Furuta, Glenn T.

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.

Abstract Eosinophils comprise only 1-3% of circulating leukocytes but are often a diagnostic feature associated with a variety of inflammatory and disease states, including parasitic and fungal infections, allergic diseases (e.g., asthma, rhinitis and sensitivities to specific foods), cancer, and transplant rejection. The accurate evaluations of eosinophilia as well as the release of stored eosinophil granule proteins are important for the monitoring disease progression and/or assessing the effectiveness of a given treatment strategy(ies). Despite the availability of detection methods for each of the eosinophil granule proteins logistical difficulties limiting either the assays specificity and/or sensitivity have prevented their extensive use. We have generated unique eosinophil peroxidase specific monoclonal antibodies (EPX-mAb) and a high throughput sandwich ELISA assay as a means of overcoming these difficulties. Our EPX-mAb based ELISA is ~10 times more sensitive than traditional OPD based activity assays and allows detection of EPX in mouse BAL fluid after an acute OVA protocol as well as EPX release from mouse eosinophils stimulated ex vivo. The assay is highly specific and gives no signal in samples from EPX deficient mice even with massive eosinophilia (e.g., EPX deficient IL-5 transgenic mice). More significantly, this assay detects EPX in human tissue extracts and biological fluids and thus represents novel diagnostic assay previously unavailable in clinical settings.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVES: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a chronic food allergic disease, lacks sensitive and specific peripheral biomarkers. We hypothesized that levels of EoE-related biomarkers captured using a 1-hour minimally invasive Esophageal String Test (EST) would correlate with mucosal eosinophil counts and tissue concentrations of these same biomarkers. We aimed to determine whether a 1-hour EST accurately distinguishes active from inactive EoE or a normal esophagus. METHODS: In a prospective, multisite study, children and adults (ages 7–55 years) undergoing a clinically indicated esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed an EST with an esophageal dwell time of 1 hour. Subjects were divided into 3 groups: active EoE, inactive EoE, and normal esophageal mucosa. Eosinophil-associated protein levels were compared between EST effluents and esophageal biopsy extracts. Statistical modeling was performed to select biomarkers that best correlated with and predicted eosinophilic inflammation. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four subjects (74 children, 60 adults) with active EoE (n = 62), inactive EoE (n = 37), and patient controls with a normal esophagus (n = 35) completed the study. EST-captured eosinophil-associated biomarkers correlated significantly with peak eosinophils/high-power field, endoscopic visual scoring, and the same proteins extracted from mucosal biopsies. Statistical modeling, using combined eotaxin-3 and major basic protein-1 concentrations, led to the development of EoE scores that distinguished subjects with active EoE from inactive EoE or normal esophagi. Eighty-seven percent of children, 95% of parents, and 92% of adults preferred the EST over endoscopy if it provided similar information. DISCUSSION: The 1-hour EST accurately distinguishes active from inactive EoE in children and adults and may facilitate monitoring of disease activity in a safe and minimally invasive fashion.

AbstractBackgroundEosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen‐mediated clinicopathologic disease of the esophagus characterized by an eosinophil‐predominant inflammatory infiltrate. A clinical hallmark is extensive tissue remodeling including basal zone hyperplasia, fibrosis, and angiogenesis. However, the cellular mechanisms responsible for these processes are not fully defined. We hypothesized that targeting granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor (GM‐CSF; an agonist cytokine linked with eosinophil survival and activation) would be protective in a preclinical model of EoE.MethodsEosinophilic esophagitis‐like esophageal inflammation was induced in the L2‐IL5OXA EoE mouse model, and GM‐CSF production was assessed by mRNA and protein analyses. Granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor‐receptor‐alpha expression patterns were examined by flow cytometric and immunofluorescence analysis. L2‐IL5OXA EoE mice were treated with anti‐GM‐CSF neutralizing antibody or isotype control and assessed for histopathological indices of eosinophilia, epithelial hyperplasia, and angiogenesis by immunohistochemistry and RT‐PCR.ResultsSignificantly increased levels of esophageal GM‐CSF expression was detected in the L2‐IL5OXA mouse EoE model during active inflammation. Granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor‐receptor‐alpha was predominantly expressed on esophageal eosinophils during EoE, in addition to select cells within the lamina propria. Anti‐GM‐CSF neutralization in L2‐IL5OXA EoE mice resulted in a significant diminution of epithelial eosinophilia in addition to basal cell hyperplasia and vascular remodeling. This treatment response was independent of effects on esophageal eosinophil maturation or activation.ConclusionGranulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor is a potential therapeutic target to reduce esophageal eosinophilia and remodeling.

Abstract Proinflammatory consequences have been described for lysophosphatidylcholine, a lipid product of cellular injury, signaling via the G protein–coupled receptor G2A on myeloid and lymphoid inflammatory cells. This prompted the hypothesis that genetic deletion of G2A would limit intestinal inflammation in a mouse model of colitis induced by dextran sodium sulfate. Surprisingly, G2A−/− mice exhibited significantly worsened colitis compared with wild-type mice, as demonstrated by disease activity, colon shortening, histology, and elevated IL-6 and IL-5 in colon tissues. Investigation of inflammatory cells recruited to inflamed G2A−/− colons showed significantly more TNF-α+ and Ly6ChiMHCII− proinflammatory monocytes and eosinophils than in wild-type colons. Both monocytes and eosinophils were pathogenic as their depletion abolished the excess inflammation in G2A−/− mice. G2A−/− mice also had less IFN-γ in inflamed colon tissues than wild-type mice. Fewer CD4+ lymphocytes were recruited to inflamed G2A−/− colons, and fewer colonic lymphocytes produced IFN-γ upon ex vivo stimulation. Administration of IFN-γ to G2A−/− mice during dextran sodium sulfate exposure abolished the excess colitic inflammation and reduced colonic IL-5 and eosinophil numbers to levels seen in wild-type mice. Furthermore, IFN-γ reduced the numbers of TNF-α+ monocyte and enhanced their maturation from Ly6ChiMHCII− to Ly6CintMHCII+. Taken together, the data suggest that G2A signaling serves to dampen intestinal inflammation via the production of IFN-γ, which, in turn, enhances monocyte maturation to a less inflammatory program and ultimately reduces eosinophil-induced injury of colonic tissues.

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.