Nicole Chang1, Soha Raja1, Renee Betancourt2, Cara Randall2, Staci Keene2, Amy Lilly2, Mark Fowler2, John T Woosley2, Nicholas J Shaheen1,3, Evan S Dellon4,5. 1. Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, CB#7080, Bioinformatics Building, 130 Mason Farm Rd. UNC-CH, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7080, USA. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, CB#7080, Bioinformatics Building, 130 Mason Farm Rd. UNC-CH, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7080, USA. edellon@med.unc.edu. 5. Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. edellon@med.unc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between histologic disease activity in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and generic measures of quality of life (QoL) is unclear. AIMS: To determine differences in QoL in adults with EoE based on histologic activity and assess changes in QoL over time. METHODS: We performed an analysis of prospectively collected data from patients in the University of North Carolina EoE Registry. Patients were categorized with histologically active (≥ 15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]) or inactive (< 15 eos/hpf) disease. Dysphagia severity was measured with a Likert scale. QoL was measured with 36-Item Short Form (SF-36), compared between active and inactive groups, and assessed longitudinally. RESULTS: Of 147 EoE cases, those with inactive disease (n = 56) reported less dysphagia severity (3.2 vs. 1.9; p = 0.003) and had lower endoscopic severity (3.8 vs. 1.0; p < 0.001) than those with active disease (n = 91). While SF-36 scores did not differ between active and inactive status, lower mental component scores (MCS) were seen in patients treated with empiric dietary elimination (44.9 vs. 50.8; p = 0.005). Dysphagia severity was negatively correlated with both physical component score (PCS) (r = -0.33; p < 0.001) and MCS (r = -0.18; p = 0.03). Despite more cases achieving histologic response over time, SF-36 scores did not improve on either raw or adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: QoL measured by SF-36 in EoE was similar regardless of histologic disease activity and was in the range of population averages. General QoL metrics like the SF-36 do not appear to have substantial utility in EoE.
BACKGROUND: The relationship between histologic disease activity in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and generic measures of quality of life (QoL) is unclear. AIMS: To determine differences in QoL in adults with EoE based on histologic activity and assess changes in QoL over time. METHODS: We performed an analysis of prospectively collected data from patients in the University of North Carolina EoE Registry. Patients were categorized with histologically active (≥ 15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]) or inactive (< 15 eos/hpf) disease. Dysphagia severity was measured with a Likert scale. QoL was measured with 36-Item Short Form (SF-36), compared between active and inactive groups, and assessed longitudinally. RESULTS: Of 147 EoE cases, those with inactive disease (n = 56) reported less dysphagia severity (3.2 vs. 1.9; p = 0.003) and had lower endoscopic severity (3.8 vs. 1.0; p < 0.001) than those with active disease (n = 91). While SF-36 scores did not differ between active and inactive status, lower mental component scores (MCS) were seen in patients treated with empiric dietary elimination (44.9 vs. 50.8; p = 0.005). Dysphagia severity was negatively correlated with both physical component score (PCS) (r = -0.33; p < 0.001) and MCS (r = -0.18; p = 0.03). Despite more cases achieving histologic response over time, SF-36 scores did not improve on either raw or adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: QoL measured by SF-36 in EoE was similar regardless of histologic disease activity and was in the range of population averages. General QoL metrics like the SF-36 do not appear to have substantial utility in EoE.
Authors: Ikuo Hirano; Nelson Moy; Michael G Heckman; Colleen S Thomas; Nirmala Gonsalves; Sami R Achem Journal: Gut Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Elizabeth T Jensen; Michael D Kappelman; Christopher F Martin; Evan S Dellon Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Kelly M O'Shea; Seema S Aceves; Evan S Dellon; Sandeep K Gupta; Jonathan M Spergel; Glenn T Furuta; Marc E Rothenberg Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 22.682
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: Alfredo J Lucendo; Laura Arias-González; Javier Molina-Infante; Ángel Arias Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Tiffany H Taft; Dustin A Carlson; Madison Simons; Sonia Zavala; Ikuo Hirano; Nirmala Gonsalves; John E Pandolfino Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 33.883