Upper GI Tract

Clinicians should conduct regular, structured follow-up on treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), according to an expert panel.

“Follow-up should comprise symptom assessment and periodic or repeated endoscopy with histological assessment in specific EoE settings,” wrote Ulrike von Arnim, MD, from University Hospital Magdeburg (Germany), and an international team of colleagues in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Although medicine and diet can control EoE, there is presently no cure, and long-term management is needed to prevent recurrence and long-term effects such as esophageal remodeling, fibrosis, and stricture, the researchers said. Yet they could find no evidence-based recommendations for clinical monitoring of the condition.

With the participation of The International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Researchers (TIGER) and the European Consortium for Eosinophilic Diseases of the GI Tract (EUREOS), they assembled a team of 18 gastroenterologists, pathologists, and allergists from the United States and Western Europe with expertise in the condition.

Almost all panelists had more than 10 years of subspecialty EoE care and more than five relevant research publications. All were members of TIGER or EUREOS. The panel met by video conferencing and responded to surveys to develop a consensus about why, by what means, and when to monitor patients with EoE.

The group reached 75% or greater agreement on 11 statements on these subjects.

Regular follow-ups are needed because they enable clinicians to detect whether treatments have stopped working, improve therapy adherence, and introduce patients to any new treatments that become available, while preventing gaps in care that can worsen outcomes, the group wrote.

Symptoms don’t give a precise indication of esophageal healing and shouldn’t be the sole measure for disease activity, the experts wrote. They recommended other approaches to monitoring, including biopsies. They also endorse the Endoscopic Reference Score as an outcome measure.

The panel recommended noninvasive tissue sampling, mentioning the esophageal string test and the Cytosponge as examples, but called for more research on these two techniques.

Blood markers, oral swabs, breath condensates, and stool and urine samples are not recommended as approaches for monitoring EoE, they wrote.

The optimal interval to measure the efficacy of a therapy is more difficult to decide, the panel noted.

“The clinician’s decision should take into account the clinical severity of the disease, estimated risk of imminent subsequent food impaction, presence of stenosis, as well as mode of action and reported outcome of the chosen medical, dietary, or mechanical treatment,” they wrote. Intervals from 6 to 24 weeks may be appropriate.

For diets and topical corticosteroids, they agreed on an interval of 8-12 weeks to confirm remission but say a longer time might be preferred for slower-acting therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies.

The panel had the most trouble reaching a consensus on how often to follow up on patients whose disease is in remission or is stable. They settled on 12 to 24 months after the last endoscopy. Any longer than 2 years risks missing increased disease activity, they wrote.

This follow-up should include assessment of symptoms and a gastrointestinal endoscopy in cases of relapse or suspected stricture, as well as when treatment modification is being considered or when assessment of histological activity is desired, the panel recommended.

Almost all the panelists disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should conduct regular, structured follow-up on treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), according to an expert panel.

“Follow-up should comprise symptom assessment and periodic or repeated endoscopy with histological assessment in specific EoE settings,” wrote Ulrike von Arnim, MD, from University Hospital Magdeburg (Germany), and an international team of colleagues in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Although medicine and diet can control EoE, there is presently no cure, and long-term management is needed to prevent recurrence and long-term effects such as esophageal remodeling, fibrosis, and stricture, the researchers said. Yet they could find no evidence-based recommendations for clinical monitoring of the condition.

With the participation of The International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Researchers (TIGER) and the European Consortium for Eosinophilic Diseases of the GI Tract (EUREOS), they assembled a team of 18 gastroenterologists, pathologists, and allergists from the United States and Western Europe with expertise in the condition.

Almost all panelists had more than 10 years of subspecialty EoE care and more than five relevant research publications. All were members of TIGER or EUREOS. The panel met by video conferencing and responded to surveys to develop a consensus about why, by what means, and when to monitor patients with EoE.

The group reached 75% or greater agreement on 11 statements on these subjects.

Regular follow-ups are needed because they enable clinicians to detect whether treatments have stopped working, improve therapy adherence, and introduce patients to any new treatments that become available, while preventing gaps in care that can worsen outcomes, the group wrote.

Symptoms don’t give a precise indication of esophageal healing and shouldn’t be the sole measure for disease activity, the experts wrote. They recommended other approaches to monitoring, including biopsies. They also endorse the Endoscopic Reference Score as an outcome measure.

The panel recommended noninvasive tissue sampling, mentioning the esophageal string test and the Cytosponge as examples, but called for more research on these two techniques.

Blood markers, oral swabs, breath condensates, and stool and urine samples are not recommended as approaches for monitoring EoE, they wrote.

The optimal interval to measure the efficacy of a therapy is more difficult to decide, the panel noted.

“The clinician’s decision should take into account the clinical severity of the disease, estimated risk of imminent subsequent food impaction, presence of stenosis, as well as mode of action and reported outcome of the chosen medical, dietary, or mechanical treatment,” they wrote. Intervals from 6 to 24 weeks may be appropriate.

For diets and topical corticosteroids, they agreed on an interval of 8-12 weeks to confirm remission but say a longer time might be preferred for slower-acting therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies.

The panel had the most trouble reaching a consensus on how often to follow up on patients whose disease is in remission or is stable. They settled on 12 to 24 months after the last endoscopy. Any longer than 2 years risks missing increased disease activity, they wrote.

This follow-up should include assessment of symptoms and a gastrointestinal endoscopy in cases of relapse or suspected stricture, as well as when treatment modification is being considered or when assessment of histological activity is desired, the panel recommended.

Almost all the panelists disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should conduct regular, structured follow-up on treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), according to an expert panel.

“Follow-up should comprise symptom assessment and periodic or repeated endoscopy with histological assessment in specific EoE settings,” wrote Ulrike von Arnim, MD, from University Hospital Magdeburg (Germany), and an international team of colleagues in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Although medicine and diet can control EoE, there is presently no cure, and long-term management is needed to prevent recurrence and long-term effects such as esophageal remodeling, fibrosis, and stricture, the researchers said. Yet they could find no evidence-based recommendations for clinical monitoring of the condition.

With the participation of The International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Researchers (TIGER) and the European Consortium for Eosinophilic Diseases of the GI Tract (EUREOS), they assembled a team of 18 gastroenterologists, pathologists, and allergists from the United States and Western Europe with expertise in the condition.

Almost all panelists had more than 10 years of subspecialty EoE care and more than five relevant research publications. All were members of TIGER or EUREOS. The panel met by video conferencing and responded to surveys to develop a consensus about why, by what means, and when to monitor patients with EoE.

The group reached 75% or greater agreement on 11 statements on these subjects.

Regular follow-ups are needed because they enable clinicians to detect whether treatments have stopped working, improve therapy adherence, and introduce patients to any new treatments that become available, while preventing gaps in care that can worsen outcomes, the group wrote.

Symptoms don’t give a precise indication of esophageal healing and shouldn’t be the sole measure for disease activity, the experts wrote. They recommended other approaches to monitoring, including biopsies. They also endorse the Endoscopic Reference Score as an outcome measure.

The panel recommended noninvasive tissue sampling, mentioning the esophageal string test and the Cytosponge as examples, but called for more research on these two techniques.

Blood markers, oral swabs, breath condensates, and stool and urine samples are not recommended as approaches for monitoring EoE, they wrote.

The optimal interval to measure the efficacy of a therapy is more difficult to decide, the panel noted.

“The clinician’s decision should take into account the clinical severity of the disease, estimated risk of imminent subsequent food impaction, presence of stenosis, as well as mode of action and reported outcome of the chosen medical, dietary, or mechanical treatment,” they wrote. Intervals from 6 to 24 weeks may be appropriate.

For diets and topical corticosteroids, they agreed on an interval of 8-12 weeks to confirm remission but say a longer time might be preferred for slower-acting therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies.

The panel had the most trouble reaching a consensus on how often to follow up on patients whose disease is in remission or is stable. They settled on 12 to 24 months after the last endoscopy. Any longer than 2 years risks missing increased disease activity, they wrote.

This follow-up should include assessment of symptoms and a gastrointestinal endoscopy in cases of relapse or suspected stricture, as well as when treatment modification is being considered or when assessment of histological activity is desired, the panel recommended.

Almost all the panelists disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of patients discharged from a hospital had inappropriate proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescriptions, suggests a retrospective analysis of an Israeli health care database that showed no improvements in prescribing patterns over time.

The research was published online in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.

First author Orly Sneh-Arbib, MD, division of gastroenterology and liver disease, Clalit Health Services, Talpiot, Jerusalem, said in an interview that she and her co-authors were “very surprised” that the rates of inappropriate prescribing remained so high, especially as they had discussed the adverse effects of the drugs numerous times during departmental meetings.

She believes that, for many clinicians, handing out a prescription for PPIs has become a habit, with the thought being: “Just take this; it’s like a vitamin.”

In the paper, the researchers write, “Undoubtedly, more action is needed to raise physicians’ knowledge and attention to the subject while providing automated and standardized technology-based tools to reduce inappropriate PPI use using an acceptable algorithm.”

For the study, Dr. Sneh-Arbib and her colleagues developed an algorithm to assess inappropriate PPI prescribing in almost 4,000 internal medicine patients. To try to limit future overprescribing, their algorithm is now included in the clinical records system.

Consequently, every time a clinician tries to prescribe a PPI, they have to confirm that there is a valid indication for doing so, with the aim of adding an “extra step in the process,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said.
 

Clear but complex PPI indications

There are a small, well-defined number of indications for long-term PPI use, the authors write. The indications include prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding, maintenance treatment after healing of erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or antiplatelet agents in patients with increased bleeding risk, and maintenance therapy for symptom control in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The authors also note that the “appropriateness of PPIs is complex,” with multiple factors to consider for long-term PPI use, including complex drug combinations and medical history.

But having seen patients in their 30s prescribed PPIs “just because of taking steroids or aspirin,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said she wanted to investigate further.

To examine the rate of inappropriate long-term PPI prescription on discharge from internal medicine departments, the team conducted a retrospective analysis of adults admitted to their institution for the first 6 months of 2014 and the first 6 months of 2017.

They included all patients prescribed PPIs on discharge with a recommendation for long-term use and excluded those who were transferred between departments or who had a hospital stay longer than 3 months.

Information on age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, current and past diagnoses including all relevant gastrointestinal diagnoses, Charlson comorbidity index, and medications on admission and discharge were recorded.
 

Guidelines for use of PPIs

To assess inappropriate PPI prescribing, the team searched for published recommendations on long-term use, Dr. Sneh-Arbib said. They developed an algorithm based on the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline, “Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in adults: investigation and management.”

The guideline is “not perfect,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said, but it was suitable. The team then randomly chose 100 patients from their records to validate the resulting algorithm, finding an accuracy of 96%.

The full analysis included 3,982 patients, of whom 74% were aged 65 years or older, and 50.8% were women. PPIs were first prescribed before hospital admission in 92.4% of cases.

The researchers found that the overall rate of inappropriate PPI prescriptions was 44.3%, a figure that was stable between the two the study periods. In 2014, the rate of inappropriate use was 43.2%, and it was 45.6% in 2017, a nonsignificant difference.

Inappropriate PPIs were higher (68.1%) in patients younger than 65 years, compared with those aged 65 years and older (36%).

The researchers analyzed factors associated with inappropriate PPIs, first excluding 448 patients with clear gastrointestinal indications.

In the majority of cases, the inappropriate PPI prescriptions occurred in patients who were not taking dual antiplatelet treatment (89.4%), in younger patients who were taking aspirin only (8.6%), and in patients receiving a single antiplatelet agent other than aspirin (1.9%), according to multivariate analysis.

Overall, 42.4% of patients classified as inappropriate PPI use were not using aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelets, antiaggregants, anticoagulants, or steroids, the researchers found.

They also note that most patients in the study (92.3%) had received PPIs before admission, prescribed by their general practitioner or during a previous hospitalization. This raises concerns about unneeded continuation of the drugs and lack of review by clinicians, they write.
 

PPI deprescribing

Approached for comment, Adrienna Jirik, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization that “PPI overprescription is a common problem worldwide, with the United States being no exception.”

They are “one of the most prescribed medications in the world, with several formulations readily available as an over-the-counter medication,” she added.

Dr. Jirik, who was not involved with the study, said that the algorithm used is “on par with the United States clinical practice guidelines for PPI use” and a “great start to initiate an encounter with a patient on PPIs in the outpatient setting to review the indications and to de-escalate and deprescribe therapy.”

Indeed, the American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update on deprescribing PPIs.

“It may be useful to incorporate a version of this algorithm as a ‘hard stop’ on some outpatient EMR [electronic medical record] templates to remind providers to address this issue prior to closing an encounter,” Dr. Jirik added.

She noted, however, that tackling any medication reconciliation is a very important but difficult and time-consuming task.

“Education is definitely key for both primary and subspecialty providers,” Dr. Jirik said. “If patients have been on a long-term PPI, the inpatient provider can suggest a plan for de-escalation based on practice guidelines and arrange proper outpatient follow-up for eventual deprescribing.”

No funding was declared. The authors and Dr. Jirik report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of patients discharged from a hospital had inappropriate proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescriptions, suggests a retrospective analysis of an Israeli health care database that showed no improvements in prescribing patterns over time.

The research was published online in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.

First author Orly Sneh-Arbib, MD, division of gastroenterology and liver disease, Clalit Health Services, Talpiot, Jerusalem, said in an interview that she and her co-authors were “very surprised” that the rates of inappropriate prescribing remained so high, especially as they had discussed the adverse effects of the drugs numerous times during departmental meetings.

She believes that, for many clinicians, handing out a prescription for PPIs has become a habit, with the thought being: “Just take this; it’s like a vitamin.”

In the paper, the researchers write, “Undoubtedly, more action is needed to raise physicians’ knowledge and attention to the subject while providing automated and standardized technology-based tools to reduce inappropriate PPI use using an acceptable algorithm.”

For the study, Dr. Sneh-Arbib and her colleagues developed an algorithm to assess inappropriate PPI prescribing in almost 4,000 internal medicine patients. To try to limit future overprescribing, their algorithm is now included in the clinical records system.

Consequently, every time a clinician tries to prescribe a PPI, they have to confirm that there is a valid indication for doing so, with the aim of adding an “extra step in the process,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said.
 

Clear but complex PPI indications

There are a small, well-defined number of indications for long-term PPI use, the authors write. The indications include prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding, maintenance treatment after healing of erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or antiplatelet agents in patients with increased bleeding risk, and maintenance therapy for symptom control in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The authors also note that the “appropriateness of PPIs is complex,” with multiple factors to consider for long-term PPI use, including complex drug combinations and medical history.

But having seen patients in their 30s prescribed PPIs “just because of taking steroids or aspirin,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said she wanted to investigate further.

To examine the rate of inappropriate long-term PPI prescription on discharge from internal medicine departments, the team conducted a retrospective analysis of adults admitted to their institution for the first 6 months of 2014 and the first 6 months of 2017.

They included all patients prescribed PPIs on discharge with a recommendation for long-term use and excluded those who were transferred between departments or who had a hospital stay longer than 3 months.

Information on age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, current and past diagnoses including all relevant gastrointestinal diagnoses, Charlson comorbidity index, and medications on admission and discharge were recorded.
 

Guidelines for use of PPIs

To assess inappropriate PPI prescribing, the team searched for published recommendations on long-term use, Dr. Sneh-Arbib said. They developed an algorithm based on the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline, “Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in adults: investigation and management.”

The guideline is “not perfect,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said, but it was suitable. The team then randomly chose 100 patients from their records to validate the resulting algorithm, finding an accuracy of 96%.

The full analysis included 3,982 patients, of whom 74% were aged 65 years or older, and 50.8% were women. PPIs were first prescribed before hospital admission in 92.4% of cases.

The researchers found that the overall rate of inappropriate PPI prescriptions was 44.3%, a figure that was stable between the two the study periods. In 2014, the rate of inappropriate use was 43.2%, and it was 45.6% in 2017, a nonsignificant difference.

Inappropriate PPIs were higher (68.1%) in patients younger than 65 years, compared with those aged 65 years and older (36%).

The researchers analyzed factors associated with inappropriate PPIs, first excluding 448 patients with clear gastrointestinal indications.

In the majority of cases, the inappropriate PPI prescriptions occurred in patients who were not taking dual antiplatelet treatment (89.4%), in younger patients who were taking aspirin only (8.6%), and in patients receiving a single antiplatelet agent other than aspirin (1.9%), according to multivariate analysis.

Overall, 42.4% of patients classified as inappropriate PPI use were not using aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelets, antiaggregants, anticoagulants, or steroids, the researchers found.

They also note that most patients in the study (92.3%) had received PPIs before admission, prescribed by their general practitioner or during a previous hospitalization. This raises concerns about unneeded continuation of the drugs and lack of review by clinicians, they write.
 

PPI deprescribing

Approached for comment, Adrienna Jirik, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization that “PPI overprescription is a common problem worldwide, with the United States being no exception.”

They are “one of the most prescribed medications in the world, with several formulations readily available as an over-the-counter medication,” she added.

Dr. Jirik, who was not involved with the study, said that the algorithm used is “on par with the United States clinical practice guidelines for PPI use” and a “great start to initiate an encounter with a patient on PPIs in the outpatient setting to review the indications and to de-escalate and deprescribe therapy.”

Indeed, the American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update on deprescribing PPIs.

“It may be useful to incorporate a version of this algorithm as a ‘hard stop’ on some outpatient EMR [electronic medical record] templates to remind providers to address this issue prior to closing an encounter,” Dr. Jirik added.

She noted, however, that tackling any medication reconciliation is a very important but difficult and time-consuming task.

“Education is definitely key for both primary and subspecialty providers,” Dr. Jirik said. “If patients have been on a long-term PPI, the inpatient provider can suggest a plan for de-escalation based on practice guidelines and arrange proper outpatient follow-up for eventual deprescribing.”

No funding was declared. The authors and Dr. Jirik report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of patients discharged from a hospital had inappropriate proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescriptions, suggests a retrospective analysis of an Israeli health care database that showed no improvements in prescribing patterns over time.

The research was published online in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.

First author Orly Sneh-Arbib, MD, division of gastroenterology and liver disease, Clalit Health Services, Talpiot, Jerusalem, said in an interview that she and her co-authors were “very surprised” that the rates of inappropriate prescribing remained so high, especially as they had discussed the adverse effects of the drugs numerous times during departmental meetings.

She believes that, for many clinicians, handing out a prescription for PPIs has become a habit, with the thought being: “Just take this; it’s like a vitamin.”

In the paper, the researchers write, “Undoubtedly, more action is needed to raise physicians’ knowledge and attention to the subject while providing automated and standardized technology-based tools to reduce inappropriate PPI use using an acceptable algorithm.”

For the study, Dr. Sneh-Arbib and her colleagues developed an algorithm to assess inappropriate PPI prescribing in almost 4,000 internal medicine patients. To try to limit future overprescribing, their algorithm is now included in the clinical records system.

Consequently, every time a clinician tries to prescribe a PPI, they have to confirm that there is a valid indication for doing so, with the aim of adding an “extra step in the process,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said.
 

Clear but complex PPI indications

There are a small, well-defined number of indications for long-term PPI use, the authors write. The indications include prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding, maintenance treatment after healing of erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or antiplatelet agents in patients with increased bleeding risk, and maintenance therapy for symptom control in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The authors also note that the “appropriateness of PPIs is complex,” with multiple factors to consider for long-term PPI use, including complex drug combinations and medical history.

But having seen patients in their 30s prescribed PPIs “just because of taking steroids or aspirin,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said she wanted to investigate further.

To examine the rate of inappropriate long-term PPI prescription on discharge from internal medicine departments, the team conducted a retrospective analysis of adults admitted to their institution for the first 6 months of 2014 and the first 6 months of 2017.

They included all patients prescribed PPIs on discharge with a recommendation for long-term use and excluded those who were transferred between departments or who had a hospital stay longer than 3 months.

Information on age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, current and past diagnoses including all relevant gastrointestinal diagnoses, Charlson comorbidity index, and medications on admission and discharge were recorded.
 

Guidelines for use of PPIs

To assess inappropriate PPI prescribing, the team searched for published recommendations on long-term use, Dr. Sneh-Arbib said. They developed an algorithm based on the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline, “Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in adults: investigation and management.”

The guideline is “not perfect,” Dr. Sneh-Arbib said, but it was suitable. The team then randomly chose 100 patients from their records to validate the resulting algorithm, finding an accuracy of 96%.

The full analysis included 3,982 patients, of whom 74% were aged 65 years or older, and 50.8% were women. PPIs were first prescribed before hospital admission in 92.4% of cases.

The researchers found that the overall rate of inappropriate PPI prescriptions was 44.3%, a figure that was stable between the two the study periods. In 2014, the rate of inappropriate use was 43.2%, and it was 45.6% in 2017, a nonsignificant difference.

Inappropriate PPIs were higher (68.1%) in patients younger than 65 years, compared with those aged 65 years and older (36%).

The researchers analyzed factors associated with inappropriate PPIs, first excluding 448 patients with clear gastrointestinal indications.

In the majority of cases, the inappropriate PPI prescriptions occurred in patients who were not taking dual antiplatelet treatment (89.4%), in younger patients who were taking aspirin only (8.6%), and in patients receiving a single antiplatelet agent other than aspirin (1.9%), according to multivariate analysis.

Overall, 42.4% of patients classified as inappropriate PPI use were not using aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelets, antiaggregants, anticoagulants, or steroids, the researchers found.

They also note that most patients in the study (92.3%) had received PPIs before admission, prescribed by their general practitioner or during a previous hospitalization. This raises concerns about unneeded continuation of the drugs and lack of review by clinicians, they write.
 

PPI deprescribing

Approached for comment, Adrienna Jirik, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization that “PPI overprescription is a common problem worldwide, with the United States being no exception.”

They are “one of the most prescribed medications in the world, with several formulations readily available as an over-the-counter medication,” she added.

Dr. Jirik, who was not involved with the study, said that the algorithm used is “on par with the United States clinical practice guidelines for PPI use” and a “great start to initiate an encounter with a patient on PPIs in the outpatient setting to review the indications and to de-escalate and deprescribe therapy.”

Indeed, the American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update on deprescribing PPIs.

“It may be useful to incorporate a version of this algorithm as a ‘hard stop’ on some outpatient EMR [electronic medical record] templates to remind providers to address this issue prior to closing an encounter,” Dr. Jirik added.

She noted, however, that tackling any medication reconciliation is a very important but difficult and time-consuming task.

“Education is definitely key for both primary and subspecialty providers,” Dr. Jirik said. “If patients have been on a long-term PPI, the inpatient provider can suggest a plan for de-escalation based on practice guidelines and arrange proper outpatient follow-up for eventual deprescribing.”

No funding was declared. The authors and Dr. Jirik report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research suggests that body mass index (BMI) may influence response to topical corticosteroid (tCS) therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

The higher the patient’s BMI level, the lower the individual’s response to tCS therapy from a symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic perspective, researchers observed in a retrospective study.

Because there are few clinical predictors of response to topical steroids, clinicians may want to consider BMI in their treatment algorithm and when discussing therapeutic treatment options with patients with EoE, the investigators write in an article published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

For EoE, current guidelines recommend the use of proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, topical steroids, and dietary elimination. In addition, the biologic dupilumab (Dupixent) was recently approved in the United States for EoE.

Determining what therapy patients with EoE will respond best to remains a challenge, and obesity’s role in treatment response has been unclear.

To investigate the effect patients’ weight might have on tCS therapy, Evan Dellon, MD, MPH, and colleagues at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, reviewed cases involving 296 adults and adolescents aged 14 years and older who had received topical steroids for EoE.

Baseline characteristics were similar, although heartburn was more common among the 68 patients with obesity than among the non-obese patients (59% vs. 37%; P = .001), and the rate of hiatal hernias detected endoscopically was higher among the patients with obesity (22% vs. 11%; P = .02).

Following tCS treatment, peak eosinophil counts were higher for patients with obesity, compared with non-obese patients (36.1 vs. 21.5; P = .003).

Histologic response was significantly higher in non-obese patients, compared with patients with obesity, at less than 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf: 61% vs. 47%; P = .049) and less than or equal to 6 eos/hpf (54% vs. 38%; P = .02).

Among the non-obese patients with EoE, global endoscopic response to tCS was significantly greater than among the patients with obesity (76% vs. 59%; P = .006).

In additon, among non-obese patients, the post-treatment EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (2.4 vs. 3.2; P = .01) and the endoscopic severity score were significantly lower (2.0 vs. 2.4; P = .05).

Global symptomatic response to tCS was seen in 84% of non-obese patients, versus only 67% of those with obesity (P = .03).

On multivariate analysis, increasing BMI was independently associated with decreased histologic response after accounting for age, heartburn, dilation, and hiatal hernia.

This relationship persisted whether BMI was assessed as a continuous variable (adjusted odds ratio, 0.93 for each unit increase in BMI), as non-obese versus obese (aOR 0.38), as overweight versus normal weight (aOR 0.46), or obese versus normal weight (aOR 0.26).
 

Different treatment algorithm?

The results remained generally similar when patients were stratified by PPI response status and by continued use of PPIs.

The investigators note that in their cohort, only five patients responded to PPI therapy; all were non-obese. It’s possible, they note, that patients with a higher BMI may benefit from dual PPI/tCS treatment initially, but this strategy would require prospective assessment.

As for the mechanism behind obesity’s apparent negative impact on tCS therapy, the researchers say the low-grade systemic inflammatory state of obesity may make tCS therapy less effective, but they add that studies are needed to pinpoint the exact mechanism.

The study suggests that “a clinician can now add another epidemiologic risk factor for potential poor response to treatment for EoE, specifically steroids,” Philip Katz, MD, professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview when reached for comment.

However, it is “difficult, if not impossible, to discern from a retrospective study like this why higher BMI would be a risk factor for poor response,” said Dr. Katz, who was not affiliated with the study.

“The main potential clinical message here is that people who are overweight with EoE perhaps need to be looked at differently and might require a different treatment algorithm or treatment approach than a person who is ideal body weight,” Dr. Katz added.

Also commenting for this article, Shreya Chablaney, MD, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health’s Center for Esophageal Health and clinical instructor at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, noted that predictors of patient response to various treatment options for EoE are not well understood and that more robust data are needed to guide appropriate patient selection when considering them.

“Though this is a relatively small, single-center, retrospective study, it shows an interesting finding, that high BMI is independently associated with a decrease in histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic response to topical steroids, even when controlling for heartburn and the presence of a hiatal hernia,” she said.

“While these findings may not yet affect current management, it highlights the need for more prospective research to see if dosing adjustment, type of topical steroid, or alternative therapy altogether should be considered in patients who are obese,” Dr. Chablaney said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dellon is a consultant for Abbott, AbbVie, Adare/ Ellodi, Aimmune, Akesobio, ALK, Allakos, Amgen, Arena, Aslan, AstraZeneca, Avir, Biorasi, Calypso, Celgene/Receptos/BMS, Celldex, Eli Lilly, EsoCap, Eurpaxia, Ferring, GSK, Gossamer Bio, Invea, Landos, LucidDx, Morphic, Nutricia, Parexel/Calyx, Phathom, Regeneron, Revolo, Robarts/Alimentiv, Salix, Sanofi, Shire/Takeda, and Target RWE. Dr. Katz is a consultant for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella Pharmaceuticals and serves on an advisory board for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chablaney reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research suggests that body mass index (BMI) may influence response to topical corticosteroid (tCS) therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

The higher the patient’s BMI level, the lower the individual’s response to tCS therapy from a symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic perspective, researchers observed in a retrospective study.

Because there are few clinical predictors of response to topical steroids, clinicians may want to consider BMI in their treatment algorithm and when discussing therapeutic treatment options with patients with EoE, the investigators write in an article published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

For EoE, current guidelines recommend the use of proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, topical steroids, and dietary elimination. In addition, the biologic dupilumab (Dupixent) was recently approved in the United States for EoE.

Determining what therapy patients with EoE will respond best to remains a challenge, and obesity’s role in treatment response has been unclear.

To investigate the effect patients’ weight might have on tCS therapy, Evan Dellon, MD, MPH, and colleagues at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, reviewed cases involving 296 adults and adolescents aged 14 years and older who had received topical steroids for EoE.

Baseline characteristics were similar, although heartburn was more common among the 68 patients with obesity than among the non-obese patients (59% vs. 37%; P = .001), and the rate of hiatal hernias detected endoscopically was higher among the patients with obesity (22% vs. 11%; P = .02).

Following tCS treatment, peak eosinophil counts were higher for patients with obesity, compared with non-obese patients (36.1 vs. 21.5; P = .003).

Histologic response was significantly higher in non-obese patients, compared with patients with obesity, at less than 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf: 61% vs. 47%; P = .049) and less than or equal to 6 eos/hpf (54% vs. 38%; P = .02).

Among the non-obese patients with EoE, global endoscopic response to tCS was significantly greater than among the patients with obesity (76% vs. 59%; P = .006).

In additon, among non-obese patients, the post-treatment EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (2.4 vs. 3.2; P = .01) and the endoscopic severity score were significantly lower (2.0 vs. 2.4; P = .05).

Global symptomatic response to tCS was seen in 84% of non-obese patients, versus only 67% of those with obesity (P = .03).

On multivariate analysis, increasing BMI was independently associated with decreased histologic response after accounting for age, heartburn, dilation, and hiatal hernia.

This relationship persisted whether BMI was assessed as a continuous variable (adjusted odds ratio, 0.93 for each unit increase in BMI), as non-obese versus obese (aOR 0.38), as overweight versus normal weight (aOR 0.46), or obese versus normal weight (aOR 0.26).
 

Different treatment algorithm?

The results remained generally similar when patients were stratified by PPI response status and by continued use of PPIs.

The investigators note that in their cohort, only five patients responded to PPI therapy; all were non-obese. It’s possible, they note, that patients with a higher BMI may benefit from dual PPI/tCS treatment initially, but this strategy would require prospective assessment.

As for the mechanism behind obesity’s apparent negative impact on tCS therapy, the researchers say the low-grade systemic inflammatory state of obesity may make tCS therapy less effective, but they add that studies are needed to pinpoint the exact mechanism.

The study suggests that “a clinician can now add another epidemiologic risk factor for potential poor response to treatment for EoE, specifically steroids,” Philip Katz, MD, professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview when reached for comment.

However, it is “difficult, if not impossible, to discern from a retrospective study like this why higher BMI would be a risk factor for poor response,” said Dr. Katz, who was not affiliated with the study.

“The main potential clinical message here is that people who are overweight with EoE perhaps need to be looked at differently and might require a different treatment algorithm or treatment approach than a person who is ideal body weight,” Dr. Katz added.

Also commenting for this article, Shreya Chablaney, MD, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health’s Center for Esophageal Health and clinical instructor at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, noted that predictors of patient response to various treatment options for EoE are not well understood and that more robust data are needed to guide appropriate patient selection when considering them.

“Though this is a relatively small, single-center, retrospective study, it shows an interesting finding, that high BMI is independently associated with a decrease in histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic response to topical steroids, even when controlling for heartburn and the presence of a hiatal hernia,” she said.

“While these findings may not yet affect current management, it highlights the need for more prospective research to see if dosing adjustment, type of topical steroid, or alternative therapy altogether should be considered in patients who are obese,” Dr. Chablaney said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dellon is a consultant for Abbott, AbbVie, Adare/ Ellodi, Aimmune, Akesobio, ALK, Allakos, Amgen, Arena, Aslan, AstraZeneca, Avir, Biorasi, Calypso, Celgene/Receptos/BMS, Celldex, Eli Lilly, EsoCap, Eurpaxia, Ferring, GSK, Gossamer Bio, Invea, Landos, LucidDx, Morphic, Nutricia, Parexel/Calyx, Phathom, Regeneron, Revolo, Robarts/Alimentiv, Salix, Sanofi, Shire/Takeda, and Target RWE. Dr. Katz is a consultant for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella Pharmaceuticals and serves on an advisory board for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chablaney reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research suggests that body mass index (BMI) may influence response to topical corticosteroid (tCS) therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

The higher the patient’s BMI level, the lower the individual’s response to tCS therapy from a symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic perspective, researchers observed in a retrospective study.

Because there are few clinical predictors of response to topical steroids, clinicians may want to consider BMI in their treatment algorithm and when discussing therapeutic treatment options with patients with EoE, the investigators write in an article published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

For EoE, current guidelines recommend the use of proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, topical steroids, and dietary elimination. In addition, the biologic dupilumab (Dupixent) was recently approved in the United States for EoE.

Determining what therapy patients with EoE will respond best to remains a challenge, and obesity’s role in treatment response has been unclear.

To investigate the effect patients’ weight might have on tCS therapy, Evan Dellon, MD, MPH, and colleagues at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, reviewed cases involving 296 adults and adolescents aged 14 years and older who had received topical steroids for EoE.

Baseline characteristics were similar, although heartburn was more common among the 68 patients with obesity than among the non-obese patients (59% vs. 37%; P = .001), and the rate of hiatal hernias detected endoscopically was higher among the patients with obesity (22% vs. 11%; P = .02).

Following tCS treatment, peak eosinophil counts were higher for patients with obesity, compared with non-obese patients (36.1 vs. 21.5; P = .003).

Histologic response was significantly higher in non-obese patients, compared with patients with obesity, at less than 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf: 61% vs. 47%; P = .049) and less than or equal to 6 eos/hpf (54% vs. 38%; P = .02).

Among the non-obese patients with EoE, global endoscopic response to tCS was significantly greater than among the patients with obesity (76% vs. 59%; P = .006).

In additon, among non-obese patients, the post-treatment EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (2.4 vs. 3.2; P = .01) and the endoscopic severity score were significantly lower (2.0 vs. 2.4; P = .05).

Global symptomatic response to tCS was seen in 84% of non-obese patients, versus only 67% of those with obesity (P = .03).

On multivariate analysis, increasing BMI was independently associated with decreased histologic response after accounting for age, heartburn, dilation, and hiatal hernia.

This relationship persisted whether BMI was assessed as a continuous variable (adjusted odds ratio, 0.93 for each unit increase in BMI), as non-obese versus obese (aOR 0.38), as overweight versus normal weight (aOR 0.46), or obese versus normal weight (aOR 0.26).
 

Different treatment algorithm?

The results remained generally similar when patients were stratified by PPI response status and by continued use of PPIs.

The investigators note that in their cohort, only five patients responded to PPI therapy; all were non-obese. It’s possible, they note, that patients with a higher BMI may benefit from dual PPI/tCS treatment initially, but this strategy would require prospective assessment.

As for the mechanism behind obesity’s apparent negative impact on tCS therapy, the researchers say the low-grade systemic inflammatory state of obesity may make tCS therapy less effective, but they add that studies are needed to pinpoint the exact mechanism.

The study suggests that “a clinician can now add another epidemiologic risk factor for potential poor response to treatment for EoE, specifically steroids,” Philip Katz, MD, professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview when reached for comment.

However, it is “difficult, if not impossible, to discern from a retrospective study like this why higher BMI would be a risk factor for poor response,” said Dr. Katz, who was not affiliated with the study.

“The main potential clinical message here is that people who are overweight with EoE perhaps need to be looked at differently and might require a different treatment algorithm or treatment approach than a person who is ideal body weight,” Dr. Katz added.

Also commenting for this article, Shreya Chablaney, MD, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health’s Center for Esophageal Health and clinical instructor at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, noted that predictors of patient response to various treatment options for EoE are not well understood and that more robust data are needed to guide appropriate patient selection when considering them.

“Though this is a relatively small, single-center, retrospective study, it shows an interesting finding, that high BMI is independently associated with a decrease in histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic response to topical steroids, even when controlling for heartburn and the presence of a hiatal hernia,” she said.

“While these findings may not yet affect current management, it highlights the need for more prospective research to see if dosing adjustment, type of topical steroid, or alternative therapy altogether should be considered in patients who are obese,” Dr. Chablaney said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dellon is a consultant for Abbott, AbbVie, Adare/ Ellodi, Aimmune, Akesobio, ALK, Allakos, Amgen, Arena, Aslan, AstraZeneca, Avir, Biorasi, Calypso, Celgene/Receptos/BMS, Celldex, Eli Lilly, EsoCap, Eurpaxia, Ferring, GSK, Gossamer Bio, Invea, Landos, LucidDx, Morphic, Nutricia, Parexel/Calyx, Phathom, Regeneron, Revolo, Robarts/Alimentiv, Salix, Sanofi, Shire/Takeda, and Target RWE. Dr. Katz is a consultant for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella Pharmaceuticals and serves on an advisory board for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chablaney reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The oral potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan was noninferior and superior to the proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) lansoprazole for erosive esophagitis, according to results of the phase 3 PHALCON-EE trial.

Vonoprazan achieved higher rates of healing and maintenance of healing than lansoprazole, with the benefit seen primarily in patients with more severe esophagitis.

The differences in healing rates were evident after 2 weeks of therapy and were maintained throughout the 24-week study, report Loren Laine, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

More potent acid suppression

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is one of the most common disorders of the gastrointestinal tract, and erosive esophagitis is its most common complication.

Although standard PPI therapy is effective for healing erosive esophagitis, some patients do not achieve success with this conventional treatment.

Studies suggest that lack of healing of erosive esophagitis with 8 weeks of PPI therapy can be expected in roughly 5%-20% of patients, with rates up to 30% reported in patients with more severe esophagitis.

The PCAB vonoprazan provides more potent inhibition of gastric acid than PPIs and is seen as a potential alternative. However, data on its efficacy for erosive esophagitis are limited, the authors note.

The PHALCON-EE trial enrolled 1,024 adults from the United States and Europe with erosive esophagitis without Helicobacter pylori infection or Barrett esophagus.

Participants were randomized to receive once-daily vonoprazan 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg for up to 8 weeks in the healing phase.

The 878 patients with healing were then rerandomized to receive once-daily vonoprazan 10 mg, vonoprazan 20 mg, or lansoprazole 15 mg for 24 weeks in the maintenance phase.

For healing by week 8, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior to lansoprazole in a predefined exploratory analysis (92.9% vs. 84.6%; P < .0001).

Secondary analyses showed that vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in mean 24-hour heartburn-free days and superior in healing at week 2 for grade C/D esophagitis (70.2% vs. 52.6%; P = .0008).

For maintenance of healing at week 24, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior on secondary analysis of healing (80.7% for vonoprazan 20 mg and 79.2% for vonoprazan 10 mg vs. 72.0% for lansoprazole; P < .0001 for both comparisons).

The most common adverse event reported in the healing phase was diarrhea and in the maintenance phase was COVID-19. Two deaths occurred, both from COVID-19, during the maintenance phase in the vonoprazan 20-mg group.

As expected, serum gastrin increased to a greater extent with vonoprazan than lansoprazole, with levels > 500 pg/mL in 16% of those taking 20 mg at the end of maintenance therapy, the authors report. After stopping vonoprazan, gastrin levels dropped by roughly 60%-65% within 4 weeks.
 

Promising new option

“PCABs are a promising new option,” Avin Aggarwal, MD, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

They have a “more potent acid inhibitory effect” and have shown “superior healing of erosive esophagitis,” said Dr. Aggarwal, a gastroenterologist and medical director of Banner Health’s South Campus endoscopy services and clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The results of the PHALCON-EE trial “validate noninferiority of PCABs compared to standard PPI therapy in the Western population after being proven in multiple Asian studies,” he said.

Dr. Aggarwal noted that PCABs work the same way as PPIs, by blocking the proton pumps, but “the longer half-life of PCABs and action on both active and inactive proton channels result in greater acid inhibition.”

Long-term effects of PCAB therapy from stronger acid inhibition and resulting hypergastrinemia still remain to be determined, he said.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepted Phathom Pharmaceuticals’ new drug application for vonoprazan for the treatment of erosive esophagitis.

Last May, the FDA approved two vonoprazan-based therapies for the treatment of H. pylori infection.

The study was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Laine and several coauthors have disclosed financial relationships with the company. Dr. Aggarwal reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The oral potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan was noninferior and superior to the proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) lansoprazole for erosive esophagitis, according to results of the phase 3 PHALCON-EE trial.

Vonoprazan achieved higher rates of healing and maintenance of healing than lansoprazole, with the benefit seen primarily in patients with more severe esophagitis.

The differences in healing rates were evident after 2 weeks of therapy and were maintained throughout the 24-week study, report Loren Laine, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

More potent acid suppression

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is one of the most common disorders of the gastrointestinal tract, and erosive esophagitis is its most common complication.

Although standard PPI therapy is effective for healing erosive esophagitis, some patients do not achieve success with this conventional treatment.

Studies suggest that lack of healing of erosive esophagitis with 8 weeks of PPI therapy can be expected in roughly 5%-20% of patients, with rates up to 30% reported in patients with more severe esophagitis.

The PCAB vonoprazan provides more potent inhibition of gastric acid than PPIs and is seen as a potential alternative. However, data on its efficacy for erosive esophagitis are limited, the authors note.

The PHALCON-EE trial enrolled 1,024 adults from the United States and Europe with erosive esophagitis without Helicobacter pylori infection or Barrett esophagus.

Participants were randomized to receive once-daily vonoprazan 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg for up to 8 weeks in the healing phase.

The 878 patients with healing were then rerandomized to receive once-daily vonoprazan 10 mg, vonoprazan 20 mg, or lansoprazole 15 mg for 24 weeks in the maintenance phase.

For healing by week 8, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior to lansoprazole in a predefined exploratory analysis (92.9% vs. 84.6%; P < .0001).

Secondary analyses showed that vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in mean 24-hour heartburn-free days and superior in healing at week 2 for grade C/D esophagitis (70.2% vs. 52.6%; P = .0008).

For maintenance of healing at week 24, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior on secondary analysis of healing (80.7% for vonoprazan 20 mg and 79.2% for vonoprazan 10 mg vs. 72.0% for lansoprazole; P < .0001 for both comparisons).

The most common adverse event reported in the healing phase was diarrhea and in the maintenance phase was COVID-19. Two deaths occurred, both from COVID-19, during the maintenance phase in the vonoprazan 20-mg group.

As expected, serum gastrin increased to a greater extent with vonoprazan than lansoprazole, with levels > 500 pg/mL in 16% of those taking 20 mg at the end of maintenance therapy, the authors report. After stopping vonoprazan, gastrin levels dropped by roughly 60%-65% within 4 weeks.
 

Promising new option

“PCABs are a promising new option,” Avin Aggarwal, MD, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

They have a “more potent acid inhibitory effect” and have shown “superior healing of erosive esophagitis,” said Dr. Aggarwal, a gastroenterologist and medical director of Banner Health’s South Campus endoscopy services and clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The results of the PHALCON-EE trial “validate noninferiority of PCABs compared to standard PPI therapy in the Western population after being proven in multiple Asian studies,” he said.

Dr. Aggarwal noted that PCABs work the same way as PPIs, by blocking the proton pumps, but “the longer half-life of PCABs and action on both active and inactive proton channels result in greater acid inhibition.”

Long-term effects of PCAB therapy from stronger acid inhibition and resulting hypergastrinemia still remain to be determined, he said.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepted Phathom Pharmaceuticals’ new drug application for vonoprazan for the treatment of erosive esophagitis.

Last May, the FDA approved two vonoprazan-based therapies for the treatment of H. pylori infection.

The study was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Laine and several coauthors have disclosed financial relationships with the company. Dr. Aggarwal reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The oral potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan was noninferior and superior to the proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) lansoprazole for erosive esophagitis, according to results of the phase 3 PHALCON-EE trial.

Vonoprazan achieved higher rates of healing and maintenance of healing than lansoprazole, with the benefit seen primarily in patients with more severe esophagitis.

The differences in healing rates were evident after 2 weeks of therapy and were maintained throughout the 24-week study, report Loren Laine, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

More potent acid suppression

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is one of the most common disorders of the gastrointestinal tract, and erosive esophagitis is its most common complication.

Although standard PPI therapy is effective for healing erosive esophagitis, some patients do not achieve success with this conventional treatment.

Studies suggest that lack of healing of erosive esophagitis with 8 weeks of PPI therapy can be expected in roughly 5%-20% of patients, with rates up to 30% reported in patients with more severe esophagitis.

The PCAB vonoprazan provides more potent inhibition of gastric acid than PPIs and is seen as a potential alternative. However, data on its efficacy for erosive esophagitis are limited, the authors note.

The PHALCON-EE trial enrolled 1,024 adults from the United States and Europe with erosive esophagitis without Helicobacter pylori infection or Barrett esophagus.

Participants were randomized to receive once-daily vonoprazan 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg for up to 8 weeks in the healing phase.

The 878 patients with healing were then rerandomized to receive once-daily vonoprazan 10 mg, vonoprazan 20 mg, or lansoprazole 15 mg for 24 weeks in the maintenance phase.

For healing by week 8, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior to lansoprazole in a predefined exploratory analysis (92.9% vs. 84.6%; P < .0001).

Secondary analyses showed that vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in mean 24-hour heartburn-free days and superior in healing at week 2 for grade C/D esophagitis (70.2% vs. 52.6%; P = .0008).

For maintenance of healing at week 24, vonoprazan was noninferior to lansoprazole in the primary analysis and superior on secondary analysis of healing (80.7% for vonoprazan 20 mg and 79.2% for vonoprazan 10 mg vs. 72.0% for lansoprazole; P < .0001 for both comparisons).

The most common adverse event reported in the healing phase was diarrhea and in the maintenance phase was COVID-19. Two deaths occurred, both from COVID-19, during the maintenance phase in the vonoprazan 20-mg group.

As expected, serum gastrin increased to a greater extent with vonoprazan than lansoprazole, with levels > 500 pg/mL in 16% of those taking 20 mg at the end of maintenance therapy, the authors report. After stopping vonoprazan, gastrin levels dropped by roughly 60%-65% within 4 weeks.
 

Promising new option

“PCABs are a promising new option,” Avin Aggarwal, MD, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

They have a “more potent acid inhibitory effect” and have shown “superior healing of erosive esophagitis,” said Dr. Aggarwal, a gastroenterologist and medical director of Banner Health’s South Campus endoscopy services and clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The results of the PHALCON-EE trial “validate noninferiority of PCABs compared to standard PPI therapy in the Western population after being proven in multiple Asian studies,” he said.

Dr. Aggarwal noted that PCABs work the same way as PPIs, by blocking the proton pumps, but “the longer half-life of PCABs and action on both active and inactive proton channels result in greater acid inhibition.”

Long-term effects of PCAB therapy from stronger acid inhibition and resulting hypergastrinemia still remain to be determined, he said.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepted Phathom Pharmaceuticals’ new drug application for vonoprazan for the treatment of erosive esophagitis.

Last May, the FDA approved two vonoprazan-based therapies for the treatment of H. pylori infection.

The study was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Laine and several coauthors have disclosed financial relationships with the company. Dr. Aggarwal reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dupilumab appears to improve clinical, symptomatic, histologic, and endoscopic aspects of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) up to 24 weeks, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug was also well tolerated, demonstrating consistency with the known dupilumab safety profile, said Evan S. Dellon, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab (Dupixent) for the treatment of EoE in adults and adolescents who are 12 years and older and weigh at least 40 kg (about 88 pounds), based on safety and efficacy data previously presented by Dr. Dellon and colleagues as part of the phase 3 LIBERTY-EoE-TREET study (NCT03633617).

“Dupilumab is now the only medication FDA approved to treat EoE in the U.S.,” Dr. Dellon said. “The findings here are that the pooled efficacy and safety data for parts A and B of the phase 3 trial are consistent with the results of the individual parts of the study that were previously reported, and which led to the drug being approved for EoE.”

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease of the esophagus, which can lead to symptoms of esophageal dysfunction that affect quality of life. Current treatment options often lack specificity, present adherence challenges, and provide suboptimal long-term disease control, Dr. Dellon said.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody manufactured by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and IL-13, which are central drivers of type 2 inflammation in EoE.
 

Study population difficult to treat

In the three-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, dupilumab was administered to 122 patients as 300-mg weekly doses through subcutaneous injection. In parts A and B, dupilumab demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in adults and adolescents up to 24 weeks. In patients from part A who continued to an extended active treatment period called part C, efficacy was sustained to week 52.

Participants were included if they had EoE that hadn’t responded to high-dose proton pump inhibitors, had baseline esophageal biopsies with a peak intraepithelial eosinophilic count of 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/HPF) or higher in two or more esophageal regions, had a history of an average of two or more episodes of dysphagia per week in the 4 weeks prior to screening, had four or more episodes of dysphagia in the 2 weeks prior to randomization with two or more episodes that required liquids or medical attention, and had a baseline Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score of 10 or higher.

On the other hand, participants were excluded if they initiated or changed a food-elimination diet regimen or reintroduced a previously eliminated food group in the 6 weeks before screening, had other causes of esophageal eosinophilia, had a history of other inflammatory diseases such as Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, or were treated with swallowed topical corticosteroids within 8 weeks prior to baseline.

Dr. Dellon and colleagues focused on co–primary endpoints: The proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count of 6 eos/HPF or less, and the absolute change in DSQ score from baseline to week 24.

Key secondary endpoints included percentage change in eos/HPF, absolute change in EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS), absolute change in EoE-Histologic Scoring System (EoE-HSS) grade score, and EoE-HSS stage score. Other secondary endpoints included percentage change in DSQ score and proportion of patients achieving less than 15 eos/HPF.

The baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Importantly, about 70% had been treated with topical corticosteroids, and about 40% had a history of esophageal dilation, Dr. Dellon said. The DSQ scores, peak eosinophil counts, and EREFS scores were high, indicating an inflamed, symptomatic, and difficult-to-treat population.
 

Pooled parts A and B findings

Overall, dupilumab reduced peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil counts at week 24. In the dupilumab group, 59% of patients were down to 6 eos/HPF or less, compared with 5.9% in the placebo group. In a secondary endpoint, 77% of dupilumab patients were down to 15 eos/HPF, compared with 7.6% in the placebo group. The dupilumab group saw an 80% drop in baseline change, compared with 1.5% in the placebo group.

Dupilumab also reduced dysphagia symptoms and improved endoscopic features of EoE at week 24. The absolute change in DSQ score was –23.21 in the dupilumab group, compared with –12.69 in the placebo group. The percent change in DSQ score was –65.5% in the dupilumab group, compared with –38.2% in the placebo group. The absolute change in EREFS score was –3.95 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.41 in the placebo group.

In addition, dupilumab reduced histologic scores at week 24. The absolute change in EoE-HSS grade score was –0.82 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.1 in the placebo group. The absolute change in EoE-HSS stage score was –0.79 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.09 in the placebo group.

Dupilumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, and no new safety signals were noted, Dr. Dellon said. The most common adverse events was injection-site reaction at 37.5% in the dupilumab group and 33.3% in the placebo group. The severe adverse events were not related to the medication.

“If patients have EoE, dupilumab might be an option for treatment. However, it’s important to realize that, in the phase 3 study, all patients were PPI nonresponders, most had been treated with topical steroids [and many were not responsive], and many had prior esophageal dilation,” Dr. Dellon said. “We don’t have a lot of data in more mild EoE patients, and insurances are currently requiring a series of authorization before patients might be able to get this medication. It’s best to talk to their doctor about whether the medication is a good fit for not.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Three of the authors are employees for and have stock options with Regeneron or Sanofi. The other authors reported consultant roles, advisory roles, and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Regeneron and Sanofi.

Dupilumab appears to improve clinical, symptomatic, histologic, and endoscopic aspects of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) up to 24 weeks, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug was also well tolerated, demonstrating consistency with the known dupilumab safety profile, said Evan S. Dellon, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab (Dupixent) for the treatment of EoE in adults and adolescents who are 12 years and older and weigh at least 40 kg (about 88 pounds), based on safety and efficacy data previously presented by Dr. Dellon and colleagues as part of the phase 3 LIBERTY-EoE-TREET study (NCT03633617).

“Dupilumab is now the only medication FDA approved to treat EoE in the U.S.,” Dr. Dellon said. “The findings here are that the pooled efficacy and safety data for parts A and B of the phase 3 trial are consistent with the results of the individual parts of the study that were previously reported, and which led to the drug being approved for EoE.”

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease of the esophagus, which can lead to symptoms of esophageal dysfunction that affect quality of life. Current treatment options often lack specificity, present adherence challenges, and provide suboptimal long-term disease control, Dr. Dellon said.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody manufactured by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and IL-13, which are central drivers of type 2 inflammation in EoE.
 

Study population difficult to treat

In the three-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, dupilumab was administered to 122 patients as 300-mg weekly doses through subcutaneous injection. In parts A and B, dupilumab demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in adults and adolescents up to 24 weeks. In patients from part A who continued to an extended active treatment period called part C, efficacy was sustained to week 52.

Participants were included if they had EoE that hadn’t responded to high-dose proton pump inhibitors, had baseline esophageal biopsies with a peak intraepithelial eosinophilic count of 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/HPF) or higher in two or more esophageal regions, had a history of an average of two or more episodes of dysphagia per week in the 4 weeks prior to screening, had four or more episodes of dysphagia in the 2 weeks prior to randomization with two or more episodes that required liquids or medical attention, and had a baseline Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score of 10 or higher.

On the other hand, participants were excluded if they initiated or changed a food-elimination diet regimen or reintroduced a previously eliminated food group in the 6 weeks before screening, had other causes of esophageal eosinophilia, had a history of other inflammatory diseases such as Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, or were treated with swallowed topical corticosteroids within 8 weeks prior to baseline.

Dr. Dellon and colleagues focused on co–primary endpoints: The proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count of 6 eos/HPF or less, and the absolute change in DSQ score from baseline to week 24.

Key secondary endpoints included percentage change in eos/HPF, absolute change in EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS), absolute change in EoE-Histologic Scoring System (EoE-HSS) grade score, and EoE-HSS stage score. Other secondary endpoints included percentage change in DSQ score and proportion of patients achieving less than 15 eos/HPF.

The baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Importantly, about 70% had been treated with topical corticosteroids, and about 40% had a history of esophageal dilation, Dr. Dellon said. The DSQ scores, peak eosinophil counts, and EREFS scores were high, indicating an inflamed, symptomatic, and difficult-to-treat population.
 

Pooled parts A and B findings

Overall, dupilumab reduced peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil counts at week 24. In the dupilumab group, 59% of patients were down to 6 eos/HPF or less, compared with 5.9% in the placebo group. In a secondary endpoint, 77% of dupilumab patients were down to 15 eos/HPF, compared with 7.6% in the placebo group. The dupilumab group saw an 80% drop in baseline change, compared with 1.5% in the placebo group.

Dupilumab also reduced dysphagia symptoms and improved endoscopic features of EoE at week 24. The absolute change in DSQ score was –23.21 in the dupilumab group, compared with –12.69 in the placebo group. The percent change in DSQ score was –65.5% in the dupilumab group, compared with –38.2% in the placebo group. The absolute change in EREFS score was –3.95 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.41 in the placebo group.

In addition, dupilumab reduced histologic scores at week 24. The absolute change in EoE-HSS grade score was –0.82 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.1 in the placebo group. The absolute change in EoE-HSS stage score was –0.79 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.09 in the placebo group.

Dupilumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, and no new safety signals were noted, Dr. Dellon said. The most common adverse events was injection-site reaction at 37.5% in the dupilumab group and 33.3% in the placebo group. The severe adverse events were not related to the medication.

“If patients have EoE, dupilumab might be an option for treatment. However, it’s important to realize that, in the phase 3 study, all patients were PPI nonresponders, most had been treated with topical steroids [and many were not responsive], and many had prior esophageal dilation,” Dr. Dellon said. “We don’t have a lot of data in more mild EoE patients, and insurances are currently requiring a series of authorization before patients might be able to get this medication. It’s best to talk to their doctor about whether the medication is a good fit for not.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Three of the authors are employees for and have stock options with Regeneron or Sanofi. The other authors reported consultant roles, advisory roles, and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Regeneron and Sanofi.

Dupilumab appears to improve clinical, symptomatic, histologic, and endoscopic aspects of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) up to 24 weeks, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug was also well tolerated, demonstrating consistency with the known dupilumab safety profile, said Evan S. Dellon, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab (Dupixent) for the treatment of EoE in adults and adolescents who are 12 years and older and weigh at least 40 kg (about 88 pounds), based on safety and efficacy data previously presented by Dr. Dellon and colleagues as part of the phase 3 LIBERTY-EoE-TREET study (NCT03633617).

“Dupilumab is now the only medication FDA approved to treat EoE in the U.S.,” Dr. Dellon said. “The findings here are that the pooled efficacy and safety data for parts A and B of the phase 3 trial are consistent with the results of the individual parts of the study that were previously reported, and which led to the drug being approved for EoE.”

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease of the esophagus, which can lead to symptoms of esophageal dysfunction that affect quality of life. Current treatment options often lack specificity, present adherence challenges, and provide suboptimal long-term disease control, Dr. Dellon said.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody manufactured by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and IL-13, which are central drivers of type 2 inflammation in EoE.
 

Study population difficult to treat

In the three-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, dupilumab was administered to 122 patients as 300-mg weekly doses through subcutaneous injection. In parts A and B, dupilumab demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in adults and adolescents up to 24 weeks. In patients from part A who continued to an extended active treatment period called part C, efficacy was sustained to week 52.

Participants were included if they had EoE that hadn’t responded to high-dose proton pump inhibitors, had baseline esophageal biopsies with a peak intraepithelial eosinophilic count of 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/HPF) or higher in two or more esophageal regions, had a history of an average of two or more episodes of dysphagia per week in the 4 weeks prior to screening, had four or more episodes of dysphagia in the 2 weeks prior to randomization with two or more episodes that required liquids or medical attention, and had a baseline Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score of 10 or higher.

On the other hand, participants were excluded if they initiated or changed a food-elimination diet regimen or reintroduced a previously eliminated food group in the 6 weeks before screening, had other causes of esophageal eosinophilia, had a history of other inflammatory diseases such as Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, or were treated with swallowed topical corticosteroids within 8 weeks prior to baseline.

Dr. Dellon and colleagues focused on co–primary endpoints: The proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count of 6 eos/HPF or less, and the absolute change in DSQ score from baseline to week 24.

Key secondary endpoints included percentage change in eos/HPF, absolute change in EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS), absolute change in EoE-Histologic Scoring System (EoE-HSS) grade score, and EoE-HSS stage score. Other secondary endpoints included percentage change in DSQ score and proportion of patients achieving less than 15 eos/HPF.

The baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Importantly, about 70% had been treated with topical corticosteroids, and about 40% had a history of esophageal dilation, Dr. Dellon said. The DSQ scores, peak eosinophil counts, and EREFS scores were high, indicating an inflamed, symptomatic, and difficult-to-treat population.
 

Pooled parts A and B findings

Overall, dupilumab reduced peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil counts at week 24. In the dupilumab group, 59% of patients were down to 6 eos/HPF or less, compared with 5.9% in the placebo group. In a secondary endpoint, 77% of dupilumab patients were down to 15 eos/HPF, compared with 7.6% in the placebo group. The dupilumab group saw an 80% drop in baseline change, compared with 1.5% in the placebo group.

Dupilumab also reduced dysphagia symptoms and improved endoscopic features of EoE at week 24. The absolute change in DSQ score was –23.21 in the dupilumab group, compared with –12.69 in the placebo group. The percent change in DSQ score was –65.5% in the dupilumab group, compared with –38.2% in the placebo group. The absolute change in EREFS score was –3.95 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.41 in the placebo group.

In addition, dupilumab reduced histologic scores at week 24. The absolute change in EoE-HSS grade score was –0.82 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.1 in the placebo group. The absolute change in EoE-HSS stage score was –0.79 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.09 in the placebo group.

Dupilumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, and no new safety signals were noted, Dr. Dellon said. The most common adverse events was injection-site reaction at 37.5% in the dupilumab group and 33.3% in the placebo group. The severe adverse events were not related to the medication.

“If patients have EoE, dupilumab might be an option for treatment. However, it’s important to realize that, in the phase 3 study, all patients were PPI nonresponders, most had been treated with topical steroids [and many were not responsive], and many had prior esophageal dilation,” Dr. Dellon said. “We don’t have a lot of data in more mild EoE patients, and insurances are currently requiring a series of authorization before patients might be able to get this medication. It’s best to talk to their doctor about whether the medication is a good fit for not.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Three of the authors are employees for and have stock options with Regeneron or Sanofi. The other authors reported consultant roles, advisory roles, and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Regeneron and Sanofi.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Several factors appear to influence the risk for acute pancreatitis among patients who start taking glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications for weight management, a new study has found.

Type 2 diabetes, advanced chronic kidney disease, and tobacco use were associated with greater risk for acute pancreatitis, researchers report.

On the other hand, a higher body mass index (BMI) – 36 kg/m² or higher – appeared to protect people against developing the condition.

“As this class of medications becomes increasingly popular in the United States, it is important for providers to know which patients are at a higher or lower risk of developing acute pancreatitis after being started on them,” said lead study author Robert Postlethwaite, MD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in Charlotte, N.C., being held in person and virtually.
 

Popularity comes at a price

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved two GLP-1s for weight management – liraglutide (Victoza) in 2014 and semaglutide (Wegovy) in 2021. They work by targeting areas of the brain that control food intake and appetite. Other GLP-1s approved to treat type 2 diabetes include dulaglutide (Trulicity) and two other formulations of semaglutide (Rybelsus and Ozempic).

The demand for Wegovy has been so great that there is an ongoing shortage of the medication in the United States.

Although GLP-1s demonstrate a favorable side-effect profile, compared with other types of antiobesity medications, acute pancreatitis remains a serious and sometimes life-threatening complication, the researchers note. Some patients require hospitalization.

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues performed a retrospective, single-center study of 2,245 patients who attended an academic medical center’s Weight Wellness program from 2015 to 2019. The average age was about 50 years, and 81% were female. The average BMI of all patients was 39.7 kg/m².

The study only included patients starting GLP-1s for treating obesity, not for diabetes.

Of the 2,245 patients, 49 (2.2%) developed acute pancreatitis after starting a GLP-1.

A history of type 2 diabetes mellitus made acute pancreatitis twice as likely (95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.96; P = .04).

Stage 3 or higher chronic kidney disease increased risk 2.3 times (95% CI, 1.18-4.55; P = .01), while tobacco use upped it 3.3 times (95% CI, 1.70-6.50; P < .001).

In contrast, researchers found those with a BMI of 36-40 kg/m² were 88% less likely to develop acute pancreatitis (95% CI, 0.07-0.67; P = .007), compared with patients with a BMI of less than or equal to 30 kg/m². Patients with a BMI of greater than 40 kg/m² had a 73% lower risk (95% CI, 0.10-0.73; P = .01).

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues found no association with age, sex, or history of bariatric surgery or acute pancreatitis.

Because a history of acute pancreatitis was not a risk factor, he advised that clinicians not withhold these medications for this reason, “especially given the significant glycemic, cardiovascular, and weight-loss effects.”

“We hope that we can arm clinicians with evidence in order to risk stratify their patients and determine who is at high risk of developing pancreatitis,” Dr. Postlethwaite said.

“Hopefully, we can prevent the development of pancreatitis in some patients, especially high-risk individuals, or at least allow clinicians to be aware of it in higher-risk patients to identify it early enough to prevent complications of acute pancreatitis,” he added.
 

Larger studies needed

The study is “promising,” said session comoderator Baharak Moshiree, MD, a gastroenterologist at Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., who was not affiliated with the research.

However, because the study was retrospective and relatively small, it needs to be validated in larger, prospective studies, she added.

“With obesity being such a global issue, there are many patients on these GLP-1 agonists,” Dr. Moshiree said.

Generally, these medications are prescribed by endocrinologists, not gastroenterologists, she noted, and she said that gastroenterologists should be aware of the risks associated with them, including minor gastrointestinal side effects, like nausea and vomiting, that can occur because of delayed gastric emptying.

Dr. Postlethwaite noted that being unable to assess how much alcohol or tobacco individuals used was a limitation. The relatively low proportion of people who developed acute pancreatitis in the study also means larger studies are warranted, he added.

Going forward, Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues want to study the risks for each individual GLP-1 and other therapies used to control high blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes, such as DPP4 (dipeptidyl-peptidase 4) inhibitors.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Postlethwaite and Dr. Moshiree report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Several factors appear to influence the risk for acute pancreatitis among patients who start taking glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications for weight management, a new study has found.

Type 2 diabetes, advanced chronic kidney disease, and tobacco use were associated with greater risk for acute pancreatitis, researchers report.

On the other hand, a higher body mass index (BMI) – 36 kg/m² or higher – appeared to protect people against developing the condition.

“As this class of medications becomes increasingly popular in the United States, it is important for providers to know which patients are at a higher or lower risk of developing acute pancreatitis after being started on them,” said lead study author Robert Postlethwaite, MD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in Charlotte, N.C., being held in person and virtually.
 

Popularity comes at a price

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved two GLP-1s for weight management – liraglutide (Victoza) in 2014 and semaglutide (Wegovy) in 2021. They work by targeting areas of the brain that control food intake and appetite. Other GLP-1s approved to treat type 2 diabetes include dulaglutide (Trulicity) and two other formulations of semaglutide (Rybelsus and Ozempic).

The demand for Wegovy has been so great that there is an ongoing shortage of the medication in the United States.

Although GLP-1s demonstrate a favorable side-effect profile, compared with other types of antiobesity medications, acute pancreatitis remains a serious and sometimes life-threatening complication, the researchers note. Some patients require hospitalization.

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues performed a retrospective, single-center study of 2,245 patients who attended an academic medical center’s Weight Wellness program from 2015 to 2019. The average age was about 50 years, and 81% were female. The average BMI of all patients was 39.7 kg/m².

The study only included patients starting GLP-1s for treating obesity, not for diabetes.

Of the 2,245 patients, 49 (2.2%) developed acute pancreatitis after starting a GLP-1.

A history of type 2 diabetes mellitus made acute pancreatitis twice as likely (95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.96; P = .04).

Stage 3 or higher chronic kidney disease increased risk 2.3 times (95% CI, 1.18-4.55; P = .01), while tobacco use upped it 3.3 times (95% CI, 1.70-6.50; P < .001).

In contrast, researchers found those with a BMI of 36-40 kg/m² were 88% less likely to develop acute pancreatitis (95% CI, 0.07-0.67; P = .007), compared with patients with a BMI of less than or equal to 30 kg/m². Patients with a BMI of greater than 40 kg/m² had a 73% lower risk (95% CI, 0.10-0.73; P = .01).

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues found no association with age, sex, or history of bariatric surgery or acute pancreatitis.

Because a history of acute pancreatitis was not a risk factor, he advised that clinicians not withhold these medications for this reason, “especially given the significant glycemic, cardiovascular, and weight-loss effects.”

“We hope that we can arm clinicians with evidence in order to risk stratify their patients and determine who is at high risk of developing pancreatitis,” Dr. Postlethwaite said.

“Hopefully, we can prevent the development of pancreatitis in some patients, especially high-risk individuals, or at least allow clinicians to be aware of it in higher-risk patients to identify it early enough to prevent complications of acute pancreatitis,” he added.
 

Larger studies needed

The study is “promising,” said session comoderator Baharak Moshiree, MD, a gastroenterologist at Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., who was not affiliated with the research.

However, because the study was retrospective and relatively small, it needs to be validated in larger, prospective studies, she added.

“With obesity being such a global issue, there are many patients on these GLP-1 agonists,” Dr. Moshiree said.

Generally, these medications are prescribed by endocrinologists, not gastroenterologists, she noted, and she said that gastroenterologists should be aware of the risks associated with them, including minor gastrointestinal side effects, like nausea and vomiting, that can occur because of delayed gastric emptying.

Dr. Postlethwaite noted that being unable to assess how much alcohol or tobacco individuals used was a limitation. The relatively low proportion of people who developed acute pancreatitis in the study also means larger studies are warranted, he added.

Going forward, Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues want to study the risks for each individual GLP-1 and other therapies used to control high blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes, such as DPP4 (dipeptidyl-peptidase 4) inhibitors.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Postlethwaite and Dr. Moshiree report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Several factors appear to influence the risk for acute pancreatitis among patients who start taking glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications for weight management, a new study has found.

Type 2 diabetes, advanced chronic kidney disease, and tobacco use were associated with greater risk for acute pancreatitis, researchers report.

On the other hand, a higher body mass index (BMI) – 36 kg/m² or higher – appeared to protect people against developing the condition.

“As this class of medications becomes increasingly popular in the United States, it is important for providers to know which patients are at a higher or lower risk of developing acute pancreatitis after being started on them,” said lead study author Robert Postlethwaite, MD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in Charlotte, N.C., being held in person and virtually.
 

Popularity comes at a price

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved two GLP-1s for weight management – liraglutide (Victoza) in 2014 and semaglutide (Wegovy) in 2021. They work by targeting areas of the brain that control food intake and appetite. Other GLP-1s approved to treat type 2 diabetes include dulaglutide (Trulicity) and two other formulations of semaglutide (Rybelsus and Ozempic).

The demand for Wegovy has been so great that there is an ongoing shortage of the medication in the United States.

Although GLP-1s demonstrate a favorable side-effect profile, compared with other types of antiobesity medications, acute pancreatitis remains a serious and sometimes life-threatening complication, the researchers note. Some patients require hospitalization.

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues performed a retrospective, single-center study of 2,245 patients who attended an academic medical center’s Weight Wellness program from 2015 to 2019. The average age was about 50 years, and 81% were female. The average BMI of all patients was 39.7 kg/m².

The study only included patients starting GLP-1s for treating obesity, not for diabetes.

Of the 2,245 patients, 49 (2.2%) developed acute pancreatitis after starting a GLP-1.

A history of type 2 diabetes mellitus made acute pancreatitis twice as likely (95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.96; P = .04).

Stage 3 or higher chronic kidney disease increased risk 2.3 times (95% CI, 1.18-4.55; P = .01), while tobacco use upped it 3.3 times (95% CI, 1.70-6.50; P < .001).

In contrast, researchers found those with a BMI of 36-40 kg/m² were 88% less likely to develop acute pancreatitis (95% CI, 0.07-0.67; P = .007), compared with patients with a BMI of less than or equal to 30 kg/m². Patients with a BMI of greater than 40 kg/m² had a 73% lower risk (95% CI, 0.10-0.73; P = .01).

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues found no association with age, sex, or history of bariatric surgery or acute pancreatitis.

Because a history of acute pancreatitis was not a risk factor, he advised that clinicians not withhold these medications for this reason, “especially given the significant glycemic, cardiovascular, and weight-loss effects.”

“We hope that we can arm clinicians with evidence in order to risk stratify their patients and determine who is at high risk of developing pancreatitis,” Dr. Postlethwaite said.

“Hopefully, we can prevent the development of pancreatitis in some patients, especially high-risk individuals, or at least allow clinicians to be aware of it in higher-risk patients to identify it early enough to prevent complications of acute pancreatitis,” he added.
 

Larger studies needed

The study is “promising,” said session comoderator Baharak Moshiree, MD, a gastroenterologist at Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., who was not affiliated with the research.

However, because the study was retrospective and relatively small, it needs to be validated in larger, prospective studies, she added.

“With obesity being such a global issue, there are many patients on these GLP-1 agonists,” Dr. Moshiree said.

Generally, these medications are prescribed by endocrinologists, not gastroenterologists, she noted, and she said that gastroenterologists should be aware of the risks associated with them, including minor gastrointestinal side effects, like nausea and vomiting, that can occur because of delayed gastric emptying.

Dr. Postlethwaite noted that being unable to assess how much alcohol or tobacco individuals used was a limitation. The relatively low proportion of people who developed acute pancreatitis in the study also means larger studies are warranted, he added.

Going forward, Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues want to study the risks for each individual GLP-1 and other therapies used to control high blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes, such as DPP4 (dipeptidyl-peptidase 4) inhibitors.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Postlethwaite and Dr. Moshiree report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rates of resistance to clarithromycin among Helicobacter pylori isolates in the United States and Europe are high enough to warrant discontinuation of empiric use of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)–based triple therapy that includes the antibiotic in these regions, a new study has found.

Overall, 22.2% of participants were resistant to clarithromycin – a rate that is above the currently recommended threshold of 15% or higher for avoidance of PPI-based triple therapy that includes clarithromycin.

The results “should put a very big nail in the coffin” of empiric use of such therapies, study investigator William Chey, MD, professor and chief, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Judith Kim, MD, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health and clinical instructor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, who wasn’t involved in the study, agrees.

“The use of PPI-based triple therapy is still common practice despite recent recommendations to avoid clarithromycin in areas with high resistance rates,” Dr. Kim told this news organization.

“This study shows that multiple parts of the United States and Europe have high resistance rates,” rendering clarithromycin-based regimens “more likely to ineffectively eradicate H pylori,” Dr. Kim said.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Better options now available

Guidelines advise against the use of PPI-based triple regimens with clarithromycin for H. pylori infection in areas where resistance is 15% or higher or for patients who have previously received macrolides. However, up-to-date information on H. pylori antimicrobial resistance patterns is limited, especially in the United States.

Dr. Chey and colleagues assessed resistance rates to antibiotics commonly used to treat H. pylori in isolates from 907 adults with the infection in the United States and Europe. They included four U.S. subregions and five participating European countries.

In all U.S. subregions and European countries, clarithromycin resistance rates were above 15% except possibly in the United Kingdom, where the sample size was too small to provide a reliable estimate.

Three-quarters of the clarithromycin-resistant isolates were also resistant to metronidazole.

The study also found that, overall, 1.2% of patients had isolates that were resistant to amoxicillin, and 69.2% had isolates resistant to metronidazole. Resistance patterns were similar in the United States and Europe; metronidazole resistance was the most common (50%-79% of isolates), and amoxicillin was the least common (≤ 5%).

“Overall, these data provide robust evidence to support a shift away from the default empiric prescription of triple combinations containing a PPI and clarithromycin for H. pylori infection in the United States and Europe,” the study team writes.

The high prevalence of resistance, including dual resistance, highlights the need for antibiotic stewardship and resistance surveillance, as well as novel treatment strategies for H. pylori infection, they add.

Last spring, as previously reported, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved two vonoprazan-based treatments for H. pylori: Voquezna Triple Pak (vonoprazan, amoxicillin, clarithromycin) and Voquezna Dual Pak (vonoprazan, amoxicillin), both from Phathom Pharmaceuticals.

“Vonoprazan-based treatment may be superior to standard PPI triple therapy for clarithromycin-resistant infections based on prior studies and is a potential good option,” Dr. Kim said.

Still, she added, she “would most likely first recommend regimens that do not have clarithromycin, such as bismuth quadruple therapy.”
 

Study’s importance

Because the study drew upon the largest dataset to date on U.S. resistance rates, it should be used to more precisely guide first-line therapy decisions, said Richard Peek, Jr., MD, professor of medicine and director of gastroenterology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“To date, there has been a dearth of information in the United States regarding H. pylori resistance rates, which has often led to the use of ineffective empiric therapies and inappropriate exposure to antibiotics,” Dr. Peek, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These data are particularly exciting when viewed within the context of new genomic sequencing tests that can determine H. pylori resistance patterns using DNA isolated from the stomach or the stool,” he said.

Dr. Peek agreed that the recent approval of vonoprazan-based therapies “adds another regimen to the therapeutic armamentarium available for eradicating H. pylori, and its value seems to be particularly beneficial for eradication failures.”

The research was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Chey is a board member of the American College of Gastroenterology, GI on Demand, the International Foundation of Functional GI Disorders, and the Rome Foundation. He has received compensation as a consultant from AbbVie, Alfasigma, Allakos, Alnylam, Bayer, BioAmerica, Cosmo, Intrinsic Medicine, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, QOL Medical, Nestle, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, RedHill Biopharma, Salix/Valeant, Takeda, Urovant, and Vibrant; grant/research support from BioAmerica, Commonwealth Diagnostics International, QOL Medical, Salix, and Vibrant; owns stock/stock options in GI on Demand and Modify Health; and owns patents relating to methods and kits for identifying food sensitivities and intolerances, digital manometry, and a rectal expulsion device. Dr. Peek and Dr. Kim report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rates of resistance to clarithromycin among Helicobacter pylori isolates in the United States and Europe are high enough to warrant discontinuation of empiric use of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)–based triple therapy that includes the antibiotic in these regions, a new study has found.

Overall, 22.2% of participants were resistant to clarithromycin – a rate that is above the currently recommended threshold of 15% or higher for avoidance of PPI-based triple therapy that includes clarithromycin.

The results “should put a very big nail in the coffin” of empiric use of such therapies, study investigator William Chey, MD, professor and chief, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Judith Kim, MD, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health and clinical instructor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, who wasn’t involved in the study, agrees.

“The use of PPI-based triple therapy is still common practice despite recent recommendations to avoid clarithromycin in areas with high resistance rates,” Dr. Kim told this news organization.

“This study shows that multiple parts of the United States and Europe have high resistance rates,” rendering clarithromycin-based regimens “more likely to ineffectively eradicate H pylori,” Dr. Kim said.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Better options now available

Guidelines advise against the use of PPI-based triple regimens with clarithromycin for H. pylori infection in areas where resistance is 15% or higher or for patients who have previously received macrolides. However, up-to-date information on H. pylori antimicrobial resistance patterns is limited, especially in the United States.

Dr. Chey and colleagues assessed resistance rates to antibiotics commonly used to treat H. pylori in isolates from 907 adults with the infection in the United States and Europe. They included four U.S. subregions and five participating European countries.

In all U.S. subregions and European countries, clarithromycin resistance rates were above 15% except possibly in the United Kingdom, where the sample size was too small to provide a reliable estimate.

Three-quarters of the clarithromycin-resistant isolates were also resistant to metronidazole.

The study also found that, overall, 1.2% of patients had isolates that were resistant to amoxicillin, and 69.2% had isolates resistant to metronidazole. Resistance patterns were similar in the United States and Europe; metronidazole resistance was the most common (50%-79% of isolates), and amoxicillin was the least common (≤ 5%).

“Overall, these data provide robust evidence to support a shift away from the default empiric prescription of triple combinations containing a PPI and clarithromycin for H. pylori infection in the United States and Europe,” the study team writes.

The high prevalence of resistance, including dual resistance, highlights the need for antibiotic stewardship and resistance surveillance, as well as novel treatment strategies for H. pylori infection, they add.

Last spring, as previously reported, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved two vonoprazan-based treatments for H. pylori: Voquezna Triple Pak (vonoprazan, amoxicillin, clarithromycin) and Voquezna Dual Pak (vonoprazan, amoxicillin), both from Phathom Pharmaceuticals.

“Vonoprazan-based treatment may be superior to standard PPI triple therapy for clarithromycin-resistant infections based on prior studies and is a potential good option,” Dr. Kim said.

Still, she added, she “would most likely first recommend regimens that do not have clarithromycin, such as bismuth quadruple therapy.”
 

Study’s importance

Because the study drew upon the largest dataset to date on U.S. resistance rates, it should be used to more precisely guide first-line therapy decisions, said Richard Peek, Jr., MD, professor of medicine and director of gastroenterology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“To date, there has been a dearth of information in the United States regarding H. pylori resistance rates, which has often led to the use of ineffective empiric therapies and inappropriate exposure to antibiotics,” Dr. Peek, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These data are particularly exciting when viewed within the context of new genomic sequencing tests that can determine H. pylori resistance patterns using DNA isolated from the stomach or the stool,” he said.

Dr. Peek agreed that the recent approval of vonoprazan-based therapies “adds another regimen to the therapeutic armamentarium available for eradicating H. pylori, and its value seems to be particularly beneficial for eradication failures.”

The research was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Chey is a board member of the American College of Gastroenterology, GI on Demand, the International Foundation of Functional GI Disorders, and the Rome Foundation. He has received compensation as a consultant from AbbVie, Alfasigma, Allakos, Alnylam, Bayer, BioAmerica, Cosmo, Intrinsic Medicine, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, QOL Medical, Nestle, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, RedHill Biopharma, Salix/Valeant, Takeda, Urovant, and Vibrant; grant/research support from BioAmerica, Commonwealth Diagnostics International, QOL Medical, Salix, and Vibrant; owns stock/stock options in GI on Demand and Modify Health; and owns patents relating to methods and kits for identifying food sensitivities and intolerances, digital manometry, and a rectal expulsion device. Dr. Peek and Dr. Kim report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rates of resistance to clarithromycin among Helicobacter pylori isolates in the United States and Europe are high enough to warrant discontinuation of empiric use of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)–based triple therapy that includes the antibiotic in these regions, a new study has found.

Overall, 22.2% of participants were resistant to clarithromycin – a rate that is above the currently recommended threshold of 15% or higher for avoidance of PPI-based triple therapy that includes clarithromycin.

The results “should put a very big nail in the coffin” of empiric use of such therapies, study investigator William Chey, MD, professor and chief, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Judith Kim, MD, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health and clinical instructor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, who wasn’t involved in the study, agrees.

“The use of PPI-based triple therapy is still common practice despite recent recommendations to avoid clarithromycin in areas with high resistance rates,” Dr. Kim told this news organization.

“This study shows that multiple parts of the United States and Europe have high resistance rates,” rendering clarithromycin-based regimens “more likely to ineffectively eradicate H pylori,” Dr. Kim said.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Better options now available

Guidelines advise against the use of PPI-based triple regimens with clarithromycin for H. pylori infection in areas where resistance is 15% or higher or for patients who have previously received macrolides. However, up-to-date information on H. pylori antimicrobial resistance patterns is limited, especially in the United States.

Dr. Chey and colleagues assessed resistance rates to antibiotics commonly used to treat H. pylori in isolates from 907 adults with the infection in the United States and Europe. They included four U.S. subregions and five participating European countries.

In all U.S. subregions and European countries, clarithromycin resistance rates were above 15% except possibly in the United Kingdom, where the sample size was too small to provide a reliable estimate.

Three-quarters of the clarithromycin-resistant isolates were also resistant to metronidazole.

The study also found that, overall, 1.2% of patients had isolates that were resistant to amoxicillin, and 69.2% had isolates resistant to metronidazole. Resistance patterns were similar in the United States and Europe; metronidazole resistance was the most common (50%-79% of isolates), and amoxicillin was the least common (≤ 5%).

“Overall, these data provide robust evidence to support a shift away from the default empiric prescription of triple combinations containing a PPI and clarithromycin for H. pylori infection in the United States and Europe,” the study team writes.

The high prevalence of resistance, including dual resistance, highlights the need for antibiotic stewardship and resistance surveillance, as well as novel treatment strategies for H. pylori infection, they add.

Last spring, as previously reported, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved two vonoprazan-based treatments for H. pylori: Voquezna Triple Pak (vonoprazan, amoxicillin, clarithromycin) and Voquezna Dual Pak (vonoprazan, amoxicillin), both from Phathom Pharmaceuticals.

“Vonoprazan-based treatment may be superior to standard PPI triple therapy for clarithromycin-resistant infections based on prior studies and is a potential good option,” Dr. Kim said.

Still, she added, she “would most likely first recommend regimens that do not have clarithromycin, such as bismuth quadruple therapy.”
 

Study’s importance

Because the study drew upon the largest dataset to date on U.S. resistance rates, it should be used to more precisely guide first-line therapy decisions, said Richard Peek, Jr., MD, professor of medicine and director of gastroenterology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“To date, there has been a dearth of information in the United States regarding H. pylori resistance rates, which has often led to the use of ineffective empiric therapies and inappropriate exposure to antibiotics,” Dr. Peek, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These data are particularly exciting when viewed within the context of new genomic sequencing tests that can determine H. pylori resistance patterns using DNA isolated from the stomach or the stool,” he said.

Dr. Peek agreed that the recent approval of vonoprazan-based therapies “adds another regimen to the therapeutic armamentarium available for eradicating H. pylori, and its value seems to be particularly beneficial for eradication failures.”

The research was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Chey is a board member of the American College of Gastroenterology, GI on Demand, the International Foundation of Functional GI Disorders, and the Rome Foundation. He has received compensation as a consultant from AbbVie, Alfasigma, Allakos, Alnylam, Bayer, BioAmerica, Cosmo, Intrinsic Medicine, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, QOL Medical, Nestle, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, RedHill Biopharma, Salix/Valeant, Takeda, Urovant, and Vibrant; grant/research support from BioAmerica, Commonwealth Diagnostics International, QOL Medical, Salix, and Vibrant; owns stock/stock options in GI on Demand and Modify Health; and owns patents relating to methods and kits for identifying food sensitivities and intolerances, digital manometry, and a rectal expulsion device. Dr. Peek and Dr. Kim report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions, and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of the gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, including AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions, and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of the gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, including AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions, and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of the gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, including AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, include AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, include AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, include AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are characterized by GI signs or symptoms occurring along with tissue eosinophilia. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the more commonly recognized EGID as endoscopic and histopathologic diagnostic criteria have long been established. Because of a lack of consensus on biopsy protocols, poorly understood histopathologic diagnostic criteria, and vague, nonspecific gastrointestinal complaints, patients with non-EoE EGIDs go unrecognized for years. Because of this, there is increasing emphasis on better defining rare, distal eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (i.e., eosinophilic gastritis, enteritis, and colitis).

EGID nomenclature was standardized in 2022 in part to minimize vague terminology (i.e., eosinophilic gastroenteritis) and to provide more specific information about the location of eosinophilic disease. The 2022 nomenclature suggest that EGID be used as the umbrella term for all GI luminal eosinophilia (without a known cause) but with emphasis on the site of specific eosinophilic involvement (i.e., eosinophilic gastritis or eosinophilic gastritis and colitis). Importantly, there is much work to be done to adequately identify patients suffering from EGIDs. Symptoms are variable, ranging from abdominal pain, bloating, and nausea seen in proximal disease to loose stools and hematochezia in more distal involvement. Signs of disease, such as iron or other nutrient deficiencies and protein loss, may also occur. Endoscopic findings can vary from erythema, granularity, erosions, ulcerations, and blunting to even normal-appearing tissue. In eosinophilic gastritis, Ikuo Hirano, MD, and colleagues demonstrated that increasing endoscopic inflammatory findings in the stomach correlate with assessment of disease severity. Regardless of endoscopic findings, numerous biopsies are needed for the diagnosis of EGIDs because, as already established in EoE, eosinophil involvement is patchy. Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, and Evan Dellon, MD, found that a minimum of four biopsies each in the gastric antrum, gastric body, and small bowel are needed to detect disease. Optimal biopsy patterns have not yet been determined for eosinophilic ileitis or colitis.

Despite these advances, there is more work to be performed. Although these disease states are termed “eosinophilic,” the immunopathology driving these diseases is multifactorial, involving lymphocytes and mast cells and creating different phenotypes of disease in a similar fashion to inflammatory bowel disease. Current therapies being studied include eosinophil-depleting medications along with others targeting T2 immune pathways. Patients may need multiple therapeutic options, and personalized medicine will soon play a larger role in defining treatments. For now, researchers are fervently working on improved methods to identify, phenotype, and treat these morbid disorders.
 

Dr. Peterson is associate professor of gastroenterology at University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City. She has no relevant conflicts of interest. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2022.

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are characterized by GI signs or symptoms occurring along with tissue eosinophilia. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the more commonly recognized EGID as endoscopic and histopathologic diagnostic criteria have long been established. Because of a lack of consensus on biopsy protocols, poorly understood histopathologic diagnostic criteria, and vague, nonspecific gastrointestinal complaints, patients with non-EoE EGIDs go unrecognized for years. Because of this, there is increasing emphasis on better defining rare, distal eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (i.e., eosinophilic gastritis, enteritis, and colitis).

EGID nomenclature was standardized in 2022 in part to minimize vague terminology (i.e., eosinophilic gastroenteritis) and to provide more specific information about the location of eosinophilic disease. The 2022 nomenclature suggest that EGID be used as the umbrella term for all GI luminal eosinophilia (without a known cause) but with emphasis on the site of specific eosinophilic involvement (i.e., eosinophilic gastritis or eosinophilic gastritis and colitis). Importantly, there is much work to be done to adequately identify patients suffering from EGIDs. Symptoms are variable, ranging from abdominal pain, bloating, and nausea seen in proximal disease to loose stools and hematochezia in more distal involvement. Signs of disease, such as iron or other nutrient deficiencies and protein loss, may also occur. Endoscopic findings can vary from erythema, granularity, erosions, ulcerations, and blunting to even normal-appearing tissue. In eosinophilic gastritis, Ikuo Hirano, MD, and colleagues demonstrated that increasing endoscopic inflammatory findings in the stomach correlate with assessment of disease severity. Regardless of endoscopic findings, numerous biopsies are needed for the diagnosis of EGIDs because, as already established in EoE, eosinophil involvement is patchy. Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, and Evan Dellon, MD, found that a minimum of four biopsies each in the gastric antrum, gastric body, and small bowel are needed to detect disease. Optimal biopsy patterns have not yet been determined for eosinophilic ileitis or colitis.

Despite these advances, there is more work to be performed. Although these disease states are termed “eosinophilic,” the immunopathology driving these diseases is multifactorial, involving lymphocytes and mast cells and creating different phenotypes of disease in a similar fashion to inflammatory bowel disease. Current therapies being studied include eosinophil-depleting medications along with others targeting T2 immune pathways. Patients may need multiple therapeutic options, and personalized medicine will soon play a larger role in defining treatments. For now, researchers are fervently working on improved methods to identify, phenotype, and treat these morbid disorders.
 

Dr. Peterson is associate professor of gastroenterology at University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City. She has no relevant conflicts of interest. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2022.

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are characterized by GI signs or symptoms occurring along with tissue eosinophilia. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the more commonly recognized EGID as endoscopic and histopathologic diagnostic criteria have long been established. Because of a lack of consensus on biopsy protocols, poorly understood histopathologic diagnostic criteria, and vague, nonspecific gastrointestinal complaints, patients with non-EoE EGIDs go unrecognized for years. Because of this, there is increasing emphasis on better defining rare, distal eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (i.e., eosinophilic gastritis, enteritis, and colitis).

EGID nomenclature was standardized in 2022 in part to minimize vague terminology (i.e., eosinophilic gastroenteritis) and to provide more specific information about the location of eosinophilic disease. The 2022 nomenclature suggest that EGID be used as the umbrella term for all GI luminal eosinophilia (without a known cause) but with emphasis on the site of specific eosinophilic involvement (i.e., eosinophilic gastritis or eosinophilic gastritis and colitis). Importantly, there is much work to be done to adequately identify patients suffering from EGIDs. Symptoms are variable, ranging from abdominal pain, bloating, and nausea seen in proximal disease to loose stools and hematochezia in more distal involvement. Signs of disease, such as iron or other nutrient deficiencies and protein loss, may also occur. Endoscopic findings can vary from erythema, granularity, erosions, ulcerations, and blunting to even normal-appearing tissue. In eosinophilic gastritis, Ikuo Hirano, MD, and colleagues demonstrated that increasing endoscopic inflammatory findings in the stomach correlate with assessment of disease severity. Regardless of endoscopic findings, numerous biopsies are needed for the diagnosis of EGIDs because, as already established in EoE, eosinophil involvement is patchy. Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, and Evan Dellon, MD, found that a minimum of four biopsies each in the gastric antrum, gastric body, and small bowel are needed to detect disease. Optimal biopsy patterns have not yet been determined for eosinophilic ileitis or colitis.

Despite these advances, there is more work to be performed. Although these disease states are termed “eosinophilic,” the immunopathology driving these diseases is multifactorial, involving lymphocytes and mast cells and creating different phenotypes of disease in a similar fashion to inflammatory bowel disease. Current therapies being studied include eosinophil-depleting medications along with others targeting T2 immune pathways. Patients may need multiple therapeutic options, and personalized medicine will soon play a larger role in defining treatments. For now, researchers are fervently working on improved methods to identify, phenotype, and treat these morbid disorders.
 

Dr. Peterson is associate professor of gastroenterology at University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City. She has no relevant conflicts of interest. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2022.