Extent of eosinophilic esophagitis predicts response to treatment

Abstract Background and study aim  The clinical impact of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) limited to the distal esophagus (Lim-EE) vs. diffuse involvement (Dif-EE) is unknown. This study compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of Lim-EE vs. Dif-EE. Patients and methods  This retrospective, sin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Endoscopy International Open 2021-08, Vol.9 (8), p.E1234-E1242
Main Authors: Ghoz, Hassan, Stancampiano, Fernando F., Valery, Jose R., Nordelo, Katie, Malviya, Balkishan, Lacy, Brian E., Francis, Dawn, DeVault, Kenneth, Bouras, Ernest, Krishna, Murli, Palmer, William C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Original article
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-a01826218d1bea651f727dc2e403167c44212eaf5ea35fab5b1165ec9357552e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-a01826218d1bea651f727dc2e403167c44212eaf5ea35fab5b1165ec9357552e3
container_end_page E1242
container_issue 8
container_start_page E1234
container_title Endoscopy International Open
container_volume 9
creator Ghoz, Hassan
Stancampiano, Fernando F.
Valery, Jose R.
Nordelo, Katie
Malviya, Balkishan
Lacy, Brian E.
Francis, Dawn
DeVault, Kenneth
Bouras, Ernest
Krishna, Murli
Palmer, William C.
description Abstract Background and study aim  The clinical impact of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) limited to the distal esophagus (Lim-EE) vs. diffuse involvement (Dif-EE) is unknown. This study compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of Lim-EE vs. Dif-EE. Patients and methods  This retrospective, single-center study of patients with EoE between December 2011 and December 2019 evaluated treatment response based on repeated pathology and/or clinical improvement using comparative statistics. Results  479 patients were identified (126 Lim-EE, 353 Dif-EE). Lim-EE patients had a higher incidence of endoscopically identified esophagitis (23.0 % vs. 14.7 %; P  = 0.04), were older (50.8 [SD 16.2] vs. 46.4 [SD 15.3] years; P  = 0.007), and were more likely to present with iron deficiency anemia (5.6 % vs. 1.7 %; P  = 0.05), dyspepsia (15.1 % vs. 8.8 %; P  = 0.06) or for Barrett’s surveillance (10.3 % vs. 3.7 %; P  = 0.02). Patients with Dif-EE presented more frequently with dysphagia (57.2 % vs. 45.2 %; P  = 0.02). Both groups had similar proton pump inhibitor (87.2 % vs. 83.3 %; P  = 0.37) and steroid (12.8 % vs. 21.4 %; P  = 0.14) use. Patients with Lim-EE had a better clinicopathologic response (61.5 % vs. 44.8 %; P  = 0.009). On multivariate analysis, EoE extent predicted treatment response with an odds ratio of 1.89 (95 % confidence interval 1.13–3.20; P  = 0.02). However, treatment response based only on repeat biopsy results showed no statistical difference between Lim-EE (52.5 %) and Dif-EE (39.7 %; P  = 0.15). Conclusions  Lim-EE may represent a distinct phenotype separate from Dif-EE, with more overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease and better treatment response.
doi_str_mv 10.1055/a-1492-2650
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>thieme_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_5266266cd12d4a0d8728f23873779913</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_5266266cd12d4a0d8728f23873779913</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>10_1055_a_1492_2650</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-a01826218d1bea651f727dc2e403167c44212eaf5ea35fab5b1165ec9357552e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkVtLAzEQhYMoVmqf_AP7rKzmsrnsi1BK1ULBF30OaXa2TWk3S5KK_ntTV4SCEMghc-ZjMgehG4LvCeb8wZSkqmlJBcdn6IqSWpS1ZOI8ayaqkklKR2gS4xZjTFhVUaEu0SiLSiqJr9B0_pmgS4VvC_DRdb7fuJ2zBcSszNolF4s-QONsikWA2PsuQpF8kQKYtM-t1-iiNbsIk997jN6f5m-zl3L5-ryYTZelZapOpcFEUUGJasgKjOCklVQ2lkKFGRHS5tEIBdNyMIy3ZsVXhAgOtmZcck6BjdFi4DbebHUf3N6EL-2N0z8PPqy1CcnZHWhOhcjHNoQ2lcGNklS1lCnJpKxrwjLrcWD1h9UeGpu_EczuBHpa6dxGr_2HVkwxLOsMuBsANvgYA7R_vQTrYzDa6GMw-hhMdt8O7rRxsAe99YfQ5V39a_4Gl4qLxg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Extent of eosinophilic esophagitis predicts response to treatment</title><source>Open Access: Thieme Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Ghoz, Hassan ; Stancampiano, Fernando F. ; Valery, Jose R. ; Nordelo, Katie ; Malviya, Balkishan ; Lacy, Brian E. ; Francis, Dawn ; DeVault, Kenneth ; Bouras, Ernest ; Krishna, Murli ; Palmer, William C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ghoz, Hassan ; Stancampiano, Fernando F. ; Valery, Jose R. ; Nordelo, Katie ; Malviya, Balkishan ; Lacy, Brian E. ; Francis, Dawn ; DeVault, Kenneth ; Bouras, Ernest ; Krishna, Murli ; Palmer, William C.</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background and study aim  The clinical impact of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) limited to the distal esophagus (Lim-EE) vs. diffuse involvement (Dif-EE) is unknown. This study compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of Lim-EE vs. Dif-EE. Patients and methods  This retrospective, single-center study of patients with EoE between December 2011 and December 2019 evaluated treatment response based on repeated pathology and/or clinical improvement using comparative statistics. Results  479 patients were identified (126 Lim-EE, 353 Dif-EE). Lim-EE patients had a higher incidence of endoscopically identified esophagitis (23.0 % vs. 14.7 %; P  = 0.04), were older (50.8 [SD 16.2] vs. 46.4 [SD 15.3] years; P  = 0.007), and were more likely to present with iron deficiency anemia (5.6 % vs. 1.7 %; P  = 0.05), dyspepsia (15.1 % vs. 8.8 %; P  = 0.06) or for Barrett’s surveillance (10.3 % vs. 3.7 %; P  = 0.02). Patients with Dif-EE presented more frequently with dysphagia (57.2 % vs. 45.2 %; P  = 0.02). Both groups had similar proton pump inhibitor (87.2 % vs. 83.3 %; P  = 0.37) and steroid (12.8 % vs. 21.4 %; P  = 0.14) use. Patients with Lim-EE had a better clinicopathologic response (61.5 % vs. 44.8 %; P  = 0.009). On multivariate analysis, EoE extent predicted treatment response with an odds ratio of 1.89 (95 % confidence interval 1.13–3.20; P  = 0.02). However, treatment response based only on repeat biopsy results showed no statistical difference between Lim-EE (52.5 %) and Dif-EE (39.7 %; P  = 0.15). Conclusions  Lim-EE may represent a distinct phenotype separate from Dif-EE, with more overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease and better treatment response.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2364-3722</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2196-9736</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1055/a-1492-2650</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34447870</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany: Georg Thieme Verlag KG</publisher><subject>Original article</subject><ispartof>Endoscopy International Open, 2021-08, Vol.9 (8), p.E1234-E1242</ispartof><rights>The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)</rights><rights>The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 2021 The Author(s).</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-a01826218d1bea651f727dc2e403167c44212eaf5ea35fab5b1165ec9357552e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-a01826218d1bea651f727dc2e403167c44212eaf5ea35fab5b1165ec9357552e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383079/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383079/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,20891,27924,27925,53791,53793,54587,54615</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ghoz, Hassan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stancampiano, Fernando F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valery, Jose R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nordelo, Katie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malviya, Balkishan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lacy, Brian E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Francis, Dawn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeVault, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bouras, Ernest</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krishna, Murli</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palmer, William C.</creatorcontrib><title>Extent of eosinophilic esophagitis predicts response to treatment</title><title>Endoscopy International Open</title><addtitle>Endosc Int Open</addtitle><description>Abstract Background and study aim  The clinical impact of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) limited to the distal esophagus (Lim-EE) vs. diffuse involvement (Dif-EE) is unknown. This study compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of Lim-EE vs. Dif-EE. Patients and methods  This retrospective, single-center study of patients with EoE between December 2011 and December 2019 evaluated treatment response based on repeated pathology and/or clinical improvement using comparative statistics. Results  479 patients were identified (126 Lim-EE, 353 Dif-EE). Lim-EE patients had a higher incidence of endoscopically identified esophagitis (23.0 % vs. 14.7 %; P  = 0.04), were older (50.8 [SD 16.2] vs. 46.4 [SD 15.3] years; P  = 0.007), and were more likely to present with iron deficiency anemia (5.6 % vs. 1.7 %; P  = 0.05), dyspepsia (15.1 % vs. 8.8 %; P  = 0.06) or for Barrett’s surveillance (10.3 % vs. 3.7 %; P  = 0.02). Patients with Dif-EE presented more frequently with dysphagia (57.2 % vs. 45.2 %; P  = 0.02). Both groups had similar proton pump inhibitor (87.2 % vs. 83.3 %; P  = 0.37) and steroid (12.8 % vs. 21.4 %; P  = 0.14) use. Patients with Lim-EE had a better clinicopathologic response (61.5 % vs. 44.8 %; P  = 0.009). On multivariate analysis, EoE extent predicted treatment response with an odds ratio of 1.89 (95 % confidence interval 1.13–3.20; P  = 0.02). However, treatment response based only on repeat biopsy results showed no statistical difference between Lim-EE (52.5 %) and Dif-EE (39.7 %; P  = 0.15). Conclusions  Lim-EE may represent a distinct phenotype separate from Dif-EE, with more overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease and better treatment response.</description><subject>Original article</subject><issn>2364-3722</issn><issn>2196-9736</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>0U6</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptkVtLAzEQhYMoVmqf_AP7rKzmsrnsi1BK1ULBF30OaXa2TWk3S5KK_ntTV4SCEMghc-ZjMgehG4LvCeb8wZSkqmlJBcdn6IqSWpS1ZOI8ayaqkklKR2gS4xZjTFhVUaEu0SiLSiqJr9B0_pmgS4VvC_DRdb7fuJ2zBcSszNolF4s-QONsikWA2PsuQpF8kQKYtM-t1-iiNbsIk997jN6f5m-zl3L5-ryYTZelZapOpcFEUUGJasgKjOCklVQ2lkKFGRHS5tEIBdNyMIy3ZsVXhAgOtmZcck6BjdFi4DbebHUf3N6EL-2N0z8PPqy1CcnZHWhOhcjHNoQ2lcGNklS1lCnJpKxrwjLrcWD1h9UeGpu_EczuBHpa6dxGr_2HVkwxLOsMuBsANvgYA7R_vQTrYzDa6GMw-hhMdt8O7rRxsAe99YfQ5V39a_4Gl4qLxg</recordid><startdate>20210801</startdate><enddate>20210801</enddate><creator>Ghoz, Hassan</creator><creator>Stancampiano, Fernando F.</creator><creator>Valery, Jose R.</creator><creator>Nordelo, Katie</creator><creator>Malviya, Balkishan</creator><creator>Lacy, Brian E.</creator><creator>Francis, Dawn</creator><creator>DeVault, Kenneth</creator><creator>Bouras, Ernest</creator><creator>Krishna, Murli</creator><creator>Palmer, William C.</creator><general>Georg Thieme Verlag KG</general><scope>0U6</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210801</creationdate><title>Extent of eosinophilic esophagitis predicts response to treatment</title><author>Ghoz, Hassan ; Stancampiano, Fernando F. ; Valery, Jose R. ; Nordelo, Katie ; Malviya, Balkishan ; Lacy, Brian E. ; Francis, Dawn ; DeVault, Kenneth ; Bouras, Ernest ; Krishna, Murli ; Palmer, William C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-a01826218d1bea651f727dc2e403167c44212eaf5ea35fab5b1165ec9357552e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Original article</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ghoz, Hassan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stancampiano, Fernando F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valery, Jose R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nordelo, Katie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malviya, Balkishan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lacy, Brian E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Francis, Dawn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeVault, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bouras, Ernest</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krishna, Murli</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palmer, William C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Open Access: Thieme Open Access Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Endoscopy International Open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ghoz, Hassan</au><au>Stancampiano, Fernando F.</au><au>Valery, Jose R.</au><au>Nordelo, Katie</au><au>Malviya, Balkishan</au><au>Lacy, Brian E.</au><au>Francis, Dawn</au><au>DeVault, Kenneth</au><au>Bouras, Ernest</au><au>Krishna, Murli</au><au>Palmer, William C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Extent of eosinophilic esophagitis predicts response to treatment</atitle><jtitle>Endoscopy International Open</jtitle><addtitle>Endosc Int Open</addtitle><date>2021-08-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>E1234</spage><epage>E1242</epage><pages>E1234-E1242</pages><issn>2364-3722</issn><eissn>2196-9736</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background and study aim  The clinical impact of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) limited to the distal esophagus (Lim-EE) vs. diffuse involvement (Dif-EE) is unknown. This study compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of Lim-EE vs. Dif-EE. Patients and methods  This retrospective, single-center study of patients with EoE between December 2011 and December 2019 evaluated treatment response based on repeated pathology and/or clinical improvement using comparative statistics. Results  479 patients were identified (126 Lim-EE, 353 Dif-EE). Lim-EE patients had a higher incidence of endoscopically identified esophagitis (23.0 % vs. 14.7 %; P  = 0.04), were older (50.8 [SD 16.2] vs. 46.4 [SD 15.3] years; P  = 0.007), and were more likely to present with iron deficiency anemia (5.6 % vs. 1.7 %; P  = 0.05), dyspepsia (15.1 % vs. 8.8 %; P  = 0.06) or for Barrett’s surveillance (10.3 % vs. 3.7 %; P  = 0.02). Patients with Dif-EE presented more frequently with dysphagia (57.2 % vs. 45.2 %; P  = 0.02). Both groups had similar proton pump inhibitor (87.2 % vs. 83.3 %; P  = 0.37) and steroid (12.8 % vs. 21.4 %; P  = 0.14) use. Patients with Lim-EE had a better clinicopathologic response (61.5 % vs. 44.8 %; P  = 0.009). On multivariate analysis, EoE extent predicted treatment response with an odds ratio of 1.89 (95 % confidence interval 1.13–3.20; P  = 0.02). However, treatment response based only on repeat biopsy results showed no statistical difference between Lim-EE (52.5 %) and Dif-EE (39.7 %; P  = 0.15). Conclusions  Lim-EE may represent a distinct phenotype separate from Dif-EE, with more overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease and better treatment response.</abstract><cop>Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany</cop><pub>Georg Thieme Verlag KG</pub><pmid>34447870</pmid><doi>10.1055/a-1492-2650</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2364-3722
ispartof Endoscopy International Open, 2021-08, Vol.9 (8), p.E1234-E1242
issn 2364-3722
2196-9736
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_5266266cd12d4a0d8728f23873779913
source Open Access: Thieme Open Access Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Original article
title Extent of eosinophilic esophagitis predicts response to treatment
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T15%3A48%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-thieme_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Extent%20of%20eosinophilic%20esophagitis%20predicts%20response%20to%20treatment&rft.jtitle=Endoscopy%20International%20Open&rft.au=Ghoz,%20Hassan&rft.date=2021-08-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=E1234&rft.epage=E1242&rft.pages=E1234-E1242&rft.issn=2364-3722&rft.eissn=2196-9736&rft_id=info:doi/10.1055/a-1492-2650&rft_dat=%3Cthieme_doaj_%3E10_1055_a_1492_2650%3C/thieme_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-a01826218d1bea651f727dc2e403167c44212eaf5ea35fab5b1165ec9357552e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/34447870&rfr_iscdi=true