Lucendo, Alfredo

Abstract Background and Aims Microscopic colitis [MC] is currently regarded as an inflammatory bowel disease that manifests as two subtypes: collagenous colitis [CC] and lymphocytic colitis [LC]. Whether these represent a clinical continuum or distinct entities is, however, an open question. Genetic investigations may contribute important insight into their respective pathophysiologies. Methods We conducted a genome-wide association study [GWAS] meta-analysis in 1498 CC, 373 LC patients, and 13 487 controls from Europe and the USA, combined with publicly available MC GWAS data from UK Biobank and FinnGen [2599 MC cases and 552 343 controls in total]. Human leukocyte antigen [HLA] alleles and polymorphic residues were imputed and tested for association, including conditional analyses for the identification of key causative variants and residues. Genetic correlations with other traits and diagnoses were also studied. Results We detected strong HLA association with CC, and conditional analyses highlighted the DRB1*03:01 allele and its residues Y26, N77, and R74 as key to this association (best p = 1.4 × 10-23, odds ratio [OR] = 1.96). Nominally significant genetic correlations were detected between CC and pneumonia [rg = 0.77; p = 0.048] and oesophageal diseases [rg = 0.45, p = 0.023]. An additional locus was identified in MC GWAS analyses near the CLEC16A and RMI2 genes on chromosome 16 [rs35099084, p = 2.0 × 10-8, OR = 1.31]. No significant association was detected for LC. Conclusion Our results suggest CC and LC have distinct pathophysiological underpinnings, characterised by an HLA predisposing role only in CC. This challenges existing classifications, eventually calling for a re-evaluation of the utility of MC umbrella definitions.

AbstractIntroductionMicroscopic colitis is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease characterised by normal or almost normal endoscopic appearance of the colon, chronic watery, nonbloody diarrhoea and distinct histological abnormalities, which identify three histological subtypes, the collagenous colitis, the lymphocytic colitis and the incomplete microscopic colitis. With ongoing uncertainties and new developments in the clinical management of microscopic colitis, there is a need for evidence‐based guidelines to improve the medical care of patients suffering from this disorder.MethodsGuidelines were developed by members from the European Microscopic Colitis Group and United European Gastroenterology in accordance with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Following a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Statements and recommendations were developed by working groups consisting of gastroenterologists, pathologists and basic scientists, and voted upon using the Delphi method.ResultsThese guidelines provide information on epidemiology and risk factors of microscopic colitis, as well as evidence‐based statements and recommendations on diagnostic criteria and treatment options, including oral budesonide, bile acid binders, immunomodulators and biologics. Recommendations on the clinical management of microscopic colitis are provided based on evidence, expert opinion and best clinical practice.ConclusionThese guidelines may support clinicians worldwide to improve the clinical management of patients with microscopic colitis.

Consensus diagnostic recommendations to distinguish GORD from eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) by response to a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) unexpectedly uncovered an entity called ‘PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia’ (PPI-REE). PPI-REE refers to patients with clinical and histological features of EoE that remit with PPI treatment. Recent and evolving evidence, mostly from adults, shows that patients with PPI-REE and patients with EoE at baseline are clinically, endoscopically and histologically indistinguishable and have a significant overlap in terms of features of Th2 immune-mediated inflammation and gene expression. Furthermore, PPI therapy restores oesophageal mucosal integrity, reduces Th2 inflammation and reverses the abnormal gene expression signature in patients with PPI-REE, similar to the effects of topical steroids in patients with EoE. Additionally, recent series have reported that patients with EoE responsive to diet/topical steroids may also achieve remission on PPI therapy. This mounting evidence supports the concept that PPI-REE represents a continuum of the same immunological mechanisms that underlie EoE. Accordingly, it seems counterintuitive to differentiate PPI-REE from EoE based on a differential response to PPI therapy when their phenotypic, molecular, mechanistic and therapeutic features cannot be reliably distinguished. For patients with symptoms and histological features of EoE, it is reasonable to consider PPI therapy not as a diagnostic test, but as a therapeutic agent. Due to its safety profile, ease of administration and high response rates (up to 50%), PPI can be considered a first-line treatment before diet and topical steroids. The reasons why some patients with EoE respond to PPI, while others do not, remain to be elucidated.

This paper presents commentaries on whether eosinophilic esophagitis is a food allergy; inflammation in the context of eosinophilic esophagitis; whether eosinophilic esophagitis a cause of noncardiac chest pain; the role of endoscopy in the evaluation of eosinophilic esophagitis; and whether response to proton pump inhibitor therapy can distinguish eosinophilic esophagitis from gastroesophageal reflux disease.