Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 May 17.
Published in final edited form as: JAMA. 2016 May 17;315(19):2104–2112. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5657

Table 2.

Histologic Findings and Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (CLE) Measurements

Histologic Findinga Baseline
On PPIs
Median (Range)
Week 1
Off PPIs
Median (Range)
Absolute Difference Baseline-Week 1 Week 2
Off PPIs
Median (Range)
Absolute Difference Baseline-Week 2
Intraepithelial lymphocytes 0 (0–2) 1 (1–2) .67
95%CI .25 − 1.08
p=.005
1 (1–2) .58
95%CI .26 − .91
p=.002
Intraepithelial neutrophils 0 (0) 0 (0–2) .17
95%CI −.20 − .53
p=.32
0 (0–2) .25
95%CI −.14 − .64
p=.18
Intraepithelial eosinophils 0 (0–1) 0 (0–1) .08
95%CI −.10 − .27
p=.32
0 (0–1) .08
95%CI −.10 − .27
p=.32
Basal cell and papillary hyperplasia .5 (0–1) 2 (1–3) 1.25
95%CI .86 − 1.64
p=.002
2 (1–3) 1.42
95%CI .91 − 1.92
p=.003
Spongiosis (dilated intercellular spaces) .5 (0–1) 2 (1–3) 1.17
95%CI .80 − 1.53
p<.0001
2 (1–3) 1.25
95%CI .86 − 1.65
p<.0001
CLE Measurementsb Mean ± SD (n) Mean ± SD (n) Mean ± SD (n)
Intercellular space distal esophagus (μm) 3.2 ± 0.6 (n=8) 4.0 ± 0.5 (n=8) .82
95%CI .10 − 1.54
p=.031
5.1 ± 1.1 (n=8) 1.91
95%CI 1.0 − 2.81
p=.002
Intercellular space proximal esophagus (μm) 3.5 ± 0.5 (n=8) 4.7 ± 1.3 (n=7) 1.32
95%CI .05 − 2.60
p=.044
5.7 ± 1.2 (n=7) .2.53
95%CI 1.62 − 3.45
p=.001
Capillary width distal esophagus (μm) 11.0 ± 1.6 (n=7) 14.1 ± 3.0 (n=7) 3.03
95%CI .76 − 5.3
p=.017
15.0 ± 2.6 (n=6) 3.87
95%CI .86 − 6.88
p=.021
Capillary width proximal esophagus (μm) 10.9 ± 3.5 (n=6) 13.8 ± 1.6 (n=6) 3.30
95%CI −.55 − 7.14
p=.08
13.1 ± 2.5 (n=6) 3.03
95%CI .78 − 5.28
p=.018
a

Histologic findings are scored on a scale of 0–3 (0=absent, 1=mild, 2=moderate, 3=severe). Comparisons were made using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

b

Technical issues (excessive motion artifact, equipment malfunction, patient inability to tolerate the large CLE endoscope) precluded obtaining CLE measurements in all patients at all time points. CLE measurements were made using ImageJ 1.48 software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland). Comparisons were made using paired samples t-tests.