In a prospective study of patients with EoE, we found that a cutpoint of <15 eos/hpf identifies most patients with symptom and endoscopic improvements, providing support for the current diagnostic threshold. A lower threshold (<5 eos/hpf) identifies most patients with a combination of symptom and endoscopic responses; this cutpoint might be used in situations that require a stringent histologic threshold.

There are few data exploring modifiable risk factors for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to determine if smoking, alcohol consumption, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use were risk factors for EoE, and to assess their impact on EoE phenotypes and treatment outcomes. We performed a case-control study analyzing data collected from a prospective cohort of adults undergoing upper endoscopy for symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. Incident EoE cases were diagnosed via consensus guidelines. Exposure data were collected via standardized patient questionnaire. Follow-up assessments for cases were made after treatment, with histologic response defined as <15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf). Exposures were compared between EoE cases and controls, among EoE cases with and without fibrostenosis, and among EoE responders and nonresponders. A total of 115 cases and 225 controls were analyzed. Cases were less likely to have ever smoked cigarettes (23% vs. 47%, P < 0.001) or currently use NSAIDs (17% vs. 40%, P < 0.001) compared to controls. These relations persisted after multivariate analysis. Although alcohol use was more common among cases (75% vs. 51%, P < 0.001), the effect was abrogated after multivariate analysis. Smoking, alcohol, and NSAID use were not associated with the fibrostenotic phenotype. There was a trend toward improved histologic response among EoE patients concomitantly using NSAIDs (87% vs. 63%, P = 0.08; aOR 6.97 (95% CI: 0.81-60.3). In conclusion, NSAID and smoking were inversely associated with EoE compared to endoscopy-based controls. Alcohol use was more prevalent in the EoE cases, although not an independent risk factor. Concomitant NSAID use may improve treatment response and is worthy of future study.

Summary Many studies of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) utilize expert pathology review, but it is unknown whether less experienced pathologists can reliably assess EoE histology. We aimed to determine whether trainee pathologists can accurately quantify esophageal eosinophil counts and identify associated histologic features of EoE, as compared to expert pathologists. We used a set of 40 digitized slides from patients with varying degrees of esophageal eosinophilia. Each of six trainee pathologists underwent a teaching session and used our validated protocol to determine eosinophil counts and associated EoE findings. The same slides had previously been evaluated by expert pathologists, and these results comprised the gold standard. Eosinophil counts were correlated, and agreement was calculated for the diagnostic threshold of 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) as well as for associated EoE findings. Peak eosinophil counts were highly correlated between the trainees and the gold standard (Rho ranged from 0.87–0.92; p<0.001 for all). Peak counts were also highly correlated between trainees (0.75–0.91; p<0.001), and results were similar for mean counts. Agreement was excellent for determining if a count exceeded the diagnostic threshold (kappa ranged from 0.83 to 0.89; p<0.001). Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation (kappa 0.54 to 0.83; p<0.01) and spongiosis (kappa 0.44–0.87; p<0.01), but was lower for eosinophil microabscesses (kappa 0.37–0.64; p<0.01). In conclusion, using a teaching session, digitized slide set, and validated protocol, the agreement between pathology trainees and expert pathologists for determining eosinophil counts was excellent. Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation and spongiosis, but less so for microabscesses.

In 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.

No abstract