Fouad J. Moawad

Correlation between eosinophilic oesophagitis and aeroallergens.

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31, 509–515

Transcriptome analysis of proton pump inhibitor–responsive esophageal eosinophilia reveals proton pump inhibitor–reversible allergic inflammation

BACKGROUND Esophageal eosinophilia can be proton pump inhibitor (PPI) resistant or responsive, representing 2 entities known as eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE), respectively. Although they present with similar clinical features, EoE is accepted to be an antigen-driven, TH2-associated allergic disorder, whereas the cause of PPI-REE remains a mystery. OBJECTIVE In this study, our aim was to investigate the pathogenesis of PPI-REE by using a recently described EoE diagnostic panel (EDP) composed of a set of 94 esophageal transcripts and to determine whether PPI therapy reverses any esophageal transcriptional abnormalities. METHODS We evaluated the EDP signature in biopsy samples obtained from adult and pediatric patients with PPI-REE from 4 institutions and compared the pre- and post-PPI therapy expression profiles of these subjects with those of patients with active EoE. RESULTS The EDP differentiated patients with EoE from control subjects with 100% accuracy among the 4 clinical sites. Bioinformatics analysis revealed largely overlapping transcriptomes between patients with PPI-REE and those with EoE, including the genes for eosinophil chemotaxis (eotaxin 3, CCL26), barrier molecules (desmoglein 1, DSG1), tissue remodeling (periostin, POSTN), and mast cells (carboxypeptidase A, CPA3). PPI monotherapy alone almost completely reversed the allergic inflammatory transcriptome of patients with PPI-REE. Furthermore, we identified a set of candidate genes to differentiate patients with EoE from those with PPI-REE before treatment. CONCLUSION These findings provide definitive evidence that PPI-REE is a disease entity with significant molecular overlap with EoE, suggesting that many patients with PPI-REE represent a continuum of the same pathogenic allergic mechanisms that underlie EoE and thus might constitute a subphenotype of patients with EoE. The ability of PPI therapy to nearly entirely reverse gene expression associated with PPI-REE, particularly that associated with classic features of allergic inflammation, provides new insight into potential disease etiology and management strategies for patients with significant esophageal eosinophilia.

Proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia: an entity challenging current diagnostic criteria for eosinophilic oesophagitis

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.

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Aerosolized Swallowed Fluticasone to Esomeprazole for Esophageal Eosinophilia

OBJECTIVES:Patients with clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and dense eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa are suspected to have eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Topical steroids are often used as first-line therapy for EoE, although some patients respond clinically to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The purpose of this study was to compare the histological and clinical response of patients with esophageal eosinophilia treated with aerosolized swallowed fluticasone propionate vs. esomeprazole.METHODS:This prospective single-blinded randomized controlled trial enrolled newly diagnosed patients with suspected EoE, defined as having clinical symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction with at least 15 eosinophils/high power field (hpf). Patients underwent 24-h pH/impedance monitoring to establish gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Patients were stratified by the presence of GERD and randomized to receive fluticasone 440 mcg twice daily or esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for 8 weeks followed by repeat endoscopy with biopsies. The primary outcome was histological response of esophageal eosinophilia, defined as <7 eosinophils/hpf. Secondary outcomes included clinical change in symptoms using the validated Mayo dysphagia questionnaire (MDQ) and interval change in endoscopic findings following treatment.RESULTS:Forty-two patients (90% male, 81% white, mean age 38±10 years) were randomized into fluticasone (n=21) and esomeprazole (n=21) treatment arms. In all, 19% (8/42) of patients had coexisting GERD and were equally stratified into each arm (n=4). Overall, there was no significant difference in resolution of esophageal eosinophilia between fluticasone and esomeprazole (19 vs. 33%, P=0.484). In patients with established GERD, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia was noted in 0% (0/4) of the fluticasone group compared with 100% (4/4) of the esomeprazole group (P=0.029). In GERD-negative patients, there was no significant difference in resolution of esophageal eosinophilia between treatment arms with fluticasone and esomeprazole (24 vs.18%, P=1.00). The MDQ score significantly decreased after treatment with esomeprazole (19±21 vs. 1.4±4.5, P<0.001), but not with fluticasone (17±18 vs. 12±16, P=0.162). Improvement in endoscopic findings and other histological markers were similar between treatment groups.CONCLUSIONS:Fluticasone and esomeprazole provide a similar histological response for esophageal eosinophilia. With regard to clinical response, esomeprazole was superior to fluticasone, particularly in patients with established GERD.

Development and Validation of a Symptom-Based Activity Index for Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS Standardized instruments are needed to assess the activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and to provide end points for clinical trials and observational studies. We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument and score, based on items that could account for variations in patient assessments of disease severity. We also evaluated relationships between patient assessment of disease severity and EoE-associated endoscopic, histologic, and laboratory findings. METHODS We collected information from 186 patients with EoE in Switzerland and the United States (69.4% male; median age, 43 y) via surveys (n = 135), focus groups (n = 27), and semistructured interviews (n = 24). Items were generated for the instruments to assess biologic activity based on physician input. Linear regression was used to quantify the extent to which variations in patient-reported disease characteristics could account for variations in patient assessment of EoE severity. The PRO instrument was used prospectively in 153 adult patients with EoE (72.5% male; median age, 38 y), and validated in an independent group of 120 patients with EoE (60.8% male; median age, 40.5 y). RESULTS Seven PRO factors that are used to assess characteristics of dysphagia, behavioral adaptations to living with dysphagia, and pain while swallowing accounted for 67% of the variation in patient assessment of disease severity. Based on statistical consideration and patient input, a 7-day recall period was selected. Highly active EoE, based on endoscopic and histologic findings, was associated with an increase in patient-assessed disease severity. In the validation study, the mean difference between patient assessment of EoE severity (range, 0-10) and PRO score (range, 0-8.52) was 0.15. CONCLUSIONS We developed and validated an EoE scoring system based on 7 PRO items that assess symptoms over a 7-day recall period. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00939263.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis and proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia have similar clinical, endoscopic and histological findings.

Some patients with a phenotypic appearance of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) respond histologically to PPI, and are described as having PPI‐responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI‐REE). It is unclear if PPI‐REE is a GERD‐related phenomenon, a subtype of EoE, or a completely unique entity.

CT Colonography May Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening Compliance

OBJECTIVE While colonoscopy is currently the preferred test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the invasive and time-consuming characteristics of the test are often cited as reasons for noncompliance with screening. CT colonography (CTC) is a less invasive screening method that is comparable to colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. The aim of this project was to assess patient preferences between colonoscopy and CTC in an open access system. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two hundred fifty consecutive average-risk patients undergoing CRC screening completed a survey that assessed reasons for choosing CTC in lieu of colonoscopy, compliance with CRC screening if CTC was not offered, and which of the two tests they preferred. RESULTS The most common reasons for undergoing CTC included convenience (33.6%), recommendation by referring provider (13.2%), and perceived safety (10.8%). Had CTC not been an available option, 91 of the 250 patients (36%) would have foregone CRC screening. Among the 57 patients who had experienced both procedures, 95% (n = 54) preferred CTC. CONCLUSION These findings show the importance of providing CTC as an alternative screening option for CRC at our institution, which may increase CRC adherence screening rates.

Long-Term Loss of Response in Proton Pump Inhibitor-Responsive Esophageal Eosinophilia Is Uncommon and Influenced by CYP2C19 Genotype and Rhinoconjunctivitis

OBJECTIVES:Proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) is diagnosed in at least one-third of patients with suspected eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate the durability and factors influencing long-term efficacy of PPI therapy.METHODS:Retrospective multicenter cohort study of patients with PPI-REE who had at least 12 months of follow-up. PPI therapy was tapered to the lowest dose, which maintained clinical remission. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with loss of histological response (<15 eos/HPF) and predictors of loss of response. CYP2C19 polymorphisms were determined from blood samples in a subset of patients.RESULTS:Seventy-five PPI-REE patients were included (mean follow-up 26 months (12–85)), of whom fifty-five (73%) had sustained histological remission on low-dose PPI therapy. Loss of response was significantly higher in those patients with a CYP2C19 rapid metabolizer genotype (36% vs. 6%, P = 0.01) and with rhinoconjunctivitis (40% vs. 13%, P = 0.007). On the multivariate analysis, a CYP2C19 rapid metabolizer genotype (odds ratio (OR) 12.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3–115.9) and rhinoconjunctivitis (OR 8.6; 95% CI: 1.5–48.7) were independent predictors of loss of response. Among relapsing patients, eosinophilia was limited to the distal esophagus in 14/20 (70%). Nine of ten relapsers, with distal eosinophilia, all showing a CYP2C19 rapid metabolizer genotype, regained histological remission after PPI dose intensification.CONCLUSIONS:Most PPI-REE patients remain in long-term remission on low-dose PPI therapy. CYP2C19 rapid metabolizer genotypes and rhinoconjunctivitis were independent predictors of loss of response to PPI, but patients frequently responded to PPI dose escalation.

Transient blindness due to posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome following ephedra overdose.

Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES), also known as reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome (RPLS), is most often associated with hypertensive emergencies and is characterized by seizures, mental status changes and visual disturbances. We report a case of a previously healthy young man who developed multiorgan failure and transient cortical blindness following ingestion of a performance-enhancing ephedra-based supplement. Neuroimaging findings confirmed the clinical suspicion of PRES. Radiographic abnormalities and neurologic dysfunction subsequently resolved with correction of his systolic blood pressure. This case emphasizes the need for prompt treatment and consideration of toxic ingestions in patients presenting with hypertension-related end-organ dysfunction.

Comparison of eotaxin-3 biomarker in patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis, proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Proton pump inhibitor‐responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI‐REE) is a recently described entity which resembles oeosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), yet responds to acid suppressive treatment.