Lacy, Brian E.

Abstract Although the prevalence of eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) is increasing, there is evidence that eosinophilic gastritis and/or duodenitis (EG/EoD) are underdiagnosed. Patients with EG/EoD often present with chronic, non-specific gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, similar to patients with functional GI disorders. We hypothesized that systematic evaluation, including multiple esophageal, gastric and duodenal biopsies, of patients with chronic GI symptoms might reveal a high rate of gastroduodenal eosinophila, with or without eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Methods We performed a prospective multi-center study of patients with non-specific GI symptoms for ≥6 months, from 20 sites. Patients completed a questionnaire assessing abdominal pain, abdominal cramping, early satiety, bloating, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and loss of appetite. Those with daily average symptom severity scores ≥3/10 for any single symptom underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with collection of 4 esophageal (EoE), 8 gastric, and 4 duodenal biopsies, analyzed by central pathologists. Histologic criteria for EoE was ≥15eos/hpf in ≥1 esophageal site and for EG/EoD was peak eosinophil counts ≥30/hpf in ≥5 gastric hpfs and/or 3 duodenal hpfs—criteria used in randomized trials. Results Of 556 patients screened, 405 (73%) met symptom criteria and underwent EGD; 181 patients (45%, mean age 45, 73% female) who underwent EGD met the histologic criteria for EG/EoD, and of these, 7% also had EoE diagnosed. Overall 2% met histologic criteria for EoE alone. Of patients who met the histologic criteria for EG/EoD, 93% were previously diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), or functional dyspepsia (FD) (Figure 1). The average duration of GI symptoms in the screened population as well as those that met histologic criteria for EG/EoD was 11 years. Conclusion Forty-five percent of patients with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms who underwent EGD met histologic criteria for EG/EoD. Over 90% of these patients had previously been diagnosed with GERD, IBS, and/or FD, and had minimal overlap with EoE. EGD with systematic gastroduodenal biopsies, and intentional evaluation for tissue eosinophilia, should be performed in patients with chronic GI symptoms. Accurate diagnosis of EG/EoD is required for appropriate, targeted treatment and improved outcomes of patients with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms.

Abstract Background and study aim The clinical impact of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) limited to the distal esophagus (Lim-EE) vs. diffuse involvement (Dif-EE) is unknown. This study compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of Lim-EE vs. Dif-EE. Patients and methods This retrospective, single-center study of patients with EoE between December 2011 and December 2019 evaluated treatment response based on repeated pathology and/or clinical improvement using comparative statistics. Results 479 patients were identified (126 Lim-EE, 353 Dif-EE). Lim-EE patients had a higher incidence of endoscopically identified esophagitis (23.0 % vs. 14.7 %; P = 0.04), were older (50.8 [SD 16.2] vs. 46.4 [SD 15.3] years; P = 0.007), and were more likely to present with iron deficiency anemia (5.6 % vs. 1.7 %; P = 0.05), dyspepsia (15.1 % vs. 8.8 %; P = 0.06) or for Barrett’s surveillance (10.3 % vs. 3.7 %; P = 0.02). Patients with Dif-EE presented more frequently with dysphagia (57.2 % vs. 45.2 %; P = 0.02). Both groups had similar proton pump inhibitor (87.2 % vs. 83.3 %; P = 0.37) and steroid (12.8 % vs. 21.4 %; P = 0.14) use. Patients with Lim-EE had a better clinicopathologic response (61.5 % vs. 44.8 %; P = 0.009). On multivariate analysis, EoE extent predicted treatment response with an odds ratio of 1.89 (95 % confidence interval 1.13–3.20; P = 0.02). However, treatment response based only on repeat biopsy results showed no statistical difference between Lim-EE (52.5 %) and Dif-EE (39.7 %; P = 0.15). Conclusions Lim-EE may represent a distinct phenotype separate from Dif-EE, with more overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease and better treatment response.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric-emptying scintigraphy (GES), routinely used to measure gastric emptying, is an essential tool to diagnose gastroparesis. An accurate diagnosis of gastroparesis relies upon the GES being performed according to a validated protocol. Jointly published protocol guidelines have been available for over a decade; however, the extent to which these guidelines are adhered to is unknown. This study aimed to assess national compliance with established GES protocol guidelines. METHODS: We developed a questionnaire addressing key protocol measures outlined in the published Procedure Guideline for Adult Solid-Meal Gastric Emptying Study 3.0. Survey questions addressed patient information collection (15), patient preparation and procedure protocol (16), meal content and preparation (7), imaging (3), interpretation (4), and reporting (7). Demographic data was also collected. The anonymous questionnaire was distributed electronically to members of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging (SNMMI) and non-member recipients of the SNMMI daily email newsletter. One response per medical institution was permitted. Data were entered manually and statistically assessed using JMP®, Version 14.0. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. RESULTS: 121 medical institutions (MI) responded; 49 (40.4%) were academic/teaching medical centers. The mean number of annual GES procedures was 199.9 (range, 5 to 2000 GES/year). On average, MI performed 64% (33.5/52) of protocol measures according to guidelines while academic medical centers performed 61% (31.5/52) of protocol measures according to guidelines. Only 59% of MI use the validated meal. 42% of MI reported stopping imaging prior to the validated 4-hour interval. Only 16% of MI test blood glucose levels prior to GES while 71% cancel or reschedule GES if blood glucose levels are above the validated cut-off. 68% of MI ask patients if they take narcotic pain medications; only 49% require that patients stop taking narcotic pain medications at least two days prior to the GES. Only 4.5% of MI perform GES while adhering to 3 critical measures: validated study duration; controlling blood glucose levels; and properly restricting medication use. CONCLUSION: Low compliance with GES protocol guidelines, even among academic medical centers, raises the likely possibility of misdiagnosis and thus improper management of upper gastrointestinal symptoms. These results highlight a need for increased awareness of protocol guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: High-resolution manometry using the Chicago Classification is standard in the evaluation of esophageal motility. When the relaxation of the esophagogastric junction is impaired and achalasia excluded, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJ-OO) is diagnosed and the esophageal body is essentially ignored. We sought to characterize the function of the esophageal body in consecutive patients with EGJ-OO. METHODS: Retrospective review of the esophageal manometry findings in consecutive patients where there was computer recognition of EGJ-OO collected over a 2-month period. In each case, the esophageal body was reviewed manually and results reported independent of the suggested computer diagnosis. RESULTS: 116 patients underwent manometry over a 2-month period and 30 (26%) were identified as having EGJ-OO. The indications for testing included chronic cough (n = 5), GERD (n = 8), dysphagia (n = 9) and esophageal evaluation associated with severe lung disease or transplantation (n = 8). The mean IRP was 20.8 (range 16-33.6) and did not vary depending on indication ( P = 0.381). Computer interpretation was EGJ-OO in all patients without mention of the esophageal body. After review, 11 (37%) had an additional esophageal diagnosis. In effective esophageal motility (IEM) was the most prevalent among them (IEM-8, achalasia-2, jackhammer esophagus-1; P = 0.020). The frequency of an additional esophageal diagnosis was significantly different between GERD (0%) and dysphagia (66%; P = 0.004), but not between other groups (i.e. 40% in cough and 37.5% in transplant group). An esophageal body diagnosis was significantly more likely in patients with IRP > 25 (80%) compared with those with IRP < 25 (28%; P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: 1-EGJ-OO is common in patients referred for esophageal manometry. 2-An additional esophageal body diagnosis is common in those with EGJ-OO.3-Esophageal diagnoses are more common in patients with dysphagia and in those with a very high IRP. The body of the esophagus is important in cases of EGJ-OO and should be reported independent of the computer-generated interpretation of the Chicago Classification.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, which evaluated a novel formulation of caraway oil and L-menthol using microsphere-based site-specific targeting (COLM-SST) vs placebo in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD). METHODS: Adult men and women with FD defined by Rome III criteria were recruited. Patients were randomized to COLM-SST (25 mg of caraway oil and 20.75 mg of L-menthol per capsule, at 2 capsules per dose, twice per day) or placebo. Efficacy was measured at 24 hours, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. Patients were allowed to take concomitant medications for their FD throughout the trial, and rescue medicines were allowed, 48 hours after start of dosing. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled (mean age = 43.4 years; 75.8% women). At 24 hours, the active arm reported a statistically significant reduction in postprandial distress syndrome symptoms ( P = 0.039), and a nonsignificant trend toward benefit of epigastric pain syndrome symptoms ( P = 0.074). In patients with more severe symptoms, approximately 3 quarters of patients showed substantial global improvement (i.e., clinical global impressions), after 4 weeks of treatment, vs half in the control arm. These differences were statistically significant for patients with epigastric pain syndrome ( P = 0.046), and trending toward significance for patients with postprandial distress syndrome ( P = 0.091). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for Global Overall Symptom scores for the overall population at 2 and 4 weeks. Treatment emergent adverse events were mild to moderate, and no serious adverse events were reported. DISCUSSION: In patients taking their usual medications for FD, COLM-SST provided rapid relief (within 24 hours) and relief of severe FD symptoms. It was safe and well tolerated.