暂无摘要。

Eosinophilic gastritis (EoG) is defined as the presence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms combined with histologic findings of > 30 eosinophils/high-power field (eos/hpf) in 5 hpf in any part of the gastric mucosa, except for the secondary causes of gastric eosinophilia. This is the first case report of a serial change in gastric motility in EoG with pyloric stenosis using abdominal ultrasonography. A 56-year-old woman was diagnosed with pyloric stenosis by upper gastrointestinal radiographic examination during a medical checkup. She had nausea and loss of appetite, her gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS) score was 20, and her F scale score was 20. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) demonstrated pyloric stenosis and multiple superficial ulcerations in the antrum. Histopathological findings of gastric biopsy specimens revealed severe eosinophilic infiltration (100 eos/HPF), and the diagnosis was EoG with pyloric stenosis. Before treatment, the gastric anterior wall thickness was 6.3 mm. The gastric motility in EoG was evaluated by intra-abdominal ultrasonography. Ultrasonography showed low motility in the antrum, especially the amplitude and motility index. After 6 months of steroid treatment, her symptoms improved. Her GSRS score was 13, and her F scale score was 19. Histological eosinophilic infiltration decreased to 50 eos/HPF, showing improvement. On ultrasonography, gastric motility also improved and recovered to normal. After 12 months, several examinations confirmed improvement, including gastric motility by ultrasonography.

暂无摘要。

Patients with non-eosinophilic esophagitis eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (non-EoE EGIDs) are prone to nutritional deficiencies due to food-avoidant behaviors, malabsorption, and high nutrition impact symptoms. Nutrient deficiencies correspond to the segment, depth, and extent of the gastrointestinal tract involved and can impact organs distant from the gut. Patients with non-EoE EGIDs are often atopic, and some appear to respond to dietary avoidance of specific food allergens. Tests to identify food triggers other than response to elimination diets are lacking. Dietary restriction therapy should be considered in such patients and is best implemented through a multidisciplinary approach to avoid nutritional complications.

Endoscopic evaluation with biopsies is a mainstay of the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and non-EoE eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs). Increasing knowledge has resulted in the development of 2 standardized scoring systems: the Endoscopic REFerence Score (EREFS) for EoE and the EG-REFS for eosinophilic gastritis, although the latter has not been validated. In EGIDs, diagnosis and follow-up focus on eosinophil infiltration in biopsies. In this article, we will discuss the most commonly used endoscopic scores in EoE and non-EoE EGIDs, their validity for the diagnosis and follow-up of disease activity, as well as endoscopic interventions and areas of uncertainty.

The clinical presentation of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases beyond eosinophilic esophagitis (non-EoE EGIDs) varies depending on the gastrointestinal segments affected by the eosinophilic inflammation, the extent of eosinophilic inflammation within the gastrointestinal tract and its depth through the bowel wall. Non-EoE EGIDs with mucosal involvement tend to present with diarrhea, malabsorption, and sometimes bleeding, those with muscular involvement may present with symptoms of obstruction or pseudo-obstruction, intussusception, and even perforation, whereas those with serosal involvement may present with eosinophilic ascites. Here we describe the differences in symptoms experienced by children with non-EoE EGIDs with varying degrees of eosinophilic inflammation through the bowel wall.

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are a group of diseases characterized by selective eosinophil infiltration of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in the absence of other causes of eosinophilia. These diseases are generally driven by type 2 inflammation, often in response to food allergen exposure. Among all EGIDs, the clinical presentation often includes a history of atopic disease with a variety of GI symptoms. EGIDs are traditionally separated into eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and non-EoE EGIDs. EoE is relatively better understood and now associated with clinical guidelines and 2 US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments, whereas non-EoE EGIDs are rarer and less well-understood diseases without US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments. Non-EoE EGIDs are further subclassified by the area of the GI tract that is involved; they comprise eosinophilic gastritis, eosinophilic enteritis (including eosinophilic duodenitis), and eosinophilic colitis. As with other GI disorders, the disease presentations and mechanisms differ depending on the involved segment of the GI tract; however, the differences between EoE and non-EoE EGIDs extend beyond which GI tract segment is involved. The aim of this article is to summarize the commonalities and differences between the clinical presentations and disease mechanisms for EoE and non-EoE EGIDs.

This review seeks to understand novel avenues for eosinophilic GI disease management. Biomarkers offer a unique and non-invasive approach to tracking EoE disease progression. While no biomarkers have definitively met the diagnostic criteria for eosinophilic GI diseases, some biomarkers have been shown to be associated with disease activity. Here, we examine the potential of recently studied biomarkers.
Current research shows advancements in blood, luminal fluid, and breath testing. Particular areas of interest include mRNA analyses, protein fingerprinting, amplicon sequence variants (ASVs), T cells and IgE receptors, eosinophilic cationic proteins, cytokines, and nitric oxide exhalation. Preliminary results showed that mucosal biomarkers, directly captured from the esophagus, may reflect the best representation of biopsy-based results, in contrast to biomarkers obtained from indirect or peripheral (blood, breath) methods. However, this is based on limited clinical studies without sufficient numbers to evaluate true diagnostic accuracy. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to fully ascertain both the optimal sampling technique and the specific biomarkers that reflect diagnostic status of the disease.

Eosinophilic gastritis is a rare type of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases. Patients with eosinophilic gastritis usually present with symptoms such as nausea, emesis, abdominal pain, and weight loss. In severe cases, patients can suffer rare complications such as gastric outlet obstruction and spontaneous perforation. Here, we present the case of a young adult male who presented with acute onset abdominal pain for 1 day. The patient was found to have significant mural thickening of gastric antrum with pneumoperitoneum on abdominal CT scan, consistent with a perforated gastric ulcer. The patient underwent exploratory laparotomy and required modified graham patch repair. The diagnosis of eosinophilic gastritis was made based on the pathology review of intraoperative endoscopic biopsy specimens.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic gastritis (EoG) has rarely been reported in conjunction with gluten-sensitive enteropathy (GSE). When this does occur, patients typically present with gastrointestinal symptoms. To our knowledge, hypoproteinemia has not been reported as the primary manifestation. Anti-IgE therapy, such as omalizumab, lowers eosinophil counts in the blood, lungs, and gut. Its efficiency in treating active EoG remain unknown.
METHODS: We report a 33-month-old boy with a history of food allergy and atopic dermatitis who developed recurrent edema, hypoproteinemia, and eosinophilia at the age of 14 months. The diagnoses of EoG and GSE were confirmed based on the clinical presentation and results of gastrointestinal biopsies and serological testing. Although prednisone and dietary intervention were initially effective, the boy developed prednisone-related facial swelling. After stopping prednisone, his symptoms relapsed. Subsequent treatment with omalizumab, combined with dietary intervention, showed good efficacy and safety.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first case of concurrent EoG and GSE that presented primarily with hypoproteinemia. We highlight the rare manifestations of these two diseases to raise clinical suspicion and prevent missed and delayed diagnoses. The pathogenesis of EoG is heterogeneous and complex. Omalizumab showed good efficacy, indicating that IgE-mediated processes may be involved in the pathogenesis of this patient\'s diseases.