Citations

Abstract Although the prevalence of eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) is increasing, there is evidence that eosinophilic gastritis and/or duodenitis (EG/EoD) are underdiagnosed. Patients with EG/EoD often present with chronic, non-specific gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, similar to patients with functional GI disorders. We hypothesized that systematic evaluation, including multiple esophageal, gastric and duodenal biopsies, of patients with chronic GI symptoms might reveal a high rate of gastroduodenal eosinophila, with or without eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Methods We performed a prospective multi-center study of patients with non-specific GI symptoms for ≥6 months, from 20 sites. Patients completed a questionnaire assessing abdominal pain, abdominal cramping, early satiety, bloating, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and loss of appetite. Those with daily average symptom severity scores ≥3/10 for any single symptom underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with collection of 4 esophageal (EoE), 8 gastric, and 4 duodenal biopsies, analyzed by central pathologists. Histologic criteria for EoE was ≥15eos/hpf in ≥1 esophageal site and for EG/EoD was peak eosinophil counts ≥30/hpf in ≥5 gastric hpfs and/or 3 duodenal hpfs—criteria used in randomized trials. Results Of 556 patients screened, 405 (73%) met symptom criteria and underwent EGD; 181 patients (45%, mean age 45, 73% female) who underwent EGD met the histologic criteria for EG/EoD, and of these, 7% also had EoE diagnosed. Overall 2% met histologic criteria for EoE alone. Of patients who met the histologic criteria for EG/EoD, 93% were previously diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), or functional dyspepsia (FD) (Figure 1). The average duration of GI symptoms in the screened population as well as those that met histologic criteria for EG/EoD was 11 years. Conclusion Forty-five percent of patients with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms who underwent EGD met histologic criteria for EG/EoD. Over 90% of these patients had previously been diagnosed with GERD, IBS, and/or FD, and had minimal overlap with EoE. EGD with systematic gastroduodenal biopsies, and intentional evaluation for tissue eosinophilia, should be performed in patients with chronic GI symptoms. Accurate diagnosis of EG/EoD is required for appropriate, targeted treatment and improved outcomes of patients with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Linaclotide improves abdominal pain and constipation in patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C). Patients report additional bothersome abdominal symptoms of bloating and discomfort. The intention of this study was to evaluate linaclotide's efficacy in relieving IBS-C-related abdominal symptoms (bloating, discomfort, and pain) using a novel multi-item Abdominal Score (AS). METHODS: Patients with IBS-C with abdominal pain ≥3 (0–10 scale) were randomized to linaclotide 290 μg or placebo daily for 12 weeks. The AS, derived from the Diary for IBS Symptoms-Constipation, is the average of abdominal bloating, discomfort, and pain at their worst (0 = none, 10 = worst possible). The primary end point was overall change from baseline (CFB) in AS. Secondary end points included CFB in 12-week AS evaluated using cumulative distribution function and 6-week/12-week AS responder (AS improvement ≥2 points for ≥6-week/12-week). RESULTS: Overall, 614 patients (mean age 46.7 years; 81% female) were randomized. All prespecified end points showed significant benefit of linaclotide vs placebo. The mean overall CFB AS reduction for linaclotide was −1.9 vs −1.2 for placebo ( P < 0.0001); the 6-week/12-week AS responder rate was 40.5% for linaclotide vs 23.4% for placebo (odds ratio = 2.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.55–3.12; P < 0.0001]). Diarrhea was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (linaclotide = 4.6%, placebo = 1.6%). DISCUSSION: Linaclotide significantly reduced multiple abdominal symptoms important to patients with IBS-C (bloating, discomfort, and pain) compared with placebo, as measured by a novel multi-item AS. The AS, derived from the Diary for IBS Symptoms-Constipation, should be considered for use in future IBS-C clinical studies to measure clinically meaningful improvements beyond traditional end points.

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.

LINKED CONTENTThis article is linked to Nelson et al and Vasant papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16437 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16440

SummaryBackgroundAlthough bloating is a highly prevalent and troublesome symptom in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS‐C), treatment is empirical with no specific guidelines for its management.AimTo conduct a pairwise and network meta‐analysis, using a frequentist approach, of Food and Drug Administration‐licensed drugs for IBS‐C comparing their efficacy for abdominal bloating as a specific endpoint.MethodsWe searched the medical literature through December 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in IBS‐C, with abdominal bloating reported as a dichotomous assessment. Efficacy of each drug was reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise effect of each comparison tested. Treatments were ranked according to their P‐score.ResultsWe identified 13 eligible RCTs, containing 10 091 patients. Linaclotide 290 µg o.d., lubiprostone 8 µg b.d., tenapanor 50 mg b.d. and tegaserod 6 mg b.d. were all superior to placebo for abdominal bloating in patients with IBS‐C, in both pairwise and the network meta‐analyses. Linaclotide demonstrated the greatest improvement in abdominal bloating in both pairwise and network meta‐analysis (RR of failure to achieve an improvement in abdominal bloating = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74‐0.83, number needed to treat = 7, P‐score 0.97). Indirect comparison revealed no significant differences between individual drugs.ConclusionsWe found all licensed drugs for IBS‐C to be superior to placebo for abdominal bloating. Linaclotide appeared to be the most efficacious at relieving abdominal bloating. Further research is needed to assess long‐term efficacy of these agents and to better understand the precise mechanism of improving bloating.

INTRODUCTION: Tegaserod was the first US Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) in women and was recently reapproved for use. Recognizing that clinical trials were performed almost 20 years ago, we performed an integrated analysis on patient-reported outcomes relevant to current practice including previously unpublished data. METHODS: Data from 4 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating tegaserod 6 mg b.i.d. in patients with IBS-C were pooled. We analyzed 2 groups: all women (overall population) and women younger than 65 years without a history of cardiovascular ischemic events (indicated population). The primary end point was subjective global assessment of IBS-C symptom relief. Responders rated themselves as “considerably” or “completely” relieved ≥50% of the time or at least “somewhat relieved” 100% of the time over the last 4 weeks. RESULTS: The overall and indicated populations included 2,939 (tegaserod [n = 1,478]; placebo [n = 1,461]) and 2,752 (tegaserod [n = 1,386]; placebo [n = 1,366]) participants, respectively. The pooled odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for clinical response during the last 4 weeks in the overall and indicated populations with tegaserod were 1.37 (1.18, 1.59; P < 0.001) and 1.38 (1.18, 1.61; P < 0.001). In the overall and indicated populations, clinical response rates for tegaserod during the last 4 weeks were 43.3% and 44.1% versus 35.9% and 36.5% with placebo ( P < 0.001). Adverse events were similar between groups. No significant cardiovascular events related to tegaserod were observed in patients with ≤1 cardiac risk factor. DISCUSSION: Tegaserod 6 mg b.i.d. reduced IBS-C symptoms in overall and US Food and Drug Administration–indicated populations (women aged <65 years with no history of cardiovascular ischemic events).