Gonsalves, Nirmala

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 Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), gastritis (EG), and/or duodenitis (EoD) are associated with accumulation and activation of eosinophils and mast cells in the esophagus, stomach, and/or duodenum, respectively. Lirentelimab (AK002), an antibody against siglec-8, depletes eosinophils and inhibits mast cells. We performed an open-label extension (OLE) study of subjects who completed ENIGMA (a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study of lirentelimab in adults with symptomatic, biopsy-confirmed EG and/or EoD, with or without EoE) to evaluate long-term responses. Methods Subjects who received 4 monthly infusions of lirentelimab or placebo during ENIGMA (n = 59) were eligible for the OLE; they received monthly, escalating doses of lirentelimab (0.3 or 1 mg/kg escalating to 3 mg/kg). Symptoms were assessed weekly using an electronic daily patient-reported outcome questionnaire and total symptom scores (TSS) were calculated. Patients underwent upper endoscopy with biopsy at screening and at the end of ENIGMA (day 99, week 16, blinded); in the OLE, endoscopies were performed on day 323 (30 weeks after the first dose in the OLE). Histopathology was assessed by a single pathologist. Results Fifty-eight subjects entered the OLE; 45 completed ≥52 weeks lirentelimab (including exposure during ENIGMA) and 29 completed 70 weeks. Mean TSS improved through week 70 (Figure 1). Subjects receiving 70 weeks lirentelimab (ENIGMA+OLE) had further improvements in TSS from baseline (mean reductions: 68% at weeks 29–30, 70% at weeks 51–52, 75% at weeks 69–70). Symptom scores (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, early satiety, appetite loss, abdominal cramping, bloating, diarrhea) decreased significantly from baseline. Treatment response was not associated with concomitant EoE. The most common adverse event was mild to moderate infusion-related reactions, usually with the first infusion. Conclusion In the OLE of the ENIGMA study, patients with EG and or EoD (with or without concomitant EoE) who received lirentelimab had sustained tissue eosinophil depletion and significant long-term symptom improvement. Symptoms continued to improve with duration of treatment. Lirentelimab appears to be a promising targeted treatment for EG and/or EoD.

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 Dysphagia is the main symptom of adult eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We describe a novel syndrome, referred to as “food‐induced immediate response of the esophagus” (FIRE), observed in EoE patients. Methods Food‐induced immediate response of the esophagus is an unpleasant/painful sensation, unrelated to dysphagia, occurring immediately after esophageal contact with specific foods. Eosinophilic esophagitis experts were surveyed to estimate the prevalence of FIRE, characterize symptoms, and identify food triggers. We also surveyed a large group of EoE patients enrolled in the Swiss EoE Cohort Study for FIRE. Results Response rates were 82% (47/57) for the expert and 65% (239/368) for the patient survey, respectively. Almost, 90% of EoE experts had observed the FIRE symptom complex in their patients. Forty percent of EoE patients reported experiencing FIRE, more commonly in patients who developed EoE symptoms at a younger age (mean age of 46.4 years vs 54.1 years without FIRE; P < .01) and in those with high allergic comorbidity. Food‐induced immediate response of the esophagus symptoms included narrowing, burning, choking, and pressure in the esophagus appearing within 5 minutes of ingesting a provoking food that lasted less than 2 hours. Symptom severity rated a median 7 points on a visual analogue scale from 1 to 10. Fresh fruits/vegetables and wine were the most frequent triggers. Endoscopic food removal was significantly more commonly reported in male patients with vs without FIRE (44.3% vs 27.6%; P = .03). Conclusions Food‐induced immediate response of the esophagus is a novel syndrome frequently reported in EoE patients, characterized by an intense, unpleasant/painful sensation occurring rapidly and reproducibly in 40% of surveyed EoE patients after esophageal contact with specific foods.

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.