Exploring Potential Non-Invasive Biomarkers in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Longitudinal Study in Children

Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology/Hepatology/Nutrition, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition (Impact Factor: 2.63). 06/2011; 53(6):651-8. DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e318228cee6
Source: PubMed


Eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) continues to present clinical challenges, including a need for noninvasive tools to manage the disease. To identify a marker able to assess disease status in lieu of repeated endoscopies, we examined 3 noninvasive biomarkers, serum interleukin (IL)-5, serum eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN), and stool EDN, and examined possible correlations of these with disease phenotype and activity (symptoms and histology) in a longitudinal study of children with EE.
Children with EE were studied for up to 24 weeks (12 weeks on 1 of 2 corticosteroid therapies and 12 weeks off therapy). Twenty children with normal esophagogastroduodenoscopies with biopsies were enrolled as controls. Serum IL-5, serum EDN, and stool EDN were measured at weeks 0, 4, 12, 18, and 24 in children with EE, and at baseline alone for controls. Primary and secondary statistical analyses (excluding and including outlier values of the biomarkers, respectively) were performed.
Sixty subjects with EE (46 [75%] boys, mean age 7.5 ± 4.4 years) and 20 normal controls (10 [50%] boys, mean age 6.7 ± 4.1 years) were included. Significant changes in serum EDN (significant decrease from baseline to week 4, and then rebound from week 4 to week 12) occurred. Serum EDN levels were stable after week 12. Serum IL-5 and stool EDN levels in subjects with EE were not statistically different from those of the control subjects when each time point for the cases was compared with the controls' 1-time measurement.
Serum EDN levels were significantly higher in subjects with EE than in controls, and the results suggest a possible role, after additional future studies, for serum EDN in establishing EE diagnosis, assessing response to therapy, and/or monitoring for relapse or quiescence.

20 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To present the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), review the current diagnostic guidelines for EoE, and present an approach for diagnosis of EoE. It will also highlight selected techniques that are under development that may be useful in the future for diagnosis of EoE. Recently updated guidelines emphasize that EoE is a clinicopathologic condition. Specifically, three criteria must be met to diagnose EoE: clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction; an esophageal biopsy with a maximum eosinophil count of at least 15 eosinophils per high-power microscopy field, with few exceptions; and exclusion of other possible causes of esophageal eosinophilia, including proton-pump inhibitor responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE). A PPI trial is typically required both to assess for PPI-REE and to evaluate for the presence of concomitant gastroesophageal reflux disease. EoE is a chronic, immune-mediated disorder. Because no single symptom, endoscopic finding, or histopathologic feature is pathognomonic, diagnosis can be challenging. In the future, symptom scores, tissue or serum biomarkers, and genetic testing may play a role in diagnosis, but these methods have yet to be validated and are not yet recommended for routine clinical use.
    Current opinion in gastroenterology 03/2012; 28(4):382-8. DOI:10.1097/MOG.0b013e328352b5ef · 4.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory condition characterized by esophageal dysfunction and eosinophilic infiltrate in the esophageal epithelium in the absence of other potential causes of eosinophilia. EoE is increasing in incidence and prevalence, and is a major cause of gastrointestinal morbidity among children and adults. EoE is thought to be immune mediated, with food or environmental antigens stimulating a T-helper (Th)-2 inflammatory response. An increased understanding of the pathogenesis of EoE has led to the evolution of diagnostic and treatment paradigms. We review the latest approach to diagnosis of EoE and present consensus diagnostic guidelines. We also discuss the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features of EoE and challenges to diagnosis. Finally, we present the 3 major treatment options for EoE: pharmacologic therapy, dietary modification, and endoscopic dilation.
    Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 06/2012; 10(10):1066-78. DOI:10.1016/j.cgh.2012.06.003 · 7.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) overlap. We aimed to determine whether staining for tissue biomarkers would differentiate EoE from GERD, suggesting utility for diagnosis of EoE. In this case-control study, EoE patients defined by consensus guidelines were compared to GERD patients with eosinophils on esophageal biopsy. Immunohistochemistry was performed for major basic protein (MBP), eotaxin-3, leukotriene A4 hydrolase (LTA4H), and leukotriene C4 synthase (LTC4S). After masking, the maximum staining density (cells per mm(2)) was quantified for each marker and compared between groups. Receiver operator characteristic curves were constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) calculated to assess the diagnostic utility of each of the biomarkers alone and in combination with eosinophil counts. There were 51 EoE cases (mean age 24; mean 143 eosinophils per high-power field (eos per h.p.f.)) and 54 GERD controls (mean age 34; mean 20 eos per h.p.f.). The MBP density was higher in EoE than in GERD (1479 vs. 59 cells per mm(2); P<0.001), as was the eotaxin-3 density (2219 vs. 479; P<0.001). There were no differences for LTA4H and LTC4S. MBP density and eosinophil count correlated (R=0.81; P<0.001); correlation with eotaxin-3 was weaker (R=0.25; P=0.01). The AUC for diagnosis of EoE was 0.96 for MBP, 0.87 for eotaxin-3, 0.58 for LTA4H, 0.66 for LTC4S, and 0.99 for the combination of MBP, eotaxin-3, and eosinophil count. Patients with EoE had substantially higher levels of MBP and eotaxin-3 staining than GERD patients. These markers may have utility as a diagnostic assay for EoE.
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology 07/2012; 107(10):1503-11. DOI:10.1038/ajg.2012.202 · 10.76 Impact Factor
Show more