Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Sergi, Consolato

Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: November 2015 - Volume 61 - Issue 5 - p 529–530
doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000960
Invited Commentary

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology & Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Consolato Sergi, MD, PhD, FRCPC, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta Hospital, 8440 112 St, Edmonton, AB T6G 2B7, Canada (e-mail:

Received 9 February, 2015

Accepted 19 August, 2015

The study was supported by Women's and Children Research Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Canadian Foundation for Women's Health, Ottawa, ON, Canada; and Saudi Cultural Bureau, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

The author is a member of International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) for studies on carcinogens.

The author reports no conflicts of interest.

See “Childhood Esophagitis Changes in 30 Years at 1 Center” by Baker et al on page 538.

At the time of diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), some of the most common questions that are directed to doctors are as follows: what does “many eosinophils” mean?; is EoE secondary to something else or is it a true primary disorder?; can be our child cured? These compelling questions do not find an easy and straightforward answer, because EoE seems to be an evolving disease as a result of both epidemiological and taxonomic standpoints. In this issue of the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Baker et al (1) present the experience with EoE during the past 30 years at a single center. They report that esophageal eosinophilia fluctuated over time and the most distal biopsies harbored the most density of eosinophils. Taking into account only the highest density of eosinophils or peak eosinophilic count (PEC), the prevalence of biopsies that would fulfill the criteria for EoE in 2011 varied from 11% to 15% compared with 4.3 to 12% in 2000 to 2002, and 5.3 to 9.5% in 1980 to 1988.

Looking retrospectively, the identification of EoE as an independent disease occurred following specific investigations into treatment resistant patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Although overlap cases are well known, the correlation of clinical and pathological findings and the establishment of diagnostic criteria may help differentiating EoE from GERD, proton pump inhibitor (PPI)–responsive EoE and other diseases associated with esophageal eosinophilia to ensure accurate management. Diagnosis is made by the presence of infiltration of the squamous epithelium (≥15 eosinophils per high-power field, HPF) and/or other microscopic features of eosinophilic inflammation; and exclusion of other disorders associated with similar clinical, histological, or endoscopic features, especially PPI-responsive esophagitis in a patient with symptoms suggestive of EoE (otherwise unexplained feeding difficulty, vomiting, dysphagia, and history of food impaction) based on consensus recommendations published first in 2007 and subsequent updates (2–5). Non-EoE diseases associated with esophageal eosinophilia include eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia, celiac disease, Crohn disease, infection, hypereosinophilic syndrome, achalasia, drug hypersensitivity, vasculitis, pemphigus, connective tissue diseases, and graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) (6–8).

EoE leads to esophageal eosinophilia and future studies may target the intra- and interindividual variability. Endoscopic findings, including rings, strictures, narrowing of the lumen, linear furrows, crepe-paper mucosa, and white plaques along with histological findings, including high PEC, spongiosis (Fig. 1A), eosinophilic microabscesses, superficial layering of eosinophils (Fig. 1B), eosinophilic degranulation, and subepithelial fibrosis, are more commonly seen in subjects affected with EoE than in subjects affected with GERD (9,10). Luna staining is particularly useful in distinguishing intact and degranulated eosinophils (Fig. 1C). Angiogenesis, a feature of chronic inflammation, may be increased facilitating the recruitment of inflammatory cells and reiterating cyclically the inflammatory process (Fig. 1D) (11). From the theoretical standpoint, if a pathologist and the gastroenterologist rely solely on PEC alone, there may be more than a potential bias in overdiagnosing EoE. The introduction of errors in diagnosing new emerging conditions with evolving criteria may also occur with experienced pathologists.



It should be emphasized that EoE is a chronic inflammatory disease. Although cure of this disease may be elusive, studies such as Baker et al (1) and Prasad et al (12) are highly relevant for clinical trials. EoE is a chronic fibrostenosing disease that undoubtedly benefits from prompt recognition and therapy. Current therapy revolves around diet restriction and the use of steroids to reduce the number of intraepithelial eosinophils and improve symptom control (13,14). There is experimental and clinical evidence that eosinophils cause tissue remodeling consisting of fibrosis, angiogenesis, and smooth muscle hypertrophy with clinical consequences of strictures, decreased compliance, dysmotility, and food impactions. Elimination of esophageal eosinophils should prevent complications and histologic remission may require higher doses and additional medications that have associated risks, inconvenience, and expense. To date, there is no evidence of efficacy of therapeutic interventions actually preventing complications and, to the best of our knowledge, we do not know whether esophageal remodeling is reversible in all the patients. Immunomodulators and several antiallergic agents may be assessed as therapeutic alternatives for refractory cases or patients affected with complications.

Studies reviewing chronic diseases with diagnostic criteria changing over decades may be a challenge. Thus, limitations of such studies include their retrospective nature. Relevant clinical factors such as body mass index, history of atopy, passive exposure to cigarette smoking, or other environmental toxins cannot be easily correlated with the histopathology of the esophagus. Furthermore, time-restricted cohorts will never be the same even in the same geographic area, because of migratory flows. The number of biopsies for histological examination has only recently reached standardization suggesting that in the first decades of evaluation a limited number of biopsy specimens may have been underrepresentative of the condition. Finally, health care facilities and endoscopy procedure changes for 3 decades need also to be taken into account suggesting that a prospective evaluation during next 3 decades may be more valid than retrospective studies.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Memon Z, Baker RD, Khan A, Baker SS. Childhood esophagitis changes in 30 years at 1 center. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2015; 61:538–540.
2. 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; 133:1342–1363.
3. 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.
4. Dellon ES, Gonsalves N, Hirano I, et al. American College of Gastroenterology. ACG clinical guideline: Evidenced based approach to the diagnosis and management of esophageal eosinophilia and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108:679–692.
5. Papadopoulou A, Koletzko S, Heuschkel R, et al. ESPGHAN Eosinophilic Esophagitis Working Group and the Gastroenterology Committee. Management guidelines of eosinophilic esophagitis in childhood. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2014; 58:107–118.
6. Raheem M, Leach ST, Day AS, et al. The pathophysiology of eosinophilic esophagitis. Front Pediatr 2014; 2:41.
7. Yantiss RK. Eosinophils in the GI tract: how many is too many and what do they mean? Mod Pathol 2015; 28 (suppl 1):S7–S21.
8. Stucke EM, Clarridge KE, Collins MH, et al. The value of an additional review for eosinophil quantification in esophageal biopsies. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2015; 61:65–68.
9. Dellon ES, Gibbs WB, Fritchie KJ, et al. Clinical, endoscopic, and histologic findings distinguish eosinophilic esophagitis from gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7:1305–1313.
10. Li-Kim-Moy JP, Tobias V, Day AS, et al. Esophageal subepithelial fibrosis and hyalinization are features of eosinophilic esophagitis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2011; 52:147–153.
11. Persad R, Huynh HQ, Hao L, et al. Angiogenic remodeling in pediatric EoE is associated with increased levels of VEGF-A, angiogenin, IL-8, and activation of the TNF-α-NFκB pathway. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2012; 55:251–260.
12. Prasad GA, Alexander JA, Schleck CD, et al. Epidemiology of eosinophilic esophagitis over three decades in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7:1055–1061.
13. Damask C. Update on eosinophilic esophagitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 23:240–246.
14. Lucendo AJ, Molina-Infante J. Emerging therapeutic strategies for eosinophilic esophagitis. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2014; 12:1–17.
© 2015 by European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology,