Katzka, David A.

LINKED CONTENTThis article is linked to Misselwitz et al paper. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15658.

Goals: To develop an encounter decision aid [Barrett’s esophagus Choice (BE-Choice)] for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making (SDM) for management of BE with low-grade dysplasia (BE-LGD) and assess its impact on patient-important outcomes. Background: Currently, there are 2 strategies for management of BE-LGD—endoscopic surveillance and ablation. SDM can help patients decide on their preferred management option. Study: Phase-I: Patients and clinicians were engaged in a user-centered design approach to develop BE-Choice. Phase-I included review of evidence on BE-LGD management, observation of usual care (UC), creation, field-testing, and iterative development of BE-Choice in clinical settings. Phase-II: Impact of BE-Choice on patient-important outcomes (patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in decision making) was assessed using a controlled before-after study design (UC vs. BE-Choice). Results: Phase-I: Initial prototype was designed with observation of 8 clinical encounters. With field-testing, 3 successive iterations were made before finalizing BE-Choice. BE-Choice was paper based and fulfilled the qualifying criteria of International patient decision aid standards. Phase II: 29 patients were enrolled, 8 to UC and 21 to BE-Choice. Compared with UC, use of BE-Choice improved patient knowledge (90.4% vs. 70.5%; P =0.03), decisional comfort (89.6 vs. 71.9; P =0.01), and patient involvement (OPTION score: 27.1 vs. 19.2; P =0.01). Conclusions: BE-Choice is a feasible and effective decision aid to promote SDM in the management of BE-LGD. On pilot testing, BE-Choice had promising impact on patient-important outcomes. A larger multicenter trial is needed to confirm our results and promote widespread use of BE-Choice.

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended for patient use, encouraging patients to ask questions to facilitate their consultation with their physician. Aim: The aim of this study was to develop a QPL specific to adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), created by esophageal experts. Methods: The QPL content (78 questions) was derived through a modified Delphi method consisting of 2 rounds. In round 1, 18 esophageal experts provided 5 answers to the prompt “What you wish your patients would ask” and “What questions do patients often not ask, that I wish they would ask?” In round 2, the experts rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale, and responses rated as “essential” or “important,” determined by an a priori threshold of ≥4.0, were accepted for the QPL. Results: Twelve esophageal experts participated. Of 143 questions from round 1, 110 (76.9%) were accepted for inclusion in the QPL, meeting a median value of ≥4.0, and, subsequently, it reduced to 78, minimizing redundancy. Median values ranged between 4.0 and 5.0, with the highest agreement median (5.0) for questions asking dosing and timing of proton pump inhibitor therapy, and surveillance in Barrett’s. Questions were categorized into the following categories: “What does this illness mean,” “lifestyle modifications,” “general treatment,” “treatment with proton pump inhibitors,” “What I should expect for my future,” and “Barrett’s.” The largest number of questions covered lifestyle modifications (21.8%), with the highest agreement median (5.0) for “How helpful are lifestyle modifications in GERD?” Conclusions: A preliminary GERD-specific QPL, the first of its kind, was developed by esophageal experts. Modification after more patient consultation and feedback is planned in subsequent versions to create a GERD-QPL for eventual use in clinical gastroenterology.

INTRODUCTION: Epidermal metaplasia is a histological correlate to a white patch on the surface of a mucous membrane that cannot be rubbed off, known as leukoplakia. It is a common finding in oral mucosa, however rare in esophageal mucosa. Etiology of this condition in the esophagus is unclear, thought to be associated with esophageal tobacco and alcohol exposure or possibly an unusual response to chronic acid reflux. In contrast to oral leukoplakia there is a female predominance. Although generally asymptomatic, symptom presentation can include dysphagia. Endoscopic features include slightly elevated whitish surface, which can be translucent or cobblestone-like in appearance. The natural history is unknown though there is concern for an increased risk of squamous cell cancer. Due to paucity of published studies about this condition, we aim to report a case treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). CASE DESCRIPTION/METHODS: A 64-year-old Caucasian man with a history of tobacco use and stable weight, presented to Gastroenterology clinic due to an 11-month history of solid food esophageal dysphagia. Physical examination was unremarkable. Upper endoscopy demonstrated white plaques at the gastroesophageal junction (Figure 1A and B). Biopsies obtained from this abnormality showed esophageal epidermoid metaplasia consistent with leukoplakia and mild patchy active chronic inflammation. GMS stain for fungal organisms was negative. An ESD procedure was planned, due to lesion size to ensure complete removal. Chromoscopy with methylene blue was used to mark the borders of the lesion and ESD was accomplished without adverse events (Figure 1C). Histologic examination confirmed hyperplastic squamous esophageal mucosa with marked hyperkeratosis without dysplasia and negative margins. During 2 year follow up, patient reported complete resolution of his dysphagia. DISCUSSION: The management strategy for esophageal leukoplakia is not well defined though reports suggest that endoscopic resection and surveillance are warranted. Here we represent a case where symptoms resolved and the lesion was completely removed by ESD.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Histologic response rates to steroids for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) vary from < 50% to >90% in controlled trials. We have used varied steroid preparations and higher doses than typically used and aimed to study if steroid dose and delivery vehicle might explain the wide variation in response. METHODS: A database of patients with EoE created in our esophageal clinic was reviewed and patients treated with at least an 8 week course of topical steroid therapy and undergoing pre and post-steroid histologic evaluation were included. Histologic remission was defined as eosinophil count < 15/hpf. Symptomatic remission was defined as complete resolution of symptoms and eating an unlimited diet. Endoscopy reports were reviewed. RESULTS: 94 patients were included, 45 on 3 mg budesonide-Rincinol gel twice daily (HBRG), 29 on 3 mg budesonide capsules BID (BC), and 20 on lower doses of BRG (1.5 mg daily to 2 mg BID) (LBRG). 88.5% had dysphagia at time of steroid initiation. Mean eosinophil count before steroids was 58.6/hpf. 38.3% had esophageal dilation just prior to steroids. Average EFERS prior to steroid treatment was 1.8. There were not significant differences between the groups in terms of demographics, initial eosinophil counts, symptoms, visual EoE assessment (EREFS) or dilation rates. Histologic remission rate for HBRG was 82.2% vs 55.1% for all others combined ( P < 0.001), 51.7% for BC ( P = 0.005 vs 3 mg BRG BID), and 60.0% for LBRG ( P = 0.06 vs 3 mg BRG BID). Symptomatic remission was similar between groups, as was change in EREFS and change in eosinophil counts. Non-responders to HBRG had mean decrease in eosinophil count of only 0.3/hpf (vs 53.2/hpf for responders, P < 0.003) and mean change in EREFS of +1.6 (vs −1.1 for responders, P < 0.001). 62.5% of non-responders to HBRG actually had increase in eosinophil count after steroids. Response rate to HBRG at < 5 eos/hpf was 77.8% overall and 94.6% in those achieving remission. CONCLUSION: A higher remission rate achieved with a more viscous steroid preparation compared to other formulations suggests the importance of both dose and esophageal delivery in treatment of EoE. Further, with adequate mucosal delivery and dosing of topical steroids, steroid refractory EoE appears to be uncommon. On the other hand, these results suggest the existence of a small truly steroid refractory group of EoE patients with negligible histologic, symptomatic and endoscopic response to high dose steroids that warrant further investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease for which there is an unmet clinical need for new therapies. The safety and efficacy of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) for the treatment of EoE has been demonstrated in a previous phase 2 study. The current phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of BOS in a large cohort of patients with EoE. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (SHP621-301; NCT02605837) investigated the safety and efficacy of BOS in patients (11–55 years) with EoE and dysphagia. Patients were randomized 2:1 to 2.0 mg BOS or placebo twice daily (b.i.d.) for 12 weeks (Figure 1). Co-primary endpoints were histologic (peak eosinophil count ≤6 eosinophils/high-powered field [eos/hpf]) and dysphagia symptom (≥30% decrease in symptoms as measured by the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ]) responses after 12 weeks of therapy. Secondary endpoints included change in DSQ score and change in EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) from baseline to final treatment period. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 322 patients were randomized (BOS, n = 215; placebo, n = 107), of whom 318 patients received at least one dose of double-blind therapy (BOS, n = 213; placebo, n = 105) (Table 1). The primary outcomes were achieved, with significantly more histologic and symptom responders in the BOS-treated than the placebo-treated group (53.1% vs 1.0%, P < 0.001; 52.6% vs 39.1%, P = 0.024, respectively; Figure 2). Improvements in mean DSQ score from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater in the BOS group (n = 197) than the placebo group (n = 89) (−13.0 vs −9.1; P = 0.015). Similarly, improvements in mean EREFS scores were significantly greater with BOS (n = 202) than placebo (n = 93) (−4.0 vs −2.2; P < 0.001). In total, 61.0% of patients reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) (BOS, 61.0%; placebo, 61.0%). Only 2.5% of patients experienced a TEAE leading to dose discontinuation (BOS, 1.4%; placebo, 4.8%). Few patients had severe or serious TEAEs on BOS or placebo. No life-threatening TEAEs were reported. CONCLUSION: This phase 3 trial demonstrated the efficacy of BOS as induction therapy for EoE. BOS resulted in significant improvements in histologic, symptomatic and endoscopic endpoints compared with placebo. The majority of TEAEs were mild to moderate and comparable between placebo and BOS. A double-blind, placebo-controlled maintenance study (SHP621-302) is ongoing.

LINKED CONTENT This article is linked to Sawada et al paper. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15417.