GOALS: To assess the predictive value of baseline peripheral absolute eosinophil counts (AECs) for proton pump inhibitor (PPI) response in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

BACKGROUND: PPI leads to histologic remission in  50% of EoE patients, although there are few distinguishing clinical features between PPI-responsive (PPI-r-EoE) and nonresponsive (PPI-nr-EoE) diseases. Peripheral eosinophilia is present in  50% of EoE cases and is associated with eosinophil density on esophageal biopsy and worse clinical outcomes. The association between peripheral eosinophilia and PPI-responsiveness in EoE remains unclear.

STUDY: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult EoE patients at a tertiary center between 2012 and 2016. All patients underwent twice daily PPI trials for ≥8 weeks followed by repeat esophageal biopsies and were classified as PPI-r-EoE or PPI-nr-EoE based on histologic response (<15 eosinophils/high power field). Baseline peripheral AEC was obtained within 1 month before index endoscopy. Analyses were performed using Fisher exact/Student t test (univariate) and logistic regression (multivariable).

RESULTS: One hundred eighty-three patients (91 PPI-nr-EoE and 92 PPI-r-EoE) were included. Mean peripheral AEC was higher among PPI-nr-EoE patients (0.41 vs 0.24 K/µL, P = 0.013). Baseline peripheral eosinophilia (>0.5 K/µL) was more prevalent among patients with PPI-nr-EoE (70.4% vs 45.5%, P = 0.023) and a history of food impaction (51.9% vs 23.7%, P = 0.0082). On multivariable analyses, peripheral eosinophilia remained an independent predictor for PPI response (adjacent odds ratio = 2.86, CI: 1.07-7.62, P = 0.036) and food impaction (adjacent odds ratio = 2.80, CI: 1.07-7.35, P = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS: Baseline peripheral eosinophilia independently predicts PPI nonresponse and food impaction in EoE patients. Peripheral AEC may help therapy selection in EoE and prevent delays in achieving histologic remission.

INTRODUCTION: Anorectal function testing is traditionally relegated to subspecialty centers. Yet, it is an office-based procedure that appears capable of triaging care for the many patients with Rome IV functional constipation that fail empiric over-the-counter therapy in general gastroenterology, as an alternative to empirical prescription drugs. We aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of routine anorectal function testing in this specific population.

METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the patient perspective and a cost-minimization analysis from the insurer perspective to compare 3 strategies: (i) empiric prescription drugs followed by pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) for drug failure, (ii) empiric PFPT followed by prescription drugs for PFPT failure, or (iii) care directed by up-front anorectal function testing. Model inputs were derived from systematic reviews of prospective clinical trials, national cost data sets, and observational cohort studies of the impact of chronic constipation on health outcomes, healthcare costs, and work productivity.

RESULTS: The most cost-effective strategy was upfront anorectal function testing to triage patients to appropriate therapy, in which the subset of patients without anal hypocontractility on anorectal manometry and with a balloon expulsion time of at least 6.5 seconds would be referred to PFPT. In sensitivity analysis, empiric PFPT was more cost effective than empiric prescription drugs except for situations in which the primary goal of treatment was to increase bowel movement frequency. If adopted, gastroenterologists would refer ∼17 patients per year to PFPT, supporting feasibility.

DISCUSSION: Anorectal function testing seems to be an emergent technology to optimize cost-effective outcomes, overcoming testing costs by phenotyping care.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines advise esophageal motility testing for dysphagia when structural disorders are ruled out, but cost concerns impede adoption. We evaluated cost-effective positioning of esophageal motility testing in the algorithm to evaluate esophageal dysphagia.

METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model comparing 3 strategies: (i) esophageal manometry, (ii) screening impedance planimetry followed by esophageal manometry if needed, or (iii) nonalgorithmic usual care. Diagnostic test accuracy was adapted to expected rates of esophageal motility disorders in general gastroenterology populations. We modeled routine testing for all patients with nonstructural/mechanical dysphagia compared with selective testing with strong suspicion for achalasia. Cost outcomes were defined on national commercial and Medicare datasets stratified on age and sex. Health outcomes were modeled on populations with achalasia. The time horizon was 1 year.

RESULTS: Motility testing was preferred over nonalgorithmic usual care due to cost savings rather than health gains. To commercial insurers, routine esophageal manometry for nonstructural/mechanical dysphagia would be cost-saving below a reimbursed cost of $2,415. Screening impedance planimetry would be cost saving below a reimbursed cost of $1,130. The limit for reimbursed costs would be lower for patients older than 65 years to achieve cost savings mainly due to insurance. Sex did not significantly influence cost-effectiveness. Patients and insurers preferred routine screening impedance planimetry before manometry when the index of suspicion for achalasia was below 6%.

DISCUSSION: Aligning with practice guidelines, routine esophageal motility testing seems cost saving to patients and insurers compared with nonalgorithmic usual care to evaluate nonstructural/mechanical dysphagia. Choice of testing should be guided by index of suspicion.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity often report esophageal symptoms, with abnormal reflux and esophageal motility suggested as potential mechanisms. However, prior studies showed varying results, often limited by study design/size and esophageal function/symptom measures utilized. We aimed to examine the relationship between obesity and objective esophageal function testing and patient-reported outcomes, utilizing prospective symptom, manometric and reflux monitoring data with impedance.

METHODS: Adults referred for high-resolution impedance-manometry (HRiM) and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH) to evaluate esophageal symptoms were enrolled. Validated symptom and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) instruments were prospectively collected: GERDQ, reflux symptoms index (RSI), dominant symptom intensity (DSI, multiplied 5-point Likert scales for symptom frequency/severity), global symptom severity (GSS, 100-point visual analog scale), and Short Form-12 (SF-12) for HR-QOL. Esophageal function testing measures were compared across body mass index (BMI) categories and correlated with patient-reported outcomes.

KEY RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty four patients were included (Normal:281/Overweight:253/Class I obesity:137/Class II/III obesity:83). Reflux burden measures on MII-pH (acid exposure time, total reflux episodes, bolus exposure time), conclusive pathologic reflux (Lyon), and hiatal hernia were increased in higher obesity classes compared to normal BMI. Class II/III obesity was associated with more normal/hypercontractile swallows, less ineffective swallows, and better bolus transit on HRiM. BMI correlated positively with GERDQ/RSI/DSI/GSS, and negatively with physical component score (SF-12). Esophageal symptom severity and HR-QOL correlated strongly with MII-pH findings, but not HRiM measures.

CONCLUSIONS/INFERENCES: Obesity is associated with increased esophageal symptom burden and worse physical HR-QOL, which correlate with higher acid/bolus reflux burden but not altered esophageal motility/transit/contractile reserve.