Optimal Assessment, Treatment, and Monitoring of Adults with Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Strategies to Improve Outcomes.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic type 2 inflammation-mediated disease characterized by an eosinophil-predominant inflammation of the esophagus and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. Relevant treatment outcomes in the setting of EoE include the improvement of histology, symptoms, and endoscopy findings, quality of life (QoL), and the psychological burden of the disease. Established validated tools for the assessment of EoE include questionnaires on dysphagia and QoL (ie, DSQ, EEsAI, and EoE-IQ). More recently, esophageal symptom-specific anxiety and hypervigilance, assessed using the esophageal hypervigilance and anxiety scale (EHAS), have emerged as contributors to disease burden, confirming the importance of psychological aspects in EoE patients. The EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS) is the only validated endoscopy score in EoE and can quantify mucosal disease burden. However, esophageal panometry using the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) and high-resolution manometry (HRM) have shown potential to optimize the assessment of fibrostenotic features of EoE, providing novel insights into the pathophysiology of symptoms. There is a growing number of licenced and off-label therapeutic options in EoE, with various randomized controlled trials demonstrating the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors, topical steroids, food elimination diets, biological drugs, and esophageal dilatation. However, standardized optimal management strategies of EoE are currently lacking. In this review, we provide an overview of established and novel assessment tools in EoE including patient reported outcomes, FLIP panometry, HRM, endoscopy, and histology outcome measures to improve the outcomes of EoE patients. In addition, we summarize available therapeutic options for EoE based on the most recent evidence.

Informations de copyright

© 2024 Visaggi et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

PV: Has served as speaker for Dr Falk Pharma, Malesci, JB Pharma; MG: Has served as speaker for Sanofi; EV: lecture or consultancy fees from Alfasigma, Dr Falk Pharma, Malesci, Sanofi; AP has served as consultant for Fenix Pharma; EM: Dr Falk and alfaSigma; NdB: Lectures fees from Malesci and Reckitt Benckiser, grant for speech from SANOFI-Genzyme and grants from DrFalk; EVS: has received lecture or consultancy fees from reports personal fees from AbbVie, Abivax, Agave, AGPharma, Alfasigma, CaDiGroup, Celltrion, Dr Falk, EG Stada Group, Fenix Pharma, Galapagos, Johnson&Johnson, JB Pharmaceuticals, Innovamedica/Adacyte, Eli Lilly, Malesci, Mayoly Biohealth, Omega Pharma, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Sandoz, SILA, Sofar, Takeda, Tillots, Unifarco, grants from Bonollo, Difass, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, SILA, Sofar, Unifarco, Zeta Farmaceutici, personal fees from AbbVie, Agave, Alfasigma, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Dr. Falk, Eli Lilly, Fenix Pharma, Johnson&Johnson, JB Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Nestlè, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Regeneron, Sanofi, SILA, Sofar, Takeda, Unifarco, during the conduct of the study. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.