Commentary: PPI Dosing, Biomarkers, and Eating Behaviors in Patients With EoE, March 2024

This study provides compelling evidence that a twice-daily dosing regimen of moderate-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is superior to a once-daily regimen for inducing histologic remission in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This finding suggests a significant paradigm shift in EoE management, challenging the current standard treatment guideline that recommends a PPI trial of 20-40 mg twice daily. The limited data on various dosing regimens for EoE treatment underscores the importance of this research. Dr Muftah and colleagues from Brigham and Women's Hospital have conducted a novel retrospective cohort study to address the question: Does a twice-daily PPI dose induce a higher remission rate in EoE than a once-daily regimen does regardless of the total daily dose?

The study enrolled adult patients with newly-diagnosed treatment-naive EoE at a tertiary care center, dividing participants into four groups on the basis of their treatment regimen: once-daily standard dose (20 mg omeprazole), once-daily moderate dose (40 mg), twice-daily moderate dose (20 mg), and twice-daily high dose (40 mg). Patients underwent endoscopy 8-12 weeks after initiating PPI treatment, with the primary outcome being the histologic response to PPI, defined as fewer than 15 eosinophils/high power field in repeat esophageal biopsies.

Out of 305 patients (54.6% men, mean age 44.7 ± 16.7 years), 42.3% achieved a histologic response to PPI treatment. Patients receiving the standard PPI dose (20 mg omeprazole once daily) vs those on twice-daily moderate and high doses showed significantly higher histologic response rates (52.8% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; and 54.3% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed that twice-daily moderate and high doses were significantly more effective (adjusted odds ration [aOR] 6.75; CI 2.53-18.0, P = .0008; and aOR 12.8, CI 4.69-34.8, P < .001; respectively).

However, the study's retrospective design limits its ability to establish causality and may introduce selection bias. In addition, the lack of specified adjustments for PPI dosing based on diet and lifestyle factors across the cohort could influence treatment response and outcomes. Last, as a single-center study, the results may not generalize across diverse patient populations, particularly those with different demographics or disease severities.

This research heralds a shift toward a more effective treatment strategy in EoE management, suggesting that a twice-daily PPI regimen may be more beneficial than once-daily dosing is for inducing histologic remission, especially in patients inadequately responding to once-daily PPI treatment. It advocates for a personalized treatment approach, considering factors such as symptom severity, previous PPI response, and potential for adherence to a twice-daily regimen.

Distinguishing between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–induced eosinophilia and EoE poses a significant challenge for clinicians. Given that the incidence of EoE is 3-5 times higher in patients with IBD compared with the general population, there is a pressing need for new biomarkers to differentiate between these two conditions. In response to this need, Dr Butzke and colleagues at Nemours Children's Health in Wilmington, Delaware, conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the roles of Major Basic Protein (MBP) and interleukin (IL)-13 in distinguishing these diseases. The study included participants who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsies for IBD workup or suspicion of EoE. It comprised 27 patients with EoE-IBD, 39 with EoE, 29 with IBD eosinophilia, 30 with IBD only, and 30 control patients. The biopsies were stained with MBP and IL-13 antibodies, and the results (percent staining/total tissue area), demographic, and clinical findings were compared among the groups.

The study revealed that MBP staining levels among patients with EoE-IBD were 3.8 units, which is significantly lower than those in the EoE group at 52.8 units and higher than those with IBD eosinophilia at 0.2 units (P < .001). IL-13 expression was significantly higher only compared with the IBD and control groups and not with EoE-IBD or IBD eosinophilia. MBP predicted EoE with 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity, whereas IL-13 demonstrated 83% sensitivity and 90% specificity using a cutoff point from the cohort of patients without EoE-IBD. Based on the MBP cutoff point of 3.49 units that distinguished between EoE and non-EoE cases, 100% of patients with EoE were MBP-positive compared with 3% of patients with IBD-associated eosinophilia (P < .05).

To implement this new biomarker into clinical practice, guidelines for interpreting MBP staining results should be developed and established, including defining cutoff points for positive and negative results. However, this study faces several limitations, such as not evaluating the differences in MBP results based on EoE-IBD type and disease activity. The retrospective nature of the study and its small sample size limit its power. In addition, the study did not assess how different treatments and disease activity affect MBP levels nor did it address the lack of longitudinal evaluation in assessing MBP levels.

Despite these limitations, the study presents a compelling case for the use of MBP as a biomarker to distinguish true EoE from EoE-IBD. This differentiation is crucial because it can guide therapeutic approaches, influencing medication choices and dietary interventions. MBP shows promise as an excellent biomarker for distinguishing true EoE from eosinophilia caused by IBD. When combined with endoscopic and histologic changes, MBP can assist with the diagnosis of EoE in IBD patients, thereby reducing the possibility of misdiagnosis.

Being diagnosed with EoE poses a challenging and life-altering experience for patients and their families. They face numerous challenges, from undergoing diagnostic procedures and treatments to adapting daily diets. Limited information is available on the eating habits of patients diagnosed with EoE. In this study, Dr Kennedy and colleagues explored how a diagnosis of EoE affects eating behaviors among pediatric patients.

The researchers conducted a prospective study involving 27 patients diagnosed with EoE and compared their eating behaviors to those of 25 healthy control participants. The participants were evaluated on the basis of their responses to four food textures (puree, soft solid, chewable, and hard solid), focusing on the number of chews per bite, sips of fluid per food, and consumption time.

The study found that, on average, patients with EoE (63.5% boys, mean age 11 years) required more chews per bite across several food textures (soft solid P = .031; chewable P = .047; and hard solid P = .037) and demonstrated increased consumption time for soft solid (P = .002), chewable (P = .005), and hard solid foods (P = .034) compared to healthy controls. In addition, endoscopic reference scores positively correlated with consumption time (r = 0.53; P = .008) and the number of chews (r = 0.45; P = .027) for chewable foods as well as with the number of chews (r = 0.44; P = .043) for hard solid foods. Increased consumption time also correlated with increased eosinophil counts (r = 0.42; P = .050) and decreased esophageal distensibility (r = -0.82; P < .0001).

Though these findings open promising avenues for the noninvasive assessment and personalized management of EoE, further research with larger, longitudinal studies is essential to validate these behaviors as reliable clinical biomarkers. Increasing the sample size would enhance the study's power and broaden the generalizability of its findings to a wider pediatric EoE population. The study's cross-sectional nature limits the ability to assess how eating behaviors change over time with treatment or disease progression.

This study underscores the potential of eating behaviors as clinical markers for pediatric patients with EoE, enabling early identification through increased chewing and consumption times, especially with harder textures. Such markers could prompt diagnostic evaluations in settings where endoscopy and biopsy are gold standards for diagnosing EoE. Moreover, eating patterns could assist in monitoring disease activity and progression, offering a noninvasive means of assessing disease status and response to therapy, thus allowing for more frequent assessments of disease status without the need for invasive procedures. Understanding these behaviors allows healthcare providers to tailor dietary advice and interventions, potentially enhancing treatment compliance and improving the quality of life for pediatric patients with EoE.

This study provides compelling evidence that a twice-daily dosing regimen of moderate-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is superior to a once-daily regimen for inducing histologic remission in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This finding suggests a significant paradigm shift in EoE management, challenging the current standard treatment guideline that recommends a PPI trial of 20-40 mg twice daily. The limited data on various dosing regimens for EoE treatment underscores the importance of this research. Dr Muftah and colleagues from Brigham and Women's Hospital have conducted a novel retrospective cohort study to address the question: Does a twice-daily PPI dose induce a higher remission rate in EoE than a once-daily regimen does regardless of the total daily dose?

The study enrolled adult patients with newly-diagnosed treatment-naive EoE at a tertiary care center, dividing participants into four groups on the basis of their treatment regimen: once-daily standard dose (20 mg omeprazole), once-daily moderate dose (40 mg), twice-daily moderate dose (20 mg), and twice-daily high dose (40 mg). Patients underwent endoscopy 8-12 weeks after initiating PPI treatment, with the primary outcome being the histologic response to PPI, defined as fewer than 15 eosinophils/high power field in repeat esophageal biopsies.

Out of 305 patients (54.6% men, mean age 44.7 ± 16.7 years), 42.3% achieved a histologic response to PPI treatment. Patients receiving the standard PPI dose (20 mg omeprazole once daily) vs those on twice-daily moderate and high doses showed significantly higher histologic response rates (52.8% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; and 54.3% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed that twice-daily moderate and high doses were significantly more effective (adjusted odds ration [aOR] 6.75; CI 2.53-18.0, P = .0008; and aOR 12.8, CI 4.69-34.8, P < .001; respectively).

However, the study's retrospective design limits its ability to establish causality and may introduce selection bias. In addition, the lack of specified adjustments for PPI dosing based on diet and lifestyle factors across the cohort could influence treatment response and outcomes. Last, as a single-center study, the results may not generalize across diverse patient populations, particularly those with different demographics or disease severities.

This research heralds a shift toward a more effective treatment strategy in EoE management, suggesting that a twice-daily PPI regimen may be more beneficial than once-daily dosing is for inducing histologic remission, especially in patients inadequately responding to once-daily PPI treatment. It advocates for a personalized treatment approach, considering factors such as symptom severity, previous PPI response, and potential for adherence to a twice-daily regimen.

Distinguishing between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–induced eosinophilia and EoE poses a significant challenge for clinicians. Given that the incidence of EoE is 3-5 times higher in patients with IBD compared with the general population, there is a pressing need for new biomarkers to differentiate between these two conditions. In response to this need, Dr Butzke and colleagues at Nemours Children's Health in Wilmington, Delaware, conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the roles of Major Basic Protein (MBP) and interleukin (IL)-13 in distinguishing these diseases. The study included participants who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsies for IBD workup or suspicion of EoE. It comprised 27 patients with EoE-IBD, 39 with EoE, 29 with IBD eosinophilia, 30 with IBD only, and 30 control patients. The biopsies were stained with MBP and IL-13 antibodies, and the results (percent staining/total tissue area), demographic, and clinical findings were compared among the groups.

The study revealed that MBP staining levels among patients with EoE-IBD were 3.8 units, which is significantly lower than those in the EoE group at 52.8 units and higher than those with IBD eosinophilia at 0.2 units (P < .001). IL-13 expression was significantly higher only compared with the IBD and control groups and not with EoE-IBD or IBD eosinophilia. MBP predicted EoE with 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity, whereas IL-13 demonstrated 83% sensitivity and 90% specificity using a cutoff point from the cohort of patients without EoE-IBD. Based on the MBP cutoff point of 3.49 units that distinguished between EoE and non-EoE cases, 100% of patients with EoE were MBP-positive compared with 3% of patients with IBD-associated eosinophilia (P < .05).

To implement this new biomarker into clinical practice, guidelines for interpreting MBP staining results should be developed and established, including defining cutoff points for positive and negative results. However, this study faces several limitations, such as not evaluating the differences in MBP results based on EoE-IBD type and disease activity. The retrospective nature of the study and its small sample size limit its power. In addition, the study did not assess how different treatments and disease activity affect MBP levels nor did it address the lack of longitudinal evaluation in assessing MBP levels.

Despite these limitations, the study presents a compelling case for the use of MBP as a biomarker to distinguish true EoE from EoE-IBD. This differentiation is crucial because it can guide therapeutic approaches, influencing medication choices and dietary interventions. MBP shows promise as an excellent biomarker for distinguishing true EoE from eosinophilia caused by IBD. When combined with endoscopic and histologic changes, MBP can assist with the diagnosis of EoE in IBD patients, thereby reducing the possibility of misdiagnosis.

Being diagnosed with EoE poses a challenging and life-altering experience for patients and their families. They face numerous challenges, from undergoing diagnostic procedures and treatments to adapting daily diets. Limited information is available on the eating habits of patients diagnosed with EoE. In this study, Dr Kennedy and colleagues explored how a diagnosis of EoE affects eating behaviors among pediatric patients.

The researchers conducted a prospective study involving 27 patients diagnosed with EoE and compared their eating behaviors to those of 25 healthy control participants. The participants were evaluated on the basis of their responses to four food textures (puree, soft solid, chewable, and hard solid), focusing on the number of chews per bite, sips of fluid per food, and consumption time.

The study found that, on average, patients with EoE (63.5% boys, mean age 11 years) required more chews per bite across several food textures (soft solid P = .031; chewable P = .047; and hard solid P = .037) and demonstrated increased consumption time for soft solid (P = .002), chewable (P = .005), and hard solid foods (P = .034) compared to healthy controls. In addition, endoscopic reference scores positively correlated with consumption time (r = 0.53; P = .008) and the number of chews (r = 0.45; P = .027) for chewable foods as well as with the number of chews (r = 0.44; P = .043) for hard solid foods. Increased consumption time also correlated with increased eosinophil counts (r = 0.42; P = .050) and decreased esophageal distensibility (r = -0.82; P < .0001).

Though these findings open promising avenues for the noninvasive assessment and personalized management of EoE, further research with larger, longitudinal studies is essential to validate these behaviors as reliable clinical biomarkers. Increasing the sample size would enhance the study's power and broaden the generalizability of its findings to a wider pediatric EoE population. The study's cross-sectional nature limits the ability to assess how eating behaviors change over time with treatment or disease progression.

This study underscores the potential of eating behaviors as clinical markers for pediatric patients with EoE, enabling early identification through increased chewing and consumption times, especially with harder textures. Such markers could prompt diagnostic evaluations in settings where endoscopy and biopsy are gold standards for diagnosing EoE. Moreover, eating patterns could assist in monitoring disease activity and progression, offering a noninvasive means of assessing disease status and response to therapy, thus allowing for more frequent assessments of disease status without the need for invasive procedures. Understanding these behaviors allows healthcare providers to tailor dietary advice and interventions, potentially enhancing treatment compliance and improving the quality of life for pediatric patients with EoE.

This study provides compelling evidence that a twice-daily dosing regimen of moderate-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is superior to a once-daily regimen for inducing histologic remission in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This finding suggests a significant paradigm shift in EoE management, challenging the current standard treatment guideline that recommends a PPI trial of 20-40 mg twice daily. The limited data on various dosing regimens for EoE treatment underscores the importance of this research. Dr Muftah and colleagues from Brigham and Women's Hospital have conducted a novel retrospective cohort study to address the question: Does a twice-daily PPI dose induce a higher remission rate in EoE than a once-daily regimen does regardless of the total daily dose?

The study enrolled adult patients with newly-diagnosed treatment-naive EoE at a tertiary care center, dividing participants into four groups on the basis of their treatment regimen: once-daily standard dose (20 mg omeprazole), once-daily moderate dose (40 mg), twice-daily moderate dose (20 mg), and twice-daily high dose (40 mg). Patients underwent endoscopy 8-12 weeks after initiating PPI treatment, with the primary outcome being the histologic response to PPI, defined as fewer than 15 eosinophils/high power field in repeat esophageal biopsies.

Out of 305 patients (54.6% men, mean age 44.7 ± 16.7 years), 42.3% achieved a histologic response to PPI treatment. Patients receiving the standard PPI dose (20 mg omeprazole once daily) vs those on twice-daily moderate and high doses showed significantly higher histologic response rates (52.8% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; and 54.3% vs 11.8%, P < .0001; respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed that twice-daily moderate and high doses were significantly more effective (adjusted odds ration [aOR] 6.75; CI 2.53-18.0, P = .0008; and aOR 12.8, CI 4.69-34.8, P < .001; respectively).

However, the study's retrospective design limits its ability to establish causality and may introduce selection bias. In addition, the lack of specified adjustments for PPI dosing based on diet and lifestyle factors across the cohort could influence treatment response and outcomes. Last, as a single-center study, the results may not generalize across diverse patient populations, particularly those with different demographics or disease severities.

This research heralds a shift toward a more effective treatment strategy in EoE management, suggesting that a twice-daily PPI regimen may be more beneficial than once-daily dosing is for inducing histologic remission, especially in patients inadequately responding to once-daily PPI treatment. It advocates for a personalized treatment approach, considering factors such as symptom severity, previous PPI response, and potential for adherence to a twice-daily regimen.

Distinguishing between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–induced eosinophilia and EoE poses a significant challenge for clinicians. Given that the incidence of EoE is 3-5 times higher in patients with IBD compared with the general population, there is a pressing need for new biomarkers to differentiate between these two conditions. In response to this need, Dr Butzke and colleagues at Nemours Children's Health in Wilmington, Delaware, conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the roles of Major Basic Protein (MBP) and interleukin (IL)-13 in distinguishing these diseases. The study included participants who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsies for IBD workup or suspicion of EoE. It comprised 27 patients with EoE-IBD, 39 with EoE, 29 with IBD eosinophilia, 30 with IBD only, and 30 control patients. The biopsies were stained with MBP and IL-13 antibodies, and the results (percent staining/total tissue area), demographic, and clinical findings were compared among the groups.

The study revealed that MBP staining levels among patients with EoE-IBD were 3.8 units, which is significantly lower than those in the EoE group at 52.8 units and higher than those with IBD eosinophilia at 0.2 units (P < .001). IL-13 expression was significantly higher only compared with the IBD and control groups and not with EoE-IBD or IBD eosinophilia. MBP predicted EoE with 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity, whereas IL-13 demonstrated 83% sensitivity and 90% specificity using a cutoff point from the cohort of patients without EoE-IBD. Based on the MBP cutoff point of 3.49 units that distinguished between EoE and non-EoE cases, 100% of patients with EoE were MBP-positive compared with 3% of patients with IBD-associated eosinophilia (P < .05).

To implement this new biomarker into clinical practice, guidelines for interpreting MBP staining results should be developed and established, including defining cutoff points for positive and negative results. However, this study faces several limitations, such as not evaluating the differences in MBP results based on EoE-IBD type and disease activity. The retrospective nature of the study and its small sample size limit its power. In addition, the study did not assess how different treatments and disease activity affect MBP levels nor did it address the lack of longitudinal evaluation in assessing MBP levels.

Despite these limitations, the study presents a compelling case for the use of MBP as a biomarker to distinguish true EoE from EoE-IBD. This differentiation is crucial because it can guide therapeutic approaches, influencing medication choices and dietary interventions. MBP shows promise as an excellent biomarker for distinguishing true EoE from eosinophilia caused by IBD. When combined with endoscopic and histologic changes, MBP can assist with the diagnosis of EoE in IBD patients, thereby reducing the possibility of misdiagnosis.

Being diagnosed with EoE poses a challenging and life-altering experience for patients and their families. They face numerous challenges, from undergoing diagnostic procedures and treatments to adapting daily diets. Limited information is available on the eating habits of patients diagnosed with EoE. In this study, Dr Kennedy and colleagues explored how a diagnosis of EoE affects eating behaviors among pediatric patients.

The researchers conducted a prospective study involving 27 patients diagnosed with EoE and compared their eating behaviors to those of 25 healthy control participants. The participants were evaluated on the basis of their responses to four food textures (puree, soft solid, chewable, and hard solid), focusing on the number of chews per bite, sips of fluid per food, and consumption time.

The study found that, on average, patients with EoE (63.5% boys, mean age 11 years) required more chews per bite across several food textures (soft solid P = .031; chewable P = .047; and hard solid P = .037) and demonstrated increased consumption time for soft solid (P = .002), chewable (P = .005), and hard solid foods (P = .034) compared to healthy controls. In addition, endoscopic reference scores positively correlated with consumption time (r = 0.53; P = .008) and the number of chews (r = 0.45; P = .027) for chewable foods as well as with the number of chews (r = 0.44; P = .043) for hard solid foods. Increased consumption time also correlated with increased eosinophil counts (r = 0.42; P = .050) and decreased esophageal distensibility (r = -0.82; P < .0001).

Though these findings open promising avenues for the noninvasive assessment and personalized management of EoE, further research with larger, longitudinal studies is essential to validate these behaviors as reliable clinical biomarkers. Increasing the sample size would enhance the study's power and broaden the generalizability of its findings to a wider pediatric EoE population. The study's cross-sectional nature limits the ability to assess how eating behaviors change over time with treatment or disease progression.

This study underscores the potential of eating behaviors as clinical markers for pediatric patients with EoE, enabling early identification through increased chewing and consumption times, especially with harder textures. Such markers could prompt diagnostic evaluations in settings where endoscopy and biopsy are gold standards for diagnosing EoE. Moreover, eating patterns could assist in monitoring disease activity and progression, offering a noninvasive means of assessing disease status and response to therapy, thus allowing for more frequent assessments of disease status without the need for invasive procedures. Understanding these behaviors allows healthcare providers to tailor dietary advice and interventions, potentially enhancing treatment compliance and improving the quality of life for pediatric patients with EoE.