Using data collected from a patient contact registry, we sought to characterize and contrast patient‐reported gastrointestinal and extragastrointestinal symptoms and comorbidities in non‐EoE EGIDs, including eosinophilic gastritis, gastroenteritis and colitis, relative to EoE. Methods: We conducted a cross‐sectional study of contact registry data collected from 2015 to 2018. Statistical comparisons were made using chi‐square (categorical measures) and the Mann‐Whitney U test (continuous measures). Multivariable analyses were used to evaluate associations between treatment and feelings of isolation. Results: Of the 715 reporting an EGID diagnosis (n = 525 EoE; n = 190 non‐EoE EGID), a higher proportion of those with a non‐EoE EGID reported more frequent specific and nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation, and bloating ( P < 0.01 for all). Participants with a non‐EoE EGID were more likely to report higher frequency of fatigue, isolation, and deep muscle or joint pain ( P < 0.01 for all). Specific food elimination and elemental formula treatments were associated with increased odds of more frequent (at least weekly) feelings of isolation for participants with EoE (adjusted odds rtaio [aOR]: 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5‐‐4.1 for specific food elimination and adjusted OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2‐‐3.3 for elemental formula). Conclusions: Significant differences exist in the symptoms and comorbidities experienced between those with EoE versus non‐EoE EGIDs. Additional investigation is needed to elucidate the factors that may contribute to the high disease burden of these poorly understood conditions.

ABSTRACTObjectives:Variation in the prevalence of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases in different geographical regions has not been extensively studied. The aim of the present study was to define the regional and national prevalence of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, and differences in practice approaches.Patients and Methods:We administered a survey electronically to members of the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, and the North American Society Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. Questions pertained to the number and proportion of patients seen with eosinophilic gastroenteritis or colitis and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), and methods used to diagnose and treat these conditions.Results:A total of 1836 physicians responded from 10,874 requests (17% response). Extrapolating responses from our US sample, we estimated an overall prevalence of 52 and 28/100,000 for EoE and eosinophilic gastroenteritis or colitis. The patient burden of EoE is higher in urban (0.58) and suburban (0.44) compared with rural settings (0.36, P < 0.0065), observations consistent with other allergic disorders. There was also increased prevalence in northeast region when calculated by prevalence per 100,000. There was considerable variability in criteria and initial treatment options used to diagnose EoE. Only one‐third of respondents reported using diagnostic criteria proposed in a 2007 consensus document. Seventy‐one and 35% of respondents reported treating some patients with EoE with a food elimination or elemental diet, respectively.Conclusions:EoE is diagnosed more often in northeastern states and urban areas. There is considerable variability in diagnostic criteria and initial treatment approach supporting the need for additional clinical trials and consensus development.