DeVault, Kenneth

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.

The following on achalasia and disorders of the esophageal body includes commentaries on controversies regarding whether patients with complete lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxation can be considered to exhibit early achalasia; the roles of different mucle components of the LES in achalasia; sensory neural pathways impaired in achalasia; indications for peroral endoscopic myotomy and advantages of the technique over laparoscopic and thorascopic myotomy; factors contributing to the success of surgical therapy for achalasia; modifications to the classification of esophageal body primary motility disorders in the advent of high‐resolution manometry (HRM); analysis of the LES in differentiating between achalasia and diffuse esophageal spasm (DES); and appropriate treatment for DES, nutcracker esophagus (NE), and hypertensive LES (HTLES).

The following paper on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and Barrett's esophagus (BE) includes commentaries on defining esophageal landmarks; new techniques for evaluating upper esophageal sphincter (UES) tone; differential diagnosis of GERD, BE, and hiatal hernia (HH); the use of high‐resolution manometry for evaluation of reflux; the role of fundic relaxation in reflux; the use of 24‐h esophageal pH–impedance testing in differentiating acid from nonacid reflux and its potential inclusion in future Rome criteria; classification of endoscopic findings in GERD; the search for the cell origin that generates BE; and the relationship between BE, Barrett's carcinoma, and obesity.