Citations

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Eosinophilic Esophagitis Background Active inflammation in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disrupts the mucosal barrier, leading to dilated intercellular spaces and decreased transepithelial electrical resistance. Mucosal impedance (MI) has been used to assess mucosal integrity in EoE. We evaluated whether baseline MI measured by high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) distinguishes active and inactive EoE. Methods We retrospectively reviewed data from patients with EoE who underwent endoscopic esophageal biopsies within three months of HRIM from 2018-2026 at our tertiary referral center and had no treatment changes between studies. We excluded patients with a history of foregut surgery, erosive esophagitis, or Barrett’s esophagus. Demographics, endoscopy and pathology results were collected by chart review. Active EoE was histologically defined as ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field. Esophageal baseline MI was measured in the 30-second landmark period for the whole esophagus (from 2 cm above LES to 2 cm below UES), distal esophagus (from 2–7 cm above LES), and mid/proximal esophagus (from 10 cm above LES to 2 cm below UES). Mann–Whitney U or T tests were used for comparisons . Optimal MI thresholds were identified by Youden index with 10,000 bootstrap validations, and interrater reliability was assessed using two-way mixed effects intraclass correlation coefficients. Results Seventy-three patients were included: 37 (51%) female, median age 52 years, median BMI 27.2 kg/m2. Fifty-seven patients (78%) had atopic history, including seasonal allergies (38, 52%), asthma (31, 42%), eczema (21, 29%), and food allergies (19, 26%). Thirty-nine patients (53%) were receiving proton pump inhibitors, 25 (34%) were not on EoE therapy, 5 (6.8%) were on swallowed topical steroids, 3 (4.1%) were on dupilumab, and 1 (1.4%) was on an elimination diet. Esophageal strictures were present in 23 patients (32%), and 45 (62%) had active EoE. Baseline MI measurement showed high interrater reliability (n=50, 2 raters; intraclass correlation coefficient 0.937–0.963, p<0.001). Basal mean and minimal impedance were significantly lower in active EoE across all segments, greatest in the distal esophagus (all p<0.05; Figure 1). ROC analysis showed high discrimination of distal mean MI, with a cutoff ≤1.91 kΩ (AUC=0.837, sensitivity 67.9%, specificity 86.7%, Youden 0.545; Figure 2). Conclusion Baseline mucosal impedance during HRIM distinguishes active from inactive EoE, with strongest discrimination in the distal esophagus, supporting MI as a potential, minimally-invasive physiologic marker of mucosal inflammation and disease activity. Clinically, MI may serve as an adjunct tool in dysphagia evaluation, prompting EoE-directed biopsy when abnormal, aiding management in biopsy–symptom discordance, and potentially supporting disease monitoring in selected patients. Larger prospective studies are warranted.

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Gastro-Esophageal Reflux and Hiatal Hernia Background Ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or catheter-based pH-impedance) performed off acid suppression is the gold standard for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Barium esophagram (BE), commonly used to evaluate esophageal symptoms, routinely assesses reflux, yet its diagnostic accuracy relative to ambulatory monitoring remains unclear. Existing studies are limited, relied on outdated reflux criteria, and demonstrated poor concordance with BE-based GERD diagnoses. We aimed to determine whether BE reliably identifies GERD compared with ambulatory reflux monitoring interpreted using updated Lyon 2.0 consensus criteria. Methods Retrospective analysis of adult patients that underwent BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or pH-impedance) off PPI within an 8-month interval. Patients with a history of fundoplication were excluded. Esophagram was performed with standard technique and reported by radiology, considered positive for GERD if there was reflux above the thoracic inlet with or without provocative maneuvers. Reflux monitoring studies were considered positive or negative for GERD based on Lyon consensus 2.0 recommendations. Inter-rater reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and received operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were calculated for esophagram, with reflux monitoring diagnosis as the gold standard. Results 64 patients were included, 31 % male, mean age = 60 years, mean Body Mass Index = 26. GERD was diagnosed by esophagram in 20 patients (31%), and by reflux monitoring in 19 (30%). Compared to reflux monitoring, BE had sensitivity: 47%, specificity: 76%, PPV: 45%, NPV: 77%, and area under the ROC curve: 0.61 (Figure 1). Inter-rater reliability between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring was poor (Cohen's Kappa = 0.226). Conclusion There was poor concordance between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosing GERD. BE overall had suboptimal diagnostic performance, with low sensitivity, and moderate specificity. Furthermore, the area under the ROC curve indicates limited ability to distinguish correctly between patients with and without GERD. These findings indicate that barium esophagram should not be relied upon as a diagnostic tool for GERD.

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Gastro-Esophageal Reflux and Hiatal Hernia Background Ambulatory reflux monitoring off acid suppression is the gold standard for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Barium esophagram (BE) routinely evaluates reflux, but its diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain. We assessed whether BE reliably identifies GERD compared with ambulatory reflux monitoring interpreted using updated Lyon 2.0 consensus criteria. Methods Retrospective analysis of adult patients that underwent BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or pH-impedance) off PPI within an 8-month interval. Patients with a history of fundoplication were excluded. Esophagram was performed with standard technique and reported by radiology, considered positive for GERD if there was reflux above the thoracic inlet with or without provocative maneuvers. Reflux monitoring studies were considered positive or negative for GERD based on Lyon consensus 2.0 recommendations. Inter-rater reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and received operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were calculated for esophagram, with reflux monitoring diagnosis as the gold standard. Results 64 patients were included, 31 % male, mean age = 60 years, mean Body Mass Index = 26. GERD was diagnosed by esophagram in 20 patients (31%), and by reflux monitoring in 19 (30%). Compared to reflux monitoring, BE had sensitivity: 47%, specificity: 76%, PPV: 45%, NPV: 77%, and area under the ROC curve: 0.61 (Figure 1). Inter-rater reliability between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring was poor (Cohen's Kappa = 0.226). Conclusion There was poor concordance between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosing GERD. BE overall had suboptimal diagnostic performance, with low sensitivity, and moderate specificity. Furthermore, the area under the ROC curve indicates limited ability to distinguish correctly between patients with and without GERD. These findings indicate that barium esophagram should not be relied upon as a diagnostic tool for GERD.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are immune-mediated disorders of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract that, despite involving different tissues, are increasingly recognized to coexist. Epidemiologic studies demonstrate a bidirectional association, with patients affected by one condition showing a higher-than-expected prevalence of the other, suggesting shared susceptibility rather than incidental overlap. Genetic and epigenetic data support partial convergence in immune regulatory pathways, while epithelial barrier dysfunction and antigen-driven immune activation emerge as common upstream features. Overlapping cytokine networks, including IL-4, IL-13, and IL-23 signaling, contribute to chronic inflammation in both diseases, although differences in tissue environment and immune dominance give rise to distinct inflammatory phenotypes and clinical behavior. Clinical outcomes in patients with dual diagnoses appear heterogeneous, with available data suggesting neither uniformly worsened nor clearly protective disease courses, underscoring the complexity of shared immune mechanisms operating within different anatomic contexts. Beyond inflammatory activity, coexistence of EoE and IBD poses important nutritional and quality-of-life challenges, as overlapping dietary restrictions and chronic symptoms increase the risk of malnutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and psychosocial burden. Current therapies remain disease-specific, with strong evidence supporting proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical steroids, dietary therapy, and dupilumab in EoE, and biologics and small molecules targeting TNF-α, IL-12/23, IL-23, integrins, and JAK–STAT signaling in IBD, while evidence guiding treatment in patients with dual diagnosis remains limited. Together, current evidence supports a framework of shared immune machinery with tissue-specific expression that explains coexistence while preserving the distinct identities of EoE and IBD. By integrating emerging genetic, immunologic, and clinical evidence, this review aims to provide a framework for understanding and managing patients with coexisting EoE and IBD.

Goals: This study aimed to assess perspectives and practices among expert gastroenterologists regarding the screening, diagnosis, and management of BE. Background: Significant variability in the management of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) persists among physicians despite the development and dissemination of several clinical practice guidelines. Study: An online survey was conducted with 38 expert gastroenterologists specializing in BE management. The 38-question survey evaluated demographics, medical management, and attitudes toward endoscopic treatment, with responses analyzed for trends and variations. Results: Of the 38 experts, 34 (89%) responded. Respondents were primarily male (85%), with 82% affiliated with academic hospitals and 53% clinically focused on BE. Half discussed BE risks during initial consultations for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Most (61.8%) agreed BE should be considered in women with chronic GERD, and 88.2% regularly used narrow-band imaging (NBI). However, 44% were neutral or disagreed with diagnosing BE based solely on community gastroenterologist biopsies, and acceptance of Wide-Area Transepithelial Sampling with 3D Analysis (WATS-3D) for Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis and surveillance was limited. Fifty-three percent recommended ablation for nondysplastic BE. Fifty-two percent recommended indefinite daily PPI therapy after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CEIM), regardless of symptoms. When encountering cardia intestinal metaplasia after endoscopic eradication, 38% recommended ablation, while 47% continued surveillance. Conclusion: This study highlights substantial variations in the management of BE among expert gastroenterologists, despite the existence of updated guidelines. Identifying these discrepancies is crucial for optimizing care. Further efforts are needed to standardize practices and enhance the implementation of evidence-based guidelines in clinical settings.

Abstract Most patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have mild to moderate illness not requiring hospitalization. However, no study has detailed the evolution of symptoms in the first month of illness. At our institution, we conducted remote (telephone and video) visits for all adult outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 within 24 h of a positive nasopharyngeal polymerase chain test for SARS-CoV-2. We repeated regular video visits at 7, 14, and 28 days after the positive test, retrospectively reviewed the prospective data collected in the remote visits, and constructed a week by week profile of clinical illness, through week 4 of illness. We reviewed the courses of 458 symptomatic patients diagnosed between March 12, 2020, and June 22, 2020, and characterized their weekly courses. Common initial symptoms included fever, headache, cough, and chest pain, which frequently persisted through week 3 or longer. Upper respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms were much shorter lived, present primarily in week 1. Anosmia/ageusia peaked in weeks 2 to 3. Emergency department visits were frequent, with 128 visits in the 423 patients who were not hospitalized and 48 visits among the 35 outpatients (7.6%) who were eventually hospitalized (2 subsequently died). By the fourth week, 28.9% said their illness had completely resolved. After the 4-week follow up, 20 (4.7%) of the 423 nonhospitalized patients had further medical evaluation and management for subacute or chronic COVID-19 symptoms. Mild to moderate outpatient COVID-19 is a prolonged illness, with evolving symptoms commonly lasting into the fourth week of illness.