Dataset Information

Esophageal IgG4: Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histologic Correlations in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Recent studies show increased serum and esophageal IgG4 in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), suggesting a possible IgG4-involved process. The role of IgG4 in pediatric EoE has not been extensively investigated. Our aim was to analyze IgG4 in esophageal tissue in children in parallel to that in adults with EoE.

Methods

In a retrospective institutional review board-approved study, we performed immunohistochemical staining of IgG4 in esophageal biopsy specimens from 39 subjects: children with EoE (n = 16), adults with EoE (n = 15), children with reflux esophagitis (n = 4), and pediatric controls (n = 4). We assessed the relationships between IgG4 staining and clinical, endoscopic, and histopathologic characteristics.

Results

Patients with EoE were significantly more likely to stain positively for IgG4 than children with reflux esophagitis or controls (P = 0.015). Fifteen of 31 (48%) EoE cases stained positively for IgG4. None of the reflux esophagitis or control cases stained positively. IgG4 staining had 48% sensitivity and 100% specificity for EoE. There was a trend toward IgG4 staining being associated with foreign body/food impaction (P = 0.153). There was a strong association between distal IgG4 staining and basal zone hyperplasia (P = 0.003).

Conclusions

Our study suggests IgG4 is not a consistent finding of EoE at disease diagnosis. Although IgG4 staining was specific for EoE, it had a poor sensitivity with positive staining in only 48% of EoE patients. Further studies are warranted to fully elucidate the role of IgG4 in EoE.

SUBMITTER: Pope AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8384046 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background & aimsIt 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.MethodsBetween 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsIn 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 & 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:Background & aimsFew factors have been identified that can be used to predict response of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) to topical steroid treatment. We aimed to determine whether baseline clinical, endoscopic, histologic, and molecular features of EoE can be used to predict histologic response.MethodsWe collected data from 97 patients with EoE, from 2009 through 2015, treated with a topical steroid for 8 weeks; 59 patients had a histologic response to treatment. Baseline clinicopathologic features and gene expression patterns were compared between patients with a histologic response to treatment (<15 eos/hpf) and non-responders (≥15 eos/hpf). We performed sensitivity analyses for alternative histologic response definitions. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictive factors associated with response to therapy, which were assessed with area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curves.ResultsBaseline dilation was the only independent predictor of non-response (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.89). When an alternate response (<1 eos/hpf) and non-response (<50% decrease in baseline eos/hpf) definition was used, independent predictors of response status were age (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14), food allergies (OR, 12.95; 95% CI, 2.20-76.15), baseline dilation (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.88), edema or decreased vascularity (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-1.03), and hiatal hernia (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.66). Using these 5 factors, we developed a predictive model that discriminated complete responders from non-responders with an AUROC of 0.88. Baseline gene expression patterns were not associated with treatment response and did not change with different histologic response thresholds.ConclusionsIn an analysis of 97 patients with EoE, we found dilation to be the only baseline factor associated with non-response to steroid treatment (<15 eos/hpf). However, a model comprising 5 clinical, endoscopic, and histologic factors identified patients with a complete response (<1 eos/hpf). A baseline gene expression panel was not predictive of treatment response at any threshold.