Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a clinicopathologic condition of increasing recognition and prevalence. In 2007, a consensus recommendation provided clinical and histopathologic guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of EoE; however, only a minority of physicians use the 2007 guidelines, which require fulfillment of both histologic and clinical features. Since 2007, the number of EoE publications has doubled, providing new disease insight. Accordingly, a panel of 33 physicians with expertise in pediatric and adult allergy/immunology, gastroenterology, and pathology conducted a systematic review of the EoE literature (since September 2006) using electronic databases. Based on the literature review and expertise of the panel, information and recommendations were provided in each of the following areas of EoE: diagnostics, genetics, allergy testing, therapeutics, and disease complications. Because accumulating animal and human data have provided evidence that EoE appears to be an antigen-driven immunologic process that involves multiple pathogenic pathways, a new conceptual definition is proposed highlighting that EoE represents a chronic, immune/antigen-mediated disease characterized clinically by symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction and histologically by eosinophil-predominant inflammation. The diagnostic guidelines continue to define EoE as an isolated chronic disorder of the esophagus diagnosed by the need of both clinical and pathologic features. Patients commonly have high rates of concurrent allergic diatheses, especially food sensitization, compared with the general population. Proved therapeutic options include chronic dietary elimination, topical corticosteroids, and esophageal dilation. Important additions since 2007 include genetic underpinnings that implicate EoE susceptibility caused by polymorphisms in the thymic stromal lymphopoietin protein gene and the description of a new potential disease phenotype, proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophila. Further advances and controversies regarding diagnostic methods, surrogate disease markers, allergy testing, and treatment approaches are discussed.

Introduction: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is one of the most prevalent esophageal diseases and the leading cause of dysphagia and food impaction in children and young adults. This underlines the importance of optimizing diagnosys and treatment of the condition, especially after the increasing amount of knowledge on EoE recently published. Therefore, the UEG, EAACI ESPGHAN, and EUREOS deemed it necessary to update the current guidelines regarding conceptual and epidemiological aspects, diagnosis, and treatment of EoE. Methods: General methodology according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used in order to comply with current standards of evidence assessment in formulation of recommendations. An extensive literature search was conducted up to August 2015 and periodically updated. The working group consisted of gastroenterologists, allergists, pediatricians, otolaryngologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists. Systematic evidence-based reviews were performed based upon relevant clinical questions with respect to patient-important outcomes. Results: The guidelines include updated concept of EoE, evaluated information on disease epidemiology, risk factors, associated conditions, and natural history of EoE in children and adults. Diagnostic conditions and criteria, the yield of diagnostic and disease monitoring procedures, and evidence-based statements and recommendation on the utility of the several treatment options for patients EoE are provided. Recommendations on how to choose and implement treatment and long-term management are provided based on expert opinion and best clinical practice. Conclusion: Evidence-based recommendations for EoE diagnosis, treatment modalities, and patients' follow up are proposed in the guideline.

These guidelines provide a practical and evidence-based resource for the management of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related early neoplasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was followed to provide a methodological strategy for the guideline development. A systematic review of the literature was performed for English language articles published up until December 2012 in order to address controversial issues in Barrett's oesophagus including definition, screening and diagnosis, surveillance, pathological grading for dysplasia, management of dysplasia, and early cancer including training requirements. The rigour and quality of the studies was evaluated using the SIGN checklist system. Recommendations on each topic were scored by each author using a five-tier system (A+, strong agreement, to D+, strongly disagree). Statements that failed to reach substantial agreement among authors, defined as >80% agreement (A or A+), were revisited and modified until substantial agreement (>80%) was reached. In formulating these guidelines, we took into consideration benefits and risks for the population and national health system, as well as patient perspectives. For the first time, we have suggested stratification of patients according to their estimated cancer risk based on clinical and histopathological criteria. In order to improve communication between clinicians, we recommend the use of minimum datasets for reporting endoscopic and pathological findings. We advocate endoscopic therapy for high-grade dysplasia and early cancer, which should be performed in high-volume centres. We hope that these guidelines will standardise and improve management for patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia. PURPOSE AND METHODSThe purpose of this guideline is to provide a practical and evidence-based resource for the management of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related early neoplasia. This document is therefore aimed at gastroenterologists, physicians and nurse practitioners, as well as members of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs; surgeons, radiologists, pathologists), who take decisions on the management of such patients. The population covered by these guidelines includes: patients with gastrooesophageal reflux disease or other risk factors for Barrett's (obesity, family history for Barrett's and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC)); every patient with incident or prevalent Barrett's oesophagus regardless of their age, sex or comorbidities; patients with early OAC and patients with intestinal metaplasia (IM) at the gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) with no endoscopic evidence of Barrett's oesophagus. The previous British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) development of the guidelines and to aid assessment of the quality of the guidelines. Three appraisers in the author list assessed the compliance of the guidelines to the AGREE II domains. As part of the AGREE II criteria, external review of this manuscript was also performed by two internationally renowne...

EoE should be diagnosed when there are symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (or approximately 60 eosinophils per mm) on esophageal biopsy and after a comprehensive assessment of non-EoE disorders that could cause or potentially contribute to esophageal eosinophilia. The evidence suggests that PPIs are better classified as a treatment for esophageal eosinophilia that may be due to EoE than as a diagnostic criterion, and we have developed updated consensus criteria for EoE that reflect this change.

BACKGROUND & AIMS Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) is increasingly common among patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE). We aimed to provide consensus recommendations based on the medical literature that clinicians could use to manage patients with BE and low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or early-stage EA. METHODS We performed an international, multidisciplinary, systematic, evidence-based review of different management strategies for patients with BE and dysplasia or early-stage EA. We used a Delphi process to develop consensus statements. The results of literature searches were screened using a unique, interactive, Web-based data-sifting platform; we used 11,904 papers to inform the choice of statements selected. An a priori threshold of 80% agreement was used to establish consensus for each statement. RESULTS Eighty-one of the 91 statements achieved consensus despite generally low quality of evidence, including 8 clinical statements: (1) specimens from endoscopic resection are better than biopsies for staging lesions, (2) it is important to carefully map the size of the dysplastic areas, (3) patients that receive ablative or surgical therapy require endoscopic follow-up, (4) high-resolution endoscopy is necessary for accurate diagnosis, (5) endoscopic therapy for HGD is preferred to surveillance, (6) endoscopic therapy for HGD is preferred to surgery, (7) the combination of endoscopic resection and radiofrequency ablation is the most effective therapy, and (8) after endoscopic removal of lesions from patients with HGD, all areas of BE should be ablated. CONCLUSIONS We developed a data-sifting platform and used the Delphi process to create evidence-based consensus statements for the management of patients with BE and early-stage EA. This approach identified important clinical features of the diseases and areas for future studies.

BackgroundBarrett's esophagus (BE) is a commonly undiagnosed condition that predisposes to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Routine endoscopic screening for BE is not recommended because of the burden this would impose on the health care system. The objective of this study was to determine whether a novel approach using a minimally invasive cell sampling device, the Cytosponge, coupled with immunohistochemical staining for the biomarker Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3), could be used to identify patients who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE.Methods and FindingsA case–control study was performed across 11 UK hospitals between July 2011 and December 2013. In total, 1,110 individuals comprising 463 controls with dyspepsia and reflux symptoms and 647 BE cases swallowed a Cytosponge prior to endoscopy. The primary outcome measures were to evaluate the safety, acceptability, and accuracy of the Cytosponge-TFF3 test compared with endoscopy and biopsy.In all, 1,042 (93.9%) patients successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, and no serious adverse events were attributed to the device. The Cytosponge was rated favorably, using a visual analogue scale, compared with endoscopy (p < 0.001), and patients who were not sedated for endoscopy were more likely to rate the Cytosponge higher than endoscopy (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.001). The overall sensitivity of the test was 79.9% (95% CI 76.4%–83.0%), increasing to 87.2% (95% CI 83.0%–90.6%) for patients with ≥3 cm of circumferential BE, known to confer a higher cancer risk. The sensitivity increased to 89.7% (95% CI 82.3%–94.8%) in 107 patients who swallowed the device twice during the study course. There was no loss of sensitivity in patients with dysplasia. The specificity for diagnosing BE was 92.4% (95% CI 89.5%–94.7%). The case–control design of the study means that the results are not generalizable to a primary care population. Another limitation is that the acceptability data were limited to a single measure.ConclusionsThe Cytosponge-TFF3 test is safe and acceptable, and has accuracy comparable to other screening tests. This test may be a simple and inexpensive approach to identify patients with reflux symptoms who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE.

BACKGROUND & AIMS It is not clear whether symptoms alone can be used to estimate the biologic activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate whether symptoms can be used to identify patients with endoscopic and histologic features of remission. METHODS Between April 2011 and June 2014, we performed a prospective, observational study and recruited 269 consecutive adults with EoE (67% male; median age, 39 years old) in Switzerland and the United States. Patients first completed the validated symptom-based EoE activity index patient-reported outcome instrument and then underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsy collection. Endoscopic and histologic findings were evaluated with a validated grading system and standardized instrument, respectively. Clinical remission was defined as symptom score <20 (range, 0 100); histologic remission was defined as a peak count of <20 eosinophils/ mm2 in a high-power field (corresponds to approximately <5 eosinophils/median high-power field); and endoscopic remission as absence of white exudates, moderate or severe rings, strictures, or combination of furrows and edema. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis to determine the best symptom score cutoff values for detection of remission. RESULTS Of the study subjects, 111 were in clinical remission (41.3%), 79 were in endoscopic remission (29.7%), and 75 were in histologic remission (27.9%). When the symptom score was used as a continuous variable, patients in endoscopic, histologic, and combined (endoscopic and histologic remission) remission were detected with area under the curve values of 0.67, 0.60, and 0.67, respectively. A symptom score of 20 identified patients in endoscopic remission with 65.1% accuracy and histologic remission with 62.1% accuracy; a symptom score of 15 identified patients with both types of remission with 67.7% accuracy. CONCLUSIONS In patients with EoE, endoscopic or histologic remission can be identified with only modest accuracy based on symptoms alone. At any given time, physicians cannot rely on lack of symptoms to make assumptions about lack of biologic disease activity in adults with EoE. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT00939263.

Barrett’s Esophagus is an increasingly common disease that is strongly associated with reflux of stomach acid and usually a hiatus hernia. Barrett’s Esophagus strongly predisposes to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a tumour with a very poor prognosis. We have undertaken the first genome-wide association study on Barrett’s Esophagus, comprising 1,852 UK cases and 5,172 UK controls in discovery and 5,986 cases and 12,825 controls in the replication. Two regions were associated with disease risk: chromosome 6p21, rs9257809 (Pcombined=4.09×10−9, OR(95%CI) =1.21(1.13-1.28)) and chromosome 16q24, rs9936833 (Pcombined=2.74×10−10, OR(95%CI) =1.14(1.10-1.19)). The top SNP on chromosome 6p21 is within the major histocompatibility complex, and the closest protein-coding gene to rs9936833 on chromosome 16q24 is FOXF1, which is implicated in esophageal development and structure. We found evidence that the genetic component of Barrett’s Esophagus is mediated by many common variants of small effect and that SNP alleles predisposing to obesity also increase risk for Barrett’s Esophagus.