Background & Aims Gene expression profiling provides an opportunity for definitive diagnosis but has not yet been well applied to inflammatory diseases. Herein, we describe an approach for diagnosis of an emerging form of esophagitis, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), currently diagnosed by histology and clinical symptoms. Methods We developed an EoE diagnostic panel (EDP), comprising a 96-gene quantitative PCR array and an associated dual-algorithm that uses cluster analysis and dimensionality reduction, using a cohort of randomly selected esophageal biopsy samples from pediatric patients with EoE (n = 15) or without EoE (non-EoE controls, n = 14), subsequently vetted using a separate cohort of 194 pediatric and adult patient samples derived from both fresh or formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue: active EoE (n = 91), control (non-EoE and EoE remission, n = 57), histologically ambiguous (n = 34), and reflux (n = 12) samples. Results The EDP identified adult and pediatric patients with EoE with ~96% sensitivity and ~98% specificity, and distinguished patients with EoE in remission from controls, as well as identified patients exposed to swallowed glucorticoids. The EDP could be used with FFPE tissue RNA and distinguished patients with EoE from those with reflux esophagitis, identified by pH-impedance testing. Preliminary evidence showed that the EDP could identify patients likely to have disease relapse following treatment. Conclusions We developed a molecular diagnostic test (referred as the EDP) that identifies patients with esophagitis in a fast, objective, and mechanistic manner, offering an opportunity to improve diagnosis and treatment, and a platform approach for other inflammatory diseases.

To evaluate the trend in Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) among hospitalized children in the United States and to evaluate the severity of and risk factors associated with these cases of CDI.

INTRODUCTION: Functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) panometry can evaluate esophageal motility in response to sustained esophageal distension at the time of sedated endoscopy. This study aimed to describe a classification of esophageal motility using FLIP panometry and evaluate it against high-resolution manometry (HRM) and Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0). METHODS: Five hundred thirty-nine adult patients who completed FLIP and HRM with a conclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis were included in the primary analysis. Thirty-five asymptomatic volunteers (“controls”) and 148 patients with an inconclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis or systemic sclerosis were also described. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening and the contractile response (CR) to distension (i.e., secondary peristalsis) were evaluated with a 16-cm FLIP during sedated endoscopy and analyzed using a customized software program. HRM was classified according to CCv4.0. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 156 patients (29%) had normal motility on FLIP panometry, defined by normal EGJ opening and a normal or borderline CR; 95% of these patients had normal motility or ineffective esophageal motility on HRM. Two hundred two patients (37%) had obstruction with weak CR, defined as reduced EGJ opening and absent CR or impaired/disordered CR, on FLIP panometry; 92% of these patients had a disorder of EGJ outflow per CCv4.0. DISCUSSION: Classifying esophageal motility in response to sustained distension with FLIP panometry parallels the swallow-associated motility evaluation provided with HRM and CCv4.0. Thus, FLIP panometry serves as a well-tolerated method that can complement, or in some cases be an alternative to HRM, for evaluating esophageal motility disorders.

Background The Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Symptom Score (PEESS® v2.0) measures patient-relevant outcomes. However, whether patient-identified domains (dysphagia, gastrointestinal reflux disease (GERD), nausea/vomiting, and pain) align with clinical symptomology and histopathologic and molecular features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is unclear. Objective The purpose of this study was to determine if clinical features of EoE, measured through the PEESS® v2.0, associate with histopathologic and molecular features of EoE. This represents a novel approach for analysis of allergic diseases, given the availability of allergic tissue biopsy specimens. Methods We systematically recruited treated and untreated, pediatric patients with EoE (aged 2–18 years) and examined parent proxy–reported symptoms using the PEESS® v2.0. Clinical symptomology was collected by questionnaire. Esophageal biopsy samples were quantified for levels of eosinophils, eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) immunohistochemical staining, and mast cells. Molecular features were assessed by the EoE Diagnostic Panel (94 EoE-related gene transcripts). Associations between domain scores and clinical symptoms and biologic features were analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Spearman correlation. Results The PEESS® v2.0 domains correlated to specific parent-reported symptoms: dysphagia (p = 0.0012), GERD (p = 0.0001), and nausea/vomiting (p < 0.0001). Pain correlated with multiple symptoms (p < 0.0005). Dysphagia correlated most strongly with overall histopathology, particularly in the proximal esophagus (p ≤ 0.0049). Markers of esophageal activity (EPX) were significantly associated with dysphagia (strongest r = .37; p = 0.02). Eosinophil levels were more associated with pain (r = 0.27; p=0.06) than for dysphagia (r = 0.24; p = 0.13). The dysphagia domain correlated the most with esophageal gene transcript levels, predominantly with mast cell–specific genes. Conclusion We have 1) established a validated, parent proxy–report measure for pediatric EoE — the PEESS® v2.0; 2) verified that parent-proxy effectively captures symptoms; 3) determined that the dysphagia domain most closely aligns with symptoms and tissue-based molecular biomarkers; 4) established that symptoms correlate EPX staining; and 5) observed association between mast cells and dysphagia.

This review highlights some of the recent advances in pediatric esophageal and antroduodenal motility testing including indications, preparation, performance, and interpretation of the tests. This update is the second part of a two part series on manometry studies in children (first part was on anorectal and colonic manometry [Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;29:e12944]), and has been endorsed by the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) and the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society (ANMS).

Hospitalized children and adolescents with IBD are at increased risk for TE. Conservative methods of TE prevention including hydration, mobilization, or pneumatic devices should be considered in hospitalized patients with IBD.

Daily, frequent fecal soiling after pull-through surgery for HSCR may be due to colonic hyperactivity in some children. It is imperative that this unique subset be identified because the management strategy would include avoidance of laxatives, contrary to standard current practice.

The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society Task Force recommends that gastrointestinal motility procedures should be performed in motility laboratories adhering to the strict recommendations and personal protective equipment (PPE) measures to protect patients, ancillary staff, and motility allied health professionals. When available and within constraints of institutional guidelines, it is preferable for patients scheduled for motility procedures to complete a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test within 48 hours before their procedure, similar to the recommendations before endoscopy made by gastroenterology societies. COVID-19 test results must be documented before performing procedures. If procedures are to be performed without a COVID-19 test, full PPE use is recommended, along with all social distancing and infection control measures. Because patients with suspected motility disorders may require multiple procedures, sequential scheduling of procedures should be considered to minimize need for repeat COVID-19 testing. The strategies for and timing of procedure(s) should be adapted, taking into consideration local institutional standards, with the provision for screening without testing in low prevalence areas. If tested positive for COVID-19, subsequent negative testing may be required before scheduling a motility procedure (timing is variable). Specific recommendations for each motility procedure including triaging, indications, PPE use, and alternatives to motility procedures are detailed in the document. These recommendations may evolve as understanding of virus transmission and prevalence of COVID-19 infection in the community changes over the upcoming months.