Abstract
Objectives
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is characterized by remissions and relapses. Guidelines defining remission do not exist and therefore remission is inconsistently identified.. We sought to define histology remission in EoE.
Methods
Esophageal biopsies, obtained at the time the validated pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis symptoms scores v2.0 (PEESS v2.0) questionnaire was completed (N=42), were scored using the validated eosinophilic esophagitis histology scoring system (EoEHSS). An EoE histology remission score (EoEHRS) was constructed and specified that in all esophageal sites sampled the peak eosinophil count (PEC) was <15 per high power field (HPF); in addition, neither the total grade (severity of pathology) nor stage (extent of pathology) scores could exceed 3 (possible total maximum score for each was 24). Spearman correlation coefficients were generated for histology/symptom correlations; coefficient range 0.31–0.50 was considered moderate.
Results
EoEHSS composite and individual feature scores from proximal and distal esophageal biopsies correlated moderately with PEESS v2.0 mean scores (0.48–0.36, P<0.01), and with scores in the dysphagia (0. 39–0.30, P≤0.01), pain (0.48–0.34, P≤0.01) and GERD (0.51–0.32, P≤0.01) domains Biopsies that met full EoEHRS criteria had reduced biomarkers, specifically expression of the mast cell markers CPA3 and tryptase mRNA, and reduced eosinophil peroxidase deposition (P<0.03), compared to those with non-remission scores. Subjects whose biopsies met EoEHRS remission criteria reported reduced symptoms for all domains except nausea and vomiting (P≤0.01).
Conclusions
The EoEHRS correlated with reduced biomarkers of disease activity and reduced symptoms, and therefore may be useful to inform clinical care and inter-study comparisons.
Keywords: pathology, pediatric, scale
INTRODUCTION
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disorder characterized by remissions and relapses. The goals of therapy in clinical care and research are to reduce eosinophil density below the threshold value for diagnosis, i.e. 15 eosinophils per high power field (HPF), and to reduce symptoms. However, although there are guidelines for diagnosis, 1–6 guidelines for defining EoE remission do not exist despite inconsistency in remission identification, and potentially inaccurate interstudy comparisons, especially of randomized clinical trials.7,8
An EoE histology remission score (EoEHRS) should signify improved pathology, including pathologic changes other than eosinophil density. We reported the validated EoE histology scoring system (EoEHSS) that evaluates multiple histopathologic features in esophageal biopsies and showed that it outperformed peak eosinophil count (PEC) to discriminate therapy-naïve patients from those who had received EoE treatment.9 We and others have reported very good to excellent interobserver agreement scores, demonstrating that the EoEHSS is reliable,9,10 and the EoEHSS may have broad applications such as studies of peanut allergy.11 The responsiveness of the EoEHSS has been documented in randomized clinical trials.12,13
We therefore sought an EoEHRS derived from the EoEHSS that would correlate with reduced symptoms, and with other biomarkers of disease activity.
METHODS
We recently reported the validated PEESSv2.0 thatasks 20 questions divided into domains based on user feedback: dysphagia, nausea and vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and pain.14 Frequency and severity of symptoms are reported; higher scores indicate greater symptom frequency and severity. We found that parent proxy PEESS v2.0 scores correlated significantly with patient scores (ρ=0.58–0.78, P<0.0001–0.005), a finding confirmed in our more recent study,15 and used parent proxy scores for the study reported herein. The EoEHSS instrument evaluates 8 features in esophageal biopsies (Table Supplemental Digital Content 1 lists features and shows definitions). The severity of the features (grade) and the extent of the alterations (stage) are scored separately. Biopsies obtained at the time PEESS v2.0 symptoms scores were acquired were evaluated in the usual manner for clinical care and were subsequently scored by one pathologist (MHC) using the EoEHSS. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
EoEHRS
Our goal was to identify a histology remission score using validated symptoms and histology scoring tools, and to compare the remission score to other activity biomarkers. A cohort having all these data comprised the subjects who participated in the construction of the PEESSv2.0 validated symptom scoring tool. Forty-two of those 46 subjects14 completed PEESSv2.0 questionnaires ≤30 days of the date that biopsies used for this study were obtained (most were completed on the day of the concurrent endoscopy), and 16 subjects had 2 study visits meeting this criterion. Not all slides were available for review, and recut slides could not be obtained for some because of exhausted paraffin blocks. We therefore used data from 58 sets of biopsies (116 biopsies total) from 42/46 subjects14 for the remission score analysis with symptoms correlations. We used the validated EoEHSS to define histology remission. Each feature in the EoEHSS is scored on a scale of 0–3 (0 = normal, 3 = most marked change). Extensive personal experience (MHC) reviewing EoE biopsies reveals that a total grade or stage score ≤3 is frequent after therapy. A common goal for EoE therapy is to reduce eosinophil inflammation, specifically to PEC <15/HPF, the threshold value for EoE diagnosis. Therefore we decided that the remission score would include BOTH grade and stage scores ≤3 AND scores defining PEC <15/HPF. To accomplish this, grade score could be 0 (signifying no intraepithelial eosinophils) or 1 (signifying 1–14 eosinophils/HPF), but not higher than 1 because those scores correspond to PEC ≥15 /HPF (Table Supplemental Digital Content 1 shows EoEHSS scores for eosinophilic inflammation). The stage score for PEC <15 /HPF is 0, and was required for remission. Eosinophil inflammation was the only EoEHSS score for which a limit was set to define remission; grade scores for all other features that exceeded 1 did not disqualify a biopsy from remission status so long as the total grade score was ≤3 (Table Supplemental Digital Content 2 illustrates remission calculations). To determine the effect on symptoms of remission at one vs both sites, full remission was defined as EoEHRS scores showing remission in proximal and distal biopsies, and partial remission was defined as an EoEHRS remission score in one but not both sites. To summarize, histology remission was defined as grade score ≤3 (score for eosinophil inflammation must be ≤1), and stage score ≤3 ( score for eosinophil inflammation must = 0).
Biologic Measures of Disease Activity
These methods are reported in detail in the supplemental information of our prior work and included mast cell evaluations and eosinophil protein deposition scoring.14 For these analyses, paraffin blocks from both proximal and distal biopsies were available for 40/42 subjects. Briefly, slides were stained with antibody to tryptase (Cell Marque, Rocklin, CA) or chymase (AbD Serotec, Raleigh, NC). Immunohistochemistry for eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) was performed as previously described using an eosinophil-specific mouse monoclonal antibody (Clone: MM25–82.2.1).16 For genetic markers of disease activity, total RNA was extracted from distal esophageal biopsies collected in RNAlater (Qiagen, 76104) using the miRNeasy RNA Extraction Kit (Qiagen, 217004) and an aliquot of 500 ng of RNA was acquired by the iScript cDNA Synthesis Kit (BioRad 170–8891) following the manufacturer’s manual protocol. Taqman real-time PCR amplification for tryptase and CPA3 was performed on an ABI 7900HT System (Applied Biosystems). Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) was used as an expression control.
Statistical Analyses
To evaluate the relationship between EoEHSS and PEESS v2.0 scores, we used Spearman nonparametric correlation. EoEHSS individual features and composites of features were compared with PEESS v2.0 mean and domain scores. Composite EoEHSS scores included mean grade or mean stage scores across all features; eosinophil composite score consisting of the mean grade or mean stage scores for the features that include eosinophils in the definition (eosinophil inflammation, eosinophil abscess, eosinophil surface layering, and surface epithelial alteration), and non-eosinophil composite score consisting of the mean grade or mean stage scores for the features that do not evaluate eosinophils (basal zone hyperplasia, dilated intercellular spaces, dyskeratotic epithelial cells, lamina propria fibrosis). Correlation coefficient range 0.00–0.30 was considered weak, 0.31–0.50 moderate, 0.51–0.80 strong and 0.81–1.00 very strong. We employed P-value threshold of ≤0.05 for significance since the EoEHSS features and PEESS domains exhibited substantial correlation. To compare subjects whose biopsies met remission criteria to subjects whose biopsies did not, Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were used.
RESULTS
Demographics
All 42 subjects were male and 41/42 (98%) were white. Median age at diagnosis was 4.04 (interquartile range (IQR) 2.5–8.5, range 0. 8–15.2) years, and median age at participation in this study was 6.8 (IQR 4. 9–11.3, 2.4–16.4) years. Most subjects (41/42, 98%) were receiving therapies to treat EoE (swallowed steroids, diet modifications or both).
EoEHSS scores correlated more strongly than PEC with PEESS v2.0 scores
Spearman correlations between the EoEHSS scores and the PEESSv2.0 domains revealed associations between total, dysphagia, pain and GERD, but not nausea and vomiting, scores and multiple scores of the EoEHSS (Table 1 shows significant correlations at P≤0.01; Table Supplemental Digital Content 3 shows significant correlations at P≤0.05, and Supplemental Digital Content 4 shows strongest symptom correlations for each EoEHSS feature). Specifically, moderate correlations occurred with the grade and stage scores for the overall grade composite score and the eosinophil composite score. Six individual features associated with symptoms, most frequently involving grade and stage scores for surface layering and eosinophil inflammation. Notably,pain scores correlated moderately with scores for both composites (0.48–0.37, P=<0.01) and for four individual features (surface epithelial alteration, surface layering, eosinophil inflammation and eosinophil abscesses) (0.45–0.34, P≤0.01). Notably, PEC exhibited moderate and significant correlations with total scores, and pain and GERD domains that generally were weaker than the EoEHSS correlations; PEC also correlated weakly and insignificantly with dysphagia in contrast to the moderate and significant correlations of EoEHSS scores. The consistent correlations of EoEHSS composite and individual scores with several symptoms domain scores suggest that pathologic alterations other than PEC may contribute to many of the symptoms associated with EoE.
Table 1:
Some EoEHSS Composite and Individual Feature Scores Correlate with PEESSv2 Scores. Numeric values are the Spearman correlation coefficient (P-value).
| EoEHSS | PEESS v2 Score* | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | Feature | Total | Dysphagia | Pain | GERD | |
| Composite | All | Grade (D) | 0.45 (<0.01) | 0.36 (<0.01) | 0.39 (<0.01) | 0.47 (<0.01) |
| Stage (D) | 0.45 (<0.01) | 0.37 (<0.01) | 0.37 (<0.01) | 0.48 (<0.01) | ||
| Grade (DP) | 0.38 (<0.01) | 0.44 (<0.01) | ||||
| Stage (DP) | 0.36 (<0.01) | 0.42 (<0.01) | ||||
| Eosinophil | Grade (DP) | 0.44 (<0.01) | 0.35 (<0.01) | 0.43 (<0.01) | 0.46 (<0.01) | |
| Grade (D) | 0.45 (<0.01) | 0.35 (<0.01) | 0.48 (<0.01) | 0.44 (<0.01) | ||
| Grade (P) | 0.36 (<0.01) | 0.30 (<0.01) | 0.40 (<0.01) | |||
| Stage (DP) | 0.45 (<0.01) | 0.37 (<0.01) | 0.40 (<0.01) | 0.45 (<0.01) | ||
| Stage (D) | 0.48 (<0.01) | 0.39 (<0.01) | 0.43 (<0.01) | 0.46 (<0.01) | ||
| Individual | Lamina Propria Fibrosis | Stage (D) | -- | -- | -- | 0.50 (<0.01) |
| Stage (P) | -- | -- | -- | 0.46 (<0.01) | ||
| Grade (D) | -- | -- | -- | 0.51 (<0.01) | ||
| Surface Epithelial Alteration | Grade (D) | 0.43 (<0.01) | -- | 0.45 (<0.01) | 0.36 (<0.01) | |
| Stage (D) | 0.42 (<0.01) | -- | 0.43 (<0.01) | 0.36 (<0.01) | ||
| Surface Layering | Grade (P) | 0.43 (<0.01) | 0.34 (<0.01) | 0.45 (<0.01) | -- | |
| Grade (D) | 0.37 (<0.01) | -- | 0.40 (<0.01) | -- | ||
| Stage (D) | 0.37 (<0.01) | -- | 0.40 (<0.01) | -- | ||
| Stage (P) | 0.43 (<0.01) | 0.34 (<0.01) | 0.45 (<0.01) | -- | ||
| Eosinophil Inflammation | Grade (D) | 0.39 (<0.01) | -- | 0.42 (<0.01) | 0.41 (<0.01) | |
| Stage (D) | 0.42 (<0.01) | 0.34 (<0.01) | 0.37 (<0.01) | 0.43 (<0.01) | ||
| Grade (P) | 0.34 (<0.01) | -- | -- | 0.41 (<0.01) | ||
| Stage (P) | -- | -- | -- | 0.32 (0.01) | ||
| Basal Layer Hyperplasia | Grade (D) | 0.38 (<0.01) | 0.34 (<0.01) | -- | 0.38 (<0.01) | |
| Stage (D) | 0.39 (<0.01) | 0.33 (0.01) | -- | 0.44 (<0.01) | ||
| Abscesses | Grade (D) | -- | 0.34 (<0.01) | -- | -- | |
| Stage (D) | -- | 0.33 (0.01) | -- | -- | ||
| Grade (P) | -- | -- | 0.34 (0.01) | -- | ||
| Stage (P) | -- | -- | 0.34 (0.01) | -- | ||
| Non-HSS: PEC | (D+P) | 0.35 (<0.01) | 0.25 (>0.05) | 0.37 (<0.01) | 0.41 (<0.01) | |
D, distal; DP, distal and proximal; P, proximal
EoEHRS scores correlate significantly with reduced symptoms scores
Histology remission was based on the overall level of histological abnormality such that the sum of the EoEHSS features could not exceed 3 for either grade or stage within a biopsy; in addition, grade and stage scores signified PEC≤15/HPF. Forty-four of 46 subjects14 had proximal and distal biopsies obtained at all endoscopies including additional endoscopies (see Table Supplemental Digital Content 8 for demographics). As expected given the definition of remission, the median PEC for those in remission (1 (0–3)/HPF) was significantly lower than the median for those not in remission (52.0 (27–87)/HPF, P < 0.0001). Also among these 44 subjects, 10 had biopsies with remission scores at any endoscopy, 26 subjects never achieved remission, and 8 had biopsies with both remission and non-remission scores. A total of 54 biopsies with PEC≤15/HPF (most with PEC≤6/HPF) were obtained from 21 subjects at one or more endoscopies. A total of 82 biopsies with PEC≥15/HPF were obtained from 30 subjects at one or more endoscopies, including 7 subjects who had biopsies with PEC≤15/HPF at a different endoscopy. Four subjects who had PEC≤15/HPF did not achieve remission due to the persistence of pathologic alterations other than PEC≥15/HPF. Being in histology remission was not associated with age at diagnosis or duration of disease.
Among the 42 subjects who had proximal and distal esophageal biopsies and a PEESSv2.0 questionnaire completed ≤30 days of endoscopy, total symptoms scores and scores for the dysphagia, pain and GERD, but not nausea and vomiting, domains as measured by PEESSv2.0 were significantly reduced in biopsies having remission scores determined by the EoEHRS (Table 2). Generally, partial remission PEESSv2.0 values were intermediate between full remission and no remission EoEHRS values for most symptoms, suggesting that full histologic remission is associated with greater symptom reduction than is partial remission (Table 3). For pain scores, partial remission symptom scores were almost identical to no remission scores strongly suggesting that more global remission is required for pain abatement. Conversely, compared to no remission, partial remission scores for GERD were significantly reduced, suggesting that global remission may not be as necessary for GERD symptom relief (Table Supplement Digital Content 5 shows possible clinical responses to remission scores).
Table 2:
PEESSv2.0 Scores (Median (IQR)) in Subjects with and without Histology Remission
| Remission (n = 17 subjects*, 38 biopsies) | Non-Remission (n =28 subjects*, 78 biopsies) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 17.5 (7.5–22.5) | 25 (13.8–38.8) | 0.014 |
| Dysphagia | 15.6 (9.4–25) | 25 (12.5–43.8) | 0.035 |
| Pain | 18.8 (8.3–25.0) | 31.3 (18.8–43.8) | 0.0075 |
| GERD | 6.3 (0–18.8) | 18.8 (6.3–31.3) | 0.047 |
| Nausea/Vomiting | 12.5 (0–31.3) | 18.8 (0–37.5) | 0.46 |
IQR, interquartile range
P-values for the comparison between groups using Wilcoxon Rank Sum
n=42 unique subjects and their 116 biopsies; 3 subjects had biopsies from 2 visits, 1 in remission and 1 in non-remission
Table 3.
PEESSv2.0 Scores (Median (IQR)) in Subjects with Full Remission (All Their Biopsies Had EoEHRS in Remission Scores) vs Partial Remission (One of Two of Their Biopsies Had EoEHRS in Remission Score).
| Full Remission (n = 17, 38 biopsies) | Partial Remission (n = 13, 30 biopsies) | No Remission (n = 18, 48 biopsies) | P-value Partial vs Full | P-value Partial vs No | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 17.5 (7.5 – 22.5) | 20 (7.5 – 38.8) | 26.3 (18.4 – 41.0) | 0.30 | 0.16 |
| Dysphagia | 15.6 (9.4 – 25) | 21.9 (6.3 – 35.7) | 26.6 (19.5 – 45.8) | 0.49 | 0.22 |
| Pain | 18.8 (8.3–25.0) | 31.3 (12.5 – 37.5) | 31.3 (25–43.8) | 0.081 | 0.56 |
| GERD | 6.3 (0–18.8) | 12.5 (0–25) | 25 (12.5 – 35.9) | 0.70 | 0.037 |
| Nausea/Vomiting | 12.5 (0–31.3) | 12.5 (0–37.5) | 21.9 (7.8 – 31.3) | 0.99 | 0.29 |
IQR, interquartile range
N=42 subjects; 6 subjects qualified for more than one classification (eg, biopsies showed full remission at one visit, but partial or no remission at a different visit).
Additional analyses showed some types of therapies were associated with significant reductions in some EoEHSS features (Table Supplemental Digital Content 6; Figure Supplemental Digital Content 1 scatter plots show symptoms/features relations by therapy) but this finding must be confirmed with larger studies. Also, symptoms scores and EoEHSS features scores are lower in biopsies with PEC <15/HPF compared to ≥15/HPF (Tables Supplemental Digital Content 7 and 8, respectively).
EoEHRS correlated with reduced biologic measures of disease activity
In our prior work with PEESSv2.0, we found both genetic and histologic EoE biomarkers were associated with symptoms.14 For histologic studies we used 80 biopsies from 40 subjects (all white males, age 6.5 (interquartile range 4.8–10.9) range 2.5–16.1 years). We now show that biopsies with EoEHRS had reduced CPA3 gene expression (P = 0.0022), and reduced tryptase gene expression (P = 0.0088) (Table4). In addition, biopsies with histologic remission had reduced numbers of tryptase-positive cells (P = 0.0005), reduced numbers of chymase-positive cells (P = 0.028), and reduced eosinophil peroxidase total staining value (P = 0.013) (Table4). These associations with reduced expressions of genetic and histologic biomarkers support the relevance of this histology remission score.
Table 4:
EoE Biologic Disease Activity (Median (IQR)) in Subjects with and without Histology Remission
| Remission (n = 8) | Non-Remission (n = 32) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPA3 gene expression | −1.9 (−2.7- −0.7) | 1.0 (−0.6 – 2.4) | 0.0022 |
| Tryptase gene expression | −1.5 (−2.3 - −0.2) | 0.8 (−0.7 – 2.0) | 0.0088 |
| Tryptase+ cells/HPF | 12.5 (7 – 31) | 44 (32.3 – 72.8) | 0.0005 |
| Chymase+ cells/HPF | 7.5 (4.5 – 19.3) | 29 (16 – 44) | 0.028 |
| Total EPX staining (distal) | 0 (0 −5.3) | 32 (0 – 46) | 0.013 |
IQR, interquartile range
P-values for the comparison between groups using Wilcoxon Rank Sum.
CPA3, carboxypeptidase A3; +, positive; HPF, high power field; EPX, eosinophil peroxidase
DISCUSSION
We report that the EoEHSS scores (composite and individual features) correlate, more strongly than PEC, with total symptoms scores, and dysphagia, GERD and pain domains scores, as measured by the validated PEESSv2.0 tool. The EoEHRS we identify is strongly associated with reduced markers of disease activity, and patients with biopsies showing EoEHRS have significantly lower symptoms scores.
EoEHRS correlates with reduced biomarker expression
An unmet need in EoE clinical care and research is determining therapeutic endpoints for children and adults. 7,8 Virtually all studies define histology remission based on a single pathologic feature, eosinophil density. 7,8 We suggest a histology remission score suitable for clinical care and research that evaluates pathology in addition to eosinophil density. Our EoEHRS requires PEC <15/HPF, and observed grade and stage scores that do not exceed 3. The recommendation is based on the extensive personal experience of one pathologist that may be unique and uncorroborated, but may also be valid and valuable, especially considering the significant relationships with reduced symptoms scores and biomarker levels.
Mast cells may be important markers of EoE disease activity.17.18 We show that remission biopsies have significantly reduced CPA3 and tryptase gene expression, and reduced tryptase-positive and chymase-positive cells. The validity of the definition of histology remission recommended herein is supported by significant reductions in mast cell biomarkers in biopsies meeting these remission criteria.
EoEHSS scores correlate with symptoms
Several single- and multi-institutional randomized clinical trials reported reduced eosinophil inflammation in esophageal biopsies following therapy for EoE, but not all reported corresponding improvements in clinical symptoms.12, 19–25 These data strongly suggest that a single aspect of esophageal biopsy pathology, eosinophil density, is not sufficient to explain EoE symptoms.
Herein we report that among all subjects in this study, we found moderate correlations between both composite and individual EoEHSS feature scores and 3of 4 PEESS v2.0 domains. Notably, many correlations occurred with the pain domain. Pain is an often persistent under-studied EoE symptom,26 and abdominal pain was reported by 47.8% of subjects in this study.14 Pain is not related exclusively to PEC because pediatric EoE patients with PEC <15/HPF reported pain as frequently as those with PEC ≥15/HPF.27 These data suggest that to alleviate pain reducing PEC is insufficient, but improving the pathology features measured by the EoEHSS may be beneficial.
The EoEHSS is used to score biopsies of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Researchers (CEGIR, www.rdcrn.org/cegir), a part of the Rare Disease Clinical Research Network (RDCRN).28 An observational CEGIR study of pediatric subjects found that EoEHSS composite scores correlated moderately with PEESSv2.0 scores (individual features correlations with symptoms were not studied) in proximal, but not distal, esophageal biopsies; 15in this study correlations with symptoms in both proximal and distal biopsies were found. In the CEGIR study there were correlations with GERD and nausea/vomiting PEESSv2.0 domains, whereas herein we report moderate correlations with mean scores, dysphagia, GERD and pain domains scores. Additional studies examining the relationship between EoEHSS scores and symptoms scores using validated instruments in various populations are required to further explore the relationships of EoEHSS with symptoms. Important implications of each study are that pathologic features other than PEC may be important in symptom generation, and those features should be evaluated before and after therapy, and symptoms are influenced by both the severity of the pathologic changes (grade) and the amount of tissue affected (stage). The CEGIR study did not uncover moderate correlations between histology and symptoms in biopsies from the distal esophagus, but such correlations were found in this study and we believe continuing to biopsy more than one site in the esophagus is prudent, especially considering the greater symptom reduction generally associated with full compared to partial remission..
We previously scored eosinophil peroxidase deposition in the biopsies reported in this study, and found significant correlations between those scores in distal esophageal biopsies and the PEESSv2.0 dysphagia domain.14,16 The current data were obtained using routine hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stains, not immunohistochemical stains that add to cost and turn-around time. The H&E-based analyses showed significant correlations in proximal as well as distal biopsies for EoEHSS scores with dysphagia PEESSv2.0 domain scores, and also mean and pain scores. Thus, the EoEHSS features more broadly correlate with symptoms than eosinophil granule deposition.
Study limitations
Although this study comprises a small number of subjects, it also comprises a substantial number of biopsies from a well-characterized cohort of pediatric EoE patients.. We performed many comparisons and thus the possibility exists that some of those significant correlations occurred by chance. Nevertheless, stronger correlations for EoEHSS features with symptoms compared to PEC may be clinically meaningful, and deserve attention and continued exploration.
Conclusions
We documented that EoEHSS composite and individual features correlated moderately with PEESS v2.0 mean scores, and dysphagia, GERD and pain domains scores, whereas PEC correlated less strongly with those scores. We propose a score for histology remission that includes evaluation of features in addition to PEC and correlates with significant biomarkers reduction and symptom reduction. These data may potentially guide clinical care in a more directed and personalized manner, and could be suitable as endpoints for randomized clinical trials.
Supplementary Material
Legend, Figure Supplemental Digital Content 1: Scatterplots illustrating the strongest relationships between EoEHSS scores and PEESSv2.0 scores. Symbols reflect current treatment (circle: diet, triangle: steroid, square: diet and steroid, plus: no treatment).
What is known.
For diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis, consensus recommendations include a threshold of ≥15 eosinophils in at least one high power field of esophageal biopsies. Recommendations defining remission do not exist.
The eosinophilic esophagitis histology scoring system evaluates eosinophil inflammation and other pathologic features, and better identifies treatment status than peak eosinophil count.
What is new.
An eosinophilic esophagitis histology remission score is derived from the eosinophilic esophagitis histology scoring system.
The remission score significantly correlates with reduced symptoms scores and biomarker expression (eosinophil peroxidase deposition and mast cell markers) and therefore may be useful to define histologic remission.
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
This project was supported in part by NIH grants T32-ES10957 and UL1-RR026314-01, U19 AI070235, R01 DK076893, the PHS Grant P30 DK0789392, the Food Allergy Research and Initiative (FARE), the Campaign Urging Research for Eosinophilic Disease (CURED), and the Buckeye Foundation. MHC is a consultant with Shire, Receptos/Celgene, Regeneron Pharma, Esocap and Allakos, and served as central pathology reviewer for EoE clinical trials for Shire, Receptos/Celgene and Regeneron Pharma. PEP is on the speakers bureau for Abbott Nutrition and Nutricia. VAM has received research funding and is a consultant for Shire. M.E.R. is a consultant for Pulm One, Spoon Guru, ClostraBio, Celgene, Shire, Astra Zeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Allakos, Adare, Regeneron and Novartis and has an equity interest in the first four listed and Immune Pharmaceuticals, and royalties from reslizumab (Teva Pharmaceuticals), PEESSv2 (Mapi Research Trust) and UpToDate. M.E.R. is an inventor of patents owned by Cincinnati Children’s. For the remaining authors, conflicts of interest are not declared.
References
- 1.Furuta GT, Liacouras CA, Collins MH, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis in children and adults: a systematic review and consensus recommendations for diagnosis and treatment. Gastroenterology 2007;133:1342–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Liacouras CA, Furuta GT, Hirano I, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis: updated consensus recommendations for children and adults. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011;128:3–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Dellon ES, Gonsalves N, Hirano I, Furuta GT, Liacouras CA, Katzka DA. ACG clinical guideline: evidence based approach to the diagnosis and management or esophageal eosinophilia and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:679–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Furuta GT, Katzka DA. Eosinophilic esophagitis. New Engl J Med 2015;373:1640–48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lucendo AJ, Molina-Infante J, Arias A, et al. Guidelines on eosinophilic esophagitis: evidence-based statements and recommendations for diagnosis and management in children and adults. United European Gastroenterol J 2017;5:335–58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Dellon ES, Liacouras CA, Molina-Infante J, et al. Updated international consensus criteria for eosinophilic esophagitis: proceedings of the AGREE conference. Gastroenterology 2018:155:1022–1033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rubin T, Clayton J, Adams D, et al. Systematic review of outcome measures in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis treatment trials. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol 2016;12:45 doi: 10.1186/s13223-016-0144-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ma C, van Rhijn BD, Jairath V, et al. Heterogeneity in clinical, endoscopic, and histologic outcome measures and placebo response rates in clinical trials of eosinophilic esophagitis: A systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2018. June 14, doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Collins MH, Martin LJ, Alexander ES, et al. Newly developed and validated eosinophilic esophagitis histology scoring system and evidence that it outperforms peak eosinophil count for disease diagnosis and monitoring. Dis Esophagus 2017;30:1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Warners MJ, Ambarus CA, Bredenoord AJ, et al. Reliability of histologic assessment in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2018;47:940–950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wright BL, Fernandez-Becker NQ, Kambham N, et al. Baseline gastrointestinal eosinophilia is common in oral immunotherapy subjects with IgE-mediated peanut allergy. Front Immunol 2018; November 22;9:2624. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02624. eCollection 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hirano I, Collins MH, Assouline-Dayan Y, et al. RPC4046, a monoclonal antibody against IL-13, reduces histologic and endoscopic activity in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology 2019;156:592–603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Collins MH, Dellon ES, Katzka DA, et al. Budesonide oral suspension significantly improves eosinophilic esophagitis histology scoring system results: analyses from a 12-week, phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Surg Pathol September 6. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Martin LJ, Franciosi JP, Collins MH, et al. Pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis symptom scores (PEESS v2.0) identify histology and molecular correlates of the key clinical features of disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2015;135:1519–28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Aceves SS, King E, Collins MH, et al. Alignment of parent- and child-reported outcomes and histology in eosinophilic esophagitis across multiple CEGIR sites. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2018;142:130–138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Protheroe C, Woodruff SA, de Petris G, et al. A novel histologic scoring system to evaluate mucosal biopsies from patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7:749–755. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Bolton SM, Kagalwalla AF, Arva NC, et al. Mast cell density is increased in children with eosinophilic esophagitis who have persistent symptoms, endoscopic findings, or epithelial abnormalities despite low eosinophil counts after therapy. Gastroenterology 2018;154(Suppl):S264–S64(Sa1161). [Google Scholar]
- 18.Abonia JP, Blanchard C, Buckmeier Butz B, et al. Involvement of mast cells in eosinophilic esophagitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;126:140–149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Konikoff MR, Noel RJ, Blanchard C, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluticasone propionate for pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterolog 2006;131:1381–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Alexander JA, Jung KW, Arora AS, et al. Swallowed fluticasone improves histologic but not symptomatic response of adults with eosinophilic esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:742–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Dohil R, Newbury R, Fox L, et al. Oral viscous budesonide is effective in children with eosinophilic esophagitis in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2010;139:418–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Gupta SK, Vitanza JM, Collins MH. Efficacy and safety of oral budesonide suspension in pediatric patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Nutr 2015;13:66–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Straumann A, Conus S, Degen L, et al. Budesonide is effective in adolescent and adult patients with active eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology 2010;139:1526–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Assa’ad AH, Gupta SK, Collins MH, et al. An antibody against IL-5 reduces numbers of esophageal intraepithelial eosinophils in children with eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology 2011;141:1593–1604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Spergel JM, Rothenberg ME, Collins MH, et al. Reslizumab in children and adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis: Results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012;129:456–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lynch MK, Avis KT, Dimmitt RA, et al. Topical Review: eosinophilic esophagitis in children: implications for health-related quality of life and potential avenues for future research. J Pediatr Psychol 2015;40:727–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Pentiuk S, Putnam PE, Collins MH, et al. Dissociation between symptoms and histological severity in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2009;48:152–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Cheng K, Gupta SK, Cantor S, et al. Creating a multi-center rare disease consortium—the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR). Transl Sci Rare Dis 2017;2:141–155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Legend, Figure Supplemental Digital Content 1: Scatterplots illustrating the strongest relationships between EoEHSS scores and PEESSv2.0 scores. Symbols reflect current treatment (circle: diet, triangle: steroid, square: diet and steroid, plus: no treatment).