BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory disorder that responds to dietary therapy; however, data evaluating the effectiveness of dietary therapeutic strategies are limited. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effectiveness of 3 frequently prescribed dietary therapies (elemental, 6-food elimination, and skin prick and atopy patch-directed elimination diets) and assessed the remission predictability of skin tests and their utility in directing dietary planning. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of proton-pump inhibitor-unresponsive, non-glucocorticoid-treated patients with eosinophilic esophagitis who had 2 consecutive endoscopic biopsy specimens associated with dietary intervention was identified. Biopsy histology and remissions (<15 eosinophils/high-power field) after dietary therapy and food reintroductions were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-eight of 513 patients met the eligibility criteria. Of these 98 patients, 50% (n= 49), 27% (n= 26), and 23% (n= 23) received elemental, 6-food elimination, and directed diets, respectively. Remission occurred in 96%, 81%, and 65% of patients on elemental, 6-food elimination, and directed diets, respectively. The odds of postdiet remission versus nonremission were 5.6-fold higher (P= .05) on elemental versus 6-food elimination diets and 12.5-fold higher (P= .003) on elemental versus directed diets and were not significantly different (P= .22) on 6-food elimination versus directed diets. After 116 single-food reintroductions, the negative predictive value of skin testing for remission was 40% to 67% (milk, 40%; egg, 56%; soy, 64%; and wheat, 67%). CONCLUSION: All 3 dietary therapies are effective; however, an elemental diet is superior at inducing histologic remission compared with 6-food elimination and skin test-directed diets. Notably, an empiric 6-food elimination diet is as effective as a skin test-directed diet. The negative predictive values of foods most commonly reintroduced in single-food challenges are not sufficient to support the development of dietary advancement plans solely based on skin test results.
BACKGROUND:Eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory disorder that responds to dietary therapy; however, data evaluating the effectiveness of dietary therapeutic strategies are limited. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effectiveness of 3 frequently prescribed dietary therapies (elemental, 6-food elimination, and skin prick and atopy patch-directed elimination diets) and assessed the remission predictability of skin tests and their utility in directing dietary planning. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of proton-pump inhibitor-unresponsive, non-glucocorticoid-treated patients with eosinophilic esophagitis who had 2 consecutive endoscopic biopsy specimens associated with dietary intervention was identified. Biopsy histology and remissions (<15 eosinophils/high-power field) after dietary therapy and food reintroductions were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-eight of 513 patients met the eligibility criteria. Of these 98 patients, 50% (n= 49), 27% (n= 26), and 23% (n= 23) received elemental, 6-food elimination, and directed diets, respectively. Remission occurred in 96%, 81%, and 65% of patients on elemental, 6-food elimination, and directed diets, respectively. The odds of postdiet remission versus nonremission were 5.6-fold higher (P= .05) on elemental versus 6-food elimination diets and 12.5-fold higher (P= .003) on elemental versus directed diets and were not significantly different (P= .22) on 6-food elimination versus directed diets. After 116 single-food reintroductions, the negative predictive value of skin testing for remission was 40% to 67% (milk, 40%; egg, 56%; soy, 64%; and wheat, 67%). CONCLUSION: All 3 dietary therapies are effective; however, an elemental diet is superior at inducing histologic remission compared with 6-food elimination and skin test-directed diets. Notably, an empiric 6-food elimination diet is as effective as a skin test-directed diet. The negative predictive values of foods most commonly reintroduced in single-food challenges are not sufficient to support the development of dietary advancement plans solely based on skin test results.
Authors: Amir F Kagalwalla; Timothy A Sentongo; Sally Ritz; Therese Hess; Suzanne P Nelson; Karan M Emerick; Hector Melin-Aldana; B U K Li Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2006-07-21 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Amal H Assa'ad; Philip E Putnam; Margaret H Collins; Rachel M Akers; Sean C Jameson; Cassie L Kirby; Bridget K Buckmeier; Jennifer Z Bullock; Ann R Collier; Michael R Konikoff; Richard J Noel; Jesus R Guajardo; Marc E Rothenberg Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2007-01-25 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Michael R Konikoff; Richard J Noel; Carine Blanchard; Cassie Kirby; Sean C Jameson; Bridget K Buckmeier; Rachel Akers; Mitchell B Cohen; Margaret H Collins; Amal H Assa'ad; Seema S Aceves; Philip E Putnam; Marc E Rothenberg Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-08-16 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Elizabeth T Schaefer; Joseph F Fitzgerald; Jean P Molleston; Joseph M Croffie; Marian D Pfefferkorn; Mark R Corkins; Joel D Lim; Steven J Steiner; Sandeep K Gupta Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Glenn T Furuta; Chris A Liacouras; Margaret H Collins; Sandeep K Gupta; Chris Justinich; Phil E Putnam; Peter Bonis; Eric Hassall; Alex Straumann; Marc E Rothenberg Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-08-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Elizabeth T Jensen; Swathi Eluri; Benjamin Lebwohl; Robert M Genta; Evan S Dellon Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: David W Morris; Emily M Stucke; Lisa J Martin; J Pablo Abonia; Vincent A Mukkada; Philip E Putnam; Marc E Rothenberg; Patricia C Fulkerson Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Cary C Cotton; Daniel Erim; Swathi Eluri; Sarah H Palmer; Daniel J Green; W Asher Wolf; Thomas M Runge; Stephanie Wheeler; Nicholas J Shaheen; Evan S Dellon Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 11.382