Horsley‐Silva, Jennifer L.

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Eosinophilic Esophagitis Background Active inflammation in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disrupts the mucosal barrier, leading to dilated intercellular spaces and decreased transepithelial electrical resistance. Mucosal impedance (MI) has been used to assess mucosal integrity in EoE. We evaluated whether baseline MI measured by high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) distinguishes active and inactive EoE. Methods We retrospectively reviewed data from patients with EoE who underwent endoscopic esophageal biopsies within three months of HRIM from 2018-2026 at our tertiary referral center and had no treatment changes between studies. We excluded patients with a history of foregut surgery, erosive esophagitis, or Barrett’s esophagus. Demographics, endoscopy and pathology results were collected by chart review. Active EoE was histologically defined as ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field. Esophageal baseline MI was measured in the 30-second landmark period for the whole esophagus (from 2 cm above LES to 2 cm below UES), distal esophagus (from 2–7 cm above LES), and mid/proximal esophagus (from 10 cm above LES to 2 cm below UES). Mann–Whitney U or T tests were used for comparisons . Optimal MI thresholds were identified by Youden index with 10,000 bootstrap validations, and interrater reliability was assessed using two-way mixed effects intraclass correlation coefficients. Results Seventy-three patients were included: 37 (51%) female, median age 52 years, median BMI 27.2 kg/m2. Fifty-seven patients (78%) had atopic history, including seasonal allergies (38, 52%), asthma (31, 42%), eczema (21, 29%), and food allergies (19, 26%). Thirty-nine patients (53%) were receiving proton pump inhibitors, 25 (34%) were not on EoE therapy, 5 (6.8%) were on swallowed topical steroids, 3 (4.1%) were on dupilumab, and 1 (1.4%) was on an elimination diet. Esophageal strictures were present in 23 patients (32%), and 45 (62%) had active EoE. Baseline MI measurement showed high interrater reliability (n=50, 2 raters; intraclass correlation coefficient 0.937–0.963, p<0.001). Basal mean and minimal impedance were significantly lower in active EoE across all segments, greatest in the distal esophagus (all p<0.05; Figure 1). ROC analysis showed high discrimination of distal mean MI, with a cutoff ≤1.91 kΩ (AUC=0.837, sensitivity 67.9%, specificity 86.7%, Youden 0.545; Figure 2). Conclusion Baseline mucosal impedance during HRIM distinguishes active from inactive EoE, with strongest discrimination in the distal esophagus, supporting MI as a potential, minimally-invasive physiologic marker of mucosal inflammation and disease activity. Clinically, MI may serve as an adjunct tool in dysphagia evaluation, prompting EoE-directed biopsy when abnormal, aiding management in biopsy–symptom discordance, and potentially supporting disease monitoring in selected patients. Larger prospective studies are warranted.

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Other Background Lichen planus is a chronic immune-mediated skin disease that may involve the esophagus. Esophageal lichen planus (ELP) is considered rare, but likely underdiagnosed. Lack of published guidelines for ELP results in significant treatment variability. Given heterogeneous practice patterns and emerging treatments, further outcome data are needed. Methods A retrospective cohort of ELP patients was assembled from 3 academic centers. Patients ≥ 18 years old were identified by ICD10 code search (L43.8) in the electronic health record, from 2006 to 2025. Patients were included if they had initial endoscopy, histology, and follow-up endoscopy showing features of LP, and excluded if there was diagnostic uncertainty, unavailable procedural documentation, or other esophageal diseases. Endoscopic findings were assessed qualitatively by manual review of reports. Data abstracted included demographics, presenting symptoms, endoscopic/histologic findings, treatment, and clinical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed in R. Results 193 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age at index endoscopy was 65 years, 86% were female, 98% were non-Hispanic Caucasian, 39% were ever smokers, and mean BMI was 26. Dysphagia was the most common presenting symptom (90%). Strictures were common (73%), 58% underwent dilation during initial endoscopy. Endoscopic findings included presence of sloughing (20%), exudate (22%) and friability (23%). Histology showed lymphocytic infiltrate (47%), parakeratosis/dyskeratosis (42%) and Civatte bodies (17%). Topical steroids (71%) and PPIs (63%) were used most frequently for treatment. Immunosuppressives (tacrolimus, systemic steroids, mycophenolate, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, cyclosporine, azathioprine, JAK inhibitor) were used in 54% of patients. Endoscopic improvement was seen in 66%, with highest response rates in tacrolimus (100%), hydroxychloroquine (100%), and a JAK inhibitor (100%). Symptom improvement was seen in 63%, with the greatest benefit seen in patients treated with a JAK inhibitor (100%) and hydroxychloroquine (86%). Conclusion In this large, multisite cohort, ELP demonstrated significant morbidity, with high rates of dysphagia, strictures, and inflammatory changes. Dilation appeared to be safe, with only a single iatrogenic perforation identified. Esophageal squamous cell cancer risk was low but present, at 4%. Despite heterogeneous treatment practices, several therapies – tacrolimus, hydroxychloroquine, and JAK inhibitors – were associated with marked endoscopic and symptomatic improvement. Prospective studies are needed to clarify the optimal approach to pharmacological management of ELP.

ABSTRACT Background Eosinophilic esophagitis is associated with epithelial barrier dysfunction. Epidemiologic studies suggest environmental factors promote disease pathogenesis. The common household detergent sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) induces epithelial barrier dysfunction and eosinophilic inflammation in mice. We hypothesized that acute SDS exposure would compromise the esophageal mucosal barrier in humans. Methods Healthy adults brushed with 2 g of an SDS‐containing toothpaste. Esophageal impedance was measured continuously pre‐/post‐toothbrushing to assess the effect of toothpaste on epithelial barrier function. SDS was measured in saliva using a methylene blue anionic substances assay. Participants completed 1‐h esophageal string tests (ESTs) pre‐/post‐toothbrushing and protein isolates from EST eluates from the proximal and distal esophagus were analyzed by tandem mass tag mass spectrometry. Results Ten of twelve subjects completed the clinical study. SDS in the initial expectorate measured immediately after toothbrushing varied markedly (median: 321.40 μg/mL; range: 169.90–1243.00 μg/mL) and was detectable in saliva in 80% of subjects (median: 9.55 μg/mL; range: 0–123.40 μg/mL) at 60 min post toothbrushing. Esophageal mucosal impedance decreased within 30 min of toothbrushing ( p < 0.01). Toothbrushing increased salivary viscosity and proteins associated with mucosal defense in EST eluates. The tight junction pathway was downregulated while the salivary secretion and complement and coagulation cascades pathways were upregulated in the proximal esophagus. Conclusion In healthy individuals, SDS remained detectable in saliva for a prolonged period after toothbrushing at concentrations previously shown to disrupt esophageal epithelial barrier function in vitro. Toothbrushing with an SDS‐containing toothpaste was associated with reduced esophageal mucosal impedance, altered salivary properties, and activated mucosal immune responses.

ABSTRACT Capillary malformation-arteriovenous type 2 syndrome (CM-AVM2) is a rare, genetic vascular disorder associated with abnormal capillary malformations and arteriovenous malformations. We present a case of CM-AVM2 with refractory diarrhea and failure to thrive due to aberrant, telangiectatic capillaries, and subepithelial collagen deposition found throughout the GI tract on bidirectional endoscopy. The patient was recalcitrant to standard therapies, so bevacizumab was trialed, but the patient expired. This is the first case of CM-AVM2 with diffuse GI mucosal involvement resulting in malabsorption. There is no treatment for this pathology, but treatment with bevacizumab or a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor may be efficacious.

Article Title: ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended to encourage question-asking by patients and enhance patient-physician communication. To date, an EoE-specific QPL has not been developed for EoE patients. Aim: To develop a preliminary QPL specific to adults with EoE by incorporating input from international esophageal experts. Methods: Sixteen experts were invited to generate QPL content through a modified Delphi (RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, CA) method consisting of 2 rounds of independent ratings. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “what general questions should patients ask when being seen for EoE?” and “what questions do I not hear patients asking but given my experience, I believe they should be asking?” In round 2, experts rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale, and responses rated as “essential” or “important” (determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥ 4.0) were accepted for the EoE QPL. Results: Ten esophageal experts participated in both rounds. Round 1 generated 100 questions. Questions were combined and modified to reduce redundancy, yielding 57 questions. After round 2, 51 questions (85%) were accepted for inclusion (median value ≥ 4.0) in the final QPL. Questions were then divided into 4 themes based on disease domains: (1) “What is EoE?,” (2) “Treatment Options,” (3) “Follow-up Surveillance and Long-term Risks,” and (4) “Allergy and Genetic Testing.” The largest number of questions covered was “What is EoE?” (16/51 or 31%). Questions with the highest agreement median (5.0) included examples such as “what should I do if I get a food impaction?” and “what are the treatment options?” Conclusion: This is the first preliminary EoE QPL developed in the field of medicine. We hope implementation enhances effective patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask relevant questions that experts prioritized. Future studies will aim to modify this communication tool by incorporating patient perspectives

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the diagnostic utility of eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) staining on Cytosponge (CS) samples in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). METHODS: Esophageal biopsy (BX) samples from adult subjects with EoE were assessed using peak eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf), EPX, and the EoE histologic scoring system. EPX staining and eos/hpf were compared (BX vs CS). RESULTS: CS EPX positivity correlated with eos/hpf (CS [ r = 0.82, P < 0.0001]; BX [ r = 0.65, P < 0.0001]) and EoE histologic scoring system (grade [ r = 0.62, P < 0.00001]; stage [ r = 0.61, P < 0.0001]). CS EPX identified subjects with active EoE (area under the curve = 0.86, P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: The correlation of CS EPX with eosinophilic inflammation and histologic disease severity supports its diagnostic utility in EoE.