Dataset Information

Association Between Endoscopic and Histologic Findings in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort of Patients with Non-esophageal Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Little is known about the endoscopic and histologic findings of non-esophageal eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGID). AIM:To characterize the presenting endoscopic and histologic findings in patients with eosinophilic gastritis (EG), eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE), and eosinophilic colitis (EC) at diagnosis and 6 months after initiating the treatment. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study at 6 US centers associated with the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Researchers. Data abstracted included demographics, endoscopic findings, tissue eosinophil counts, and associated histologic findings at diagnosis and, when available, after initial treatment. RESULTS:Of 373 subjects (317 children and 56 adults), 142 had EG, 123 EGE, and 108 EC. Normal endoscopic appearance was the most common finding across all EGIDs (62% of subjects). Baseline tissue eosinophil counts were quantified in 105 (74%) EG, 36 (29%) EGE, and 80 (74%) EC subjects. The mean peak gastric eosinophil count across all sites was 87 eos/hpf for EG and 78 eos/hpf for EGE. The mean peak colonic eosinophil count for EC subjects was 76 eos/hpf (range 10-500). Of the 29% of subjects with post-treatment follow-up, most had an improvement in clinical, endoscopic, and histologic findings regardless of treatment utilized. Reductions in tissue eosinophilia correlated with improvements in clinical symptoms as well as endoscopic and histologic findings. CONCLUSIONS:In this large cohort, normal appearance was the most common endoscopic finding, emphasizing the importance of biopsy, regardless of endoscopic appearance. Decreased tissue eosinophilia was associated with improvement in symptoms, endoscopic, and histologic findings, showing that disease activity is reversible.

SUBMITTER: Pesek RD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7315780 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background & aimsThe region of the esophagus 15-17 cm below the incisors, called the sub-upper esophageal sphincter (sub-UES), has not been characterized in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) but appears different during endoscopy. We investigated how the sub-UES differs from the remaining esophagus in patients with EoE and aimed to determine whether these differences be used to distinguish patients with EoE from those with lichen planus.MethodsWe performed a prospective study of 14 patients with EoE, 7 patients with lichen planus (based on presence of Civatte bodies, dysphagia, and/or narrow esophagus with thin esophageal mucosa without signs of EoE), and 20 patients undergoing upper endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal or with dysphagia but without features of EoE (controls) at a single medical center from 2015 through 2018. Biopsies from the distal, middle, and sub-UES regions of the esophagus were analyzed by histology, quantitative PCR, and immunohistochemistry. We measured mucosal impedance (MI) in all subjects at the sub-UES and 2 cm, 5 cm, and 10 cm from the gastro-esophageal junction.ResultsPatients with EoE had significantly fewer eosinophils (median, 2 eosinophils/high-powered field [HPF]; range, 0-8 eosinophils/HPF) in sub-UES tissues compared with distal esophagus (median, 50 eosinophils/HPF; range, 22.5-60.8 eosinophils/HPF; P < .0001) or middle esophagus (median, 32 eosinophils/HPF; range, 19.3-60; P < .0001). Sub-UES tissues from patients with EoE had significantly less basal cell hyperplasia (P < .01), papillary elongation (P < .01), and dilated intercellular spaces (P < .01) than middle or and distal esophagus. MI in the sub-UES did not differ significantly between patients with EoE vs controls (P = .24), but was significantly lower in patients with lichen planus (median, 1344 ohms; range, 1046-1488) than patients with EoE (median, 2880 ohms; range, 2149-4858) (P < .001). mRNA and protein expression patterns did not differ significantly in the sub-UES of patients with EoE vs controls, except for expression of desmoglein-1, which was increased in sub-UES tissues from patients with EoE.ConclusionsSub-UES tissues from patients with EoE differ in numbers of eosinophils, histologic features, and MI compared to controls or patients with lichen planus. These features might help to distinguish these 2 diseases.

Project description:BackgroundEosinophilic gastritis (EG) is a clinicopathologic disorder with marked gastric eosinophilia and clinical symptoms. There is an unmet need among patients with EG for more precise diagnostic tools.ObjectiveWe aimed to develop tissue- and blood-based diagnostic platforms for EG.MethodsPatients with EG and control subjects without EG were enrolled across 9 Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers-associated sites. An EG Diagnostic Panel (EGDP; gastric transcript subset) and EG blood biomarker panel (protein multiplex array) were analyzed. EGDP18 scores were derived from the expression of 18 highly dysregulated genes, and blood EG scores were derived from dysregulated cytokine/chemokine levels.ResultsGastric biopsy specimens and blood samples from 185 subjects (patients with EG, n = 74; control subjects without EG, n = 111) were analyzed. The EGDP (1) identified patients with active EG (P < .0001, area under the curve ≥ 0.95), (2) effectively monitored disease activity in longitudinal samples (P = .0078), (3) highly correlated in same-patient samples (antrum vs body, r = 0.85, P < .0001), and (4) inversely correlated with gastric peak eosinophil levels (r = -0.83, P < .0001), periglandular circumferential collars (r = -0.73, P < .0001), and endoscopic nodularity (r = -0.45, P < .0001). For blood-based platforms, eotaxin-3, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, IL-5, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin levels were significantly increased. Blood EG scores (1) distinguished patients with EG from control subjects without EG (P < .0001, area under the curve ≥ 0.91), (2) correlated with gastric eosinophil levels (plasma: r = 0.72, P = .0002; serum: r = 0.54, P = .0015), and (3) inversely correlated with EGDP18 scores (plasma: r = -0.64, P = .0015; serum: r = -0.46, P = .0084). Plasma eotaxin-3 levels strongly associated with gastric CCL26 expression (r = 0.81, P < .0001).ConclusionWe developed tissue- and blood-based platforms for assessment of EG and uncovered robust associations between specific gastric molecular profiles and histologic and endoscopic features, providing insight and clinical readiness tools for this emerging rare disease.

Project description:It is not clear whether symptoms alone can be used to estimate the biologic activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate whether symptoms can be used to identify patients with endoscopic and histologic features of remission.Between April 2011 and June 2014, we performed a prospective, observational study and recruited 269 consecutive adults with EoE (67% male; median age, 39 years old) in Switzerland and the United States. Patients first completed the validated symptom-based EoE activity index patient-reported outcome instrument and then underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsy collection. Endoscopic and histologic findings were evaluated with a validated grading system and standardized instrument, respectively. Clinical remission was defined as symptom score <20 (range, 0-100); histologic remission was defined as a peak count of <20 eosinophils/mm(2) in a high-power field (corresponds to approximately <5 eosinophils/median high-power field); and endoscopic remission as absence of white exudates, moderate or severe rings, strictures, or combination of furrows and edema. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis to determine the best symptom score cutoff values for detection of remission.Of the study subjects, 111 were in clinical remission (41.3%), 79 were in endoscopic remission (29.7%), and 75 were in histologic remission (27.9%). When the symptom score was used as a continuous variable, patients in endoscopic, histologic, and combined (endoscopic and histologic remission) remission were detected with area under the curve values of 0.67, 0.60, and 0.67, respectively. A symptom score of 20 identified patients in endoscopic remission with 65.1% accuracy and histologic remission with 62.1% accuracy; a symptom score of 15 identified patients with both types of remission with 67.7% accuracy.In patients with EoE, endoscopic or histologic remission can be identified with only modest accuracy based on symptoms alone. At any given time, physicians cannot rely on lack of symptoms to make assumptions about lack of biologic disease activity in adults with EoE. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT00939263.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Propofol sedation is effective for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, but its narrow therapeutic window highlights the importance of identifying an optimal administration technique regarding effectiveness and safety. This study aimed to determine the incidence of significant adverse events in adult patients scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopy under anaesthetist-performed sedation using propofol target-controlled infusion and determine the existence of associations between these events and potentially related variables. METHODS:This single-centre, retrospective cohort study took place in a tertiary referral university hospital. Medical records of 823 patients (age?>?18?years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification scores I-III) who had undergone elective gastrointestinal endoscopy under propofol target-controlled infusion sedation during September 2018 were reviewed. Outcomes included hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia events, requirement of vasoactive drugs, unplanned tracheal intubation or supraglottic device insertion, and need for advanced cardiac life support. RESULTS:The most frequently encountered adverse event was oxygen desaturation <?95% with an incidence of 22.35%. Vasoactive drug administration, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation <?90% followed, with incidences of 19.2, 12.64, and 9.92%, respectively. Only 0.5% of patients required advanced airway management. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between hypotension events, colonoscopic procedures, and propofol doses (odds ratio: 3.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.43 to 6.61; P?=?0.004 and odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.29; P?=?0.046). A strong dose-effect relationship was found between hypoxia and obesity; patients with body mass index ?40 were nine times (odds ratio: 10.22, 95% confidence interval: 2.83 to 36.99) more likely to experience oxygen desaturation <?90% events. CONCLUSIONS:Propofol sedation using target-controlled infusion appears to be a safe and effective anaesthetic technique for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with acceptable rates of adverse events and could be more widely adopted in clinical practice.

Dataset Information

Association Between Endoscopic and Histologic Findings in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort of Patients with Non-esophageal Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets