Summary
Background
Food antigens are clearly implicated in the induction and persistence of eosinophilic oesophagitis. Dietary elimination to identify triggers is tedious and expensive. Alternatives that can mitigate cost and improve patient quality of life during this process are needed.
Aims
To test the hypothesis that antibodies against foods that trigger eosinophilic oesophagitis are secreted into the oesophageal lumen where they can be collected by oesophageal brushings.
Methods
We evaluated food‐specific immune responses within brushings in 68 patients undergoing endoscopy (12 controls, 13 resolved eosinophilic oesophagitis and 43 active eosinophilic oesophagitis). Seventeen participants identified their trigger foods via food elimination diets. Immunoglobulin A and immunoglobulin G4 antibodies against the four most common eosinophilic oesophagitis food triggers were measured using the ImmunoCAP assay in the oesophageal brushings. Food‐specific antibody values were compared between active eosinophilic oesophagitis, resolved eosinophilic oesophagitis and controls.
Results
Patients with active eosinophilic oesophagitis (>15 eosinophils/hpf) demonstrated increased immunoglobulin A and immunoglobulin G4 levels to common eosinophilic oesophagitis triggers compared to controls (327 ± 380 vs 150 ± 130 for immunoglobulin A, and 1534 ± 3346 vs 178 ± 123 for immunoglobulin G4, P < 0.003). Specific trigger foods were associated with elevated immunoglobulin A and immunoglobulin G4 responses compared to foods that did not trigger oesophageal eosinophilia (733 ± 469 vs 142 ± 64, P < 0.001 immunoglobulin A and 2620 ± 3228 vs 526 ± 1050, P < 0.001 immunoglobulin G4).
Conclusions
Food‐specific antibodies are easily collected along the oesophageal lumen of eosinophilic oesophagitis patients. Further studies are needed to validate our preliminary findings to determine whether these antibodies can be used to guide elimination diet therapy.
Background: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is associated with elevated IgG4 in oesophageal tissue and serum. Previously, we showed brush-collected oesophageal secretions of EoE patients contained food antigen-specific antibodies IgA and IgG4. It is unknown whether other food-specific antibodies are present along the surface of the oesophagus in EoE. Aim: To identify whether immunoglobulins other than IgG4 and food-specific antibodies are elevated along the oesophageal mucosal surface in oesophageal secretions in EoE patients Methods: Concentrations of total IgA, IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgM and IgE were measured in oesophageal secretions from patients with active (n = 19) and inactive EoE (n = 9), and non-EoE controls (n = 10). Food-specific antibodies were measured using beads coupled to protein components from dairy, wheat and egg. Total immunoglobulin and cytokine and chemokine concentrations were measured in serum, saliva and oesophageal secretions of four patients with active EoE. Results: Oesophageal secretions have a unique immune profile. Patients with active EoE had elevated IgG2, IgG4 and IgM concentrations in oesophageal secretions compared to those with inactive EoE. Food-specific IgG1, IgG2, IgG4 and IgM were significantly increased in patients with active EoE compared to inactive EoE and non-EoE patients. Furthermore, active patients with a known dairy trigger display higher dairy-specific IgG1, IgG2, IgG4, IgM, IgA and IgE.Conclusions: There is a distinct localised profile of immunoglobulins and foodspecific antibodies found within oesophageal secretions in EoE. These findings expand our knowledge about the currently identified immune responses in EoE and suggest possible roles for multiple immunoglobulins and food-specific antibodies in the pathophysiology of EoE.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.