AREA TEMATICA: endoscopia
Authors:
Federico Testi, Gaia Cairoli, Mauro Mitilini, Valeria Poletti3, Giacomo Marcozzi3, Emanuele Marciano2, Stefano Siboni, Alessandro Repici3, Edoardo V. Savarino4,#, and Nicola de Bortoli1,#
Affiliations:
- University of Pisa
- Humanitas Research Hospital
- University of Padua
Background and aims:
The eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score (EREFS) is the validated scoring system for endoscopic findings of EoE. EREFS findings are currently scored cumulatively and correlate modestly with histological disease activity (HDA), symptoms, and adaptive behaviors. However, inflammatory and fibrotic findings may reflect different aspects of EoE, but this has never been evaluated.
Methods:
We investigated the correlation of EREFS inflammatory and fibrotic subscores with HDA, symptoms and adaptive behaviors. In three tertiary referral centres for EoE, consecutive adults (>18 years) undergoing upper endoscopy for suspected or follow up EoE were prospectively enrolled. EREFS was scored as follows: edema 0-1; rings 0-3; exudates 0-2; furrows 0-2; stricture 0-1. The EREFS inflammatory sub-score (EREFS-i) combined the scores of edema, exudates and furrows. The EREFS fibrotic sub-score (EREFS-f) combined the scores of moderate-severe rings (score ≥2) and stricture. Subsequently, at least six esophageal biopsies were collected to assess HAD based on peak eosinophil count/high-power field (PEC/HPF) (active EoE PEC ≥15/HPF; EoE in remission: PEC<15/HPF). Symptoms were assessed using the dysphagia symptoms questionnaire (DSQ). Adaptive behaviors were assessed using the Pisa EoE Adaptation Questionnaire v1.0 (PiEAQ) [reference 1]. Clinical characteristics were recorded. Kruskal-Wallis Rank Sum Test and Pearson’s Chi-squared were used for comparisons. ROC curve analysis was used to calculate the diagnostic accuracy (AUC). Spearman’s test and linear regression models were used to assess relationships between variables. Significance threshold was p<0.05.
Results:
121 patients were included. 58% had active EoE, 42% were in histological remission. Baseline clinical data are reported in Table 1. The EREFS total score had modest AUC for predicting HDA (0.68) and did not show significant correlation with DSQ and PiEAQ. In contrast, EREFS-i had AUC of 0.73, with 88.2% sensitivity and 51.4% specificity for predicting HDA, being significantly more accurate compared to the EREFS-f (p<0.001; Figure 1). There was a significant correlation between EREFS-i and PEC/HPF with Spearman’s Rho=0.5 (p<0.001), with linear regression showing that an increase of 1 point of any inflammatory feature corresponded to an increase of 12 eosinophils/HPF (p<0.0001). In contrast, EREFS-f correlated significantly with the use of adaptive behaviors assessed with PiEAQ [Spearman’s Rho of 0.6 (p<0.001); Figure 2], with linear regression showing that an increase of 1 point of any fibrotic feature corresponded to an increase of one adaptive behavior (p=0.001). EREFS, EREFS-i, and EREFS-f had nonsignificant negative correlation with DSQ (p>0.05 for all).
Conclusions:
We confirmed that, while total EREFS provides a global assessment of endoscopic disease severity, it lacks correlation with histological and clinical disease activity. However, we demonstrated that EREFS-i correlates significantly with PEC and predicts PEC/HPF and that EREFS-f correlates significantly with the use of adaptive behaviors assessed with PiEAQ, which represent known clinical markers of disease activity. Neither EREFS-i nor EREFS-f correlated significantly with DSQ. In conclusion, we showed that, compared to the total EREFS, EREFS sub-scores improve the correlation between endoscopy findings with histology and clinical disease activity markers.
Figure 1. Accuracy of Inflammatory vs Fibrotic EREFS findings for predicting histological disease activity
Figure 2. Correlation between eosinophil counts on histology and EREFS inflammatory findings
Correlation between adaptive behaviors (PiEAQ) and EREFS fibrotic findings
Table 1
VALUTA ABSTRACT
Vota ogni categoria
| Originality | |
| Clarity | |
| Rationale | |
| Objectives | |
| Endpoint measures | |
| Statistics | |
| Results | |
| Relevance | |
|
Media
|
|
|
|
