Straumann, Alex

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.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of obesity on disease activity and disease outcome in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.Patients and methodsThe impact of obesity on inflammatory bowel disease disease activity and outcome was retrospectively assessed in 3075 patients enrolled in the prospective nation‐wide Swiss inflammatory bowel disease cohort between July 2006 and September 2018. Baseline characteristics, disease activity and disease course in 325 obese inflammatory bowel disease patients (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) were compared to 1725 normal weight inflammatory bowel disease individuals (body mass index 18.5‐24.9).ResultsAmong 3075 patients in the prospective Swiss inflammatory bowel disease cohort, 325 patients (10.6%) were obese, namely, 194 Crohn’s disease patients, 131 ulcerative colitis, and inflammatory bowel disease‐unclassified patients. Disease activity scores were elevated in obese Crohn’s disease (Crohn’s Disease Activity Index 33 vs 20, p = 0.001), but not ulcerative colitis patients. Obese Crohn’s disease, but not ulcerative colitis patients were less likely to be in remission based on a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index less than 100 and a calprotectin less than 100 ug/g. In a multivariate regression model, obesity was negatively associated with disease remission in Crohn’s disease (odds ratio 0.610, 95% confidence interval 0.402–0.926, p = 0.020), but not ulcerative colitis. Increased soft stool frequency was observed in both obese Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis patients. Adjusted Cox regression models revealed increased risk of complicated disease course in obese Crohn’s disease patients (hazard ratio 1.197, 95% confidence interval 1.046–1.370, p = 0.009). No association between obesity and disease progression, index treatment failure was seen neither in Crohn’s disease nor ulcerative colitis.ConclusionObesity is associated with decreased rates of disease remission and increased risk of complicated disease course in Crohn’s disease over a six‐year follow‐up period. No effects were seen on disease progression and index treatment failure neither in Crohn’s disease nor ulcerative colitis.

Summary As the awareness among gastroenterologists regarding endoscopic features suggesting eosinophilic esophagitis is increasing, individuals without symptoms of esophageal dysfunction are increasingly being found to have esophageal eosinophilia on biopsies performed during upper gastrointestinal endoscopies. However, the course of disease and the management of these asymptomatic individuals with esophageal eosinophilia remain elusive. In this review, we propose a definition of asymptomatic individuals with esophageal eosinophilia and discuss the prevalence, risk factors, and course of disease of this specific patient group. Furthermore, we have established a diagnostic and therapeutic pathway based on the most recent available data.

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.

SummaryBackgroundWell informed patients who are in cohesive partnership with physicians and who have realistic expectations towards therapy are more likely to be adherent, which results in better disease control.AimTo assess which therapy goals adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis consider relevant.MethodsFollowing refinement during three focus groups, a study brochure and questionnaire were sent to 148 patients. Patients ranked the importance (five levels) of short‐term (in the next 3 months) and long‐term (≥1 year) treatment effect on symptoms, quality of life (QoL), histologically‐detected inflammation and fibrosis, endoscopically‐detected inflammation, and stricture formation as well as achieving histological remission while asymptomatic. Patients’ characteristics associated with treatment goals were identified using logistic regression.ResultsOf 109 respondents (mean age 43 years), 85 were men. Over 90% chose symptoms and QoL improvement as important short‐ and long‐term therapy goals. A greater proportion attributed more importance to long‐term reduction in endoscopic (90% vs 73%, P < 0.001) and histological (81% vs 62%, P = 0.002) inflammation, and histologically‐detected fibrosis (79% vs 64%, P = 0.018) when compared to short‐term reduction in these features. Patients (88%) ranked achieving histological remission while being asymptomatic as important. Gender, therapy use, education level, QoL, symptom severity, and history of dilation were associated with patients’ choice of treatment goals.ConclusionsPatients attributed most importance to improvement in symptoms and QoL. Reduction in biological activity was judged less important, but more relevant in the long‐ compared to the short‐term.

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.

Abstract Background Long‐lasting food impactions requiring endoscopic bolus removal occur frequently in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis ( E o E ) and harbor a risk for severe esophageal injuries. We evaluated whether treatment with swallowed topical corticosteroids is able to reduce the risk of occurrence of this complication. Methods We analyzed data from the S wiss E o E C ohort Study. Patients with yearly clinic visits, during which standardized assessment of symptoms, endoscopic, histologic, and laboratory findings was carried out, were included. Results A total of 206 patients (157 males) were analyzed. The median follow‐up time was 5 years with a total of 703 visits (mean 3.41 visits/patient). During the follow‐up period, 33 patients (16 % of the cohort) experienced 42 impactions requiring endoscopic bolus removal. We evaluated the following factors regarding the outcome ‘bolus impaction’ by univariate logistic regression modeling: swallowed topical corticosteroid therapy ( OR 0.503, 95%‐ CI 0.255–0.993, P = 0.048), presence of EoE symptoms ( OR 1.150, 95%‐ CI 0.4668–2.835, P = 0.761), esophageal stricture ( OR 2.832, 95%‐ CI 1.508–5.321, P = 0.001), peak eosinophil count >10 eosinophils/ HPF ( OR 0.724, 95%‐ CI 0.324–1.621, P = 0.433), blood eosinophilia ( OR 1.532, 95%‐ CI 0.569–4.118, P = 0.398), and esophageal dilation ( OR 1.852, 95%‐ CI 1.034–3.755, P = 0.017). In the multivariate model, the following factors were significantly associated with bolus impaction: swallowed topical corticosteroid therapy ( OR 0.411, 95%‐ CI 0.203–0.835, P = 0.014) and esophageal stricture ( OR 2.666, 95%‐ CI 1.259–5.645, P = 0.01). Increasing frequency of use of swallowed topical steroids was associated with a lower risk for bolus impactions. Conclusions Treatment of E o E with swallowed topical corticosteroids significantly reduces the risk for long‐lasting bolus impactions.