BACKGROUND: 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. AIM: To compare demographic, clinical and histological features of EoE and PPI-REE. METHODS: Two databases were reviewed from the Walter Reed and Swiss EoE databases. Patients were stratified into two groups, EoE and PPI-REE, based on recent EoE consensus guidelines. Response to PPI was defined as achieving less than 15 eos/hpf and a 50% decrease from baseline following at least a 6-week course of treatment. RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were identified (63 EoE and 40 PPI-REE; mean age 40.2 years, 75% male and 89% Caucasian). The two cohorts had similar dysphagia (97% vs. 100%, P = 0.520), food impaction (43% vs. 35%, P = 0.536), and heartburn (33% vs. 32%, P = 1.000) and a similar duration of symptoms (6.0 years vs. 5.8 years, P = 0.850). Endoscopic features were also similar between EoE and PPI-REE; rings (68% vs. 68%, P = 1.000), furrows (70% vs. 70%, P = 1.000), plaques (19% vs. 10%, P = 0.272), strictures (49% vs. 30%, P = 0.066). EoE and PPI-REE were similar in the number of proximal (39 eos/hpf vs. 38 eos/hpf, P = 0.919) and distal eosinophils (50 vs. 43 eos/hpf, P = 0.285). CONCLUSIONS: EoE and PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia are similar in clinical, histological and endoscopic features and therefore are indistinguishable without a PPI trial. Further studies are needed to determine why a subset of patients with oesophageal eosinophilia respond to PPI.
BACKGROUND: 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. AIM: To compare demographic, clinical and histological features of EoE and PPI-REE. METHODS: Two databases were reviewed from the Walter Reed and Swiss EoE databases. Patients were stratified into two groups, EoE and PPI-REE, based on recent EoE consensus guidelines. Response to PPI was defined as achieving less than 15 eos/hpf and a 50% decrease from baseline following at least a 6-week course of treatment. RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were identified (63 EoE and 40 PPI-REE; mean age 40.2 years, 75% male and 89% Caucasian). The two cohorts had similar dysphagia (97% vs. 100%, P = 0.520), food impaction (43% vs. 35%, P = 0.536), and heartburn (33% vs. 32%, P = 1.000) and a similar duration of symptoms (6.0 years vs. 5.8 years, P = 0.850). Endoscopic features were also similar between EoE and PPI-REE; rings (68% vs. 68%, P = 1.000), furrows (70% vs. 70%, P = 1.000), plaques (19% vs. 10%, P = 0.272), strictures (49% vs. 30%, P = 0.066). EoE and PPI-REE were similar in the number of proximal (39 eos/hpf vs. 38 eos/hpf, P = 0.919) and distal eosinophils (50 vs. 43 eos/hpf, P = 0.285). CONCLUSIONS: EoE and PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia are similar in clinical, histological and endoscopic features and therefore are indistinguishable without a PPI trial. Further studies are needed to determine why a subset of patients with oesophageal eosinophilia respond to PPI.
Authors: Evan S Dellon; Chris A Liacouras; Javier Molina-Infante; Glenn T Furuta; Jonathan M Spergel; Noam Zevit; Stuart J Spechler; Stephen E Attwood; Alex Straumann; Seema S Aceves; Jeffrey A Alexander; Dan Atkins; Nicoleta C Arva; Carine Blanchard; Peter A Bonis; Wendy M Book; Kelley E Capocelli; Mirna Chehade; Edaire Cheng; Margaret H Collins; Carla M Davis; Jorge A Dias; Carlo Di Lorenzo; Ranjan Dohil; Christophe Dupont; Gary W Falk; Cristina T Ferreira; Adam Fox; Nirmala P Gonsalves; Sandeep K Gupta; David A Katzka; Yoshikazu Kinoshita; Calies Menard-Katcher; Ellyn Kodroff; David C Metz; Stephan Miehlke; Amanda B Muir; Vincent A Mukkada; Simon Murch; Samuel Nurko; Yoshikazu Ohtsuka; Rok Orel; Alexandra Papadopoulou; Kathryn A Peterson; Hamish Philpott; Philip E Putnam; Joel E Richter; Rachel Rosen; Marc E Rothenberg; Alain Schoepfer; Melissa M Scott; Neil Shah; Javed Sheikh; Rhonda F Souza; Mary J Strobel; Nicholas J Talley; Michael F Vaezi; Yvan Vandenplas; Mario C Vieira; Marjorie M Walker; Joshua B Wechsler; Barry K Wershil; Ting Wen; Guang-Yu Yang; Ikuo Hirano; Albert J Bredenoord Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Alfredo J Lucendo; Javier Molina-Infante; Ángel Arias; Ulrike von Arnim; Albert J Bredenoord; Christian Bussmann; Jorge Amil Dias; Mogens Bove; Jesús González-Cervera; Helen Larsson; Stephan Miehlke; Alexandra Papadopoulou; Joaquín Rodríguez-Sánchez; Alberto Ravelli; Jukka Ronkainen; Cecilio Santander; Alain M Schoepfer; Martin A Storr; Ingrid Terreehorst; Alex Straumann; Stephen E Attwood Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: E S Dellon; L L Higgins; R Beitia; S Rusin; J T Woosley; R Veerappan; S R Selitsky; J S Parker; R M Genta; R H Lash; R Aranda; R J Peach; M Grimm Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Shikha Mangla; Alison H Goldin; Gaurav Singal; Jason L Hornick; Karen S Hsu Blatman; Robert Burakoff; Walter W Chan Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Syu-Jhe Chien; Kathleen A Silva; Victoria E Kennedy; Harm HogenEsch; John P Sundberg Journal: Exp Mol Pathol Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 3.362