Browsing by Author "Katzka, David A."

Now showing 1 - 10 of 14
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Clinical Severity Index for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Development, Consensus, and Future Directions
    (Elsevier, 2022) Dellon, Evan S.; Khoury, Paneez; Muir, Amanda B.; Liacouras, Chris A.; Safroneeva, Ekaterina; Atkins, Dan; Collins, Margaret H.; Gonsalves, Nirmala; Falk, Gary W.; Spergel, Jonathan M.; Hirano, Ikuo; Chehade, Mirna; Schoepfer, Alain M.; Menard-Katcher, Calies; Katzka, David A.; Bonis, Peter A.; Bredenoord, Albert J.; Geng, Bob; Jensen, Elizabeth T.; Pesek, Robert D.; Feuerstadt, Paul; Gupta, Sandeep K.; Lucendo, Alfredo J.; Genta, Robert M.; Hiremath, Girish; McGowan, Emily C.; Moawad, Fouad J.; Peterson, Kathryn A.; Rothenberg, Marc E.; Straumann, Alex; Furuta, Glenn T.; Aceves, Seema S.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background & aims: Disease activity and severity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) dictate therapeutic options and management, but the decision-making process for determining severity varies among practitioners. To reduce variability in practice patterns and help clinicians monitor the clinical course of the disease in an office setting, we aimed to create an international consensus severity scoring index for EoE. Methods: A multidisciplinary international group of adult and pediatric EoE researchers and clinicians, as well as non-EoE allergy immunology and gastroenterology experts, formed 3 teams to review the existing literature on histology, endoscopy, and symptoms of EoE in the context of progression and severity. A steering committee convened a 1-day virtual meeting to reach consensus on each team's opinion on salient features of severity across key clinicopathologic domains and distill features that would allow providers to categorize disease severity. Results: Symptom features and complications and inflammatory and fibrostenotic features on both endoscopic and histologic examination were collated into a simplified scoring system-the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE)-that can be completed at routine clinic visits to assess disease severity using a point scale of 0-6 for mild, 7-14 for moderate, and ≥15 for severe EoE. Conclusions: A multidisciplinary team of experts iteratively created a clinically usable EoE severity scoring system denominated "I-SEE" to guide practitioners in EoE management by standardizing disease components reflecting disease severity beyond eosinophil counts. I-SEE should be validated and refined using data from future clinical trials and routine clinical practice to increase its utilization and functionality.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Budesonide Oral Suspension Improves Symptomatic, Endoscopic, and Histologic Parameters Compared With Placebo in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis
    (Elsevier, 2017-03) Dellon, Evan S.; Katzka, David A.; Collins, Margaret H.; Hamdani, Mohamed; Gupta, Sandeep K.; Hirano, Ikuo; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims Pharmacologic treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is limited to off-label use of corticosteroids not optimized for esophageal delivery. We performed a randomized, controlled phase 2 trial to assess the ability of budesonide oral suspension (BOS), a novel muco-adherent topical steroid formulation, to reduce symptoms and esophageal eosinophilia in adolescents and adults with EoE. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, 93 EoE patients between the ages of 11 and 40 years with dysphagia and active esophageal eosinophilia were randomized to receive either BOS 2 mg or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score from baseline, and proportion of patients with a histologic response (≤6 eosinophils/high-power field) after treatment. Endoscopic severity scores and safety parameters were assessed. Results At baseline, mean DSQ scores were 29.3 and 29.0, and mean peak eosinophil counts were 156 and 130 per hpf in the BOS and placebo groups, respectively. After treatment, DSQ scores were 15.0 and 21.5, and mean peak eosinophil counts were 39 and 113 per high-power field, respectively (P < .05 for all). For BOS vs placebo, change in DSQ score was −14.3 vs −7.5 (P = .0096), histologic response rates were 39% vs 3% (P < .0001), and change in endoscopic severity score was −3.8 vs 0.4 (P < .0001). Adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusions Treatment with BOS was well tolerated in adolescent and young adult patients with EoE and resulted in improvement in symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic parameters using validated outcome instruments.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Development of a Core Outcome Set for Therapeutic Studies in Eosinophilic Esophagitis (COREOS)
    (Elsevier, 2021) Ma, Christopher; Schoepfer, Alain M.; Dellon, Evan S.; Bredenoord, Albert J.; Chehade, Mirna; Collins, Margaret H.; Feagan, Brian G.; Furuta, Glenn T.; Gupta, Sandeep K.; Hirano, Ikuo; Jairath, Vipul; Katzka, David A.; Pai, Rish K.; Rothenberg, Marc E.; Straumann, Alex; Aceves, Seema S.; Alexander, Jeffrey A.; Arva, Nicoleta C.; Atkins, Dan; Biedermann, Luc; Blanchard, Carine; Cianferoni, Antonella; Ciriza de los Rios, Constanza; Clayton, Frederic; Davis, Carla M.; de Bortoli, Nicola; Dias, Jorge A.; Falk, Gary W.; Genta, Robert M.; Ghaffari, Gisoo; Gonsalves, Nirmala; Greuter, Thomas; Hopp, Russell; Hsu Blatman, Karen S.; Jensen, Elizabeth T.; Johnston, Doug; Kagalwalla, Amir F.; Larsson, Helen M.; Leung, John; Louis, Hubert; Masterson, Joanne C.; Menard-Katcher, Calies; Menard-Katcher, Paul A.; Moawad, Fouad J.; Muir, Amanda B.; Mukkada, Vincent A.; Penagini, Roberto; Pesek, Robert D.; Peterson, Kathryn; Putnam, Philip E.; Ravelli, Alberto; Savarino, Edoardo V.; Schlag, Christoph; Schreiner, Philipp; Simon, Dagmar; Smyrk, Thomas C.; Spergel, Jonathan M.; Taft, Tiffany H.; Terreehorst, Ingrid; Vanuytsel, Tim; Venter, Carina; Vieira, Mario C.; Vieth, Michael; Vlieg-Boerstra, Berber; von Arnim, Ulrike; Walker, Marjorie M.; Wechsler, Joshua B.; Woodland, Philip; Woosley, John T.; Yang, Guang-Yu; Zevit, Noam; Safroneeva, Ekaterina; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background End points used to determine treatment efficacy in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have evolved over time. With multiple novel therapies in development for EoE, harmonization of outcomes measures will facilitate evidence synthesis and appraisal when comparing different treatments. Objective We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for controlled and observational studies of pharmacologic and diet interventions in adult and pediatric patients with EoE. Methods Candidate outcomes were generated from systematic literature reviews and patient engagement interviews and surveys. Consensus was established using an iterative Delphi process, with items voted on using a 9-point Likert scale and with feedback from other participants to allow score refinement. Consensus meetings were held to ratify the outcome domains of importance and the core outcome measures. Stakeholders were recruited internationally and included adult and pediatric gastroenterologists, allergists, dieticians, pathologists, psychologists, researchers, and methodologists. Results The COS consists of 4 outcome domains for controlled and observational studies: histopathology, endoscopy, patient-reported symptoms, and EoE-specific quality of life. A total of 69 stakeholders (response rate 95.8%) prioritized 42 outcomes in a 2-round Delphi process, and the final ratification meeting generated consensus on 33 outcome measures. These included measurement of the peak eosinophil count, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, and patient-reported measures of dysphagia and quality of life. Conclusions This interdisciplinary collaboration involving global stakeholders has produced a COS that can be applied to adult and pediatric studies of pharmacologic and diet therapies for EoE and will facilitate meaningful treatment comparisons and improve the quality of data synthesis.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Food‐induced immediate response of the esophagus—A newly identified syndrome in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis
    (Wiley, 2021-01) Biedermann, Luc; Holbreich, Mark; Atkins, Dan; Chehade, Mirna; Dellon, Evan S.; Furuta, Glenn T.; Hirano, Ikuo; Gonsalves, Nirmala; Greuter, Thomas; Gupta, Sandeep; Katzka, David A.; De Rooij, Willemijn; Safroneeva, Ekaterina; Schoepfer, Alain; Schreiner, Philipp; Simon, Dagmar; Simon, Hans Uwe; Warners, Marijn; Bredenoord, Albert-Jan; Straumann, Alex; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background Dysphagia is the main symptom of adult eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We describe a novel syndrome, referred to as “food-induced immediate response of the esophagus” (FIRE), observed in EoE patients. Methods Food-induced immediate response of the esophagus is an unpleasant/painful sensation, unrelated to dysphagia, occurring immediately after esophageal contact with specific foods. Eosinophilic esophagitis experts were surveyed to estimate the prevalence of FIRE, characterize symptoms, and identify food triggers. We also surveyed a large group of EoE patients enrolled in the Swiss EoE Cohort Study for FIRE. Results Response rates were 82% (47/57) for the expert and 65% (239/368) for the patient survey, respectively. Almost, 90% of EoE experts had observed the FIRE symptom complex in their patients. Forty percent of EoE patients reported experiencing FIRE, more commonly in patients who developed EoE symptoms at a younger age (mean age of 46.4 years vs 54.1 years without FIRE; P < .01) and in those with high allergic comorbidity. Food-induced immediate response of the esophagus symptoms included narrowing, burning, choking, and pressure in the esophagus appearing within 5 minutes of ingesting a provoking food that lasted less than 2 hours. Symptom severity rated a median 7 points on a visual analogue scale from 1 to 10. Fresh fruits/vegetables and wine were the most frequent triggers. Endoscopic food removal was significantly more commonly reported in male patients with vs without FIRE (44.3% vs 27.6%; P = .03). Conclusions Food-induced immediate response of the esophagus is a novel syndrome frequently reported in EoE patients, characterized by an intense, unpleasant/painful sensation occurring rapidly and reproducibly in 40% of surveyed EoE patients after esophageal contact with specific foods.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    International consensus recommendations for eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease nomenclature
    (Elsevier, 2022-02-16) Dellon, Evan S.; Gonsalves, Nirmala; Abonia, J. Pablo; Alexander, Jeffrey A.; Arva, Nicoleta C.; Atkins, Dan; Attwood, Stephen E.; Auth, Marcus K.H.; Bailey, Dominique D.; Biederman, Luc; Blanchard, Carine; Bonis, Peter A.; Bose, Paroma; Bredenoord, Albert J.; Chang, Joy W.; Chehade, Mirna; Collins, Margaret H.; Di Lorenzo, Carlo; Dias, Jorge Amil; Dohil, Ranjan; Dupont, Christophe; Falk, Gary W.; Ferreira, Cristina T.; Fox, Adam T.; Genta, Robert M.; Greuter, Thomas; Gupta, Sandeep K.; Hirano, Ikuo; Hiremath, Girish S.; Horsley-Silva, Jennifer L.; Ishihara, Shunji; Ishimura, Norihisa; Jensen, Elizabeth T.; Gutiérrez-Junquera, Carolina; Katzka, David A.; Khoury, Paneez; Kinoshita, Yoshikazu; Kliewer, Kara L.; Koletzko, Sibylle; Leung, John; Liacouras, Chris A.; Lucendo, Alfredo J.; Martin, Lisa J.; McGowan, Emily C.; Menard-Katcher, Calies; Metz, David C.; Miller, Talya L.; Moawad, Fouad J.; Muir, Amanda B.; Mukkada, Vincent A.; Murch, Simon; Nhu, Quan M.; Nomura, Ichiro; Nurko, Samuel; Ohtsuka, Yoshikazu; Oliva, Salvatore; Orel, Rok; Papadopoulou, Alexandra; Patel, Dhyanesh A.; Pesek, Robert D.; Peterson, Kathryn A.; Philpott, Hamish; Putnam, Philip E.; Richter, Joel E.; Rosen, Rachel; Ruffner, Melanie A.; Safroneeva, Ekaterina; Schreiner, Philipp; Schoepfer, Alain; Schroeder, Shauna R.; Shah, Neil; Souza, Rhonda F.; Spechler, Stuart J.; Spergel, Jonathan M.; Straumann, Alex; Talley, Nicholas J.; Thapar, Nikhil; Vandenplas, Yvan; Venkatesh, Rajitha D.; Vieira, Mario C.; von Arnim, Ulrike; Walker, Marjorie M.; Wechsler, Joshua B.; Wershil, Barry K.; Wright, Benjamin L.; Yamada, Yoshiyuki; Yang, Guang-Yu; Zevit, Noam; Rothenberg, Marc E.; Furuta, Glenn T.; Aceves, Seema S.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims Substantial heterogeneity in terminology used for eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGID), particularly the catchall term “eosinophilic gastroenteritis”, limits clinical and research advances. We aimed to achieve an international consensus for standardized EGID nomenclature. Methods This consensus process utilized Delphi methodology. An initial naming framework was proposed and refined in iterative fashion, then assessed in a first round of Delphi voting. Results were discussed in two consensus meetings, the framework was updated, and re-assessed in a second Delphi vote, with a 70% threshold set for agreement. Results Of 91 experts participating, 85 (93%) completed the first and 82 (90%) completed the second Delphi surveys. Consensus was reached on all but two statements. “EGID” was the preferred umbrella term for disorders of GI tract eosinophilic inflammation in the absence of secondary causes (100% agreement). Involved GI tract segments will be named specifically and use an “Eo” abbreviation convention: eosinophilic gastritis (now abbreviated EoG), eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and eosinophilic colitis (EoC). The term “eosinophilic gastroenteritis” is no longer preferred as the overall name (96% agreement). When >2 GI tract areas are involved, the name should reflect all of the involved areas. Conclusions This international process resulted in consensus for updated EGID nomenclature for both clinical and research use. EGID will be the umbrella term rather than “eosinophilic gastroenteritis”, and specific naming conventions by location of GI tract involvement are recommended. As more data are developed, this framework can be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying science.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    One Food versus Six Food Elimination Diet Therapy for Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial
    (Elsevier, 2023) Kliewer, Kara L.; Gonsalves, Nirmala; Dellon, Evan S.; Katzka, David A.; Abonia, Juan P.; Aceves, Seema S.; Arva, Nicoleta C.; Besse, John A.; Bonis, Peter A.; Caldwell, Julie M.; Capocelli, Kelley E.; Chehade, Mirna; Cianferoni, Antonella; Collins, Margaret H.; Falk, Gary W.; Gupta, Sandeep K.; Hirano, Ikuo; Krischer, Jeffrey P.; Leung, John; Martin, Lisa J.; Menard-Katcher, Paul; Mukkada, Vincent A.; Peterson, Kathryn A.; Shoda, Tetsuo; Rudman Spergel, Amanda K.; Spergel, Jonathan M.; Yang, Guang-Yu; Zhang, Xue; Furuta, Glenn T.; Rothenberg, Marc E.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background: Empirical elimination diets are effective for achieving histological remission in eosinophilic oesophagitis, but randomised trials comparing diet therapies are lacking. We aimed to compare a six-food elimination diet (6FED) with a one-food elimination diet (1FED) for the treatment of adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial across ten sites of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers in the USA. Adults aged 18-60 years with active, symptomatic eosinophilic oesophagitis were centrally randomly allocated (1:1; block size of four) to 1FED (animal milk) or 6FED (animal milk, wheat, egg, soy, fish and shellfish, and peanut and tree nuts) for 6 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by age, enrolling site, and gender. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with histological remission (peak oesophageal count <15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]). Key secondary endpoints were the proportions with complete histological remission (peak count ≤1 eos/hpf) and partial remission (peak counts ≤10 and ≤6 eos/hpf) and changes from baseline in peak eosinophil count and scores on the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System (EoEHSS), Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS), Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index (EEsAI), and quality of life (Adult Eosinophilic Esophagitis Quality-of-Life and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Global Health questionnaires). Individuals without histological response to 1FED could proceed to 6FED, and those without histological response to 6FED could proceed to swallowed topical fluticasone propionate 880 μg twice per day (with unrestricted diet), for 6 weeks. Histological remission after switching therapy was assessed as a secondary endpoint. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02778867, and is completed. Findings: Between May 23, 2016, and March 6, 2019, 129 patients (70 [54%] men and 59 [46%] women; mean age 37·0 years [SD 10·3]) were enrolled, randomly assigned to 1FED (n=67) or 6FED (n=62), and included in the ITT population. At 6 weeks, 25 (40%) of 62 patients in the 6FED group had histological remission compared with 23 (34%) of 67 in the 1FED group (difference 6% [95% CI -11 to 23]; p=0·58). We found no significant difference between the groups at stricter thresholds for partial remission (≤10 eos/hpf, difference 7% [-9 to 24], p=0·46; ≤6 eos/hpf, 14% [-0 to 29], p=0·069); the proportion with complete remission was significantly higher in the 6FED group than in the 1FED group (difference 13% [2 to 25]; p=0·031). Peak eosinophil counts decreased in both groups (geometric mean ratio 0·72 [0·43 to 1·20]; p=0·21). For 6FED versus 1FED, mean changes from baseline in EoEHSS (-0·23 vs -0·15; difference -0·08 [-0·21 to 0·05]; p=0·23), EREFS (-1·0 vs -0·6; difference -0·4 [-1·1 to 0·3]; p=0·28), and EEsAI (-8·2 vs -3·0; difference -5·2 [-11·2 to 0·8]; p=0·091) were not significantly different. Changes in quality-of-life scores were small and similar between the groups. No adverse event was observed in more than 5% of patients in either diet group. For patients without histological response to 1FED who proceeded to 6FED, nine (43%) of 21 reached histological remission; for patients without histological response to 6FED who proceeded to fluticasone propionate, nine (82%) of 11 reached histological remission. Interpretation: Histological remission rates and improvements in histological and endoscopic features were similar after 1FED and 6FED in adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis. 6FED had efficacy in just less than half of 1FED non-responders and steroids had efficacy in most 6FED non-responders. Our findings indicate that eliminating animal milk alone is an acceptable initial dietary therapy for eosinophilic oesophagitis.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Pooled Phase 2 and 3 Efficacy and Safety Data on Budesonide Oral Suspension in Adolescents with Eosinophilic Esophagitis
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2023) Mukkada, Vincent A.; Gupta, Sandeep K.; Gold, Benjamin D.; Dellon, Evan S.; Collins, Margaret H.; Katzka, David A.; Falk, Gary W.; Williams, James; Zhang, Wenwen; Boules, Mena; Hirano, Ikuo; Desai, Nirav K.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) in adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Methods: This post hoc analysis pooled data from two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of BOS 2.0 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (phase 2, NCT01642212; phase 3, NCT02605837) in patients aged 11-17 years with EoE and dysphagia. Efficacy endpoints included histologic (≤6, ≤1, and <15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]), dysphagia symptom (≥30% reduction in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ] scores from baseline), and clinicopathologic (≤6 eos/hpf and ≥30% reduction in DSQ scores from baseline) responses at week 12. Change from baseline to week 12 in peak eosinophil counts, DSQ scores, EoE Histology Scoring System (EoEHSS) grade (severity) and stage (extent) total score ratios (TSRs), and total EoE Endoscopic Reference Scores (EREFS) were assessed. Safety outcomes were also examined. Results: Overall, 76 adolescents were included (BOS, n = 45; placebo, n = 31). Significantly more patients who received BOS than placebo achieved histologic responses (≤6 eos/hpf: 46.7% vs 6.5%; ≤1 eos/hpf: 42.2% vs 0.0%; <15 eos/hpf: 53.3% vs 9.7%; P < 0.001) and a clinicopathologic response (31.1% vs 3.2%; P = 0.003) at week 12. More BOS-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a dysphagia symptom response at week 12 (68.9% vs 58.1%; not statistically significant P = 0.314). BOS-treated patients had significantly greater reductions in EoEHSS grade and stage TSRs ( P < 0.001) and total EREFS ( P = 0.021) from baseline to week 12 than placebo-treated patients. BOS was well tolerated, with no clinically meaningful differences in adverse events versus placebo. Conclusions: BOS 2.0 mg b.i.d. significantly improved most efficacy outcomes in adolescents with EoE versus placebo.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Proton Pump Inhibitor-Responsive Oesophageal Eosinophilia: An Entity Challenging Current Diagnostic Criteria for Eosinophilic Oesophagitis
    (BMJ, 2016-03) Molina-Infante, Javier; Bredenoord, Albert J.; Cheng, Edaire; Dellon, Evan S.; Furuta, Glenn T.; Gupta, Sandeep K.; Hirano, Ikuo; Katzka, David A.; Moawad, Fouad J.; Rothenberg, Marc E.; Schoepfer, Alain; Spechler, Stuart; Wen, Ting; Straumann, Alex; Lucendo, Alfredo J.; Department of Pediatrics, IU School of Medicine
    Consensus diagnostic recommendations to distinguish GORD from eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) by response to a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) unexpectedly uncovered an entity called 'PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia' (PPI-REE). PPI-REE refers to patients with clinical and histological features of EoE that remit with PPI treatment. Recent and evolving evidence, mostly from adults, shows that patients with PPI-REE and patients with EoE at baseline are clinically, endoscopically and histologically indistinguishable and have a significant overlap in terms of features of Th2 immune-mediated inflammation and gene expression. Furthermore, PPI therapy restores oesophageal mucosal integrity, reduces Th2 inflammation and reverses the abnormal gene expression signature in patients with PPI-REE, similar to the effects of topical steroids in patients with EoE. Additionally, recent series have reported that patients with EoE responsive to diet/topical steroids may also achieve remission on PPI therapy. This mounting evidence supports the concept that PPI-REE represents a continuum of the same immunological mechanisms that underlie EoE. Accordingly, it seems counterintuitive to differentiate PPI-REE from EoE based on a differential response to PPI therapy when their phenotypic, molecular, mechanistic and therapeutic features cannot be reliably distinguished. For patients with symptoms and histological features of EoE, it is reasonable to consider PPI therapy not as a diagnostic test, but as a therapeutic agent. Due to its safety profile, ease of administration and high response rates (up to 50%), PPI can be considered a first-line treatment before diet and topical steroids. The reasons why some patients with EoE respond to PPI, while others do not, remain to be elucidated.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Provider Beliefs, Practices, and Perceived Barriers to Dietary Elimination Therapy in Eosinophilic Esophagitis
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2022-09-01) Chang, Joy W.; Kliewe, Kara; Katzka, David A.; Peterson, Kathryn A.; Gonsalves, Nirmala; Gupta, Sandeep K.; Furuta, Glenn T.; Dellon, Evan S.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    INTRODUCTION: Despite effective dietary treatments, physicians prefer medications for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey of providers to assess the perceived effectiveness, practice patterns, and barriers to EoE dietary therapy. RESULTS: Providers view diet as the least effective treatment. The greatest barrier was the belief that patients are disinterested and unlikely to adhere (58%). With less access to dietitians (56%), non-academic providers often manage diets without dietitian guidance (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Given high patient acceptance for diets and multiple treatment options for EoE, clinicians need evidence-based knowledge on EoE diets, access to dietitians, and awareness of patient preferences.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Reliability and Responsiveness of Endoscopic Disease Activity Assessment in Eosinophilic Esophagitis
    (Elsevier, 2022) Ma, Christopher; Bredenoord, Albert J.; Dellon, Evan S.; Alexander, Jeffrey A.; Biedermann, Luc; Hogan, Malcolm; Guizzetti, Leonardo; Zou, Guangyong; Katzka, David A.; Chehade, Mirna; Falk, Gary W.; Furuta, Glenn T.; Gupta, Sandeep K.; Kagalwalla, Amir F.; Schoepfer, Alain M.; Miehlke, Stephan; Moawad, Fouad J.; Peterson, Kathryn; Gonsalves, Nirmala P.; Straumann, Alex; Wechsler, Joshua B.; Rémillard, Julie; Shackelton, Lisa M.; Almonte, Hector S.; Feagan, Brian G.; Jairath, Vipul; Hirano, Ikuo; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background and Aims Endoscopic outcomes have become important measures of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity, including as an endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated the operating properties of endoscopic measures for use in EoE RCTs. Methods Modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) appropriateness methods and a panel of 15 international EoE experts identified endoscopic items/definitions with face validity, which were used in a 2-round voting process to define simplified (all items graded absent/present) and expanded versions (additional grades for edema, furrows, and/or exudates) of the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS). Inter- and intra-rater reliability of these instruments (expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]), were evaluated using paired endoscopy video assessments of two blinded central readers before and after 8 weeks of proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical corticosteroids, or dietary elimination. Responsiveness was measured using the standardized effect size (SES). Results The appropriateness of 41 statements relevant to EoE endoscopic activity (endoscopic items, item definitions/grading, and other considerations relevant for endoscopy) was considered. The original and expanded EREFS demonstrated moderate-to-substantial inter-rater reliability (ICCs 0.472-0.736, and 0.469-0.763, respectively) and moderate-to-almost perfect intra-rater reliability (ICCs 0.580-0.828, and 0.581-0.828, respectively). Strictures were least reliably assessed (ICCs 0.072-0.385). The original EREFS was highly responsive (SES 1.126 [95% CI 0.757, 1.534]), although both expanded versions of EREFS, scored based on worst affected area, were numerically most responsive to treatment (expanded furrows, SES 1.229 [95% CI: 0.858, 1.643]; all items expanded, SES 1.252 [95% CI: 0.880, 1.667]). The EREFS and its modifications were not more reliably scored by segment, and also not more responsive when proximal and distal EREFS scores were summed. Conclusions EREFS and its modifications were reliable and responsive, and the original or expanded versions of the EREFS may be preferred in RCTs. Disease activity scored based on the worst affected area optimizes reliability and responsiveness.