Katzka, David A.

AbstractBackground and PurposeIneffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most frequently diagnosed esophageal motility abnormality and characterized by diminished esophageal peristaltic vigor and frequent weak, absent, and/or fragmented peristalsis on high‐resolution esophageal manometry. Despite its commonplace occurrence, this condition can often provoke uncertainty for both patients and clinicians. Although the diagnostic criteria used to define this condition has generally become more stringent over time, it is unclear whether the updated criteria result in a more precise clinical diagnosis. While IEM is often implicated with symptoms of dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux disease, the strength of these associations remains unclear. In this review, we share a practical approach to IEM highlighting its definition and evolution over time, commonly associated clinical symptoms, and important management and treatment considerations. We also share the significance of this condition in patients undergoing evaluation for anti‐reflux surgery and consideration for lung transplantation.

Goals: Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). Background: IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging. Study: Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process. Results: All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2’s virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient’s presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning. Conclusion: Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.

SummaryBackgroundPredictive models for eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) may not fully rule in the diagnosis.AimTo develop a reverse model that predicts against EoE to eliminate the need for oesophageal biopsies.MethodsIn this two‐centre study, a predictive model was developed (Mayo Clinic) and validated (University of North Carolina [UNC]). Cross‐sectional data from consecutive adult patients without prior EoE who underwent upper enoscopy with oesophageal biopsies were used. EoE cases had ≥15 eosinophils/high‐power field while controls had no eosinophils. Data were collected on patient clinical and endoscopic features. Multiple variable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of non‐EoE status while maintaining specificity ≥95%. A secondary model was developed to predict against the need for endoscopy in patients suspected of having EoE without alarm symptoms.ResultsThe Mayo and UNC cohorts consisted of 345 (EoE = 94, non‐EoE = 251) and 297 patients (EoE = 84, non‐EoE = 213), respectively. A primary model based on clinical and endoscopic features predicted against EoE with c‐statistic 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88–0.96), specificity 95%, and sensitivity 65%. This model was validated (UNC) with c‐statistic 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82–0.92). A simplified scoring system was created and a threshold of ≥12 points excluded EoE with 95% specificity and 50% sensitivity. A secondary model based on clinical characteristics alone predicted against EoE with c‐statistic 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82–0.90), specificity 95% and sensitivity 39% and validated (UNC) with c‐statistic 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71–0.85).ConclusionA simplified scoring system accurately identified a group of patients with a low likelihood of EoE where unnecessary oesophageal biopsies can be avoided, potentially resulting in resource and cost savings.

LINKED CONTENTThis article is linked to Ravi et al and Uchida & Dougan papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16180 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16205

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.

Goals: To better understand the characteristics, treatment approaches, and outcomes of patients with esophageal lichen planus (ELP). Background: ELP is a rare, often unrecognized and misdiagnosed disorder. Data on this unique patient population are currently limited to small, single-center series. Study: A multicenter, retrospective descriptive study was conducted of adults diagnosed with ELP over a 5-year period, between January 1, 2015, and October 10, 2020, from 7 centers across the United States. Results: Seventy-eight patients (average age 65 y, 86% female, 90% Caucasian) were included. Over half had at least 1 extraesophageal manifestation. Esophageal strictures (54%) and abnormal mucosa (50%) were frequent endoscopic findings, with the proximal esophagus the most common site of stricture. Approximately 20% had normal endoscopic findings. Topical steroids (64%) and/or proton pump inhibitors (74%) dominated management; endoscopic response favored steroids (43% vs. 29% respectively). Almost half of the patients required switching treatment modalities during the study period. Adjunctive therapies varied significantly between centers. Conclusions: Given its at times subtle clinical and endoscopic signs, a high index of suspicion and biopsy will improve ELP diagnosis, especially in those with extraesophageal manifestations. Effective therapies are lacking and vary significantly. Prospective investigations into optimal treatment regimens are necessary.

AbstractBackgroundQuestion prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease‐specific questions, intended to encourage question‐asking by patients and enhance patient‐physician communication. To date, a dysphagia‐specific QPL has not been developed for patients with esophageal dysphagia symptoms. We aim to develop a dysphagia‐specific QPL incorporating both esophageal expert and patient perspectives, applying rigorous methodology.MethodsThe QPL content was generated applying a two‐round modified Delphi (RAND/UCLA) method among 11 experts. In round one, experts provided five answers to the prompts: “What general questions should patients ask when being seen for dysphagia?” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking but, given my experience, I believe they should be asking?” In round two, experts rated proposed questions on a 5‐point Likert scale. Responses rated as “essential” or “important”, determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥4.0, were accepted for inclusion. Subsequently, 20 patients from Stanford Health Care were enrolled to modify the preliminary QPL, to incorporate their perspectives and opinions. Patients independently rated questions applying the same 5‐point Likert scale. At the end, patients were encouraged to propose additional questions to incorporate into the QPL by open‐endedly asking “Are there questions we didn't ask, that you think we should?”Key ResultsEleven experts participated in both voting rounds. Of 85 questions generated from round one, 60 (70.6%) were accepted for inclusion, meeting a median value of ≥4.0. Questions were combined to reduce redundancy, narrowing down to 44 questions. Questions were categorized into the following six themes: 1. “What is causing my dysphagia?”; 2. “Associated symptoms”; 3. “Testing for dysphagia”; 4. “Lifestyle modifications”; 5. “Treatment for dysphagia”; and 6. “Prognosis”. The largest number of questions covered “What is causing my dysphagia” (27.3%). Twenty patients participated and modified the QPL. Of the 44 questions experts agreed were important, only 30 questions (68.2%) were accepted for inclusion. Six patients proposed 10 additional questions and after incorporating the suggested questions, the final dysphagia‐specific QPL created by esophageal experts and modified by patients consisted of 40 questions.Conclusions & InferencesIncorporating expert and patient perspectives, we developed a dysphagia‐specific QPL to enhance patient‐physician communication. Our study highlights importance of incorporating patient perspective when developing such a communication tool. Further studies will measure the impact of this communication tool on patient engagement.

Background Methods: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?” Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as “essential” or “important” were included in Barrett’s esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). Results: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. Conclusions: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.