Katzka, David A.

SummaryBackgroundEstimation of the prevalence of oesophageal narrowing and its clinical relevance in patients with oesophageal eosinophilia is probably underestimated by endoscopy.AimsTo determine the sensitivity and specificity of oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for oesophageal narrowing when compared to a structured oesophagram.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review at Mayo Clinic, Rochester of adult patients with eosinophilic oesophageal infiltration of >15 eosinophils/hpf with symptomatic dysphagia, who underwent a structured barium oesophagram. The sensitivity and specificity of EGD were evaluated against the gold standard of oesophagram. Demographic and multiple clinical factors were evaluated as potential predictors of oesophageal narrowing.ResultsOf the 58 patients identified, 34 (58.6%) had a narrowed oesophageal diameter (<21 mm). EGD had poor sensitivity (14.7%, 95% CI 5.0–31.1%) for detection of a narrowed oesophagus and only modest specificity (79.2%, 95% CI 57.8–92.9%). Even at a cut‐off diameter of EDmax ≤ 15 mm, EGD had a sensitivity of only 25.0% (95% CI 5.5–57.2%) for narrowed oesophagus. A history of >5 food impaction episodes, endoscopic rings, and female sex were the best predictors of oesophageal narrowing. 86% (6/7) patients with persistent dysphagia despite remission of histological eosinophilia responded to oesophageal dilation all of whom had radiological oesophageal narrowing and 71% of whom had no perceived oesophageal narrowing at EGD.ConclusionsSymptomatic oesophageal narrowing identified by barium oesophagography is common and under‐recognised at endoscopy in patients with oesophageal eosinophilia.

Background Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is presumed to be an isolated oesophageal disease; yet other allergic diseases associated with eosinophilic infiltration of target tissues, such as asthma and eczema, show perturbed functions of other sites that may be involved in the diathesis of allergy modulation. Aim To analyse small intestinal permeability in patients with active EoE and in a separate group of patients in remission. Methods Small bowel permeability was determined using a dual sugar method by calculating lactulose:mannitol (L:M) ratio in 17 patients who met consensus criteria for active EoE (>15 eos/HPF) and 8 patients in remission (<5 eos/HPF). Data from 28 healthy controls was used for comparison. Results Patients with active EoE had significantly higher L:M ratios when compared to controls (0.045 vs. 0.033, p<0.001) and to EoE in remission (0.041 vs. 0.027, p<.001). There was no significant difference in L:M between the group with EoEin remission and healthy controls. The current data show that L:M ratio of 0.033 also provides a reasonable cut-off that defined the active EoE group compared to patients in remission. The main component explaining the change in L:M ratio was increased absorption (and excretion) of lactulose ((1601±106 ug) when compared to the EoE remission (969±91 ug) and control (1043±92 ug, p<.001) groups. Conclusions Small bowel permeability is overall increased in patients with active EoE, and is normal in patients with EoE in remission when compared to healthy controls. The role of the small bowel in active EoE deserves further investigation.

BackgroundPatients with disorders of gastrointestinal function may undergo unnecessary treatment if misdiagnosed as motility disorders.ObjectiveTo report on clinical features, medical, surgical, and psychiatric comorbidities, and prior treatments of a patient cohort diagnosed concurrently with nonpsychogenic rumination syndrome and pelvic floor dysfunction (also termed rectal evacuation disorder).MethodsFrom a consecutive series (1994–2013) of 438 outpatients with rectal evacuation disorders in the practice of a single gastroenterologist at a tertiary care centre, 57 adolescents or adults were diagnosed with concomitant rumination syndrome. All underwent formal psychological assessment or completed validated questionnaires.ResultsAll 57 patients (95% female) fulfilled Rome III criteria for rumination syndrome; rectal evacuation disorder was confirmed by testing of anal sphincter pressures and rectal balloon evacuation. Prior to diagnosis, most patients underwent multiple medical and surgical treatments (gastrostomy, gastric fundoplication, other gastric surgery, ileostomy, colectomy) for their symptoms. Psychological comorbidity was identified in 93% of patients. Patients were managed predominantly with psychological and behavioural approaches: diaphragmatic breathing for rumination and biofeedback retraining for pelvic floor dysfunction.ConclusionsAwareness of concomitant rectal evacuation disorder and rumination syndrome and prompt identification of psychological comorbidity are keys to instituting behavioural and psychological methods to avoid unnecessary treatment.

AbstractBackgroundLow basal lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and transient LES relaxations are major causes of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Pumosetrag, a novel selective partial 5HT3 receptor agonist, showed a promising effect on reducing reflux events in health. We aimed to evaluate the effect of pumosetrag on changes in reflux episodes, lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP), and specific symptoms in patients with GERD receiving a refluxogenic meal.MethodsPatients with GERD, who developed heartburn and/or regurgitation after ingestion of a refluxogenic meal, were randomized to 1 of 3 dose levels of pumosetrag (0.2, 0.5, or 0.8 mg) or placebo. Before and after 7 days of treatment, patients underwent manometry, intraesophageal multichannel, intraluminal impedance and pH after a standard refluxogenic meal.Key ResultsA total of 223 patients with GERD [125 (56%) women, mean (SD) age = 36 (12) years] were enrolled. No overall treatment effects were detected for the total number of reflux episodes (acidic and weakly acidic) (p > 0.5); however, significant treatment effects (p < 0.05) on the number of acid reflux episodes were observed with lower values on pumosetrag 0.2 mg (10.8 ± 1.1), 0.5 mg (9.5 ± 1.1), and 0.8 mg (9.9 ± 1.1) compared with placebo (13.3 ± 1.1). Significant treatment effects (p < 0.05) were also observed for the percentage of time pH was <4, with less time for pumosetrag at 0.5 mg (10%) and 0.8 mg (10%) compared with placebo (16%).Conclusions & InferencesIn GERD, the partial 5HT3 agonist pumosetrag significantly reduced the rate of acid reflux events but did not result in a significant change in LESP or symptomatic improvement over a 1‐week treatment period.

SummaryBackgroundRecent advances in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) have confirmed the existence of a new disease phenotype, proton pump inhibitor (PPI)‐responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI‐REE).AimTo summarise evidence supporting the use of PPI therapy in patients with suspected EoE (oesophageal dysfunction plus >15 eos/HPF in oesophageal biopsies).MethodsA literature search was conducted through MEDLINE, using the MeSH search terms ‘eosinophilic oesophagitis’, ‘proton pump inhibitors’ and ‘oesophageal eosinophilia’. Relevant articles and their reference lists were identified through manual review.ResultsTen articles, including 258 patients with suspected EoE (152 children, 106 adults) undergoing clinico‐histological re‐evaluation after PPI therapy, were identified. In children, clinical response ranged from 78% to 86% and histological remission from 23% to 40%. In adults, symptom response ranged from 25% to 80% and histological remission from 33% to 61%. Among PPI‐REE patients with oesophageal pH‐monitoring, 35 showed pathological and 10 normal studies. PPI‐REE was significantly commoner with documented gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) when compared to patients with negative pH monitoring (70% vs. 29%, P < 0.001). Symptom improvement/resolution occurred in 50–85% of patients without histological remission on PPI therapy. Six PPI‐REE patients demonstrated clinico‐histological relapse on PPI therapy.ConclusionsAt least one third of patients with suspected EoE achieve clinico‐histological remission on PPI therapy. Response is more limited in children compared with that in adults. pH monitoring does not accurately predict response to PPI therapy, albeit histological remission is significantly higher, up to 70%, upon documented GERD. Symptom improvement is common with PPI therapy despite persistent eosinophilic infiltration.