Collins, Margaret H.

Abstract Background We previously identified circulating and MRI biomarkers associated with the surgical management of Crohn’s disease (CD). Here we tested associations between these biomarkers and ileal resection inflammation and collagen content. Methods Fifty CD patients undergoing ileal resection were prospectively enrolled at 4 centers. Circulating CD64, extracellular matrix protein 1 (ECM1), GM-CSF autoantibodies (GM-CSF Ab), and fecal calprotectin were measured by ELISA. Ileal 3-dimensional magnetization transfer ratio (3D MTR), modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) T1 relaxation, diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), and the simplified magnetic resonance index of activity (sMaRIA) were measured by MRI. Ileal resection specimen acute inflammation was graded, and collagen content was measured quantitatively using second harmonic imaging microscopy. Associations between biomarkers and ileal collagen content were tested. Results Median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 19.5 (16-33) years. We observed an inverse relationship between ileal acute inflammation and collagen content (r = −0.39 [95% confidence interval {CI}: −0.61, −0.10], P = .008). Most patients (33 [66%]) received biologics, with no variation in collagen content with treatment exposures. In the univariate analysis, CD64, GM-CSF Ab, fecal calprotectin, and sMaRIA were positively associated with acute inflammation and negatively associated with collagen content (P < .1). The multivariable model for ileal collagen content (R2 = 0.31 [95% CI: 0.11, 0.52]) included log CD64 (β = −.27; P = .19), log ECM1 (β = .47; P = .06), log GM-CSF Ab (β = −.15; P = .01), IVIM f (β = .29, P = .10), and IVIM D* (β = 1.69, P = .13). Conclusions Clinically available and exploratory circulating and MRI biomarkers are associated with the degree of inflammation versus fibrosis in CD ileal resections. With further validation, these biomarkers may be used to guide medical and surgical decision-making for refractory CD.

In response to the social inequities that exist in health care, the NIH-funded Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR) recently formed a diversity committee to examine systemic racism and implicit bias in the care and research of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs). Herein, we describe our process, highlighting milestones and issues addressed since the committee’s inception, which we hope will inspire other researchers to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in their fields. Our journey began by establishing mission and vision statements to define the purpose of the committee. Regular discussion of diversity-related topics was incorporated into existing meetings and web-based materials were shared. This was followed by educational initiatives, including establishing a library of relevant publications and a speaker series to address DEIA topics. We then established a research agenda focused on the following actionable items: (1) to define what is known about the demographics of EGIDs by systematic review of population-based studies; (2) to develop a practical tool for reporting participant demographics to reduce bias in EGID literature; (3) to examine health disparities in the care of individuals with eosinophilic esophagitis who present to the emergency department with an esophageal food impaction; (4) to examine how access to a gastroenterologist affects the conclusions of published research examining the prevalence of pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis; and (5) to develop a model for examining the dimensions of diversity, and provide a framework for CEGIR’s ongoing projects and data capture. In addition to promoting consciousness of DEIA, this initiative has fostered inclusivity among CEGIR members and will continue to inspire positive changes in EGID care and research.

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.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal instrument for assessing histologic disease activity in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is unclear. We assessed the responsiveness of the EoE Histologic Scoring System (EoE-HSS) when compared with that of the peak eosinophil count (PEC). METHODS: Histopathology slides were obtained from patients with EoE at baseline and after 8 weeks of treatment with swallowed topical budesonide or elimination diet. Two blinded gastrointestinal pathologists scored biopsies on the EoE-HSS, PEC, and 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) of overall histologic severity. Change was defined as an improvement by ≥0.5 SD in baseline VAS. Responsiveness was quantified using the standardized effect size (SES) and the probability that the index distinguishes a patient with improvement from a patient without improvement, which is the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Longitudinal validity was assessed using Pearson correlations between changes in EoE-HSS and both PEC and VAS. RESULTS: The EoE-HSS grade (SES 2.18 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.46–2.88]; AUC 0.73 [95% CI: 0.57–0.84]) and stage (SES 2.07 [95% CI: 1.37–2.77]; AUC 0.73 [95% CI: 0.58–0.84]) were highly responsive, similar to PEC (SES 1.44 [95% CI: 0.80–2.07]; AUC 0.73 [95% CI: 0.58–0.84]). The EoE-HSS grade and stage were more highly correlated with changes in VAS (grade 0.92 [95% CI: 0.86–0.95]; stage 0.89 [95% CI: 0.81–0.94]) than with changes in PEC (grade 0.74 [95% CI: 0.58–0.85]; stage 0.66 [95% CI: 0.47–0.80]). DISCUSSION: The EoE-HSS is highly responsive, performs similarly to PEC, and is better correlated with changes in overall histologic activity in patients with EoE.

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.

INTRODUCTION: It is becoming clear that eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) activity cannot be measured by eosinophils alone, and that a more complete assessment is needed. The EoE Histology Scoring System (EoE HSS) measures the severity (grade) and extent (stage) of 8 histopathologic features in EoE: eosinophilic inflammation (EI); basal zone hyperplasia (BZH); eosinophilic abscess (EA); eosinophilic surface layering (SL); dilated intercellular spaces (DIS); surface epithelial alteration (SEA); dyskeratotic epithelial cells (DEC); and lamina propria fibrosis (LPF). We aimed to assess EoE histology at baseline using the EoE HSS, and to compare correlations between this and endoscopic and symptom outcomes. METHODS: This study analyzed baseline data from a 12-week, phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of budesonide oral suspension in patients with EoE (MPI 101-06; NCT01642212). Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 11–40 years and had EoE with dysphagia. Esophageal biopsies from patients were examined, and mean EoE HSS total score ratios and mean individual feature scores were calculated at baseline for all patients (irrespective of treatment allocation). A correlation analysis was then performed to compare these scores with Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) scores and those from the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) system at baseline. RESULTS: In total, 87 patients were included for analysis. At baseline, mean (standard deviation) EoE HSS grade and stage total score ratios for all patients were 0.5 (0.2) and 0.4 (0.1), respectively. For individual EoE HSS features, a summary of mean grade and stage scores at baseline is shown in Table 1; the most severe features for grade and stage were EI, BZH, DIS and LPF. At baseline, mean EoE HSS grade and stage total score ratios did not correlate with mean DSQ score, but did correlate significantly with mean EREFS score (grade: R = 0.3166; P = 0.0028; stage: R = 0.3344; P = 0.0015; Table 2). Similarly, mean scores for individual EoE HSS features did not correlate with mean DSQ score at baseline, but did correlate with mean EREFS score for 4 and 3 of the 8 features for grade and stage scores, respectively (Table 2). CONCLUSION: The most severe EoE HSS features at baseline for grade and stage were EI, BZH, DIS and LPF. At baseline, there were significant correlations between the EoE HSS and endoscopic severity, but not dysphagia. This suggests that the EoE HSS could become an essential and independent tool to measure EoE activity.