Eosinophilic and Autoimmune Gastrointestinal Disease: New Insights and New Entities, An Issue of Gastroenterology Clinics

Gastroenterol Clin N Am 37 (2008) xi–xii

GASTROENTEROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA

Preface

Nicholas J. Talley, MD, PhD, FRACP, FRCP, FACP Guest Editor

I

t is fascinating to watch the evolution of medical practice and the introduction of new disease entities in medicine. In this issue of Gastroenterology Clinics of North America, a number of examples of relatively newly recognized diseases are comprehensively reviewed. The goal of this issue is to bring clinicians up to date on the topic of eosinophil and autoimmune gut diseases, where knowledge is rapidly advancing and clinical practice has or may be changed as a consequence. We are now recognizing the potential role of tissue eosinophilia in many gastrointestinal diseases, both new and old. Eosinophilic esophagitis was first reported in 1978 in children, but this entity is now clearly recognized to be increasing in incidence in both pediatric and adult gastroenterology practice for reasons that are as yet unclear. How much of this disease is because of acid reflux and how much is explained by aeroallergens remains controversial, but treatment algorithms have advanced, as is summarized for both adult and pediatric patients in the first two articles in this issue. The next article covers an important clinical entity of unexplained cause, namely eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Treatment observations in patients with this rare entity have usefully been applied in other eosinophilic diseases of the gut, and the topic is knowledgeably summarized here. The next article reviews the wide differential diagnosis of gut eosinophilia, and provides information on entities that clinicians need to at least consider in the differential diagnosis when they encounter any patient with gut eosinophilia. The final article in the eosinophil section concerns a potentially brand new eosinophilic gut disease. Functional gastrointestinal disorders are remarkably common conditions that are not considered to have a pathologic correlate. Functional dyspepsia is one of these disorders affecting up to 1 in 10 people, but notably, recent observations have linked the condition to duodenal

0889-8553/08/$ – see front matter doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2008.03.003

ª 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. gastro.theclinics.com

xii

PREFACE

eosinophilia in both adults and children. While still somewhat controversial, this area is reviewed here because, if the hypothesis is correct, the work should lead to novel diagnostic and treatment strategies for patients with functional dyspepsia. Autoimmune diseases of the gastrointestinal tract may often be missed in practice unless actively sought, in part because many of these diseases have only recently been identified. The recognition that enteric autoantibodies can induce motility disorders of the gut has been one of the areas to advance, and not all of these patients have a malignancy. When to screen patients and what antibodies to consider are the topics reviewed in the first article in this section. Celiac disease is well known to be associated with extraintestinal autoimmune diseases (as well as small intestinal eosinophilia), and the mechanisms are starting to be elucidated. For these reasons, an article on the topic is included in this issue. The relationship between autoantibodies and inflammatory bowel disease has received widespread attention in recent years, and commercially available panels of autoantibodies are now available. The value of this tool needs to be critically considered, and this is discussed in the next article in the issue. Autoimmune pancreatitis is a comparatively newly recognized entity with clear-cut clinical features and a characteristic responsiveness to steroid therapy that sets it apart from other pancreatic diseases, and this topic is presented. Finally, autoimmune hepatitis and a newer entity, autoimmune cholangitis, are each covered in the autoimmune diseases section. This issue represents a comprehensive synthesis of a disparate body of important literature. I am grateful to all of the internationally recognized experts in the field who agreed to contribute; I applaud their clear and careful synthesis of the published material and their diligence in preparing these articles. The contributions all are of the highest quality, and I commend them to you whether you are a practicing gastroenterologist or an expert in the field. I hope you will enjoy reading these articles as much as I have enjoyed writing or editing them. Nicholas J. Talley, MD, PhD, FRACP, FRCP, FACP Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology Mayo Clinic College of Medicine 4500 San Pablo Road Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA E-mail address: [email protected]

Gastroenterol Clin N Am 37 (2008) 307–332

GASTROENTEROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA

Gut Eosinophilia in Food Allergy and Systemic and Autoimmune Diseases Nicholas J. Talley, MD, PhD, FRACP, FRCP, FACP Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Davis Building E-6, Mayo Clinic Campus, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA

E

osinophilic gastroenteritis is a rare disease characterized by striking tissue eosinophilia in any layer of the gut wall; however, many diseases can cause increased gut eosinophilia. Allergic reactions to food are an important cause of gut eosinophilia. Not all adverse reactions to food are IgE mediated, and most cases of IgE-mediated food allergy do not have eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Parasitic, bacterial, and viral pathogens as well as certain systemic diseases such as vasculitis can cause gut eosinophilia. These heterogeneous conditions are reviewed in this article. The following search strategy was applied. Ovid MEDLINE and Pub Med (no time limit) on-line databases were searched to identify the published literature in the English language or translations when available. An initial search was performed using the terms eosinophilic gastroenteritis, gastrointestinal eosinophilia, and gut eosinophilia. These terms were then coupled with other secondary search terms, that is, food allergy, cow milk protein allergy, drugs/medications, parasites, bacteria, virus, transplant, graft versus host disease (GVHD), polyps, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and specific types of vasculitis. Relevant published articles and, when important, abstracts were included and referenced herein. Due to the paucity of literature, case reports were also carefully considered and included if deemed appropriate. All levels of evidence were considered, but more emphasis was placed on randomized trials in this review. When evidence is lacking, this is stated explicitly. FOOD ALLERGY The presence of increased eosinophils in the gastrointestinal tract may occur as an allergic reaction to certain foods. Food allergy and food intolerance are the two major groups of adverse reactions. Food intolerances (non-allergic food hypersensitivities) are adverse responses caused by some unique physiologic characteristic of the host, such as metabolic disorders (eg, enzymatic or transport

E-mail address: [email protected] 0889-8553/08/$ – see front matter doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2008.02.008

ª 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. gastro.theclinics.com

308

TALLEY

deficiencies), whereas food hypersensitivity/allergy is an adverse immunologic reaction that might be due to IgE- or non–IgE-mediated immune mechanisms. Epidemiology of Food Allergy Unfortunately, data on the prevalence of true allergic reactions to food are lacking, but probably no more than 1% to 2% of the population is affected. Food intolerance and several other disorders result in symptoms mimicking food allergy, which makes it particularly difficult to calculate the actual number of persons with true food allergies. Both food allergy and intolerance are reported more commonly in children than adults. The frequency of self-reported symptoms from food intolerance is estimated to range from 4.9% [1] to 20% [2], the vast majority of which are non-immunogenic, with lactose intolerance being the most frequently reported [3]. Peanut or tree nut and seafood and egg allergies are the best documented IgE-mediated food allergies in the United States. Studies have estimated that 1.3% of Americans are allergic to peanuts or tree nuts [4], and seafood allergies affect 3.5% to 4% of the population [5]. Egg is another common allergen, especially in childhood, with an estimated cumulative prevalence of 2% to 6% by age 2 to 5 years [6]. Altman and Chiaramonte [7] reported on average 1.17 household members with food allergy in their survey of 5000 demographically representative American households. Milk, various fruits and vegetables, seafood, chocolate, eggs, and peanuts were the individual foods most frequently reported in this survey. Pathologic Mechanisms The gut-associated lymphoid system includes organized lymphoid tissue such as mesenteric lymph nodes, Peyer’s patches, and lymphoid follicles within the lamina propria. This system comes into direct contact with food antigens, which may explain why as many as 50% of food allergic disorders present with gastrointestinal manifestations. Even though 2% of ingested food antigens are absorbed, tolerance develops through a variety of mechanisms (eg, T-cell anergy or induction of regulatory T cells) that protect against the development of allergy. In a sensitized host, a food antigen can bind to IgE, activating and releasing several potent mediators and cytokines and leading to accumulation of interleukin-5 (IL-5), eosinophils, basophils, IgE, and mast cells in intestinal biopsy specimens of patients with food allergy [8]. On the other hand, food protein–induced proctocolitis presents in the first few months of life. The eosinophils may have a critical role independent of the presence of IgE or immediate hypersensitivity. It has been suggested that maternal dietary protein is complexed in some fashion with breast milk immunoglobulin (IgA) or another immunologic component, initiating an inflammatory response [9]. Risk Factors Many food proteins have been identified as potential allergens (Table 1). Certain allergens, such as peanuts, have been suggested to be associated with an increased risk of sensitization to other foods. Schafer and colleagues [2] in their study reported that more than 70% individuals were sensitized to more than

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

309

Table 1 Food proteins that have been identified as potential allergens Age group

Most common foods implicated in food allergy

Infants Children Adults

Cow’s milk, soya proteins Cow’s milk, eggs, peanuts, soy, wheat, tree nuts, fish and shellfish Peanuts, tree nuts, fish and shellfish, chocolate, eggs

one allergen, with the highest concomitant sensitization being to hazelnuts, peanuts, and celery. Food allergy is the result of exposure of a susceptible individual to an allergen, but the influence of various genetic and environmental factors may increase this risk. Over the years multiple studies have tried to identify a possible relationship between certain genes and manifestations of food allergy. One gene of particular interest is a polymorphism in the promoter region for CD14, which is the receptor for lipopolysaccharide. Woo and colleagues [10] studied 175 asthmatic and 77 food-allergic patients of varying age and suggested a significant association between the -159T allele, one of the alleles in that region, and the presence of food allergy and non-atopic asthma. Similarly, in another study by Hand and colleagues [11], the relationship between HLAs and nut allergy was investigated in 84 individuals with a clinical history. The frequency of HLA-B*07 (28.57%) and DRB1*11 (15.48%) was increased in the nut-allergic patients when compared with atopic controls (12.20% and 3.66%, respectively). Sicherer and colleagues [12] studied 70 twin pairs with at least one member with peanut allergy. Among the monozygotic pairs (n ¼ 14), nine were concordant for peanut allergy (pair-wise concordance, 64.3%); and among dizygotic pairs (n ¼ 44), three were concordant for peanut allergy (pair-wise concordance, 6.8%; P < .0001). The heritability of peanut allergy was estimated at 81.6% (95% CI, 41.6–99.7). The significantly higher concordance rate of peanut allergy among monozygotic twins suggested a strong genetic influence on peanut allergy. Although statistically significant, these findings appear to be of limited clinical significance, and, to date, no gene has been linked conclusively to food allergy [13]. The search for genes strongly associated with food allergy continues. Maternal exposure to certain foods during pregnancy and lactation is a risk factor in the development of food allergy in children. Frank and colleagues [14] reviewed 25 peanut-sensitized and 18 control children (allergy to milk but not to peanuts) and concluded that mothers who consumed peanuts more than once a week were more likely to have a peanut-allergic child than mothers who consumed peanuts less than once a week. A connection between food allergy and natural rubber latex allergy has been recognized in the literature [15–17]. Kim and Hussain [18] reported 49 potential allergic reactions to foods in 29 of 115 (21.1%) patients with a confirmed type I latex allergy. Foods responsible for these reactions included bananas (18%), avocado (16%), shellfish (12%), fish (8%), kiwi (12%), and tomato (6%).

310

TALLEY

Clinical Presentation As mentioned earlier, food allergy can broadly be classified into IgE- and non– IgE-mediated processes, and the symptoms range from minor impairments to life-threatening shock reactions. Each subclass is discussed individually in the following sections. IgE-mediated reactions In food-allergic individuals, IgE is produced against naturally occurring food components, primarily glycoprotein, that usually retain their allergenicity after heating or proteolysis. Adults tend to be allergic to fish, crustaceans, peanuts, and tree nuts, whereas children tend to be allergic to cow’s milk, egg white, wheat, and soy. These reactions are rapid in onset and comprise both intestinal and extraintestinal manifestations. Gastrointestinal anaphylaxis and oral allergy syndrome are the most important symptom complexes. Similar mechanisms have been suggested in 10% to 15% cases of infantile colic [19]. Gastrointestinal anaphylaxis. Gastrointestinal anaphylaxis is a common form of IgE-mediated food allergy. Yocum and colleagues [20] reviewed the medical records of Olmsted County inhabitants and reported an annual incidence of food anaphylaxis of 7.6 cases per 100,000 person-years and a food anaphylaxis occurrence rate of 10.8 cases per 100,000 person-years. Its pathophysiology is well understood. The antigen cross-links with IgE antibody and activates immunoglobulin receptors on inflammatory cells. This activation causes a release of multiple inflammatory mediators that, in turn, increase vascular permeability and cause smooth muscle contractions [21]. Gastrointestinal symptoms of nausea, a painful abdomen, edema of the lips and tongue, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea usually develop within minutes of ingesting the offending agent; however, the onset of diarrhea and colic may be delayed for up to 6 hours. Other organ systems are also involved, including the respiratory (shortness of breath, wheezing, laryngeal edema), skin (hives, pruritus, angioedema), and cardiovascular system (hypotension, tachycardia, and circulatory collapse). A biphasic anaphylactic reaction has been described in the literature with a recurrence of symptoms after a period of recovery. Its incidence is highly variable, ranging from a low of 1% to a high of 20% of episodes [22]. The nature and severity of the symptoms, the time of onset after administration of antigen, and the history of a previous biphasic reaction have all been described as risk factors in various studies [23,24]. The severity of the late-phase reaction is highly variable, and events have ranged from mild to severe with rare fatalities. The diagnosis is mostly clinical, and a careful history of ingestion of any particular food is of great importance. Recurrences of symptoms after food re-challenge and evidence of food-specific IgE antibodies (high serum IgE levels and positive skin prick test) may increase the diagnostic yield [25], although the former is usually contraindicated in patients with a clear-cut history of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a medical emergency. The treatment protocol should include the administration of epinephrine, intravenous fluids, antihistamines,

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

311

bronchodilators, or corticosteroids [26]. A 24-hour period of posttreatment observation is ideal for biphasic reactions. Avoidance of offending agent is the best preventative strategy; however, accidental or contaminant exposure to the allergen is possible, and epinephrine self-administration injections should be prescribed to all patients at risk for anaphylaxis. Oral allergy syndrome. Oral food allergy syndrome, also known as pollen food allergy syndrome, is a clinical term used for a form of contact hypersensitivity that occurs when a susceptible individual ingests a food that has cross-reactive antigens to pollens that they are sensitive to. Schafer and colleagues [2] surveyed 1537 patients with questionnaires and reported 659 (42.9%) patients with oral symptoms. The frequency varied with different types of food consumed, with fruits (72.3%) and nuts (68%) being the most common culprits. An association between pollen and oral allergy syndrome has been well recognized [27,28], and some patients have oral allergy syndrome symptoms only during the pollen season when anti–birch-specific IgE titers rise [29]. Symptoms usually occur within minutes after the offending agent comes in contact with oral mucosa. The most common symptoms are mild itching and swelling of the lips and mouth. Severe angioedema of the pharyngeal mucosa causing life-threatening emergencies has been reported [30]. Diagnosis is based on a careful history that should include details about seasonal patterns and pollen and specific food exposures. The development of symptoms with raw fruits and vegetables and not to cooked food strongly points toward the diagnosis. Physical examination is once again invaluable and should include a careful inspection of the oral cavity and pharynx for rash, urticaria, or angioedema. A positive skin prick test (prick-to-prick skin test) is the preferred method of testing in most cases. Prick-to-prick testing is performed by inserting the needle into the fruit, withdrawing it, and then immediately pricking the patient’s cleaned skin. Anhoej and colleagues [31] compared the skin prick test and basophil histamine release tests of 36 patients with grass or birch allergies and 17 control subjects. All of the subjects were skin prick tested and had basophil histamine release tests done with fresh fruits and various extracts of hazelnut, apple, and melon. The diagnosis of oral allergy syndrome was confirmed by oral challenges. In addition, histamine release to recombinant Bet v 1 and Bet v 2 and recombinant Phl p 1, Phl p 2, and Phl p 5 was performed. The skin prick test showed an almost optimal diagnostic value, with a satisfactory sensitivity (>89%) and excellent negative predictive value with fresh fruits. Oral challenge did not result in severe systemic reactions, and no systemic reactions were observed with skin prick tests with fresh fruits. When the skin prick test with the culprit food item cannot be performed, histamine release is a diagnostic alternative, although it is still limited to tertiary research centers. There is no recommended treatment protocol for oral allergy syndrome. Generally, avoidance of the offending food is recommended. Patient education about early recognition of the symptoms in the event of accidental ingestion

312

TALLEY

and epinephrine self-administration training are advised in patients who have rare severe systemic reactions. Therapies of unproven benefit for pollen food allergy syndrome include prophylactic administration of H1 antihistamines, immunotherapy for pollinosis, and anti-IgE therapy [32–34]. Infantile colic. Infantile colic is an ill-defined condition of infancy characterized by paroxysmal fussing and excessive crying. The most commonly used definition of colic was coined in 1954 by Wessel and colleagues [35] who described it by using a ‘‘rule of three’’: crying for more than 3 hours per day, for more than 3 days per week, and for more than 3 weeks in an infant that is well fed and otherwise healthy. During this time, infants cry an average of 2.2 hours per day, peaking at 6 weeks of age and gradually decreasing [36]. Various studies have reported the incidence of infantile colic to be 5% to 25% of infants [37,38]. Gastrointestinal, psychosocial, and neurodevelopmental disorders have been suggested as the cause of colic [39]. IgE-mediated hypersensitivity has been proposed as a pathogenic factor, possibly in 10% to 15% of colicky infants [19]. The child is usually brought to the physician by concerned parents seeking advice, and a careful history and physical examination are imperative to determine whether there is an organic cause for the crying or to relieve parental fears and allow for a diagnosis of colic. Documentation of the frequency and quantity of spitting up is necessary to satisfy the diagnostic criteria of infantile colic and to rule out gastroesophageal reflux or pyloric stenosis [40]. Colic usually resolves in 60% of infants by 3 months of age and in 90% of infants by 4 months of age [41]. Multiple strategies have been employed in management of the infant with prolonged or excessive crying [42], including hypoallergenic (protein hydrolysate) formula (for formula fed infants), a lowallergen maternal diet (for breastfeeding mothers), a dicyclomine trial, and reduced environmental stress on the child. Five trials have studied the effect of eliminating cow’s milk protein on excessive crying [43–47]. Two reports studying hypoallergenic (protein hydrolysate) formula in nearly 130 infants found an effect size of 0.22 (95% CI, 0.10–0.34). A comparison of breast milk with standard cow’s milk in infants who were already weaned showed no significant differences. The anticholinergic drugs dicyclomine and dicycloverine showed a clear benefit in the treatment of excessive crying. The pooled results showed a clinically significant improvement (effect size of 0.46 [95%CI, 0.33–0.60]) [42]. Dicyclomine is effective in treating infantile colic, but 5% of the treated infants had side effects. The manufacturer reports breathing difficulties, seizures, syncope, asphyxia, muscular hypotonia, and coma as side effects [48]. Taubman [49] found that increasing parental responsiveness decreased crying significantly from 2.09  1.07 h/d to 1.19  0.60 h/d. Non–IgE-mediated reactions Non–IgE-mediated hypersensitivities are believed to be the result of abnormal antigen processing or cell-mediated mechanisms and include dietary protein-induced eosinophilic proctocolitis, dietary protein-induced enterocolitis,

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

313

dietary protein-induced enteropathy, and celiac disease and gliadin-sensitive enteropathy. Celiac disease and gliadin-sensitive enteropathy leading to malabsorption with associated dermatitis herpetiformis, a chronic blistering skin disorder, is a classic gastrointestinal food allergy that is not IgE mediated and believed to be the result of various cell-mediated mechanisms. Celiac disease is reviewed elsewhere in this issue. Dietary (food) protein-induced enteropathy. Dietary protein-induced enteropathy is a symptom complex characterized by malabsorption, failure to thrive, diarrhea, emesis, and hypoproteinemia [50]. Although it is predominantly a disease of infancy, residual symptoms may persist to school age [51]. It is usually related to an immunologic reaction to cow’s milk protein but has also been associated with sensitivities to soy, egg, wheat, rice, chicken, and fish. Damage to the intestinal mucosa by allergic inflammation leads to villous architectural distortion and mild eosinophilic infiltration causing malabsorption and osmotic diarrhea [50]. Beyer and colleagues [52] demonstrated milk-specific lymphocytes in duodenal biopsies of 60% of infants with milk protein–induced enteropathy. Clinical and histologic features share similarities with celiac disease, which should be considered as the main differential diagnosis; however, unlike in celiac disease, loss of protein sensitivity occurs by the age of 6 to 18 months. Colitis features such as mucus and gross or microscopic hematochezia are usually absent [53]. For an accurate clinical diagnosis, challenge with the offending food after a demonstrated response to cow’s milk elimination is critical. When available, serial small intestinal bowel biopsies related to elimination and challenge are also important [50]. Dietary protein-induced enterocolitis. Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is a gastrointestinal allergic inflammation of the small intestine and colon in young infants aged 1 week to 3 months. Although cow’s milk and soy are considered the main causative allergens, other solid foods, including vegetables, cereals, fish, and poultry meats, have been reported as allergens [54]. FPIES usually presents with profuse diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, acidosis, transient methemoglobinemia, and failure to thrive. Anemia, occult positive stools, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage may be the presenting symptoms [15]. The pathophysiology of this disorder remains unclear. Chung and colleagues [55] performed immunohistochemical staining for TGF-b1, type 1 and 2 TGF-b receptors, and TNF-a on duodenal biopsy specimens of 28 infants diagnosed with FPIES by means of clinical criteria and challenge test results. Duodenal villous atrophy was associated with increased tissue staining for TNF-a, whereas expression of duodenal TGF-b was reduced in patients with FPIES. Stools contain occult blood and leukocytes, predominantly neutrophils and eosinophils. Jejunal biopsies classically reveal flattened villi, edema, and increased numbers of lymphocytes, eosinophils, and mast cell infiltration [53].

314

TALLEY

Complete resolution of symptoms within 72 hours with elimination of the causative allergen and recurrence with oral challenge is diagnostic [56]. Dietary protein-induced eosinophilic proctocolitis. Food-induced eosinophilic proctocolitis appears in the first 2 months of life with blood-tinged stools. Initially reported in the literature as a disorder of breast-fed infants [57], it has increasingly been reported in infants receiving cow’s milk, soy, and hydrolysate formula [58]. It is unclear why the allergic inflammation is limited only to the lower colon, and the role of eosinophils in this process has not been clearly defined. The infants typically have blood-streaked, normal-to-soft stools at 2 to 8 weeks of age. The age of the infant can range from 2 days to 3 months [9]. Weight gain and growth are normal. Endoscopic biopsies reveal increased eosinophils and T-cell infiltration of the colonic mucosa [59]. Stool cultures are negative for bacteria or Clostridium difficile by definition. Complete resolution of symptoms occurs with 3 to 4 days of elimination of the offending protein from the diet [9]. Bleeding and fecal leukocytes may clear within days; the endoscopic and histologic healing can take several weeks. Rechallenge with the offending protein usually provokes a recurrence of bleeding; however, the infant can tolerate an unrestricted diet after 9 months of age. Diagnostic Evaluation Laboratory tests Food-specific serum IgE antibody testing is now commercially available. Levels above the clinical cut-off indicate a more than 95% likelihood of experiencing an allergic reaction and can be used to compliment skin prick testing [60]. The positive predictive values for the three major food allergens (ie, egg, milk, and peanut) are 95% or greater [60]; however, a definitive diagnosis of gastrointestinal food allergy still relies on standard double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges [61]. Skin puncture test Skin prick or puncture testing is performed by introducing the food allergen to cutaneous mast cells. If food-specific IgE antibody is present on the surface of the patient’s mast cells, the cells will degranulate, releasing histamine and other mediators that cause localized cutaneous swelling (ie, a wheal). Vasodilatation also develops as a result of an axonal reflex (ie, a flare). Commercial extracts from foods with stable proteins, such as peanuts, milk, egg, tree nuts, fish, and shellfish, are generally better in terms of specific IgE antibody production. Extracts from fruits, vegetables, and other foods containing labile proteins may be altered during processing and can produce variable results [62]. The general sensitivity and specificity of skin prick testing for the diagnosis of food allergy are often estimated to be greater than 90% and approximately 50%, respectively [63]. This test provides rapid detection of sensitization, and negative responses essentially confirm the absence of IgE-mediated allergy (negative predictive value over 95%); however, a positive test response does

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

315

not indicate that the particular food is involved [64]. The utility of the skin prick test can be greatly enhanced if it is used under correct clinical settings (ie, with a high pretest probability), and it should not be used as a screening test due to low specificity. Case series have shown that infants with milk or soy enterocolitis have negative skin prick tests, serum food-specific IgE tests, or both [65]. Endoscopic biopsies Upper or lower gastrointestinal tract biopsies are not diagnostic. The small intestinal mucosa may show chronic villous atrophy similar to celiac disease; however, eosinophilic infiltrates in the rectal biopsy strongly suggest dietary protein-induced eosinophilic proctocolitis. Bischoff and colleagues [66] developed a new approach to improve the diagnostic yield of endoscopy called colonoscopic allergen provocation (COLAP). During this test, cecal mucosa of 70 adult patients with abdominal symptoms suspected to be related to food allergy and of five healthy volunteers were challenged endoscopically with three food antigen extracts, a buffer control, and a positive control (histamine). The mucosal weal and flare reaction was registered semiquantitatively 20 minutes after challenge, and tissue biopsy specimens were examined for mast cell and eosinophilic activation. The COLAP test was positive to at least one food antigen in 54 of 70 patients (77%), whereas no reaction in response to antigen was found in healthy volunteers. Management Diet Avoiding the identified food allergen is the cornerstone of treatment in the management of food allergy and may improve the likelihood that tolerance will develop with time, especially to cow’s milk, egg, and soy [56]. This avoidance is particularly important in peanut allergy, in which even tiny traces of allergens can initiate anaphylaxis. Nevertheless, the practicality of such elimination diets is limited. They necessitate well-trained counselors, time, and a great deal of motivation on the part of the affected persons. The response to an elimination diet is variable in adults, and relapses are common, which are more likely due to an accidental ingestion of a previously identified but hidden common food allergen (eg, milk, egg) rather than a reaction to a new food. An elimination diet can lead to malnutrition, especially in children if large numbers of food items are involved for prolonged periods of time [67]. Several studies have shown that milk and peanut protein are secreted into the breast milk of lactating women after maternal ingestion of these foods [68,69]. On the basis of this observation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the European Society for Pediatric Allergology and Clinical Immunology, and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition all recommend exclusion of identified causal protein from the maternal diet if the infant is affected [70,71]. Newly implemented food labeling laws clearly indicate major food allergens, and patients should learn to understand these labels to avoid accidental

316

TALLEY

exposure to allergens and foods with cross-reacting antigens. The Food Allergy Network is a useful source of information on food allergies and anaphylaxis (http://www.foodallergy.org). If the patient fails to respond to diet elimination or if all of the provocative foods are not clearly identifiable, pharmacologic therapy may be required. Sodium cromoglycate This drug prevents the release of toxic mast cell mediators. It also alters the mucosal permeability of the gastrointestinal tract by reducing direct absorption of antigens [72]. In a clinical trial conducted in the early 1970s, Freier and Berger [73] used oral sodium cromoglycate in a dose of 50 mg every 6 hours in four infants with milk protein intolerance. All four were re-challenged with milk and remained asymptomatic. Symptoms recurred in one child after cessation of treatment. Subsequently, Kocoshis and Gryboski [74] in a double-blind, clinical, placebo-controlled trial involving 14 children with milk allergy and concomitant allergies to one or more foods evaluated the efficacy of orally given cromolyn sodium versus placebo. Treatment was begun while the children were receiving elimination diets; they were then challenged with specific antigen after 48 hours of drug administration. Crossover took place if the initial agent was ineffective. Cromolyn was effective in 11 of 13 children compared with three of nine in the placebo group. In a case-control study, Patriarca and colleagues [75] used oral desensitization treatment over a period of 6 to 8 months in combination with sodium cromoglycate (250–500 mg before each meal) in 47 patients with a clinical or biochemical diagnosis of allergies to various food products (positive prickby-prick test and high IgE levels plus urticaria/angioedema, erythema with pruritus, rhinitis, rhinorrhea, vomiting or diarrhea with abdominal pain or general malaise, collapse or loss of consciousness). Desensitization was successful (based on a negative skin prick test, decrease in specific IgE, and clinical improvement) in 45 of the 54 treatments (83%). Although oral desensitization treatment in combination with oral cromoglycate may be an alternate approach in a patient with food allergy when avoidance has failed, this is not the standard of care. Molkhou and Dupont [76] treated 16 children and four adults suffering from food allergy or food intolerance with a 1-mg daily dose of ketotifen, another mast cell stabilizer. Gastrointestinal permeability was measured in 5 of 20 patients using mannitol and lactulose. In five individuals, food ingestion resulted in a significant rise of the lactulose to mannitol urinary ratio, and the administration of ketotifen resulted in a normalization of the mannitol to lactulose urinary ratio. Patients with urticaria with or without angioedema, gastrointestinal symptoms, asthma, and oropharynx pruritus with edema of the lips appeared to be protected from food allergy in this study. Suzuki and colleagues [77] successfully treated a 10-year-old boy with ketotifen and oral disodium cromoglycate who was suffering from protein-losing enteropathy, eosinophilic gastroenteritis, and increased allergen-specific IgE antibodies to some food items.

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

317

Corticosteroids Systemic corticosteroids remain the first-line therapy for management of eosinophilic gastroenteritis in acutely symptomatic patients or those who fail or cannot tolerate dietary restrictions because they provide rapid and effective relief of symptoms within a few days to weeks. Most experts recommend doses similar to those used in inflammatory bowel disease (1–2 mg/kg/d) orally for 8 weeks and tapered over 6 to 8 weeks to induce remission [78,79]. Although topical corticosteroids have been proven effective in eosinophilic esophagitis [80], there is no evidence in the literature to establish their usefulness in gastrointestinal food allergy. Leukotriene receptor antagonists Due to various side effects associated with the prolonged use of corticosteroid therapy, multiple steroid-sparing modalities have been tried with variable results. The cysteinyl leukotrienes (LTC4, LTD4, LTE4) are potent inflammatory eicosanoids released from various cells, including mast cells and eosinophils, that bind to cysteinyl leukotriene receptors (CysLT) found in the human airway and cause a number of airway actions, including bronchoconstriction, mucous secretion, vascular permeability, and eosinophil recruitment. Montelukast binds selectively, competitively, and with high affinity to these receptors (CysLT1), blocking the eosinophilic chemotactic and other proinflammatory actions. There have been anecdotal case reports [81,82] of successful treatment of food allergy with montelukast. Vanderhoof and colleagues [83] observed marked improvement in the symptoms of eight children ranging in age from 2 to 17 years with gastrointestinal eosinophilia unresponsive to standard therapies, including diet and cow’s milk protein restriction. The optimal dose is not documented in the literature. Despite its use for weeks to months with gradual tapering of the steroids, tissue eosinophilia may persist [84]. Probiotics Probiotics are microbial cell preparations or components of microbial cells that have a beneficial effect on the health and well-being of the host [85]. Most of these agents belong to the genera lactobacilli or bifidobacteria, appear safe for human use, and can bind to and colonize human intestine [86,87]. The concept of replenishing gut flora is not new. The Russian scientist Eli Metchnikoff at the beginning of the twentieth century first suggested that it would be possible to modify the gut flora and to replace harmful microbes by useful microbes [88,89]. Loskutova [90] in 1985 reported the improvement of food allergy symptoms with the administration of a mixture containing propionibacteria and Lactobacillus acidophilus. Multiple studies since then have yielded variable results. Wheeler and colleagues [91] in a randomized crossover study compared the immune parameters of participants who received 16 oz of yogurt fermented with Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus versus 16 oz of milk per day and reported no significant improvements in any parameter. In contrast, Majamaa

318

TALLEY

and Isolauri [92] in a prospective trial showed a clinical and biologic response of atopic eczema and cow’s milk protein allergy by using cow’s milk elimination without (n ¼ 14) and with (n ¼ 13) the addition of lactobacillus GG (5  108 colony-forming units/g formula) in an extensively hydrolyzed whey formula. A significant drop was noted in stool inflammatory markers in infants treated with the extensively hydrolyzed whey formula fortified with lactobacillus GG when compared with the extensively hydrolyzed whey formula alone. Currently, clinical data supporting the efficacy of probiotic therapy in the management of food allergy are limited, and rigorous scientific effort is required to elucidate the characteristics of distinct probiotic strains and to determine their safety and efficacy in food allergy.

INFECTIONS Parasites Due to improved hygiene conditions in developed countries, human worm infestations have almost been eradicated, except in travelers, exotic food adventurers, and immigrants from underdeveloped countries. Although eosinophils kill and phagocytose bacteria, they are unable to clear a bacterial infection in the absence of neutrophils. Their primary function is considered to be defensive against organisms that are too large to be phagocytosed, particularly parasitic helminthes [93]. Eosinophilia induced by helminthic infection is mainly dependent on IL-5 generated by TH2 lymphocytes. Carbohydrate ligands expressed on the parasite surface attract and activate eosinophils that, in turn, release their toxic granules on the parasite surface. The killed parasite is eventually phagocytosed by macrophages. Studies showing how eosinophils protect against schistosomiasis support this concept [94]. Helminthic infections characteristically are associated with peripheral eosinophilia reflecting an immunologic response to tissue migration. Gastrointestinal eosinophilia has been associated with Ancylostoma, Strongyloides (Figs. 1 and 2), Enterobius vermicularis, Eustoma rotundatum, Trichuris trichiura, Gnathostoma spinigerum, Anisakis simplex, Trichinella spiralis, Ascaris suum, Schistosoma, Necator americanus, Isospora belli, and Toxocara canis (Table 2) [95–117]. Treatment with anthelmentic drugs results in resolution of symptoms and tissue eosinophilia in most cases. Ancylostoma caninum, a nematode belonging to the Ascaridia superfamily and also known as dog hookworm, can cause prolonged and persistent gastrointestinal eosinophilia that can be confused with eosinophilic gastroenteritis. A caninum has been increasingly reported to cause eosinophilic enteritis in Australia [95] and the United States [96]. Enteric infection with A caninum is a leading cause of human eosinophilic enteritis in northeastern Australia [118]. Human infection depends on the worm prevalence in dogs, suitable ecology, and appropriate behavior by both canines and humans. Larvae of A caninum classically enter a human host by skin penetration, causing a classic creeping eruption, but infection by oral ingestion is also possible. These larvae probably remain dormant in skeletal muscles and create no symptoms;

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

319

Fig. 1. Duodenal biopsy showing Strongyloides. Abundant eosinophils and chronic inflammatory cells are also visible (hematoxylin-eosin stain, original magnification 40).

however, in some individuals, larvae may reach the gut and mature into adult worms [97]. Clinical features are nonspecific, and a history of potential exposure is rare in those with gut eosinophilia from this worm. Abdominal pain, diarrhea, anemia, and intestinal obstruction are common presenting symptoms. Gastrointestinal bleeding is uncommon. Blood eosinophilia and high serum IgE levels are present but nonspecific. Indirect ELISA and Western blots can detect antibodies to antigens of adult A caninum and are helpful in the right clinical setting. Colonoscopy often reveals focal mucosal inflammation and aphthous ulcers of the terminal ileum, cecum, and colon with marked eosinophilic infiltration on biopsy; finding the worm itself is rare [98]. Clinical symptoms and peripheral eosinophilia rapidly improve with mebendazole, albendazole, or ivermectin [99]. In

Fig. 2. Strongyloides stercoralis within the glandular cells of duodenal mucosa. The underlying lamina propria showed abundant eosinophils (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification 40).

TALLEY

320

Table 2 Infections characteristically associated with gastrointestinal eosinophilia Site of eosinophilia

Parasite

Reference

Esophagitis Gastroenteritis

Gnathostoma spinigerum Anisakis simplex Enterobius vermicularis Trichuris trichiura Toxocara canis Anisakis simplex Trichinella spiralis (rat) Schistosoma mansoni (rat) Necator americanus Sarcocystis hominis Isospora belli Strongyloides stercoralis Enterobius vermicularis Eustoma rotundatum Anisakis simplex Enterobius vermicularis Ascaris suum Trichuris trichiura Strongyloides stercoralis Ancylostoma duodenale

[95] [96] [97] [98] [99,100] [101] [102] [103] [104,105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111,112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]

Enteritis

Terminal ileitis

Colitis/proctitis

dog owners with unexplained eosinophilic ileocolitis, an empiric trial of antihelminthic therapy is reasonable. Helicobacter pylori In healthy individuals, eosinophils are normally detectable in stomach and intestine but not in the esophagus. The normal cut-offs by quantification microscopy are poorly defined, but less than 5 eosinophils per high-power field is probably within normal limits in health. There have been a few case reports of the coexistence of H pylori and eosinophilic infiltration of gastric mucosa [119,120]. McGovern and colleagues [100] demonstrated increased eosinophilic infiltration and degranulation in the gastric mucosa in the presence of H pylori. Although there is no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship, screening and eradication of H pylori have resulted in complete resolution of eosinophilic gastroenteritis in a few cases [119,120]. Cytomegalovirus Whittington and Whittington [101] proposed cytomegalovirus (CMV) as the possible etiology in 2 of 17 children evaluated for eosinophilic gastroenteritis. CMV antigenemia seroconversion has been reported in children post liver transplant in whom gastrointestinal eosinophilia developed [102]. Takeyama and colleagues [103] reported CMV infection and eosinophilic gastroenteritis in an immunocompetent child who experienced transient protein losing enteropathy and peripheral eosinophilia. Anti-CMV IgG and IgM

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

321

antibodies were positive. Gastric, duodenal, and colonic biopsies revealed eosinophilic infiltration of the lamina propria and cytomegalic cells (large cells containing eosinophilic intranuclear inclusions and, frequently, basophilic intracytoplasmic inclusions) that were immunohistochemically positive for CMV. The patient was treated with transfusions of albumin, oral famotidine, oxatomide (an H1 histamine blocker), and cromoglycate (a mast cell stabilizer) but not corticosteroids and eventually recovered. Repeat biopsies were negative. The presence of intranuclear and intracytoplasmic inclusions in a biopsy specimen should raise suspicion, and appropriate testing should be conducted to rule out this rare presentation. MEDICATIONS The overall incidence of peripheral eosinophilia from a drug is probably less than 0.1%. O’Donovan [104] reported the first case of gold-induced colitis, and since then, over 30 well-documented cases have been reported in the literature. The onset of enterocolitis was delayed, and the clinical findings included abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, watery diarrhea, or bloody stools. Colonoscopy may reveal friable ulcerated mucosa. Pathologic examination of colonic biopsies may show mucosal hemorrhage and ulcerations with inflammatory and, in some cases, a predominantly eosinophilic infiltration of the gastrointestinal mucosa [105,106]. Despite causing significant morbidity due to prolonged diarrhea and severe protein losing enteropathy, no cases of mortality has been reported in the literature since 1980 [106]. Several other drugs (Table 3) have been reported to cause eosinophilic gastroenteritis even though they do not share any common chemical or pharmacologic properties [121–128]. Withdrawal of the drug and rapid clinical and histologic improvement is the only possible way to confirm a casual association. There have been no reported treatment trials to date in the literature. TRANSPLANTATION Liver Transplant Dhawan and colleagues [107] in 1992 first described eosinophilic gastroenteritis in two patients post liver transplant. Treatment of acute rejection with bolus Table 3 Drugs that have been reported to cause eosinophilic gastroenteritis Drugs implicated in causing gastrointestinal eosinophilia

Reference

Azathioprine Gemfibrozil Enalapril Carbamazepine Clofazimine Co-trimoxazole Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs Tacrolimus

[121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128]

322

TALLEY

steroids has been postulated to be the possible mechanism because it prompts an imbalance in the Th1/Th2 profile promoting eosinophilia. Since then, this entity has been increasingly reported in the literature. In a retrospective study, Lee and colleagues [108] reported eosinophilic colitis in 14 of 38 (37%) children post liver transplant. These patients had a significantly higher incidence of peripheral eosinophilia during the first 2 months, and the diagnosis was made at a mean of 7 months after transplantation. Twelve of the 14 patients were fed hypoallergenic formula, and major allergens, such as eggs, milk, soy, and seafood, were not given after weaning from milk. All of the patients showed significant improvement with food restriction treatment. Romero and colleagues [109] retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all pediatric liver transplant recipients over a period of 3 years and identified 15 of 53 (28%) patients in whom peripheral eosinophilia developed at a mean of 417  240 days after transplantation. Peripheral eosinophilia was defined as an eosinophilic count greater than 10% of the total white cell count. Six (11%) of these patients underwent upper or lower gastrointestinal endoscopies for various symptoms including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and blood in the stools and were diagnosed with eosinophilic gastroenteritis, which was defined as greater than 10 eosinophils per high-power field in the lamina propria. Affected patients were younger and had more rejection episodes. Moreover, three of six patients with eosinophilic gastrointestinal involvement were re-transplanted compared with 1 of 38 (2.5%) in the group that had a normal peripheral eosinophilic count, a significant difference. A younger age at transplantation, frequent rejection episodes, tacrolimusrelated immunosuppressant, peripheral eosinophilia during the first 2 months after transplant, and Epstein-Barr viremia are proposed risk factors in liver transplant patients in whom eosinophilic gastroenteritis develops. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of posttransplant patients who experience vomiting, diarrhea, hematochezia, and abdominal pain. It should also be considered when peripheral eosinophilia is detected or when Epstein-Barr virus seroconversion develops during the first 2 months following transplantation. There is no standard treatment protocol, and all of the patients in the previously mentioned studies were symptomatically treated. Graft-Versus-Host Disease Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is characterized by inflammation of the skin, liver, and gut occurring before day 100 after allogenic bone marrow transplantation. In contrast, chronic GVHD is a more pleotropic disease, usually occurring after day 100 after bone marrow transplantation. Daneshpouy and colleagues [110] evaluated 93 patients with gastrointestinal predominant GVHD and reported 36 patients (38.7%) with tissue eosinophilia, especially in the duodenal lamina propria. IL-5 is the main cytokine that stimulates eosinophil production in the bone marrow, and its levels were found to be high in all duodenal biopsy specimens. McNeel and colleagues [111] also

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

323

reported eosinophilia with gastrointestinal symptoms in two GVHD patients who underwent allogenic bone marrow transplantation. Interestingly, both patients responded to high-dose prednisone with complete resolution of symptoms. INFLAMMATORY FIBROID POLYPS An inflammatory fibroid polyp is a solitary non-encapsulated, usually submucosal, polypoid or sessile lesion characterized by edematous connective tissue and numerous small blood vessels with diffuse eosinophilic inflammatory infiltrate. It was first described in 1949 by Vanek [112] as a ‘‘gastric submucosal granuloma with eosinophilic infiltration.’’ In the literature, they also have been referred to as an inflammatory pseudotumor, localized eosinophilic granuloma, hemangiopericytoma, neurofibroma, or submucosal granuloma. In 1953, Helwig and Ranier [113] introduced the term inflammatory fibroid polyp, which has now been largely accepted in the literature. This polyp is seen in all age groups and has been reported in all parts of the gastrointestinal tract, including the esophagus [114,115], stomach [116,117], and small [118,129,130] and large intestines [131,132]. It may induce a variety of symptoms depending on its size, including pain, diarrhea, obstruction, bleeding, and intussusception. The size ranges from 0.7 to 20 cm, and, in larger polyps, the overlying mucosa is usually ulcerated [119]. Microscopically, the stroma is infiltrated by eosinophils to a varying degree, ranging from a few to dense aggregates. Fibroblasts in the stroma can gather in a nodular configuration with an onionskin-like arrangement and may form a concentric aggregation around small vessels and inflammatory infiltrates. Due to the presence of dense eosinophilic infiltration, Suen and Burton [120] in 1979 suggested that these polyps may be a variant of eosinophilic gastroenteritis, but they are now considered a separate and distant clinicopathologic entity of unknown etiology. Treatment is almost always resection, either endoscopic or surgical; however, gastric fibroid polyp elimination has also been reported following Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy [133]. HYPEREOSINOPHILIC SYNDROME The hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) are disorders marked by the sustained overproduction of eosinophils characterized clinically by damage to multiple organs due to eosinophilic infiltration and mediator release [134]. Chusid and colleagues [135] suggested three defining features for clinical diagnosis: (1) blood eosinophilia of greater than 1500/lL is present for more than 6 months; (2) there are no other apparent etiologies for eosinophilia, such as parasitic infection or allergic disease; and (3) signs and symptoms of end-organ dysfunction are present. IL-5 has been implicated in the pathogenesis of HES due to its unique ability among the hematopoietins to cause selective eosinophilic granulocytosis both in vitro and in vivo [136]. Some HES patients have features of a myeloproliferative disorder with a complex chromosomal abnormality, leading to a fusion of

324

TALLEY

the Fip1-like 1 (FIP1L1) gene to the platelet-derived growth factor receptoralpha (PDGFRA) gene generated by a deletion on chromosome 4q12 and resulting in the production of the constitutively activated tyrosine kinase FIP1L1-PDGFR-alpha. A distinctive part of the syndrome is its marked predilection to damage specific organs, with cardiac disease being the most serious. The gastrointestinal tract is involved in 20% patients, including eosinophilic gastritis, enterocolitis, cholecystitis, chronic active hepatitis, and the BuddChiari syndrome from hepatic vein obstruction. Left upper quadrant pain can also occur from splenomegaly and splenic infracts [137]. HES should be suspected in patients with persistent high-grade eosinophilia in the absence of identifiable causes. Extra-intestinal manifestations rule out primary eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Involvement of medium-to-small vessels may suggest Churg-Strauss syndrome which shares many similar characteristics. Eosinophilic leukemia is important to consider in the differential diagnosis. Establishing clonality and the presence of chromosomal abnormalities consistent with eosinophilic leukemia assists in identifying this diagnosis. Asymptomatic patients do not need treatment, and close follow-up is indicated. Prednisone remains the mainstay of treatment. Many other treatment modalities have been suggested for the treatment of HES. Imatinib mesylate is now the first-line treatment for patients with HES and myeloproliferative features [138]. Alpha interferon is indicated in patients who fail steroid treatment. Bone marrow transplantation should be considered in patients who have FIP1L1/PDGFRA-associated HES that fails imatinib therapy. VASCULITIS AND CONNECTIVE TISSUE DISEASES Systemic Sclerosis Systemic sclerosis is a chronic multisystem disorder of unknown etiology characterized clinically by thickening of the skin caused by the accumulation of connective tissue and by structural and functional abnormalities of visceral organs, including the gastrointestinal tract, lungs, heart, and kidneys. Eosinophilic infiltrates of the esophagus, stomach, and small bowel lamina propria in a bandlike fashion were described by DeSchryver-Kecskemeti and Clouse [139] in six patients with scleroderma, dermatomyositis, and polymyositis. Buchman and colleagues [121] reported a similar case of a 47-year-old black man who presented with nausea, vomiting, a painful abdomen, and unspecified connective tissue disease. No peripheral eosinophilia was noted. Large numbers of mast cells and eosinophilic infiltration were also seen in the lamina propria. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Gastrointestinal involvement is relatively common in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, with a reported prevalence ranging from 0.9% to 28% [122], including primary vasculitis, bowel infarction, protein losing enteropathy, intestinal pseudo-obstruction, fat malabsorption, and infectious diarrhea. Barbie and colleagues [123] and Sunkureddi and colleagues [140] have reported

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

325

two well-documented cases of eosinophilic gastroenteritis in patients with diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus. Nevertheless, at this point, it is not possible to conclude there is a casual link between these two entities. Churg-Strauss Vasculitis Churg-Strauss syndrome is a granulomatous small-vessel vasculitis characterized by allergic rhinitis, asthma, and prominent peripheral blood eosinophilia [124]. In 1951, Churg and Strauss [125] first described the syndrome in 13 patients who had asthma, eosinophilia, granulomatous inflammation, necrotizing systemic vasculitis, and necrotizing glomerulonephritis. Although the exact etiology of Churg-Strauss syndrome is unknown, the disease is most likely due to an autoimmune process [126]. The lungs and skin are the two organs most commonly involved; however, any organ system can be involved in advanced disease. The gastrointestinal manifestations of Churg-Strauss syndrome are diverse and include the features of eosinophilic gastroenteritis as well as mesenteric vasculitis. Abdominal pain, diarrhea, ulcers, and lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding may be seen in as many as 33% patients [127]. Aoyagi and colleagues [128], reviewed gastrointestinal findings in nine patients with Churg-Strauss syndrome. Ulcers, erosions, edema, or small nodules were present in the stomach (5/8), duodenum (4/8), small intestine (3/5), and colon (6/8). Endoscopic biopsy specimens demonstrated eosinophilic infiltration in the stomach (3/5), duodenum (1/4), small intestine (1/4), and colon (3/6), but there were no specific findings of vasculitis. The presence of significant gastrointestinal disease may be one of the strongest indicators of a poor prognosis [141]. OTHER UNUSUAL GASTROINTESTINAL EOSINOPHILIC DISEASES Physicians and health care professionals from all over the world continue to report unusual associations with gastrointestinal eosinophilia. Pseudotumoral Enterocolitis Male and colleagues [142] in 1983 described a patient who presented with abdominal pain, bloody diarrhea, and massive peripheral eosinophilia. After failed treatment with corticosteroids, she underwent colectomy and symptoms improved. Five years later, the disease recurred in the rectum and small bowel with massive granuloma formation. Extensive work-up failed to reveal any obvious cause, and after multiple failed corticosteroid treatments, she succumbed to this illness. At necropsy, the small bowel contained intramural polypoid tumors. Pseudotumours were also present on the mesentery. All of the tumors were heavily infiltrated by mature eosinophils. Paraneoplastic Syndrome Stefanini and colleagues [143] described a 39-year-old man with abdominal pain, diarrhea, and peripheral eosinophilia. Jejunal biopsy revealed diffuse eosinophilic infiltration of the lamina propria. His symptoms subsided with corticosteroid treatment. Two months later, symptoms recurred with

326

TALLEY

supraclavicular lymphadenopathy. Anaplastic large cell lung carcinoma was diagnosed, and the possibility of eosinophilic gastroenteritis arising from a paraneoplastic syndrome was suggested. Malignant T-Cell Lymphoma Shepherd and colleagues [144] in 1986 published a case series of 28 patients diagnosed with primary T-cell lymphoma of the gastrointestinal tract and histologic distinctive massive tissue eosinophilia. Abdominal pain, weight loss, nausea and vomiting were the chief symptoms. All of these patients were treated with local excision of the tumor. Radiofrequency ablation was used in seven patients, and chemotherapy was attempted in nine patients; however, these modalities remained palliative only, and the mean survival time was 11 months. Acknowledgment The author thanks Dr. Murli Krishna from the Department of Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, for providing histopathologic slides. References [1] Strobel S. Epidemiology of food sensitivity in childhood–with special reference to cow’s milk allergy in infancy. Monogr Allergy 1993;31:119–30. [2] Schafer T, Bohler E, Ruhdorfer S, et al. Epidemiology of food allergy/food intolerance in adults: associations with other manifestations of atopy. Allergy 2001;56(12):1172–9. [3] Young E, Stoneham MD, Petruckevitch A, et al. A population study of food intolerance. Lancet 1994;343:1127–30. [4] Sicherer SH, Munoz-Furlong A, Burks AW, et al. Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the US determined by a random digit dial telephone survey. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103(4):559–62. [5] Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA, Sicherer SH. Prevalence of self-reported seafood allergy in the US. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;113(Suppl):S100. [6] Eggesbo M, Botten G, Halvorsen R, et al. The prevalence of allergy to egg: a populationbased study in young children. Allergy 2001;56(5):403–11. [7] Altman DR, Chiaramonte LT. Public perception of food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996;97(6):1247–51. [8] Vandezande LM, Wallaert B, Desreumaux P, et al. Interleukin-5 immunoreactivity and mRNA expression in gut mucosa from patients with food allergy. Clin Exp Allergy 1999;29(5):652–9. [9] Laker AM. Food-induced eosinophilic proctocolitis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2000;30(Suppl):S58–60. [10] Woo JG, Assa’ad A, Heizer AB, et al. The -159 C–>T polymorphism of CD14 is associated with nonatopic asthma and food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003;112(2):438–44. [11] Hand S, Darke C, Thompson J, et al. Human leucocyte antigen polymorphisms in nut-allergic patients in South Wales. Clin Exp Allergy 2004;34(5):720–4. [12] Sicherer SH, Furlong TJ, Maes HH, et al. Genetics of peanut allergy: a twin study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000;106(1 Pt 1):53–6. [13] Bjorksten B. Genetic and environmental risk factors for the development of food allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2005;5(3):249–53. [14] Frank L, Marian A, Visser M, et al. Exposure to peanuts in utero and in infancy and the development of sensitization to peanut allergens in young children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 1999;10(1):27–32.

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

327

[15] Heine RG. Pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of food protein-induced gastrointestinal diseases. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;4(3):221–9. [16] Perkin JE. The latex and food allergy connection. J Am Diet Assoc 2000;100(11):1381–4. [17] Raulf-Heimsoth M, Kespohl S, Crespo JF, et al. Natural rubber latex and chestnut allergy: cross-reactivity or co-sensitization? Allergy 2007;62(11):1277–81. [18] Kim KT, Hussain H. Prevalence of food allergy in 137 latex-allergic patients. Allergy Asthma Proc 1999;20(2):95–7. [19] Sampson HA. Infantile colic and food allergy: fact or fiction? J Pediatr 1989;115(4):583–4. [20] Yocum MW, Butterfield JH, Klein JS, et al. Epidemiology of anaphylaxis in Olmsted County: a population-based study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;104(2 Pt 1):452–6. [21] Worobec A, Metcalfe DD. Anaphylactic syndrome. In: Austen KF, Frank MM, Atkinson JP, et al, editors. Samter’s immunologic diseases. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 825–36. [22] Lieberman P. Biphasic anaphylactic reactions. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2005;95(3): 217–26 [quiz: 226, 258]. [23] Ellis AK, Day JH. Incidence and characteristics of biphasic anaphylaxis: a prospective evaluation of 103 patients. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2007;98(1):64–9. [24] Douglas DM, Sukenick E, Andrade WP, et al. Biphasic systemic anaphylaxis: an inpatient and outpatient study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994;93(6):977–85. [25] Yocum MW, Khan DA. Assessment of patients who have experienced anaphylaxis: a 3-year survey. Mayo Clin Proc 1994;69(1):16–23. [26] The diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis: an updated practice parameter. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2005;115(3 Suppl 2):S483–523. [27] Osterballe M, Hansen TK, Mortz CG, et al. The clinical relevance of sensitization to pollenrelated fruits and vegetables in unselected pollen-sensitized adults. Allergy 2005;60(2): 218–25. [28] Asero R, Massironi F, Velati C. Detection of prognostic factors for oral allergy syndrome in patients with birch pollen hypersensitivity. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996;97(2): 611–6. [29] Crimi E, Voltolini S, Gianiorio P, et al. Effect of seasonal exposure to pollen on specific bronchial sensitivity in allergic patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1990;85(6):1014–9. [30] Pastorello EA, Ortolani C. Oral allergy syndrome. In: Metcalfe DD, Sampson HA, Simon RA, editors. Food allergy: adverse reactions to food and food additives. Cambridge (UK): Blackwell Science; 1997. p. 221–34. [31] Anhoej C, Backer V, Nolte H. Diagnostic evaluation of grass- and birch-allergic patients with oral allergy syndrome. Allergy 2001;56(6):548–52. [32] Bindslev-Jensen C, Vibits A, Stahl Skov P, et al. Oral allergy syndrome: the effect of astemizole. Allergy 1991;46(8):610–3. [33] Asero R. Effects of birch pollen-specific immunotherapy on apple allergy in birch pollenhypersensitive patients. Clin Exp Allergy 1998;28(11):1368–73. [34] Bucher X, Pichler WJ, Dahinden CA, et al. Effect of tree pollen specific, subcutaneous immunotherapy on the oral allergy syndrome to apple and hazelnut. Allergy 2004;59(12): 1272–6. [35] Wessel MA, Cobb JC, Jackson EB, et al. Paroxysmal fussing in infancy, sometimes called colic. Pediatrics 1954;14(5):421–35. [36] Brazelton TB. Crying in infancy. Pediatrics 1962;29:579–88. [37] Lucassen PL, Assendelft WJ, van Eijk JT, et al. Systematic review of the occurrence of infantile colic in the community. Arch Dis Child 2001;84(5):398–403. [38] Clifford TJ, Campbell MK, Speechley KN, et al. Sequelae of infant colic: evidence of transient infant distress and absence of lasting effects on maternal mental health. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156(12):1183–8. [39] Roberts DM, Ostapchuk M, O’Brien JG. Infantile colic. Am Fam Physician 2004;70(4): 735–40.

328

TALLEY

[40] Reust CE, Blake RL Jr. Diagnostic workup before diagnosing colic. Arch Fam Med 2000;9(3):282–3. [41] Parker S. Colic. In: Parker S, Zuckerman B, Augustyn M, editors. Developmental and behavioral pediatrics: a handbook for primary care. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. p. 158. [42] Lucassen PL, Assendelft WJ, Gubbels JW, et al. Effectiveness of treatments for infantile colic: systematic review. BMJ 1998;316(7144):1563–9. [43] Evans RW, Fergusson DM, Allardyce RA, et al. Maternal diet and infantile colic in breastfed infants. Lancet 1981;1(8234):1340–2. [44] Lothe L, Lindberg T, Jakobsson I. Cow’s milk formula as a cause of infantile colic: a doubleblind study. Pediatrics 1982;70(1):7–10. [45] Campbell JP. Dietary treatment of infant colic: a double-blind study. J R Coll Gen Pract 1989;39(318):11–4. [46] Forsyth BW. Colic and the effect of changing formulas: a double-blind, multiple-crossover study. J Pediatr 1989;115(4):521–6. [47] Hill DJ, Hudson IL, Sheffield LJ, et al. A low allergen diet is a significant intervention in infantile colic: results of a community-based study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1995;96 (6 Pt 1):886–92. [48] Williams J, Watkins-Jones R. Dicyclomine: worrying symptoms associated with its use in some small babies. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984;288(6421):901. [49] Taubman B. Parental counseling compared with elimination of cow’s milk or soy milk protein for the treatment of infant colic syndrome: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 1988;81(6):756–61. [50] Walker-Smith JA. Cow milk-sensitive enteropathy: predisposing factors and treatment. J Pediatr 1992;121:S111–5. [51] Kokkonen J, Haapalahti V, Laurila K, et al. Cow’s milk protein-sensitive enteropathy at school age. J Pediatr 2001;139(6):797–803. [52] Beyer K, Castro R, Birnbaum A, et al. Human milk-specific mucosal lymphocytes of the gastrointestinal tract display a TH2 cytokine profile. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002;109(4): 707–13. [53] Sampson HA. Food allergies. In: Feldman M, Scharschmidt BF, Sleisenger MH, editors. Sleisenger and Fordtran’s gastrointestinal and liver disease: pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. Philadelphia:: WB Saunders; 2006. p. 433–4. [54] Nowak-Wegrzyn A, Sampson HA, Wood RA, et al. Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome caused by solid food proteins. Pediatrics 2003;111(4 Pt 1):829–35. [55] Chung HL, Hwang JB, Park JJ, et al. Expression of transforming growth factor beta-1, transforming growth factor type I and II receptors, and TNF-alpha in the mucosa of the small intestine in infants with food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002;109(1):150–4. [56] Sicherer SH, Eigenmann PA, Sampson HA. Clinical features of food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome. J Pediatr 1998;133(2):214–9. [57] Lake AM, Whitington PF, Hamilton SR. Dietary protein-induced colitis in breast-fed infants. J Pediatr 1982;101(6):906–10. [58] Odze RD, Wershil BK, Leichtner AM, et al. Allergic colitis in infants. J Pediatr 1995;126(2): 163–70. [59] Ormala T, Rintala R, Savilahti E. T cells of the colonic mucosa in patients with infantile colitis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2001;33(2):133–8. [60] Sampson HA. Utility of food-specific IgE concentrations in predicting symptomatic food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;107(5):891–6. [61] Bindslev-Jensen C, Ballmer-Weber BK, Bengtsson U, et al. Standardization of food challenges in patients with immediate reactions to foods–position paper from the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology. Allergy 2004;59(7): 690–7.

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

329

[62] Ortolani C, Ispano M, Pastorello EA, et al. Comparison of results of skin prick tests (with fresh foods and commercial food extracts) and RAST in 100 patients with oral allergy syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1989;83(3):683–90. [63] American College of Allergy, AI. Food allergy: a practice parameter. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2006;96(3 Suppl 2):S1–68. [64] Sicherer SH, Sampson HA. 9. Food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;117(2 Suppl): S470–5. [65] Sicherer SH. Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome: case presentations and management lessons. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2005;115(1):149–56. [66] Bischoff SC, Mayer J, Wedemeyer J, et al. Colonoscopic allergen provocation (COLAP): a new diagnostic approach for gastrointestinal food allergy. Gut 1997;40(6):745–53. [67] Mofidi S. Nutritional management of pediatric food hypersensitivity. Pediatrics 2003;111(6 Pt 3):1645–53. [68] Jarvinen KM, Makinen-Kiljunen S, Suomalainen H. Cow’s milk challenge through human milk evokes immune responses in infants with cow’s milk allergy. J Pediatr 1999;135(4): 506–12. [69] Vadas P, Wai Y, Burks W, et al. Detection of peanut allergens in breast milk of lactating women. JAMA 2001;285(13):1746–8. [70] American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Nutrition. Hypoallergenic infant formulas. Pediatrics 2000;106(2 Pt 1):346–9. [71] Host A, Koletzko B, Dreborg S, et al. Dietary products used in infants for treatment and prevention of food allergy. Joint Statement of the European Society for Paediatric Allergology and Clinical Immunology (ESPACI) Committee on Hypoallergenic Formulas and the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) Committee on Nutrition. Arch Dis Child 1999;81(1):80–4. [72] Edwards AM. Oral sodium cromoglycate: its use in the management of food allergy. Clin Exp Allergy 1995;25(Suppl 1)):31–3. [73] Freier S, Berger H. Disodium cromoglycate in gastrointestinal protein intolerance. Lancet 1973;1(7809):913–5. [74] Kocoshis S, Gryboski JD. Use of cromolyn in combined gastrointestinal allergy. JAMA 1979;242(11):1169–73. [75] Patriarca G, Nucera E, Roncallo C, et al. Oral desensitizing treatment in food allergy: clinical and immunological results. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;17(3):459–65. [76] Molkhou P, Dupont C. Ketotifen in prevention and therapy of food allergy. Ann Allergy 1987;59(5 Pt 2):187–93. [77] Suzuki J, Kawasaki Y, Nozawa R, et al. Oral disodium cromoglycate and ketotifen for a patient with eosinophilic gastroenteritis, food allergy and protein-losing enteropathy. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol 2003;21(3):193–7. [78] Khan S. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2005;19(2): 177–98. [79] Lee CM, Changchien CS, Chen PC, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: 10 years experience. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88(1):70–4. [80] Arora AS, Perrault J, Smyrk TC. Topical corticosteroid treatment of dysphagia due to eosinophilic esophagitis in adults. Mayo Clin Proc 2003;78(7):830–5. [81] Neustrom MR, Friesen C. Treatment of eosinophilic gastroenteritis with montelukast. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;104(2 Pt 1):506. [82] Schwartz DA, Pardi DS, Murray JA. Use of montelukast as steroid-sparing agent for recurrent eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Dig Dis Sci 2001;46(8):1787–90. [83] Vanderhoof JA, Young RJ, Hanner TL, et al. Montelukast: use in pediatric patients with eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2003;36(2):293–4. [84] Daikh BE, Ryan CK, Schwartz RH. Montelukast reduces peripheral blood eosinophilia but not tissue eosinophilia or symptoms in a patient with eosinophilic gastroenteritis and esophageal stricture. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2003;90(1):23–7.

330

TALLEY

[85] Kalliomaki M, Salminen S, Poussa T, et al. Probiotics and prevention of atopic disease: 4-year follow-up of a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361(9372): 1869–71. [86] Aguirre M, Collins MD. Lactic acid bacteria and human clinical infection. J Appl Bacteriol 1993;75(2):95–107. [87] Salminen S, Von Wright A, Morelli L, et al. Demonstration of safety of probiotics—a review. Int J Food Microbiol 1998;44(1–2):93–106. [88] Metchnikoff E, Metchnikoff LL, Mitchell PC. The prolongation of life: optimistic studies. Paris: Essais Optimists; 1907. [89] Heyman M, Corthier G, Petit A, et al. Intestinal absorption of macromolecules during viral enteritis: an experimental study on rotavirus-infected conventional and germ-free mice. Pediatr Res 1987;22(1):72–8. [90] Loskutova IE. Effectiveness of using Maliutka and Malysh adapted propionic-acidophilus mixtures in the combined treatment of congenital hypotrophy. Vopr Pitan 1985;(3): 17–20 [in Russian]. [91] Wheeler JG, Bogle ML, Shema SJ, et al. Impact of dietary yogurt on immune function. Am J Med Sci 1997;313(2):120–3. [92] Majamaa H, Isolauri E. Probiotics: a novel approach in the management of food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1997;99(2):179–85. [93] Weller PF. The immunobiology of eosinophils. N Engl J Med 1991;324(16):1110–8. [94] Hagan P, Wilkins HA, Blumenthal UJ, et al. Eosinophilia and resistance to Schistosoma haematobium in man. Parasite Immunol 1985;7(6):625–32. [95] Croese J, Loukas A, Opdebeeck J, et al. Human enteric infection with canine hookworms. Ann Intern Med 1994;120(5):369–74. [96] Schad GA. Hookworms: pets to humans. Ann Intern Med 1994;120(5):434–5. [97] Walker NI, Croese J, Clouston AD, et al. Eosinophilic enteritis in northeastern Australia: pathology, association with Ancylostoma caninum, and implications. Am J Surg Pathol 1995;19(3):328–37. [98] Prociv P, Croese J. Human enteric infection with Ancylostoma caninum: hookworms reappraised in the light of a ‘‘new’’ zoonosis. Acta Trop 1996;62(1):23–44. [99] Caumes E, Carriere J, Datry A, et al. A randomized trial of ivermectin versus albendazole for the treatment of cutaneous larva migrans. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1993;49(5): 641–4. [100] McGovern TW, Talley NJ, Kephart GM, et al. Eosinophil infiltration and degranulation in Helicobacter pylori-associated chronic gastritis. Dig Dis Sci 1991;36(4):435–40. [101] Whitington PF, Whitington GL. Eosinophilic gastroenteropathy in childhood. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1988;7(3):379–85. [102] Bogers J, Moreels T, De Man J, et al. Schistosoma mansoni infection causing diffuse enteric inflammation and damage of the enteric nervous system in the mouse small intestine. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2000;12(5):431–40. [103] Takeyama J, Abukawa D, Miura K. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis with cytomegalovirus infection in an immunocompetent child. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13(34): 4653–4. [104] O’Donovan WJ. Gold induced diarrhoea. Br J Dermatol 1929;41:17. [105] Jackson CW, Haboubi NY, Whorwell PJ, et al. Gold induced enterocolitis. Gut 1986;27(4):452–6. [106] Michet CJ Jr, Rakela J, Luthra HS. Auranofin-associated colitis and eosinophilia. Mayo Clin Proc 1987;62(2):142–4. [107] Dhawan A, Seemayer TA, Pinsinski C, et al. Posttransplant eosinophilic gastroenteritis in children. Liver Transpl Surg 1997;3(6):591–3. [108] Lee JH, Park HY, Choe YH, et al. The development of eosinophilic colitis after liver transplantation in children. Pediatr Transplant 2007;11(5):518–23.

GUT EOSINOPHILIA

331

[109] Romero R, Abramowsky CR, Pillen T, et al. Peripheral eosinophilia and eosinophilic gastroenteritis after pediatric liver transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 2003;7(6): 484–8. [110] Daneshpouy M, Socie G, Lemann M, et al. Activated eosinophils in upper gastrointestinal tract of patients with graft-versus-host disease. Blood 2002;99(8):3033–40. [111] McNeel D, Rubio MT, Damaj G, et al. Hypereosinophilia as a presenting sign of acute graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Transplantation 2002;4(12):1797–800. [112] Vanek J. Gastric submucosal granuloma with eosinophilic infiltration. Am J Pathol 1949;25(3):397–411. [113] Helwig EB, Ranier A. Inflammatory fibroid polyps of the stomach. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1953;96(3):335–67. [114] Costa PM, Marques A, Tavora Oliveira E, et al. Inflammatory fibroid polyp of the esophagus. Dis Esophagus 2000;13(1):75–9. [115] Simmons MZ, Cho KC, Houghton JM, et al. Inflammatory fibroid polyp of the esophagus in an HIV-infected individual: case study. Dysphagia 1995;10(1):59–61. [116] Guerra Bautista JA, Ibanez Delgado F, Hernandez de la Torre Bustillo JM, et al. Inflammatory fibroid polyp of the stomach. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2006;98(6):482–3 [in Spanish]. [117] Hirasaki S, Matsubara M, Ikeda F, et al. Gastric inflammatory fibroid polyp treated with Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy. Intern Med 2007;46(12):855–8. [118] Kim JS, Kwon SY, Byun KS, et al. Jejunal inflammatory fibroid polyp presenting as intussusception–a case report with review of the literature. Korean J Intern Med 1994;9(1):51–4. [119] Blackshaw AJ, Levison DA. Eosinophilic infiltrates of the gastrointestinal tract. J Clin Pathol 1986;39(1):1–7. [120] Suen KC, Burton JD. The spectrum of eosinophilic infiltration of the gastrointestinal tract and its relationship to other disorders of angiitis and granulomatosis. Hum Pathol 1979;10(1):31–43. [121] Buchman AL, Wolf D, Gramlich T. Eosinophilic gastrojejunitis associated with connective tissue disease. South Med J 1996;89(3):327–30. [122] Hallegua DS, Wallace DJ. Gastrointestinal manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2000;12(5):379–85. [123] Barbie DA, Mangi AA, Lauwers GY. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis associated with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004;38(10):883–6. [124] Noth I, Strek ME, Leff AR. Churg-Strauss syndrome. Lancet 2003;361(9357):587–94. [125] Churg J, Strauss L. Allergic granulomatosis, allergic angiitis, and periarteritis nodosa. Am J Pathol 1951;27(2):277–301. [126] Hellmich B, Ehlers S, Csernok E, et al. Update on the pathogenesis of Churg-Strauss syndrome. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2003;21(6 Suppl 32):S69–77. [127] Pagnoux C, Mahr A, Cohen P, et al. Presentation and outcome of gastrointestinal involvement in systemic necrotizing vasculitides: analysis of 62 patients with polyarteritis nodosa, microscopic polyangiitis, Wegener granulomatosis, Churg-Strauss syndrome, or rheumatoid arthritis-associated vasculitis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2005;84(2):115–28. [128] Aoyagi K, Yamamoto C, Maeda K, et al. Endoscopic and clinicopathological features of gastrointestinal involvement in Churg-Strauss syndrome. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59(5): W1687. [129] Wysocki AP, Taylor G, Windsor JA. Inflammatory fibroid polyps of the duodenum: a review of the literature. Dig Surg 2007;24(3):162–8. [130] Saiji E, Ayadi-Kaddour A, Ben Slama S, et al. Inflammatory fibroid polyp of the ileum presenting as intussusception: a case report in an adolescent. Tunis Med 2006;84(7): 454–7 [in French]. [131] Ng C, Lam KY, Gupta TS, et al. Inflammatory fibroid polyp of the caecum in a patient with neurofibromatosis. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2004;33(6):797–9.

332

TALLEY

[132] de la Plaza R, Picardo AL, Cuberes R, et al. Inflammatory fibroid polyps of the large intestine. Dig Dis Sci 1999;44(9):1810–6. [133] Papadopoulos AA, Tzathas C, Polymeros D, et al. Symptomatic eosinophilic gastritis cured with Helicobacter pylori eradication. Gut 2005;54(12):1822. [134] Weller PF, Bubley GJ. The idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome. Blood 1994;83(10): 2759–79. [135] Chusid MJ, Dale DC, West BC, et al. The hypereosinophilic syndrome: analysis of fourteen cases with review of the literature. Medicine (Baltimore) 1975;54(1):1–27. [136] Enokihara H, Kajitani H, Nagashima S, et al. Interleukin-5 activity in sera from patients with eosinophilia. Br J Haematol 1990;75(4):458–62. [137] Spry CJ, Davies J, Tai PC, et al. Clinical features of fifteen patients with the hypereosinophilic syndrome. Q J Med 1983;52(205):1–22. [138] Baccarani M, Cilloni D, Rondoni M, et al. The efficacy of imatinib mesylate in patients with FIP1L1-PDGFRalpha-positive hypereosinophilic syndrome. Results of a multicenter prospective study. Haematologica 2007;92(9):1173–9. [139] DeSchryver-Kecskemeti K, Clouse RE. A previously unrecognized subgroup of ‘‘eosinophilic gastroenteritis’’: association with connective tissue diseases. Am J Surg Pathol 1984;8(3):171–80. [140] Sunkureddi PR, Luu N, Xiao SY, et al. Eosinophilic enteritis with systemic lupus erythematosus. South Med J 2005;98:1049–52. [141] Guillevin L, Cohen P, Gayraud M, et al. Churg-Strauss syndrome: clinical study and longterm follow-up of 96 patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 1999;78(1):26–37. [142] Male PJ, de Toledo F, Widgren S, et al. Pseudotumoral enterocolitis and massive eosinophilia. Gut 1983;24:345–50. [143] Stefanini GF, Addolorato G, Marsigli L, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis in a patient with large-cell anaplastic lung carcinoma: a paraneoplastic syndrome? Ital J Gastroenterol 1994;26(7):354–6. [144] Shepherd NA, Blackshaw AJ, Hall PA, et al. Malignant lymphoma with eosinophilia of the gastrointestinal tract. Histopathology 1987;11(2):115–30.

Gastroenterol Clin N Am 37 (2008) 333–348

GASTROENTEROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA

Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis Seema Khan, MDa,*, Susan R. Orenstein, MDb a

Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Alfred I. DuPont Hospital for Children, 1600 Rockland Road, Wilmington, DE 19803, USA b Pediatric Gastroenterology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA

E

osinophilic gastroenteritis (EG) is commonly regarded as a synonym for eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGID), referring to a broad spectrum of clinical presentations produced by prominent eosinophilic infiltration through a variable depth of one or more gastrointestinal sites, and thus including eosinophilic esophagitis, gastritis, enteritis, and proctocolitis. Alternatively, the term has been used to refer to eosinophilic inflammation limited exclusively to the stomach and small intestine. To avoid redundancy in this issue of Gastroenterology Clinics of North America, this article is restricted to a focused and updated review of eosinophilic gastroenteritis as limited to the latter definition. EPIDEMIOLOGY Because of a notable scarcity of published data on the epidemiology, it is difficult to determine the true burden of EG. An English language literature review does not reveal a well-analyzed published case series describing primary EG in the last 3 years, suggesting that it is an uncommon and perhaps difficult-todiagnose disorder. Nevertheless, several case reports of EG have emerged recently in different parts of the world [1–5]. The diagnosis affects most ethnicities, and all ages of both genders [6–10]. It is diagnosed most frequently in the third decade of life [6,7,10,11]. A personal or family history of allergic disorders, such as asthma, hay fever, or eczema, is present in 60% to 70% of patients [12]. A report from India on EG documented only 7 young adults during a 10year period [10], and a hospital in China identified 15 patients who had EG, including 2 children, during 18 years [6]. Talley and colleagues [7] reported one of the largest case series of EG by characterizing 40 patients diagnosed during a 30-year period.

*Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Khan). 0889-8553/08/$ – see front matter doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2008.02.003

ª 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. gastro.theclinics.com

334

KHAN & ORENSTEIN

PATHOGENESIS EG may be primary, also known as allergic, or secondary to one of many conditions that provoke eosinophilic inflammation (see later section on differential diagnosis), with parasitic infections being the leading cause. The cause cannot be precisely determined in a small but important minority of patients, who are regarded as having idiopathic EG. Eosinophils and Key Mediators EG, like other allergic diseases, is characterized predominantly by a Th-2 type of inflammatory response. This response, in concert with eosinophils and their granular proteins and eotaxin-1, a selective chemoattractant, are all critical to the pathogenesis of EG. Eosinophils, the hallmark of the pathology of EG, normally reside in the gastrointestinal tract lining beyond the esophagus, and are believed to have a role in host defense (eg, against parasitic infections). Reported normal densities of eosinophils vary throughout the length and depth of the gastrointestinal tract (see later discussion of diagnostic evaluation). Eosinophils function as antigen-presenting cells and mediate inflammatory effects by releasing preformed granular proteins, such as eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), eosinophil derived neurotoxin (EDN), eosinophil peroxidase, and major basic protein (MBP) [12,13]. Extracellular deposits of ECP and MBP have been demonstrated in the small intestine of patients who have EG; electron microscopy has provided further evidence for eosinophil degranulation in duodenal mucosal samples from patients who have EG [14,15]. Eosinophils also secrete Th-2–type proinflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin (IL)–3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-18, and transforming growth factor, and lipid mediators that are cytotoxic to human intestinal epithelium [12,16,17]. Further new and exciting insights into the mechanism of intestinal mucosal eosinophilia have been made possible through the study of the BioBreeding (BB) lymphopenic (lyp) rat model [18]. The lyp gene encodes a molecule known as GTPase of the immunity-associated protein, which may protect lymphocytes against apoptosis. Homozygosity of the lyp gene mutation in this murine model is associated with intense eosinophilia of the small and large intestinal mucosa, an overall Th-2 phenotype expressed by cell cultures derived from lymph nodes and spleen, with increased levels of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 RNA, and increased serum levels of IgE. Furthermore, the rats develop clinical features of wasting, bloating, intestinal distention, splenomegaly, and mesenteric adenopathy. An interesting feature observed even before the histopathology findings was the presence of an autoantibody, BB rat serum IgG, bound to intestinal cells that resembled fibroblasts. This finding has led to the speculation that a novel autoantigen in the subepithelial layer may provoke mucosal eosinophilic invasion. Allergy Excess circulating eosinophils are considered a hallmark of atopy, and hence it is no surprise that the frequency of allergies in patients who have EG is 25% to

EOSINOPHILIC GASTROENTERITIS

335

75%. Peripheral eosinophilia is present in 50% of those who have both EG and atopic diseases, such as asthma, eczema, and hay fever [19–21]. EG-associated allergies are reported variably as mediated by either IgE or non-IgE mechanisms. Mice challenged by oral antigens produce correlates of human EG disease: antigen-specific serum antibodies, prominent eosinophilic intestinal infiltrates, and clinical manifestations, including diarrhea, gastromegaly, dysmotility, and cachexia [22]. Genetics/Familial Genetic susceptibility is also now being implicated in the pathogenesis, as evidenced by the presence of a family history of an EGID in 10% of patients [19]. CLINICAL PRESENTATIONS Patients who have EG have heterogeneous clinical presentations, some of which overlap with more familiar diagnoses, such as functional GI disorders and inflammatory bowel disease. Presenting symptoms may be vague and nonspecific (eg, recurrent abdominal pain [23]) or dramatic (eg, gastric ulcer perforation [24]). Symptom onset may be at any age, but most patients are diagnosed as young adults, between the third and fifth decades of life. Often patients experience symptoms for many months and undergo an elaborate evaluation before the diagnosis of EG is correctly established. The natural history of EG is not well studied, although the course is usually characterized by waxing and waning symptoms. Patients who have EG have selective involvement of the stomach (26%– 81%) and small intestine (28%–100%) [7,11,25]. As alluded to earlier, however, EG is popularly used to refer to those cases of prominent gastric or small intestinal eosinophilia that may have concurrent, although less prominent, eosinophilia of the esophagus, large intestine, or rectum. It is debated, for example, whether the occasional patient presenting with apparent eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) and marked eosinophilic inflammation extending to other segments of the gastrointestinal tract represents primary EE or EE as part of EGID. The most common presenting complaint is abdominal pain, reported by two thirds of patients in most case series, followed by the symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea [7,20,26]. Classification The Klein classification describes EG clinical presentations in terms of the variable depth of eosinophilic infiltration: mucosal, submucosal, and serosal subtypes [27]. Mucosal The mucosal subtype is the most common one (25%–100%), perhaps because of the accessibility to diagnosis by routine endoscopy and biopsies. Patients who have mucosal EG present with common, albeit nonspecific, complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, occult gastrointestinal bleeding,

336

KHAN & ORENSTEIN

anemia, weight loss, or protein-losing enteropathy [1,8,21]. Because of their nonspecific nature, these clinical presentations may be confused with irritable bowel syndrome, dyspepsia, pancreatitis, acute appendicitis, or inflammatory bowel disease. Intestinal loss of blood and protein is a unique presentation inchildren who have allergic EG, and is suspected to be attributable to increased intestinal permeability induced by eosinophilic inflammation. Frequent coexisting findings in patients who have mucosal EG are atopy and high serum IgE levels. Muscular This subtype of EG is diagnosed in 13% to 70% of all EG cases, and is best known to present with a clinical picture of gastric outlet or intestinal obstruction [2,4,28]. Abdominal pain is usually characterized as colicky. EG presenting as gastric outlet obstruction can mimic hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, and has been successfully managed with a hypoallergenic formula rather than surgery [9]. Intestinal obstruction attributable to enteric strictures, although rare, occurs most frequently at the level of the jejunum, and has been described in children and adults [2,4,29,30]. Serosal The serosal layer is involved in 12% to 40% of cases of EG. Most commonly affected are adults who present classically with ascites. Other notable findings in these patients are significant bloating, a higher level of peripheral eosinophilia, and a better response to steroids [7,31–34]. DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS A broad range of conditions are associated with gastrointestinal mucosal eosinophilia and the following is a brief review of some of the important differential diagnoses. Infections Parasitic infestations Among parasites, helminths are most characteristically associated with peripheral eosinophilia, probably as a reflection of an immunologic response to their tissue migration. Tissue eosinophilia also may be found with several other parasites, including hookworms (Ancylostoma caninum), pinworms (Enterobius vermicularis), Eustoma rotundatum, Giardia lamblia, Anisakis, Trichinella spiralis, Ascaris, Trichuris, Schistosomiasis, Toxocara canis, and Strongyloides stercoralis. Diagnosis should be pursued in the appropriate clinical situation using studies such as stool for ova and parasites, stool giardia antigen, serology, paracentesis (in the case of ascites), duodenal aspirate, and endoscopy with biopsies [35–40]. Helicobacter pylori H pylori gastritis has been observed in patients who have diffuse intestinal eosinophilia in the absence of food allergies. The significance of these coexisting findings, beyond coincidence, is not clear [41].

EOSINOPHILIC GASTROENTERITIS

337

Cytomegalovirus Cytomegalovirus (CMV) gastroenteritis evident by serology and pathology, the latter also consistent with EG, has been reported in an immunocompetent child presenting with protein-losing enteropathy [42]. Whether the allergic mucosa predisposed to reactivation of latent CMV or CMV triggered prominent intestinal eosinophilia could not be elucidated from this report. Interestingly, this patient had complete resolution of clinicopathologic features without specific antiviral or antiallergy therapy within 4 weeks. Medications Several medications have been implicated in producing gastrointestinal eosinophilia as an allergic response. Examples include interferon [43], gemfibrozil [44], enalapril [45], carbamazepine [46,47], clofazimine [48] and co-trimoxazole [49]. Tissue eosinophilia is usually reversible with cessation of the medication. Connective Tissue Disease and Vasculitis Various connective tissue disorders (eg, scleroderma, dermatomyositis, lupus) and vasculitis (eg, Churg-Strauss syndrome, polyarteritis nodosa) are associated with fluctuating peripheral and gastrointestinal eosinophilia [50–53]. The presence of specific clinicopathologic and autoimmune markers is helpful in their differentiation from primary EG. Inflammatory Fibroid Polyps Rarely diagnosed, these benign localized polyps, also known as fibroma, inflammatory pseudotumor, submucosal granuloma, or localized EG, originate in the submucosa and are accompanied by a variable eosinophilic infiltrate. These lesions are most commonly located in the stomach (35% of cases) and the small bowel (50%), and come to attention because of obstructive presentations. Surgical excision is a cure for symptomatic patients [54,55]. Hypereosinophilia Syndrome Hypereosinophilia syndrome is a rare heterogeneous disorder with features of unexplained marked peripheral hypereosinophilia (>1500 cells/lL for more than 6 consecutive months) despite an extensive evaluation, and presence of organ damage or dysfunction related to hypereosinophilia [56–58]. The heart, skin, and central nervous system are the major targets, whereas occasional intestinal involvement is reported. Recently, hypereosinophilia syndrome has been classified as either myeloproliferative or lymphocytic indicating an underlying hematologic basis for these variants. Inflammatory Bowel Disease Peripheral and intestinal eosinophilia is often noted in patients who have irritable bowel disease, in the context of classic clinicopathologic features that allow differentiation from primary EG and other conditions. Transplantation Recipients of solid organ transplantation may develop intestinal eosinophilia as a consequence of immunosuppression, an imbalance of Th-1/Th-2 lymphocytes,

338

KHAN & ORENSTEIN

and de novo food allergies. A substantial number of patients are on immunosuppressive regimens composed of tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor that is strongly implicated in inducing intestinal eosinophilia. A high total IgE and food allergen–specific IgE levels are observed in this subgroup of patients and dietary therapy has proved to be satisfactory [59–61]. DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION Diagnosis of EG requires suspecting the disease, excluding other disorders in the differential diagnoses, confirming the definitive diagnosis, and assessing for potential complications. Currently accepted diagnostic criteria are the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms, an intense eosinophilic infiltrate on histopathologic examination, and exclusion of other causes of intestinal eosinophilia. Tests considered useful in the evaluation of EG and its differentials are presented in Table 1 [62]. A single diagnostic algorithm may not be universally applicable, because, for example, the screening evaluation may follow the demonstration of tissue eosinophilia. The following aspects of evaluation usually complement each other. History and Physical Examination The history and physical examination should be aimed at eliciting information pertaining to food-related adverse effects, stigmata of atopic diseases (wheezing, eczema, rhinitis), and evidence of malnutrition (edema, anemia, failure to thrive). Laboratory In the context of gastrointestinal symptoms, peripheral eosinophilia, present in 50% to 100% of those who have EG, is indeed a useful clue to EG, but is not definitive. Peripheral eosinophil concentrations fluctuate and may reflect the effects of circadian rhythms. Tests on stool and duodenal aspirates for parasites (particularly helminths) are strongly recommended to exclude secondary causes of EG, particularly in high-risk geographic areas. Other potentially useful laboratory investigations are directed toward evaluation for anemia (complete blood count), hypoalbuminemia (serum albumin), enteric protein losses (stool a-1 antitrypsin), autoimmune associations (autoantibodies), the eosinophilic intestinal inflammatory process (eosinophils and their remnants—ie, Charcot-Leyden crystals in stools), and eosinophilic ascites (paracentesis). In the near future, serum, stool, and urine assays of active eosinophil inflammation (eg, ECP, EDN) may be used for follow-up and response to therapy. Allergy Evaluation Commonly available tests for allergy include skin prick tests (SPT) and in vitro quantitative CAP-fluorescent enzyme immunoassay (CAP-FEIA), formerly known as radioallergosorbent test (RAST), which detects allergen-specific IgE antibody. The results of both should be interpreted with caution because of low sensitivity and a high rate of false-positive results [63,64]. It has also

EOSINOPHILIC GASTROENTERITIS

339

Table 1 Diagnostic evaluation of eosinophilic gastroenteritis Evaluation

Significance

Complete blood count with differential Total protein and albumin

Anemia, absolute eosinophilia Hypoalbuminemia, edema, protein-losing enteropathy, ascites, malnutrition Protein-losing enteropathy Protein-losing enteropathy EG diagnosis and follow-up EG diagnosis and follow-up

Quantitative immunoglobulins Stool a-1 antitrypsin Stool eosinophils Stool for eosinophil-derived granular proteins (eg, ECP) Stool giardia antigen, ova and parasite Radiology Barium contrast studies Computerized tomography Ultrasound Food Allergy Serum CAP-FEIA Skin prick tests Skin patch tests Endoscopy Gross Microscopy

Surgery and pathology Paracentesis Miscellaneous Liver enzymes Pancreatic enzymes Erythrocyte sedimentation rate C-reactive protein Tissue transglutaminase antibody Autoimmune antibodies Stool calprotectin, lactoferrin

Exclusion of parasite-induced EG Thickening of folds, stenoses/strictures, inflammation, lymphadenopathy; exclusion of differentials (eg, appendicitis) Ascites IgE-mediated allergies IgE-mediated allergies Non–IgE-mediated allergies Erythema, erosions, ulcers, polyps, nodules Dense eosinophilic infiltrates, epithelial and glandular invasion, abscesses; exclusion of differentials Establishing diagnosis, relief of obstruction Eosinophilia in serosal EG Evaluation of differentials and multi-organ involvement

Abbreviation: CAP-FEIA, CAP-fluorescent enzyme immunoassay. Data from Khan S. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis. In: Gupte S, editor. Section IV: Stomach, duodenum and intestine (Textbook of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition). New Delhi (India): Peepee; in press.

been shown that the probability of a true positive food challenge, and hence the positive predictive value, is high if allergen-specific IgE to a few select foods (milk, soy, egg, wheat, peanut, and fish) exceeds certain values [65]. The high negative predictive value of SPT is useful in confirming the absence of IgE-mediated reactions, if good quality food extracts are used. In the evaluation of non–IgE-mediated food allergies, patch testing is now available in Europe and North America, but has not been studied specifically in EG, and remains of limited usefulness because of lack of standardized

340

KHAN & ORENSTEIN

criteria [66]. Double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges are not practical in the clinical setting, and may also have limited usefulness in EG, because delayed hypersensitivity reactions may not be apparent for a few days. In children strongly suspected to have allergic EG, therefore, the clinician is often faced with the challenge of balancing the benefits of eliminating offending foods against the risks of unnecessarily restricted diets caused by the institution of time-limited dietary trials. Radiographic Evaluation Barium contrast studies in patients who have EG may reveal irregular gastric or small intestinal folds, a string sign in gastric outlet obstruction, or strictures [9,43]. Ultrasound of the abdomen is useful in detecting serosal EG and ascites [67]. Deep layer infiltration and intestinal wall thickening may also be appreciated on computerized tomography [68]. White blood cell Tc-99m scintigraphy may demonstrate inflammation in EG, but without differentiating EG from other inflammatory causes [69]. Endoscopy and Pathology The macroscopic features of EG are few, but include erythema, whitish specks, focal erosions, ulcerations, thickening of folds, polyps, nodules (Fig. 1), and friability [5,42]. A fair number of cases are not associated with any visible mucosal abnormalities (Fig. 2A). Histopathology is the gold standard for diagnosis (Figs. 3 and 2B), but the precise criteria differentiating normal from pathologic states remain a matter of debate. The factors currently taken into consideration for differentiating

Fig. 1. The endoscopic appearance of the gastric mucosa in a patient who had eosinophilic gastroenteritis. The diffuse mucosal nodularity, as shown here, mimics H pylori nodular gastritis.

EOSINOPHILIC GASTROENTERITIS

341

Fig. 2. Eosinophilic duodenitis in a patient who had grossly normal duodenum (A) depicts histologic features of normal villous surface, hypercellular lamina propria, predominanteosinophilic inflammation, and eosinophilic microabscesses (B).

normal gastrointestinal tissue from any type of EGID are: eosinophil density, location along the gastrointestinal tract (ie, within the normal digestive tract, the highest number of eosinophils—up to 68 per high power field—are found in the appendix and cecum, and the lowest—none—in the esophagus), eosinophil distribution through the wall depth (eg, it is unusual to find eosinophils infiltrating the normal epithelium and crypts, or forming superficial aggregates or abscesses), eosinophil degranulation, and the absence of features pathognomonic for other diseases (eg, granulomata in Crohn disease) [70,71]. Normal eosinophil levels were determined retrospectively in 28 children who did not have apparent pathology, most of whom underwent an endoscopy for abdominal pain [71]. The mean (maximum) number of eosinophils per high power

Fig. 3. A photomicrograph of a gastric mucosal biopsy from the same patient shows hypercellularity of the lamina propria, up to 20 eosinophils per high power field with focal epithelial involvement, and subepithelial collagen. A Diff-Quick stain for H pylori was negative.

342

KHAN & ORENSTEIN

field in the lamina propria of the gastric antrum and duodenum were 1.9  1.3 (8) and 9.6  5.3 (26), respectively. The diagnosis may be missed despite endoscopy and biopsies because of patchy disease distribution, and also because of sparing of the mucosa in some forms of muscular and serosal EG. The diagnosis of muscular or serosal EG is particularly challenging and requires diligence. The diagnosis of these subtypes can be confirmed on pathology specimens obtained at laparoscopy or laparotomy [4,72]. Capsule endoscopy and balloon enteroscopy may prove useful in patients who have EG, but the inability to procure biopsies is likely to limit the value of these techniques in the diagnosis of EG [73–75]. MANAGEMENT Various treatments may be beneficial in EG [76]. Our current knowledge of the treatment of EG is derived virtually exclusively from small studies and anecdotal experience. Evidence for the true efficacy of any therapy suffers from the lack of well-designed and controlled studies. Nevertheless, corticosteroids and dietary therapy are two treatment interventions for which the data are convincingly favorable. Emerging treatments in development are biologics and selective anti-eosinophil agents. Diet The particular EG presentation, the patient’s age, and the expected compliance may be the most important determinants of the type of dietary therapy. Dietary therapy assumes the form of either an elimination diet or an elemental diet; both benefit from guidance by allergy evaluation. To ensure success with dietary therapy, it is important to support the patients and parents with relevant educational sources and dietary consultation. Elemental diets are indicated in those who have multiple food allergies, and produce improvement of symptoms and histology in 4 to 9 weeks [5,8]. The efficacy and safety of long-term dietary therapy has not been studied in EG. Moreover, these diets are aversive because of their poor palatability and impractical because of the high cost and extreme restriction. Directing food elimination by way of routinely available allergy testing (CAP-RAST and SPT) may be effective but does not always produce a favorable response in EG, probably because the immunologic reactions to foods in EG are mediated by non-IgE as well as IgE mechanisms. A food diary monitoring routine food consumption and its relation to adverse reactions may be used to decide the extent of food elimination. The empiric removal of the six major food allergens (milk, soy, wheat, egg, nuts, peanut, seafood), termed ‘‘the six food elimination diet,’’ has been shown to be effective and safe in EE [77]. It is a practical empiric approach in all patients who have primary EG who do not have obvious food allergies on allergy testing. Caution should be used in the implementation of an extremely restricted or elemental diet for longer than 6 to 8 weeks. In those assessed clinically as responders, a new food may be introduced every 5 to 7 days with continued

EOSINOPHILIC GASTROENTERITIS

343

vigilant follow-up. Repeat endoscopic evaluation is not routinely indicated, but may be advantageous in selected cases to guide complex treatment decisions. Steroids Systemic steroids produce symptomatic and histologic improvement in EG, regardless of type, within a few days to weeks of initiation [21,31,76]. Steroids are indicated in those patients who have EG who have failed to respond to, or declined, dietary therapy, and in those who have severe clinical presentations. The usual dosage, taper, and duration of therapy are equivalent to the treatment in inflammatory bowel disease. The use of 1 to 2 mg/kg/d for at least a month induces remission, and is then tapered over 2 to 3 months. The tapering and discontinuation may result in disease relapse, necessitating repeated use of steroids. Patients who have a disease course marked by chronic symptoms and relapses are candidates for steroid-sparing options to minimize the multitude of steroid-related serious side effects. These side effects include fluid and electrolyte imbalance, hyperglycemia, cushingoid state, growth suppression, bone demineralization, pituitary and adrenocortical hyporesponsiveness, and posterior subcapsular cataracts. Non–enteric-coated budesonide, with its extensive first pass metabolism and relatively favorable side effect profile, is a potentially safe option in those who have EG affecting the ileocecum and right colon [2,78]. Fluticasone may be used as a topical alternative to systemic steroids in treating EE [79,80] presenting concurrently with EG. Mast Cell Inhibitors A limited number of case reports favor the use of oral disodium cromoglycate and ketotifen as treatment options in EG [81,82]. Antihistamines Current evidence does not support the use of antihistamines (H-1 receptor antagonists) in EG, except in the patient who has concurrent environmental allergies. Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists Montelukast is a selective and competitive antagonist of leukotriene Cys-LT1 receptors expressed on bronchial smooth muscle cells and eosinophils. It is therefore an attractive steroid-sparing option in EG, acting by blocking the inflammatory effects of eosinophils. Studies report mixed results in induction of clinical and histologic remission, however [33,83]. Biologic Therapies Anti–interleukin-5 (mepolizumab) Early experience with humanized monoclonal antibody against IL-5 are limited to a small number of patients who had hypereosinophilia syndrome and EE, but may be seen as encouraging for future application in EG [84,85].

344

KHAN & ORENSTEIN

Anti-IgE therapy (omalizumab) Omalizumab is a humanized anti-IgE monoclonal Ab that has been shown to be effective in allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis. There is new evidence to support its use in EG. It was administered as a subcutaneous infusion every 2 weeks for eight doses in nine patients (12–76 years) who had EG. Omalizumab use was associated with decreased absolute eosinophil counts, a nonsignificant reduction in tissue eosinophilia, lowered IgE levels, and improved symptom scores [86]. Novel and Emerging Treatment Agents Several new therapeutic options are under investigation. These anti-eosinophil agents include eosinophil selective adhesion molecules, a monoclonal eotaxin antibody (CAT-213), and agents to enhance eosinophil apoptosis [87–89]. Surgery Surgery is sometimes necessary to relieve, and occasionally cure, symptoms in patients who have obstructive EG presentations [4,90]. Close postoperative follow-up and consideration of adjuvant medical or dietary therapy are important because of the potential for disease recurrence. NATURAL HISTORY There is a dearth of information about the long-term course of patients who have treated or untreated EG. Most experts regard primary EG as a chronic disorder characterized by relapses and remissions, and hence the recommendations for close follow-up and perhaps repeated endoscopic surveillance in selected cases. The natural history of EG has not been well described, but clinical studies point to a chronic relapsing course for patients who have this diagnosis. The long-term follow-up (2.5 to 5.5 years) of six children who had EG and protein-losing enteropathy initially treated successfully with an elemental diet has been described recently: despite some liberalization of the diet, clinical remission could be maintained only by continued dietary restrictions [8]. This study emphasizes the chronic nature of EG and the importance of long-term follow-up. Larger, prospective, multicenter studies are needed to investigate further the pathogenesis, safe and effective management options, natural history, and long-term outcome of patients who have EG. SUMMARY EG is an uncommon, yet important, entity in the spectrum of primary EGIDs, selectively affecting the stomach and small intestine with an eosinophilic inflammatory process. Multiple clinical presentations are recognized because of the variability in the location and depth of eosinophilic infiltration. History of atopy and allergies is present in 25% to 75% of cases. Recent investigations providing an insight into the pathogenesis of EG support a critical role for allergens, eosinophils, Th-2–type cytokines, and eotaxin-1 in mediating eosinophilic inflammation. The diagnosis is confirmed by demonstrating prominent tissue eosinophilia on histopathology. Treatment strategies include the use of

EOSINOPHILIC GASTROENTERITIS

345

restricted diets, corticosteroids, leukotriene receptor antagonists, mast cell stabilizers, and antibodies against IL5 and IgE. Many unanswered questions remain with regard to the natural history, optimal duration of therapy, safer steroid-sparing long-term treatment agents, and the means of reliable and noninvasive follow-up. References [1] Mendez Sanchez IM, Rivera Irigoin R, Ubina Aznar E, et al. Distinct clinical presentations of a single medical entity: eosinophilic enteritis. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;30(1):19–21 [in Spanish]. [2] Elsing C, Placke J, Gross-Weege W. Budesonide for the treatment of obstructive eosinophilic jejunitis. Z Gastroenterol 2007;45(2):187–9. [3] Shin WG, Park CH, Lee YS, et al. Eosinophilic enteritis presenting as intussusception in adult. Korean J Intern Med 2007;22(1):13–7. [4] Yun MY, Cho YU, Park IS, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis presenting as small bowel obstruction: a case report and review of the literature. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13(11):1758–60. [5] Chehade M, Sicherer SH, Magid MS, et al. Multiple exudative ulcers and pseudopolyps in allergic eosinophilic gastroenteritis that responded to dietary therapy. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2007;45(3):354–7. [6] Chen MJ, Chu CH, Lin SC, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: clinical experience with 15 patients. World J Gastroenterol 2003;9(12):2813–6. [7] Talley NJ, Shorter RG, Phillips SF, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: a clinicopathological study of patients with disease of the mucosa, muscle layer, and subserosal tissues. Gut 1990;31(1):54–8. [8] Chehade M, Magid MS, Mofidi S, et al. Allergic eosinophilic gastroenteritis with proteinlosing enteropathy: intestinal pathology, clinical course, and long-term follow-up. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2006;42(5):516–21. [9] Khan S, Orenstein SR. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis masquerading as pyloric stenosis. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2000;39(1):55–7. [10] Venkataraman S, Ramakrishna BS, Mathan M, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis—an Indian experience. Indian J Gastroenterol 1998;17(4):148–9. [11] Lee CM, Changchien CS, Chen PC, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: 10 years experience. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88(1):70–4. [12] Rothenberg ME. Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGID). J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;113(1):11–28, quiz 29. [13] Jacobsen EA, Taranova AG, Lee NA, et al. Eosinophils: singularly destructive effector cells or purveyors of immunoregulation? J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;119(6):1313–20. [14] Torpier G, Colombel JF, Mathieu-Chandelier C, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: ultrastructural evidence for a selective release of eosinophil major basic protein. Clin Exp Immunol 1988;74(3):404–8. [15] Keshavarzian A, Saverymuttu SH, Tai PC, et al. Activated eosinophils in familial eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Gastroenterology 1985;88(4):1041–9. [16] Furuta GT. Emerging questions regarding eosinophil’s role in the esophago-gastrointestinal tract. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2006;22(6):658–63. [17] Hogan SP, Rothenberg ME. Eosinophil function in eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal disorders. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2006;6(1):65–71. [18] Cousins L, Graham M, Tooze R, et al. Eosinophilic bowel disease controlled by the BB ratderived lymphopenia/Gimap5 gene. Gastroenterology 2006;131(5):1475–85. [19] Guajardo JR, Plotnick LM, Fende JM, et al. Eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal disorders: a world-wide-web based registry. J Pediatr 2002;141(4):576–81. [20] Khan S, Kandula L, Orenstein SR. Educational clinical case series in pediatric allergy and immunology. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2007;18(7):629–39.

346

KHAN & ORENSTEIN

[21] Mendez-Sanchez N, Chavez-Tapia NC, Vazquez-Elizondo G, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: a review. Dig Dis Sci 2007;52(11):2904–11. [22] Hogan SP, Mishra A, Brandt EB, et al. A pathological function for eotaxin and eosinophils in eosinophilic gastrointestinal inflammation. Nat Immunol 2001;2(4):353–60. [23] Kokkonen J, Ruuska T, Karttunen TJ, et al. Mucosal pathology of the foregut associated with food allergy and recurrent abdominal pains in children. Acta Paediatr 2001; 90(1):16–21. [24] Siaw EK, Sayed K, Jackson RJ. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis presenting as acute gastric perforation. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2006;43(5):691–4. [25] Redondo-Cerezo E, Cabello MJ, Gonzalez Y, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: our recent experience: one-year experience of atypical onset of an uncommon disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2001;36(12):1358–60. [26] Naylor AR. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Scott Med J 1990;35(6):163–5. [27] Klein NC, Hargrove RL, Sleisenger MH, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Medicine (Baltimore) 1970;49(4):299–319. [28] Tursi A, Rella G, Inchingolo CD, et al. Gastric outlet obstruction due to gastroduodenal eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Endoscopy 2007;39(Suppl 1):E184. [29] Tan HL, Sithasanan N, Foley P, et al. The successful medical management of severe duodenal strictures secondary to eosinophilic gastroenteritis in an infant. Pediatr Surg Int 2003;19(7):562–3. [30] Karande T, Oak SN, Trivedi A, et al. Proximal jejunal obstruction due to eosinophilic gastroenteritis. J Postgrad Med 1996;42(4):121–3. [31] Zhou HB, Chen JM, Du Q. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis with ascites and hepatic dysfunction. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13(8):1303–5. [32] Fenoglio LM, Benedetti V, Rossi C, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis with ascites: a case report and review of the literature. Dig Dis Sci 2003;48(5):1013–20. [33] Urek MC, Kujundzic M, Banic M, et al. Leukotriene receptor antagonists as potential steroid sparing agents in a patient with serosal eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Gut 2006;55(9): 1363–4. [34] Mazokopakis E, Vrentzos G, Spanakis E, et al. A case of eosinophilic gastroenteritis with severe peripheral eosinophilia. Mil Med 2006;171(4):331–2. [35] Chira O, Badea R, Dumitrascu D, et al. Eosinophilic ascites in a patient with toxocara canis infection. A case report. Rom J Gastroenterol 2005;14(4):397–400. [36] Bahgat MA, El Gindy AE, Mahmoud LA, et al. Evaluation of the role of Ancylostoma caninum in humans as a cause of acute and recurrent abdominal pain. J Egypt Soc Parasitol 1999;29(3):873–82. [37] Tsibouris P, Galeas T, Moussia M, et al. Two cases of eosinophilic gastroenteritis and malabsorption due to Enterobious vermicularis. Dig Dis Sci 2005;50(12):2389–92. [38] Kocabay G, Gul E, Cagatay A, et al. Is eosinophilic gastroenteritis a primary disease or a secondary developing entity due to parasitosis? South Med J 2006;99(8):901. [39] Hong ST, Lim HS, Kim DH, et al. A case of gastroenteritis associated with gastric trichuriasis. J Korean Med Sci 2003;18(3):429–32. [40] Repiso Ortega A, Alcantara Torres M, Gonzalez de Frutos C, et al. [Gastrointestinal anisakiasis. Study of a series of 25 patients]. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;26(6):341–6 [in Spanish]. [41] Papadopoulos AA, Tzathas C, Polymeros D, et al. Symptomatic eosinophilic gastritis cured with Helicobacter pylori eradication. Gut 2005;54(12):1822. [42] Takeyama J, Abukawa D, Miura K. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis with cytomegalovirus infection in an immunocompetent child. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13(34):4653–4. [43] Kakumitsu S, Shijo H, Akiyoshi N, et al. Eosinophilic enteritis observed during alpha-interferon therapy for chronic hepatitis C. J Gastroenterol 2000;35(7):548–51. [44] Lee JY, Medellin MV, Tumpkin C. Allergic reaction to gemfibrozil manifesting as eosinophilic gastroenteritis. South Med J 2000;93(8):807–8.

EOSINOPHILIC GASTROENTERITIS

347

[45] Barak N, Hart J, Sitrin MD. Enalapril-induced eosinophilic gastroenteritis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2001;33(2):157–8. [46] Atkinson RJ, Dennis G, Cross SS, et al. Eosinophilic colitis complicating anti-epileptic hypersensitivity syndrome: an indication for colonoscopy? Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60(6): 1034–6. [47] Shakeer VK, Devi SR, Chettupuzha AP, et al. Carbamazepine-induced eosinophilic enteritis. Indian J Gastroenterol 2002;21(3):114–5. [48] Ravi S, Holubka J, Veneri R, et al. Clofazimine-induced eosinophilic gastroenteritis in AIDS. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88(4):612–3. [49] Morimoto T, Sato T, Matsuoka A, et al. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-induced hypersensitivity syndrome associated with reactivation of human herpesvirus-6. Intern Med 2006; 45(2):101–5. [50] Sunkureddi PR, Luu N, Xiao SY, et al. Eosinophilic enteritis with systemic lupus erythematosus. South Med J 2005;98(10):1049–52. [51] Barbie DA, Mangi AA, Lauwers GY. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis associated with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004;38(10):883–6. [52] Schwake L, Stremmel W, Sergi C. Eosinophilic enterocolitis in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2002;34(4):487–8. [53] Kimura T, Nakaoka Y, Yoshida K, et al. Churg-Strauss syndrome diagnosed and followed with gastrointestinal fiberscopic studies and electroneuromyography. Intern Med 1998; 37(7):646–50. [54] Blackshaw AJ, Levison DA. Eosinophilic infiltrates of the gastrointestinal tract. J Clin Pathol 1986;39(1):1–7. [55] Makhlouf HR, Sobin LH. Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors (inflammatory pseudotumors) of the gastrointestinal tract: how closely are they related to inflammatory fibroid polyps? Hum Pathol 2002;33(3):307–15. [56] Fletcher S, Bain B. Diagnosis and treatment of hypereosinophilic syndromes. Curr Opin Hematol 2007;14(1):37–42. [57] Roufosse FE, Goldman M, Cogan E. Hypereosinophilic syndromes. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2007;2:37. [58] Sheikh J, Weller PF. Clinical overview of hypereosinophilic syndromes. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2007;27(3):333–55. [59] Romero R, Abramowsky CR, Pillen T, et al. Peripheral eosinophilia and eosinophilic gastroenteritis after pediatric liver transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 2003;7(6):484–8. [60] Saeed SA, Integlia MJ, Pleskow RG, et al. Tacrolimus-associated eosinophilic gastroenterocolitis in pediatric liver transplant recipients: role of potential food allergies in pathogenesis. Pediatr Transplant 2006;10(6):730–5. [61] Lee JH, Park HY, Choe YH, et al. The development of eosinophilic colitis after liver transplantation in children. Pediatr Transplant 2007;11(5):518–23. [62] Khan S. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis. In: Gupte S, editor. Section IV; Stomach, duodenum and intestine (Textbook of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition). New Delhi: Peepee; in press. [63] Wood RA, Segall N, Ahlstedt S, et al. Accuracy of IgE antibody laboratory results. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2007;99(1):34–41. [64] Bock SA. Diagnostic evaluation. Pediatrics 2003;111(6 Pt 3):1638–44. [65] Sampson HA, Ho DG. Relationship between food-specific IgE concentrations and the risk of positive food challenges in children and adolescents. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1997;100(4): 444–51. [66] Spergel JM, Brown-Whitehorn T, Beausoleil JL, et al. Predictive values for skin prick test and atopy patch test for eosinophilic esophagitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;119(2):509–11. [67] Buljevac M, Urek MC, Stoos-Veic T. Sonography in diagnosis and follow-up of serosal eosinophilic gastroenteritis treated with corticosteroid. J Clin Ultrasound 2005;33(1): 43–6.

348

KHAN & ORENSTEIN

[68] Sandrasegaran K, Rajesh A, Maglinte DD. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis presenting as acute abdomen. Emerg Radiol 2006;13(3):151–4. [69] Imai E, Kaminaga T, Kawasugi K, et al. The usefulness of 99mTc-hexamethylpropyleneamineoxime white blood cell scintigraphy in a patient with eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Ann Nucl Med 2003;17(7):601–3. [70] Lowichik A, Weinberg AG. A quantitative evaluation of mucosal eosinophils in the pediatric gastrointestinal tract. Mod Pathol 1996;9(2):110–4. [71] DeBrosse CW, Case JW, Putnam PE, et al. Quantity and distribution of eosinophils in the gastrointestinal tract of children. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2006;9(3):210–8. [72] Alexander P, Jacob S, Paul V. Laparoscopy in eosinophilic jejunitis presenting as subacute bowel obstruction: a case report. Trop Gastroenterol 2003;24(2):97–8. [73] Pungpapong S, Stark ME, Cangemi JR. Protein-losing enteropathy from eosinophilic enteritis diagnosed by wireless capsule endoscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65(6):917–8 [discussion: 918]. [74] Kim N, Kim JW, Hwang JH, et al. Visualization of jejunal bleeding by capsule endoscopy in a case of eosinophilic enteritis. Korean J Intern Med 2005;20(1):63–7. [75] Chen YY, Su WW, Soon MS, et al. Eosinophilic jejunitis presenting with acute abdomen: the usefulness of double-balloon enteroscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63(3):532–4. [76] Foroughi S, Prussin C. Clinical management of eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2005;5(4):259–61. [77] Kagalwalla AF, Sentongo TA, Ritz S, et al. Effect of six-food elimination diet on clinical and histologic outcomes in eosinophilic esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4(9): 1097–102. [78] Siewert E, Lammert F, Koppitz P, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis with severe protein-losing enteropathy: successful treatment with budesonide. Dig Liver Dis 2006;38(1):55–9. [79] Teitelbaum JE, Fox VL, Twarog FJ, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis in children: immunopathological analysis and response to fluticasone propionate. Gastroenterology 2002;122(5): 1216–25. [80] Remedios M, Campbell C, Jones DM, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis in adults: clinical, endoscopic, histologic findings, and response to treatment with fluticasone propionate. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63(1):3–12. [81] Bolukbas FF, Bolukbas C, Uzunkoy A, et al. A dramatic response to ketotifen in a case of eosinophilic gastroenteritis mimicking abdominal emergency. Dig Dis Sci 2004; 49(11–12):1782–5. [82] Suzuki J, Kawasaki Y, Nozawa R, et al. Oral disodium cromoglycate and ketotifen for a patient with eosinophilic gastroenteritis, food allergy and protein-losing enteropathy. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol 2003;21(3):193–7. [83] Quack I, Sellin L, Buchner NJ, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis in a young girl—long term remission under Montelukast. BMC Gastroenterol 2005;5:24. [84] Garrett JK, Jameson SC, Thomson B, et al. Anti-interleukin-5 (mepolizumab) therapy for hypereosinophilic syndromes. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;113(1):115–9. [85] Stein ML, Collins MH, Villanueva JM, et al. Anti-IL-5 (mepolizumab) therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;118(6):1312–9. [86] Foroughi S, Foster B, Kim N, et al. Anti-IgE treatment of eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120(3):594–601. [87] Nutku-Bilir E, Hudson SA, Bochner BS. Interleukin-5 priming of human eosinophils alters siglec-8 mediated apoptosis pathways. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2008;38(1):121–4. [88] Ackerman SJ, Bochner BS. Mechanisms of eosinophilia in the pathogenesis of hypereosinophilic disorders. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2007;27(3):357–75. [89] Bochner BS. Verdict in the case of therapies versus eosinophils: the jury is still out. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;113(1):3–9, quiz 10. [90] Uenishi T, Sakata C, Tanaka S, et al. Eosinophilic enteritis presenting as acute intestinal obstruction: a case report and review of the literature. Dig Surg 2003;20(4):326–9.

Gastroenterol Clin N Am 37 (2008) 349–368

GASTROENTEROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA

Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Adults Ganapathy A. Prasad, MD, MSa,*, Nicholas J. Talley, MD, PhD, FRACP, FRCP, FACPb a

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Alfred Main, GI Diagnostic Unit, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA b Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Davis Building, 6th Floor East/B, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA

E

osinophilic esophagitis (EE) is a disease characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa, and is associated with a clinical syndrome of dysphagia and food impaction (FI) in adults. First described in 1978 [1], this syndrome is being recognized increasingly in the developed world, with multiple case series reported from the United States, Europe, and Australia during the past decade [2–9]. It is unclear if the increasing recognition of the disease is due to a truly increasing incidence or is a reflection of increased recognition by pathologists and clinicians. Endoscopic features suggestive of EE have also been described, including the presence of rings, longitudinal furrows, and mucosal fragility, although a proportion of patients may have normal-appearing mucosa. Recently, the specificity of these endoscopic findings has been questioned [10]. Diagnosis is established by the presence of eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa; different thresholds have been used by various investigators, ranging from more than 15 eosinophils/ high-power field (HPF) to more than 24 eosinophils/HPF. A recent consensus statement proposed the use of more than 15 eosinophils/HPF as the diagnostic criteria for EE in the proper clinical context [11]. The cause of EE remains unclear, with allergic (allergies to food or aeroallergens) and immunologic mechanisms being proposed [12]. Successful treatment in adults has been reported with systemic and swallowed topical steroid preparations (in case series and randomized controlled trials) [2,13] and with oral leukotriene inhibitors in small case series [14]. Endoscopic dilation alone, and in combination with medications, has also been reported as a treatment modality in patients who have EE [15,16]. The natural history and clinical course of EE in adults is thought to be characterized by recurrent symptoms [17,18] but remains poorly defined. EPIDEMIOLOGY Data on the epidemiology of EE in adults remain scarce, particularly in the United States. Straumann and Simon [9] reported the increasing prevalence *Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.A. Prasad). 0889-8553/08/$ – see front matter doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2008.03.002

ª 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. gastro.theclinics.com

350

PRASAD & TALLEY

of EE diagnosed in adults in Olten County, Switzerland. Olten County is a defined geographic area with a stable population of 100,000, with a single gastroenterologist and a single pathologist providing care. The investigators provided estimates from 1989 to 2004. They reported an average annual incidence of 1.48 cases/100,000 population (range, 0–6) with a marked increase in cases during the past few years of this time period. The prevalence of EE progressively increased over this time period, to 23 cases/100,000 population. The investigators considered this figure to be an underestimate, given that it represented only severely symptomatic patients. The first truly population-based estimate of esophageal eosinophilia was provided from northern Sweden [7], where 1000 randomly selected subjects from two counties who had completed an abdominal symptom questionnaire underwent endoscopy with biopsies (taken 2 cm above, and at, the gastroesophageal junction). Biopsies were taken by three trained gastroenterologists and were interpreted by two gastrointestinal pathologists. The investigators classified patients into those with definite EE (20 eosinophils/HPF), probable EE (15–19 eosinophils/HPF), and possible EE (5–14 eosinophils/HPF). They found that 4 patients had definite EE, 7 had probable EE, and 25 had possible EE. In addition, they reported that 48 patients in all had eosinophils present in their esophageal biopsies; hence, the prevalence of EE by the current consensus definition of EE (>15 eosinophils/HPF) was 1.1%. Of the 4 patients who had definite EE in this study, 3 had symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and 1 was completely asymptomatic. Given the cross-sectional nature of this study, estimates of the incidence of EE could not be assessed. Secular trends in the epidemiology of EE were assessed in Olmsted County, Minnesota, during the past 3 decades (1976–2006) in a retrospective study. All cases of EE diagnosed between 1976 and 2006 were identified using the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project. All esophageal biopsies with any evidence of eosinophilic infiltration were reviewed by a single pathologist. Patients presenting with unexplained FI needing endoscopic therapy were included as probable surrogates of EE, to maximize case identification. The clinical course of all patients was also defined using medical records and, prospectively, by using a telephone questionnaire. A total of 3456 patient charts were reviewed; 82 patients who had EE and 80 patients who had idiopathic FI were identified. The incidence of EE increased significantly during the past 3 decades (from 0.86 cases [95% CI, 0.15, 1.56]/100,000 population/year from 1976 to 1985, to 8.78 cases [95% CI, 7.19, 10.37]/100,000 population/year from 1996 to 2006). The prevalence of EE was 104.7 cases (87.5, 122.0)/100,000 population as of 1/1/2007 in Olmsted County. In this study, the prevalence and incidence of EE appear to be higher than previously reported. The incidence of EE has increased significantly during the past 3 decades, perhaps indicating the presence of an as-yet-unidentified cause of EE in the environment. Estimates of the prevalence and incidence of EE in pediatric patients have been reported by investigators from Hamilton County, Ohio. The incidence ranged from 0.9 cases/10,000 population in 2000 to 1.28 cases/10,000

EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS IN ADULTS

351

in 2003, with the prevalence in 2003 estimated to be 4.29 cases/10,000 population; these estimates were higher than estimates of Crohn’s disease in the pediatric population [19]. Lower estimates of prevalence were reported in a pediatric population from western Australia by Cherian and colleagues [20] (0.89 cases/10,000). A common feature among all case series reported in the literature is the male preponderance of cases and the diagnosis of the disease in younger patients. Other factors influencing EE, such as racial predilection or socioeconomic status, have yet to be evaluated. Natural History The natural history of EE in adults was perhaps best described by Straumann and colleagues [16], who followed 30 adults who had EE (>24 eosinophils/ HPF) with periodic dilations alone during a mean of 7.2 years. They reported that quality of life was affected in a severe manner in only 1 patient and in a minor manner in 15. Nutritional status was not compromised in any patient. Of the 30 patients, only 11 were treated with endoscopic dilation; of these, 4 had repeated dilations and 7 required only a single dilation. The remaining 19 patients were monitored only. Patients who had peripheral blood eosinophilia and severe endoscopic abnormalities were more likely to relapse than those who did not. Although fibrosis of the lamina propria was noted in later biopsies, no progression to deeper layers or to other parts of the gastrointestinal tract was observed. No patient developed esophageal carcinoma or hypereosinophilic syndrome. Hence, EE does not appear to influence life expectancy. In another study, reported from the Mayo Clinic in abstract form [21], follow-up of 10 patients who had EE 3 years after diagnosis using a mailed questionnaire revealed recurrent solid food dysphagia occurring at least once a week in 60% of patients. All had received retreatment with inhaled steroids, and 70% had received endoscopic dilation despite medical treatment. The clinical course of patients who had EE in Olmsted County was characterized by recurrent symptoms in 40% of patients responding to medical or endoscopic treatment, with EE also appearing to be a recurrent relapsing disease in a substantial proportion of patients. PATHOGENESIS Debate continues on the etiopathogenesis of EE, with allergic and immunologic mechanisms being proposed and investigated [22–25], based on the substantial proportion of adult patients who have associated food, inhalant, and seasonal allergies (40%–60%) [12,26] (although this appears to be somewhat lower than in children, where up to 80% have been reported to have an allergic diathesis [27–29]). Specific IgE testing, skin prick testing, and atopy patch testing have been reported to be positive in variable (32%–80%) proportions of adults and children with EE [25,30]. On the basis of allergy testing results, it is thought that EE may be a result of IgE-mediated and non–IgE-mediated reactions [31]. In addition, the relationship between EE and GERD remains to be defined [32], given the presence of esophageal eosinophilia in patients who have GERD (albeit to a lesser degree).

352

PRASAD & TALLEY

Two possible mechanisms of antigen sensitization have been proposed in EE. One is an initial esophageal sensitization to a food antigen, resulting in EE when esophageal re-exposure to the same antigen results; an alternative hypothesis is that initial bronchial sensitization followed by esophageal reexposure leads to EE. This latter mechanism was supported by experiments conducted by Mishra and colleagues [22], when they exposed mice to Aspergillus fumigatus intranasally and intragastrically. Only mice exposed to intragastric A fumigatus developed esophageal eosinophilia. A bronchial esophageal connection was also supported by experiments in which airway delivery of interleukin (IL)-13 promoted the development of EE [33]. EE appears to be associated with a Th2-type immune response; increased levels of eosinophil-active Th2 cytokines (such as IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13) and mast cells have been described in the esophagus in patients who have EE. Experimental models of EE can be induced in mice by means of allergen exposure, especially in the respiratory tract after mucosal or epicutaneous sensitization, and by means of overexpression of Th2 cytokines (IL-5 and IL-13) [22,23,34]. The esophagus is normally devoid of eosinophils. In patients who have EE, recruitment of eosinophils to the esophagus is thought to be mediated by IL-5 and eotaxin. IL-5 is a cytokine produced by T-helper (type 2) lymphocytes, which can prime eosinophils to react to chemoattractants such as eotaxin (an eosinophil chemotactic factor, also known to be overexpressed in patients who have EE Ref. [35]) (Fig. 1). IL-13 has also been shown to be crucial in the development of EE. In sensitized individuals, allergen exposure can lead to IgEmediated mast cell degranulation, which leads to the production of chemokines, histamine, and eosinophilic chemoattractants. These factors then induce eosinophil migration and degranulation, releasing products such as major basic protein (MBP), eosinophil cationic protein, and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin. These products can cause tissue damage, edema, and chronic inflammation, which, if prolonged, can lead to fibrosis [16]. In addition, these cationic proteins released by eosinophils set up a positive feedback loop by causing further mast cell degranulation, which leads to greater eosinophil recruitment to the esophagus and further release of eosinophil granule products [31]. The effect of eosinophil products such as MBP on smooth muscle has also been described, with muscarinic M2 receptors mediating smooth muscle contraction. This finding may explain the ability of eosinophilic infiltration of the esophagus to lead to dysphagia and FI, analogous to bronchoconstriction in asthma [28,36]. Familial clustering of EE has been reported by some investigators [9,19,37,38]. Whether this clustering reflects a true genetic predilection or a common environmental exposure remains unclear. Support for a genetic basis of EE comes from a study that found that the gene encoding for eotaxin 3 was the most highly induced gene in EE patients when compared with healthy controls [35]. Seasonal variations in the diagnosis and severity of symptoms of EE have been reported in adults [27] and children [39], rendering support to the hypothesis that environmental allergens play a role in the pathogenesis of EE.

EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS IN ADULTS

353

Fig. 1. A proposed mode to explain the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in EE pathogenesis, eotaxin-3–associated eosinophil recruitment, and treatment. Aeroallergen, food allergen, and skin sensitization have been implicated in EE pathogenesis. Elemental diet, glucocorticoids, and anti–IL-5 treatments improve the microscopic features of EE acting at different levels on the disease pathogenesis. Proton pomp inhibitors (PPI) inhibit Hþ secretion by parietal cells of the stomach and only partially improve EE features. Hyperplasic epithelial cells of the esophagus overexpress eotaxin-3, likely in response to IL-13. Eotaxin-3 overexpression allows chemoattraction of CCR3þ cells. Inheritance of EE disease suggests a genetic predisposition. A single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the exotoxin-3 gene has been associated with EE. The linkage disequilibrium pattern (ID’I) of the SNPs in the eotoxin-3 gene, based on the genotype data in a European population from the HapMap database, is presented. ID’I is the measure of the correlation between two SNPs; it ranges from 0 (in linkage equilibrium) to 1 (in strong linkage disequilibrium). Except for the SNP pair þ76 and 5419 with an ID’I of 0.71, the other SNP pairs (shown in black) are in strong linkage disequilibrium (ID’I ¼ 1). As such, the genotype of one SNP speaks for the others. (From Blanchard C, Wang N, Rothenberg ME. Eosinophilic esophagitis: pathogenesis, genetics, and therapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;118:1054; with permission.)

CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS Patients who have EE tend be young men, with a male gender preponderance (a male/female ratio of 3:1 was reported in one meta-analysis Ref. [8]). Most patients are diagnosed in the third or fourth decade of life. The most common presenting symptom in adults is dysphagia to solids (60%–90%). FI is also a common presenting manifestation, with 50% to 60% of patients reporting episodes. Two prospective studies have reported that 50% to 55% of patients presenting to the emergency room with FI have EE, based on esophageal biopsies [4,40]. In addition, symptoms of GERD (heartburn and acid regurgitation) are also common in adults who have EE, from 24% in a meta-analysis [8] to 50% in a prospective study of patients who had dysphagia [10]. Some patients who have EE may also present with acid reflux symptoms that do not respond to medical treatment with proton pump inhibitors. Despite the presence of acid reflux symptoms, most patients who have EE (82%) have normal or negative

354

PRASAD & TALLEY

ambulatory pH studies [11]. Chest pain, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and weight loss are some of the other symptoms reported by patients diagnosed with EE. This pattern of presenting symptoms in adults differs from that of children, who present with more nonspecific symptoms such as poor feeding, vomiting, regurgitation, and failure to thrive. Older children and adolescents present with symptoms similar to those of adults. Symptoms in adults are compared with those in children in Box 1. Ten percent to fifty percent of studies in adults have reported varying degrees of peripheral eosinophilia [16,36,41]. The degree of eosinophilia reported has been modest and is complicated by studies using different thresholds to define eosinophilia. A recent meta-analysis reported that 30% of patients (82/266 patients from 19 studies) had peripheral eosinophilia [8]. DIAGNOSIS Endoscopic Manifestations Several typical endoscopic manifestations of EE have been described in case series of EE, including esophageal rings, which lead to ‘‘trachealization’’ or ‘‘felinization’’ of the esophageal mucosa (Fig. 2A); raised white specks, which may represent eosinophilic microabscesses (Fig. 2B); longitudinal furrows (Fig. 2C); whitish exudates; and ‘‘crepe paper’’ mucosa, which refers to a friable mucosa that tears by the mere passage of the endoscope. Strictures can be located in the proximal, middle, or lower third of the esophagus. Case series also describe a substantial proportion of patients who have EE as having normal esophageal mucosa on endoscopy (10%–33%) [8,11,17]. A prospective study on outpatients presenting with dysphagia found that 10% of patients Box 1: Comparison of presenting symptoms in adults and children with eosinophilic esophagitis Adults Dysphagia Food impaction Heartburn/acid reflux not responsive to medical treatment Chest pain Children Feeding aversion Vomiting, regurgitation Failure to thrive GERD symptoms not responsive to medical treatment Abdominal pain Chest pain Dysphagia, food impaction

EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS IN ADULTS

355

Fig. 2. (A) Endoscopy showing multiple rings in the esophagus. (B) Endoscopy showing multiple rings with white spots in the esophagus. (C) Endoscopy showing linear furrows in the esophagus.

who had a ‘‘normal endoscopy’’ had evidence of EE on midesophageal biopsies, supporting the argument for taking esophageal biopsies in all patients who have dysphagia and a ‘‘normal’’ endoscopic examination [10]. The same study also found that the typical endoscopic manifestations of EE have a poor predictive value for a diagnosis of EE, with only 38% of patients who had typical endoscopic features suggestive of EE meeting the histologic criteria for EE on midesophageal biopsies. However, the presence of more than one endoscopic feature of EE increased the likelihood of EE on esophageal biopsies in the same study [10]. Esophageal Biopsies Site The recent consensus statement on the diagnosis and management of EE states that ‘‘multiple biopsy specimens should be obtained from different esophageal locations along the length of the esophagus’’ to confirm a diagnosis of EE in all patients who have suspected EE, ‘‘regardless of the gross appearance of the esophageal mucosa’’ [11]. Multiple prior studies have based their diagnosis of EE on biopsies obtained from either the proximal or the distal esophagus.

356

PRASAD & TALLEY

These studies have demonstrated a marked variability in the degree of eosinophilia in biopsies taken from different levels of the esophagus, with levels from the distal esophagus being numerically greater than those from the proximal esophagus [17,42,43]. Gonsalves and colleagues [42] performed a subgroup analysis in 20 out of 61 patients who had proximal and distal biopsies available; they found that 4 patients (20%) met the histologic criteria for EE only on distal biopsies. In contrast, in a large pediatric study, proximal esophageal biopsies demonstrated 100% sensitivity in making a diagnosis of EE, when compared with distal esophageal biopsies. Number In an elegant study, investigators modeled the sensitivity of diagnosis by varying the number of biopsies [42], with a diagnostic threshold of 15 eosinophils/HPF. The sensitivity of one biopsy specimen was 55% and increased to 100% with five biopsy specimens (Fig. 3), which led the consensus statement on the diagnosis of EE to recommend that ‘‘multiple’’ biopsy specimens be taken. At the authors’ institution, they recommend that at least four biopsies be taken from the esophagus at different levels, to maximize sensitivity. Despite multiple biopsies, false-negative results may occur because of patchy distribution of the eosinophilic infiltrate, other medications the patient may be taking (such as systemic or inhaled steroids and leukotriene inhibitors), or involvement of deeper esophageal layers (muscularis propria) by the eosinophilic inflammation [44]. Processing Bouin’s fluid was found to reduce the sensitivity of eosinophil detection in one study [45] and hence, it is recommended that mucosal biopsy samples be fixed in an alternative preservative (such as formalin).

Fig. 3. Variable sensitivity of diagnosis, with varying number of biopsies from the esophagus with different diagnostic thresholds. Bx, biopsy. (From Gonsalves N, Policarpio-Nicolas M, Zhang Q, et al. Histopatholgic variability and endoscopic correlates in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:313; with permission.)

EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS IN ADULTS

357

Pathology The diagnostic sine qua non of EE is eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa (Fig. 4). The diagnostic threshold for EE has varied in different studies, given the lack of consensus on the precise threshold. The most commonly used thresholds are 15 [17,42,46,47], 20 [2,10,14,48], and 24 [9,13,20,35,49] eosinophils/HPF. In addition, variability has been enhanced by the use of mean, median, and maximal eosinophil counts in the diagnostic threshold, and by variation in the method of counting eosinophils, with some studies targeting the most densely infiltrated areas and other studies counting a set number of HPFs in a given area [50]. In addition, as pointed out by Dellon and colleagues [50], because of significant variation in eosinophil counts introduced by the use of different microscopes, the size of a single HPF can vary from 0.12 mm2 to 0.44 mm2. Given this background of significant variability, the North American consensus statement states that ‘‘intraepithelial eosinophils should be counted in the most intensely inflamed HPF of a biopsy ( 400) to generate a peak count.’’ A peak count of greater than or equal to 15 eosinophils/HPF in at least one HPF, in the proper clinical context, was adopted in this statement as the diagnostic criterion for EE [11]. Other pathologic features that are not pathognomonic of EE but have been recognized to be characteristic of EE include eosinophilic microabscesses (defined as the presence of four or more eosinophils in a cluster), which are pathologic correlates of endoscopic mucosal specks and plaques; preferential superficial layering of the eosinophilic infiltrate in the upper half of the esophageal mucosa; basal zone hyperplasia (defined as the basal zone occupying greater than 20% of the epithelium, as seen in Fig. 5); papillary lengthening; and epithelial edema. MBP has been proposed as a surrogate marker of eosinophil degranulation, with increased deposition of this protein being reported in the esophageal mucosa of patients who have EE compared with those who have GERD

Fig. 4. Eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal squamous mucosa.

358

PRASAD & TALLEY

Fig. 5. Cross-section showing full thickness of the epithelium, demonstrating the striking basilar hyperplasia (elongated subepithelial papillae, thickened basal zone), commonly seen in EE.

[4,41]. It may be speculated that identification of increased levels of MBP in esophageal biopsies could increase the sensitivity of the diagnosis of EE. However, acquisition of biopsies and biopsy processing alone may cause eosinophil degranulation, releasing MBP, and possibly leading to a decrease in specificity. Other Tests Ambulatory pH testing Multiple studies have reported on the results of pH monitoring in patients who have EE. In a meta-analysis, results were normal in 90% of patients [8]. Esophageal pH testing may be helpful in excluding abnormal distal esophageal reflux because it is occasionally difficult to distinguish between EE and GERD using symptoms, endoscopy, and biopsies. An alternative approach, as suggested by the recent consensus statement on EE, is to perform an upper endoscopy after 6 to 8 weeks of twice-a-day proton pump inhibitor therapy [11]. Esophageal manometry Results of manometry in patients who have EE have been reported by a few investigators [14,51]. Most patients have normal results, with the most common abnormal findings being nonspecific peristaltic abnormalities [11] and incomplete lower esophageal sphincter relaxation [8]. Esophageal manometry does not appear to provide useful information in patients who have EE. Radiology Barium esophageal studies may demonstrate the presence of proximal and distal esophageal strictures, in addition to revealing diffuse narrowing of the esophagus [51–53]. A pediatric study reported the presence of EE in 8 of 18 children with Schatzki’s rings [54]. Hence, radiologic studies may be helpful before endoscopy in patients who have prominent dysphagia with a high likelihood of

EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS IN ADULTS

359

strictures and may provide valuable information in terms of planning endoscopy and possible endoscopic dilation. ALLERGIC EVALUATION Most studies evaluating the role of allergies in EE have been conducted in children. In this article, the authors attempt to summarize the results of studies performed in adults. Allergic responses have been implicated in the pathogenesis of EE, based on multiple immunologic studies. Food allergies have been documented in a substantial proportion of patients who have EE [28]; this proportion may be higher in pediatric patients than in adult patients. Despite positive tests for food allergies, however, some patients who have EE may not respond to withdrawal of the foods that cause a positive food allergy test [55]. Based on these studies and the coexistence of other allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis, asthma, and skin or food allergies in patients who have EE, it has been recommended that patients who have EE be evaluated by an allergist [11]. Methods of allergy testing include determination of peripheral eosinophil counts (modestly elevated in some studies), assessment of specific IgE testing, skin prick testing, and skin patch testing. In addition, some studies have correlated the extent of peripheral and tissue eosinophilia with the severity and persistence of symptoms [16,56]. Eosinophil products such as eosinophil-derived neurotoxin may have potential as biomarkers of EE. Although total IgE levels have been reported to be elevated in adult patients who have EE, the significant confounding influence of coexisting atopic conditions makes the values difficult to interpret. Food-specific radioallergosorbent testing has also been reported in patients who have EE [57]. The results of these tests appear to have poor predictive value regarding the response of symptoms to the avoidance of the foods associated with positive tests. In vitro food allergy testing (using IgE levels) is not currently recommended [11]. Skin prick testing involves pricking the skin with a bifurcated needle through a drop of commercially available allergen extract; a wheal-and-flare reaction is measured after 15 minutes. Most of the studies reporting the results of this test in EE patients have been from pediatric patients [30]. Close to two thirds of patients have positive reactions to one or more foods; common foods include peanuts, eggs, soy, cow milk, and wheat. The significance of a positive skin test remains to be determined fully, however, because treatment correlates of a positive test are unclear [58]. Skin patch testing involves prolonged contact of the allergen to the skin surface and, unlike skin prick testing (which assesses type 1 or immediate hypersensitivity), it assesses delayed (or Th2-mediated) hypersensitivity. As with skin prick testing, most studies have reported results with skin patch testing in children, with most pediatric patients who have EE testing positive [25,59]. Spergel and colleagues [59,60] reported that 77% of patients who had EE had resolution of eosinophilic inflammation on biopsies when their diets were modified on the basis of positive skin tests and patch tests. The most commonly identified foods were milk, eggs, soy, chicken, and wheat. These results were

360

PRASAD & TALLEY

further confirmed when the investigators reintroduced the foods that tested positive, which led to recurrent esophageal eosinophilia. Because these results are from only one center, the consensus statement recommended the use of patch testing for EE in research settings until these results are confirmed by other investigators. The diagnostic criteria for EE, as per the recent American Gastroenterological Association consensus statement, are summarized as follows [11]: Clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction  15 eosinophils in one HPF Lack of responsiveness to high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy Normal pH monitoring of the distal esophagus

TREATMENT Medical Treatment Corticosteroids Because corticosteroids are able to control inflammation in other organs, systemic [51,61] and locally active corticosteroids have been used in EE, with success. Systemic corticosteroids are able to induce symptomatic and histologic remission. Their effectiveness has not been compared with other treatments. Doses used have been comparable to those used in other inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease (1–2 mg/kg/d, tapered over 4–6 weeks). However, given the potential for significant systemic toxicity with prolonged use, and the availability of other effective alternatives, their use is now recommended only in patients who have severe disease manifestations necessitating rapid symptom relief, such as severe dysphagia associated with dehydration and weight loss, perhaps associated with refractory esophageal strictures. Given the toxicities associated with prolonged systemic steroid administration, maintenance therapy with systemic corticosteroids is not recommended because this is, unfortunately, associated with recurrent disease in a large proportion of patients. Recent reports have documented the ability of other immunosuppressants (such as azathioprine and 6 mercaptopurine) to exert a ‘‘steroid-sparing’’ effect, analogous to their use in inflammatory bowel disease, allowing the weaning of steroids and maintaining clinical and histologic remission [62]. Faubion and colleagues [48] first reported the ability of swallowed topical corticosteroids (fluticasone propionate, 880 lg/d, or beclomethasone) to induce symptomatic remission in children who have EE. This symptomatic remission has been subsequently reported in adult patients [2,6]. Doses used in adults range from 440 to 500 lg/d of fluticasone propionate twice a day for 4 to 6 weeks. Patients were asked to use the inhalers without a spacer, and to swallow afterwards. Patients were also instructed not to eat or drink for 30 minutes after swallowing the medication. Symptomatic remission was induced in all patients except one. Relapse of symptoms was noted in almost 50% of patients, most of whom were retreated with inhaled corticosteroids. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of inhaled fluticasone propionate in pediatric patients who

EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS IN ADULTS

361

had EE showed that patients who had EE who received fluticasone were more likely to achieve symptomatic and histologic remission (50%) than those who received placebo (9%) (P ¼ .047) [13]. Younger patients who have a nonallergic phenotype appeared to be more likely to respond to treatment. An alternative approach has been reported recently in the literature using swallowed budesonide suspension mixed in sucralose (a nonabsorbable sugar) to increase fluid viscosity; safety (no adverse effects with unaffected morning cortisol levels) and efficacy (80% histologic response) was reported in 20 children who had EE [63]. The most common adverse effect associated with inhaled topical corticosteroids appears to be oral candidiasis, perhaps as a result of the drug being deposited in the pharynx; oral candidiasis does not appear to be associated with the use of the viscous budesonide preparation. Inhaled topical corticosteroids may be associated with a risk for bone loss at higher doses (typically more than 750 lg/d) for prolonged periods [12]; this finding has not been reported in patients who have EE. Leukotriene receptor antagonists Because of the postulated involvement of eosinophil-derived leukotrienes in the inflammatory cascade causing EE, leukotriene receptor antagonists have been used in patients who have EE, with some success. However, the evidence is based on one case series only. Attwood and colleagues [14] reported the treatment of eight patients with montelukast, with six reporting complete symptomatic relief (the remainder experienced improvement in dysphagia). The doses of montelukast used were 10 to 40 mg/d. Histologic improvement was not observed. The investigators also reported continuing maintenance treatment with montelukast for a median duration of 14 months, with persistent symptomatic remission in these patients. The drug was reasonably well tolerated, with one patient developing nausea and myalgia at 40 mg/d. Contradictory data were reported by Gupta and colleagues [64], who measured cysteinyl leukotriene (eosinophil chemoattractants) levels in pediatric patients who had and did not have EE. They found that levels were comparable between the two groups and did not correlate with the degree of eosinophilic esophageal inflammation. The consensus statement on EE does not recommend treatment with leukotriene inhibitors at this time. Endoscopic Treatment Several earlier studies have reported the successful treatment of EE with dilations alone; these have mostly been in adult patients [16,54,65–67]. In one study, patients were managed with dilations alone (most needing only one dilation over a mean follow-up of 7 years), with minimal effect on quality of life [16]. Concern about mucosal friability leading to deep mucosal tears (sometimes with the mere passage of the endoscope) and perforation, in addition to recurrence of symptoms, remains a barrier to the widespread use of dilations as a primary means of treatment of EE. Even patients who do not have perforation have been reported to develop significant chest pain needing narcotic analgesics and hospitalization, raising the possibility of small, self-contained

362

PRASAD & TALLEY

perforations in these patients [66]. A recent audit of complications associated with endoscopy in EE from a single medical center reported an alarmingly high rate of endoscopic complications; 31% of patients (11/31) who had EE had these complications. The investigators reported seven mucosal lacerations, three perforations, and one emesis-induced rupture. They also attempted to identify the factors associated with an increased risk for complications and found that the presence of a stricture, a longer duration of symptoms, and a greater density of eosinophilic infiltration predicted an increased risk for complications. Because the density of eosinophilic infiltration cannot be determined before endoscopy, they suggested that the performance of endoscopy and subsequent dilatation be deferred until biopsy specimens are reviewed or treatment is completed [68]. Given this concern about perforation in patients who have EE, it has been recommended that patients who have esophageal eosinophilia have a diagnostic endoscopy with biopsies followed by medical treatment before endoscopic dilation, whenever possible. It remains unknown, however, whether dilation following medical treatment is safer than dilation upfront. It is imperative to recognize that dilation may be necessary in patients who are refractory to medical management with underlying strictures. No data are currently available on the durability of symptomatic response following endoscopic dilation alone in patients who have EE. Dietary Treatment Given the strong circumstantial evidence of the role of food allergy in the pathogenesis of EE, an argument can be made for the removal of offending foods/ antigens as a strategy for the treatment of EE. Indeed, substantial evidence of the success of this strategy exists in the pediatric population. In children, success rates of 77% to 98% in inducing clinical and histologic remission have been reported through the elimination of all potential food antigens by using an elemental amino acid formula [55,69]; removing foods most likely to be associated with eosinophilia (such as dairy, eggs, wheat, soy, peanuts, and fish) [58]; and eliminating specific foods indicated by allergy testing by skin prick or skin patch testing [25,59]. Despite the success of dietary therapy in the pediatric population, instituting dietary changes, particularly on a long-term basis, is challenging in adults (given the poor tolerability of these significantly restricted diets), which explains the emphasis on anti-inflammatory medications and endoscopic approaches in treating EE in adult patients. A recent abstract reported the first clinical prospective trial of dietary modification in adults who had EE [70]. Adults with newly diagnosed EE (diagnosed with more than 20 eosinophils/ HPF on esophageal biopsies), or those with relapsing symptoms and a prior diagnosis of EE, were recruited. All patients underwent 24-hour pH testing and were unresponsive to twice-a-day proton pump inhibitor therapy. Following skin prick testing for food and aeroallergens, patients completed a 6-week trial of a six-food elimination diet (milk, soy, eggs, wheat, nuts, and seafood were all excluded from the diet) in addition to any foods that tested positive

EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS IN ADULTS

363

on skin prick testing. Repeat endoscopy with biopsies was performed after 6 weeks of the special diet, and remission was defined as the presence of fewer than 5 eosinophils/HPF on esophageal biopsies. Nine patients entered the trial, of which three had completed the trial at the time of publication of this article. Of the three patients, one had a complete response, one had a partial response (defined as significant resolution of esophageal eosinophilia without meeting the criteria for response), and one had no response. Symptom scores of dysphagia improved by 30% after dietary treatment. In addition, markers of epithelial proliferation (Ki-67 and p63 staining) also decreased significantly. Further detailed results of this study and other trials are needed before any recommendations can be made about dietary modifications in adults. Given the limited tolerability of exclusion diets in adults, this approach may be more appropriate for patients who remain refractory to medical and endoscopic therapy. Acid Suppression Acid reflux is also associated with esophageal eosinophilia and hence, remains in the differential diagnosis of eosinophilic infiltration of the esophagus. A recent elegant review speculated on the possible association between EE and GERD, raising four possible hypotheses to explain this interaction between acid and eosinophils in the esophagus: (1) GERD causes esophageal injury that results in a mild eosinophilic infiltration; (2) GERD and EE coexist but are unrelated; (3) EE contributes to, or causes, GERD; or (4) GERD contributes to, or causes, EE [32]. Studies in children appear to show that, although GERD may be associated with eosinophilic infiltration in the esophagus, the degree of esophageal eosinophilia is mild (280 mg/dL), the corresponding values were 53%, 99%, and 75%, respectively [21]. In this study, 5% to 10% of non-AIP patient groups, including 10% of patients who had ductal adenocarcinoma, had elevated IgG4 levels [21]. In addition, serum IgG4 levels, even in the presence of classic histologic findings of AIP, can be normal (Table 2) [58,87]. Elevated titers of many autoantibodies have been described in AIP. Autoantibodies against carbonic anhydrase II and IV and lactoferrin are detected in most patients who have AIP [88–91]. Involvement of antinuclear and anti– smooth muscle antibodies has also been described [89,92]. Autoantibodies to the pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor have been shown to be elevated in nearly 50% of AIP patients compared with controls [93]. None of these autoantibodies have prediction characteristics that equal that of IgG4. Levels of total IgG and gamma globulins are also increased in AIP. In our experience, however, it is unusual to have elevated serum levels of IgG or gamma globulins without elevation of serum IgG4 levels. Although a combination of serum IgG4 levels and autoantibody titers of antinuclear antibodies and rheumatoid

GARDNER & CHARI

448

Table 2 IgG4 level in patients who have different diseases of the pancreas

Numbera Mean IgG4  SM Range Proportion elevated >140 mg/dL

AIP

Normal Pancreatic Benign pancreatic Chronic pancreas cancer tumor pancreatitis

45 550  99 16–2890 76%

62 49  6 3–263 4.8%

135 68  9 3–1140 9.6%

64 47  5 3–195 4.7%

79 46  5 3–231 6.3%

a

Based on 510 patients referred to the Mayo Clinic for evaluation of pancreatic disease from January 2005 through June 2006. Data from Ghazale A, Chari ST, Smyrk TC, et al. Value of serum IgG4 in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis and in distinguishing it from pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102(8):1646–53.

factor modestly increases sensitivity, it also significantly reduces specificity. The authors do not routinely use autoantibody titers to diagnose AIP. OTHER ORGAN INVOLVEMENT Other organs are often involved in AIP; their involvement may be diagnosed before, simultaneous with, or after the diagnosis of AIP. Biliary tract is involved in 60% to 100% of all patients presenting with AIP [1,51,55,59,63] and has recently been termed IAC [42]. IAC affects both intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts, with the distal common bile duct being the most common site of involvement [94]. Biliary imaging may not necessarily reveal involvement, even when present microscopically [55,76]. Histologically, a lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate surrounds the bile ducts in a pattern similar to that seen in the pancreas and IgG4-positive staining is often present [42,47,95]. AIP coexisting with PSC has been described [96], although this is likely not primary sclerosing cholangitis but IgG4-associated cholangitis. It has also been shown that in a small proportion of patients who have aggressive PSC, serum IgG4 levels are elevated suggesting a possible role for corticosteroid therapy [47,95]. One should be cautious in diagnosing IAC simply based on elevated serum IgG4 levels, however, because false-positive elevations may occur in true PSC. IAC differs from PSC in that there is generally less intrahepatic involvement, the strictures can be transient under observation, the strictures are usually segmental, and patients are typically pANCA negative [47,97]. Inflammatory bowel disease, which is present in 70% of PSC, is less common (6%) in IAC [98]. Analogous to the response seen in the inflammatory component of pancreatic involvement, inflammation of the biliary tree typically responds to corticosteroid treatment, although the specific response of each duct segment is still being evaluated [99]. In addition to the biliary system, multiple other organs may be involved in ISD [85]. Hamano and colleagues [51] reviewed the frequency, distribution, clinical characteristics, and pathology of five extrapancreatic lesions in 64

AUTOIMMUNE PANCREATITIS

449

patients who had AIP and found the most frequent extrapancreatic lesion was hilar lymphadenopathy (80.4%), followed by extrapancreatic bile duct lesions (73.9%), lacrimal and salivary gland lesions (39.1%), hypothyroidism (22.2%), and retroperitoneal fibrosis (12.5%). No patients had all five types of lesions. Patients who had hilar lymphadenopathy or lacrimal and salivary gland lesions were found to have significantly higher IgG4 levels than those who did not. Both intrinsic (tubulointestinal fibrosis) and extrinsic (hydronephrosis secondary to retroperitoneal fibrosis) renal disease have been associated with AIP, as has inflammatory pneumonitis and inflammatory pseudotumor of the liver [44,100–103]. Fig. 4 demonstrates some of the more common extrapancreatic manifestations associated with AIP. Based on the significant degree of extrapancreatic disease and the association with IgG4 staining of tissues, the concept of an IgG4-related autoimmune disease entity has been proposed by Kamisawa [39]. This distinct clinicopathologic disease process would encompass all IgG4 diseases, of which AIP would be only one manifestation. DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA In 1995 Yoshida and colleagues [19] reported a list of 12 features suggestive of AIP, but stopped short of providing clinical criteria for its diagnosis. The first diagnostic criteria were proposed by the Japan Pancreas Society in 2002 and later modified in 2006. These guidelines were developed to distinguish between AIP and pancreatic adenocarcinoma. To make the diagnosis of AIP based on the Japanese guidelines, it is mandatory that findings on radiography be consistent with AIP. These findings include the presence of diffuse or segmental narrowing of the main pancreatic duct with irregular wall diagnosed by endoscopic retrograde pancreatogram and diffuse or localized enlargement of the pancreas on abdominal ultrasonography, CT, or MRI. In addition, one of serologic (high serum c-globulin, IgG, or IgG4, or the presence of autoantibodies,

Fig. 4. Extrapancreatic manifestations of AIP demonstrated in a patient who had untreated AIP. Retroperitoneal fibrosis (A, white arrow) and intrahepatic biliary dilatation secondary to diffuse inflammatory stricturing of the biliary system (B, white arrow) are shown.

450

GARDNER & CHARI

such as antinuclear antibodies and rheumatoid factor) or histologic (marked interlobular fibrosis and prominent infiltration of lymphocytes and plasma cells in the periductal area, occasionally with lymphoid follicles in the pancreas) criteria are required to satisfy Japanese criteria for diagnosis of AIP. The Japanese criteria do not take into account that AIP has unique histologic features, characteristic findings on IgG4 immunostaining of the organs involved, other organ involvement, or response to steroids. In 2006, Chari and colleagues [1] published an alternate set of guidelines based on the Mayo Clinic experience with AIP. These criteria, known by the mnemonic HISORt, recognize characteristic features of AIP on pancreatic histology and imaging, serology, other organ involvement, and response to corticosteroid therapy. Based on the HISORt criteria patients can be diagnosed as AIP if they fall into one of three groups: (A) diagnostic pancreatic histology or presence of 10 or more IgG4-positive cells per high-power field (HPF) on immunostain of lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate with storiform fibrosis; (B) typical pancreatic imaging with elevated serum IgG4 140 mg/dL, or (C) unexplained pancreatic disease with negative workup for other pancreatic diseases, especially malignancy, with elevated serum IgG4 levels 140 mg/dL or other organ involvement confirmed by presence of abundant IgG4-positive cells, and resolution/marked improvement in pancreatic or extrapancreatic manifestations with steroid therapy (Box 1). By including additional features, these criteria identify a wider spectrum of clinical presentations of AIP. When the imaging features are typical and there is confirmatory serologic evidence of elevated levels of serum IgG4, the diagnosis of AIP is relatively easy. It still requires a radiologist familiar with the characteristic imaging features of AIP, but that is a matter of education. In some patients, however, the radiologic features are simply not diagnostic. In such patients a pancreatic biopsy can be a helpful adjunct to the diagnosis. The diagnostic gold standard for AIP is the presence of LPSP with IgG4-positive immunostaining of pancreatic tissues [6,50]. The presence of the full spectrum of LPSP on histology requires core biopsy, however, because fine-needle aspiration is usually not sufficient to make the diagnosis. Core biopsies can be obtained percutaneously with ultrasound or CT guidance or by transmurally using EUS-guidance biopsy [68]. TREATMENT The cornerstone of treatment of AIP is the use of corticosteroids with multiple authors reporting dramatic response rates with prolonged therapy [1,10, 104–106]. A word of caution, however, is that it is imperative to thoroughly rule out other possible causes of pancreatic disease, most notably pancreatic malignancy, before initiating corticosteroid therapy. Although spontaneous remissions do occur in AIP, the use of corticosteroids seems to hasten recovery and may prevent recurrences. There are several reasons, therefore, to initiate treatment of AIP with corticosteroids. For one, if the diagnosis remains in doubt and malignancy has been excluded, response to corticosteroids can be a reasonable method of diagnosing AIP. The clinical

AUTOIMMUNE PANCREATITIS

451

Box 1: Mayo Clinic HISORt criteria for the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis Diagnostic criteria Histology At least one of the following:  Periductal lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate with obliterative phlebitis and storiform fibrosis  Lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate with storiform fibrosis with abundant (10 IgG4 cells/HPF)

Imaging  Typical: diffusely enlarged gland with delayed rim enhancement, diffusely irregular,

attenuated main pancreatic duct  Other: focal pancreatic mass/enlargement, focal pancreatic ductal stricture, pancre-

atic atrophy, calcification, pancreatitis Serology  Elevated serum IgG4 level (normal 8–140 mg/dL)

Other organ involvement  Hilar/intrahepatic biliary strictures, persistent distal biliary stricture, parotid/lacrimal

gland involvement, mediastinal lymphadenopathy, retroperitoneal fibrosis Response to steroid therapy  Resolution/marked improvement of pancreatic/extrapancreatic manifestation with

corticosteroid therapy Diagnostic groupsa Group A: diagnostic pancreatic histology Presence of one or more of the following criteria:  Specimen demonstrating the full spectrum of LPSP  10 IgG4 cells/HPF on immunostain of pancreatic lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate

Group B: typical imaging + serology Presence of all of the following criteria:  CT or MRI scan showing diffusely enlarged pancreas with delayed and rim

enhancement  Pancreatogram showing diffusely irregular pancreatic duct  Elevated serum IgG4 levels

Group C: response to corticosteroids Presence of all of the following criteria:  Unexplained pancreatic disease after negative workup for other causes  Elevated serum IgG4 or other organ involvement confirmed by presence of abundant

IgG4-positive cells  Resolution/marked improvement in pancreatic or extrapancreatic manifestations with

corticosteroid therapy a

Patients meeting criteria for one or more of the groups have AIP. Data from Chari ST, Smyrk TC, Levy MJ, et al. Diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis: the Mayo Clinic experience. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4(8):1010–6.

452

GARDNER & CHARI

suspicion for AIP should be high before initiation of therapy, however, and patients should be followed closely for any symptoms (eg, profound weight loss, anorexia, night sweats) more consistent with malignancy than AIP. Treatment can also be a means of reducing clinical symptoms from acute pancreatic (pancreatic endocrine insufficiency, rarely acute pancreatitis) or extrapancreatic (jaundice from biliary strictures, sialadenitis) manifestations of disease [62,104,107–110]. In addition, there can sometimes be structural improvement, for example in the pancreatic duct, with corticosteroid therapy [56]. The degree of structural response depends on the extent of fibrosis versus inflammation; patients who have more inflammatory injury typically have a greater structural response and extensive fibrosis may not allow complete remission to occur [104]. The exact corticosteroid treatment protocol for patients who have AIP is not standardized; however, most practitioners initiate therapy with between 30 and 40 mg of prednisone daily. These doses are usually effective to induce remission; it is unclear if starting at lower doses would be equally effective. Resolution of symptoms is generally rapidly achieved within 2 to 3 weeks of corticosteroid initiation. It usually takes several weeks to months for evidence of serologic (normalization of IgG4) or radiologic remission. Occasionally, because of fibrotic involvement of tissue, radiologic remission is not seen, especially in proximal biliary strictures resembling cholangiocarcinoma, intrahepatic strictures resembling PSC, and retroperitoneal fibrosis. Progression toward normalization of serum IgG4 levels can be used to guide treatment in these instances. Because histologic specimens are often difficult to obtain, we generally do not use histology as a marker for remission. At the Mayo Clinic, we treat patients diagnosed with AIP with a prolonged steroid taper. Patients are started on 40 mg/d of prednisone for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, their clinical response is gauged and repeat cross-sectional imaging and serologic evaluation are performed to check for response. If clinical, serologic, or radiographic response is documented, the prednisone dose is tapered 5 mg/wk until gone. In patients in whom a biliary stent has been placed, this usually can be removed at 6 to 8 weeks following initiation of therapy. IgG4 levels are also followed and in patients who have AIP, a decrease in IgG4 (although not necessarily normalization) should occur within 4 weeks of treatment initiation (Fig. 5). Recently, in patients who present with jaundice because of biliary stricturing disease who do not wish to undergo initial endoscopic retrograde cholongiopancreatography with stent placement, we have occasionally treated with a large initial bolus of intravenous corticosteroids. Although our experience is limited and at this time anecdotal, jaundice does seem to respond rapidly to this treatment, thus obviating the need for biliary stent placement. Further prospective studies are needed to determine if large initial doses of corticosteroids are an effective alternative to initial biliary stent placement in newly diagnosed AIP. Between 30% and 40% of patients have clinical or radiographic relapse following treatment with prolonged corticosteroids requiring retreatment with a second prolonged course [1,43,84,107,111]. These relapses generally occur

AUTOIMMUNE PANCREATITIS

453

Diagnosis of Autoimmune Pancreatitis

Start Prednisone 40 mg daily for 4 weeks

After four weeks, measure IgG4 and repeat imaging

Clinical response, decrease in IgG4 and/or improvement of inflammation on imaging

Taper Prednisone 5 mg/week until taper complete

No change in symptoms, IgG4 level or improvement of inflammation on imaging

Consider alternative diagnosis

Recheck IgG4 and imaging 4-6 weeks following completion of Prednisone taper

No symptoms, IgG4 and radiographic improvement

Serial clinical follow-up (6 months initially) and imaging

More than 1 relapse, initiate chronic suppressive therapy*

Clinical, biochemical or imaging relapse

Fig. 5. Algorithm for treatment of AIP. Recent data suggest that relapse following steroid withdrawal is likely in 70% of patients who have AIP who have proximal extrahepatic or intrahepatic biliary strictures. Chronic immunosuppression is therefore recommended after withdrawal of first course of steroid. (Data from Ghazale A, Chari ST, Zhang L. Immunoglobulin G4-associated cholangitis: clinical profile and response to therapy. Gastroenterology 2008;134:706–15.)

in the short term; data on long-term relapse are lacking. Relapse may be symptomatic, radiologic, serologic, or histologic. The presence of symptoms (recurrent abdominal pain, weight loss, and so forth) is often a clue to relapse within the pancreas; only in the presence of symptoms is cross-sectional imaging repeated. Serologic relapse alone can be seen in patients who do not have clinical symptoms or radiologic changes; whether or not this represents a subclinical disease relapse is unclear at this time. It is also unclear if certain types of organ involvement are more prone to relapse than others. For example, Ghazale and colleagues [43] found that in patients who had IAC treated with 11 weeks of

454

GARDNER & CHARI

corticosteroids, proximal biliary involvement (proximal extrahepatic and intrahepatic biliary strictures) relapsed with a rate of 65% compared with a 25% relapse rate in those who had intrapancreatic stricturing of the distal common bile duct. In a certain subset of patients who have relapse after a second prolonged course of steroids, either chronic prednisone therapy or use of another agent, such as azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine, may be necessary. In Japan, it is often standard of care to continue patients on a chronic low dose (2.5–10 mg/d) of prednisone indefinitely [104,107]. Although there are only case reports evaluating the efficacy of long-term treatment of AIP with immunomodulating therapy, we have had favorable, although limited, experience with these medications [112]. As more experience is gained about the long-term pathogenesis of AIP, recommendations on the use of chronic suppressive therapy needs to be developed. In addition, because there is such a high frequency of shortterm relapse, whether maintenance therapy should be used in all patients, and what type of maintenance therapy should be used, remains to be established. It is unclear at this time whether corticosteroid therapy alters the long-term natural history of disease, prevents the development of future pancreatic or extrapancreatic involvement and organ dysfunction, or is adequate as a long-term suppressive strategy. MISDIAGNOSIS Increasingly, we are evaluating patients in whom AIP has been inaccurately diagnosed. The misdiagnosis occurs in the setting of patients who have other unrelated conditions, such as pancreatic adenocarcinoma, being treated inappropriately with corticosteroids. We have also seen several patients who had functional abdominal pain complaints treated with prolonged courses of high-dose corticosteroids without evidence of AIP. Conversely, multiple patients have undergone therapies, such as pancreatic head resections or partial hepatectomy, without consideration of an autoimmune cause. It is therefore important that AIP be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients who have chronic pancreatitis or biliary strictures. It is imperative, however, that a thorough evaluation be performed for other causes of disease, with histopathologic analysis if possible, before the initiation of corticosteroid therapy. Once corticosteroid therapy has been initiated, patients should be followed closely for signs of worsening or refractory disease symptoms; it is highly unusual for AIP not to quickly respond to appropriate corticosteroid therapy. In addition, clinicians must be cognizant that AIP is a rare disease, and in patients who do not meet the Japanese Pancreas Society or Mayo HISORt guidelines, corticosteroid therapy is likely not advisable. PROGNOSIS There are limited data about the long-term outcome of patients who have AIP. Hirano and colleagues [105] published the most comprehensive report on

AUTOIMMUNE PANCREATITIS

455

prognosis when they evaluated 42 patients who had AIP, 19 of whom received corticosteroid treatment at the time of diagnosis. In the 23 patients who did not have corticosteroid treatment initially, 16 developed unfavorable events, including obstructive jaundice attributable to distal bile duct stenosis in 4, growing pseudocyst in 1, and sclerogenic changes of extrapancreatic bile duct in 9, over an average observation period of 25 months. After an average observation period of 23 months in the initial treatment group, 6 patients developed unfavorable events consisting of interstitial pneumonia in 3 and recurrence of obstructive jaundice in 3. Their conclusions were that early introduction of corticosteroids is important to prevent subsequent disease complications. Most patients treated with corticosteroids develop ‘‘burn out’’ of disease, rendering the pancreas usually somewhat atrophic following treatment [10,47]. The degree of residual pancreatic exocrine or endocrine insufficiency is likely related to the degree of gland fibrosis at the time of treatment [104]. At this time, given the relatively recent description and active investigation of AIP, there are no data regarding the long-term mortality rate of patients who have this disease. In addition, it has not been investigated whether life expectancy is altered by the course of this disease. FUTURE DIRECTIONS There are several lines of investigation that need to be addressed in regard to AIP. Continued work to determine the cause of this disease and its relationship with IgG4 is imperative. Specifically, the antigenic trigger of CD4 and CD8 T-cell activation needs to be identified. Clinically, investigation should focus on the natural history of AIP with specific attention to the wide-ranging effects of IgG4-related systemic disease. It is not currently known whether different manifestations of IgG4-related disease have unique or alternate prognoses. The role of corticosteroids, specifically their role in changing the natural history of disease, needs to be investigated. In asymptomatic patients, it will be important to determine if treatment helps to prevent future organ dysfunction. Furthermore, the role of chronic suppressive therapy, either with corticosteroids or another immune-modulating drug, in preventing relapse and affecting longterm prognosis is yet to be determined. SUMMARY AIP is a unique subtype of recently identified chronic pancreatitis that is immune mediated and represents one manifestation of a systemic IgG4-related disease process. Although a rare condition, it is important to recognize because it responds often dramatically to immune system–modulating treatment. Diagnosing AIP can sometimes be challenging, however, and it is imperative that clinicians be cautious when considering this diagnosis in patients suspected of having a pancreatic malignancy. As clinical experience with AIP increases, refinement of diagnostic criteria and development of standardized therapeutic protocols should allow further optimization of care for our patients.

456

GARDNER & CHARI

References [1] Chari ST, Smyrk TC, Levy MJ, et al. Diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis: the Mayo Clinic experience. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4(8):1010–6. [2] Kamisawa T. IgG4-positive plasma cells specifically infiltrate various organs in autoimmune pancreatitis. Pancreas 2004;29(2):167–8. [3] Kamisawa T, Egawa N, Nakajima H. Autoimmune pancreatitis is a systemic autoimmune disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98(12):2811–2. [4] Yoshida K, Toki F, Takeuchi T, et al. Chronic pancreatitis caused by an autoimmune abnormality. Proposal of the concept of autoimmune pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 1995;40(7): 1561–8. [5] Sarles H, Sarles JC, Muratore R, et al. Chronic inflammatory sclerosis of the pancreas—an autonomous pancreatic disease? Am J Dig Dis 1961;6:688–98. [6] Pearson RK, Longnecker DS, Chari ST, et al. Controversies in clinical pancreatology: autoimmune pancreatitis: does it exist? Pancreas 2003;27(1):1–13. [7] Sood S, Fossard DP, Shorrock K. Chronic sclerosing pancreatitis in Sjogren’s syndrome: a case report. Pancreas 1995;10(4):419–21. [8] Weber SM, Cubukcu-Dimopulo O, Palesty JA, et al. Lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis: inflammatory mimic of pancreatic carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2003;7(1): 129–37. [9] Ectors N, Maillet B, Aerts R, et al. Non-alcoholic duct destructive chronic pancreatitis. Gut 1997;41(2):263–8. [10] Hamano H, Kawa S, Horiuchi A, et al. High serum IgG4 concentrations in patients with sclerosing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2001;344(10):732–8. [11] van Buuren HR, Meijssen MA, van der Werf SD. A patient with sclerosing autoimmune pancreaticocholangitis as the cause of recurrent cholangitis following a pylorus-sparing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005;149(51):2888–9. [12] Kawaguchi K, Koike M, Tsuruta K, et al. Lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis with cholangitis: a variant of primary sclerosing cholangitis extensively involving pancreas. Hum Pathol 1991;22(4):387–95. [13] Ichimura T, Kondo S, Ambo Y, et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis associated with autoimmune pancreatitis. Hepatogastroenterology 2002;49(47):1221–4. [14] Kamisawa T, Funata N, Hayashi Y, et al. Close relationship between autoimmune pancreatitis and multifocal fibrosclerosis. Gut 2003;52(5):683–7. [15] Chutaputti A, Burrell MI, Boyer JL. Pseudotumor of the pancreas associated with retroperitoneal fibrosis: a dramatic response to corticosteroid therapy. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90(7):1155–8. [16] Fukumori K, Shakado S, Miyahara T, et al. Atypical manifestations of pancreatitis with autoimmune phenomenon in an adolescent female. Intern Med 2005;44(8):886–91. [17] Ito T, Nakano I, Koyanagi S, et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis as a new clinical entity. Three cases of autoimmune pancreatitis with effective steroid therapy. Dig Dis Sci 1997;42(7): 1458–68. [18] Kim KP, Kim MH, Kim JC, et al. Diagnostic criteria for autoimmune chronic pancreatitis revisited. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12(16):2487–96. [19] Choi EK, Kim MH, Kim JC, et al. The Japanese diagnostic criteria for autoimmune chronic pancreatitis: is it completely satisfactory? Pancreas 2006;33(1):13–9. [20] Kamisawa T. IgG4-related sclerosing disease. Intern Med 2006;45(3):125–6. [21] Ghazale A, Chari ST, Smyrk TC, et al. Value of serum IgG4 in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis and in distinguishing it from pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102(8):1646–53. [22] Nishimori I, Tamakoshi A, Otsuki M. Prevalence of autoimmune pancreatitis in Japan from a nationwide survey in 2002. J Gastroenterol 2007;42(Suppl 18):6–8. [23] Kim KP, Kim MH, Lee SS, et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis: it may be a worldwide entity. Gastroenterology 2004;126(4):1214.

AUTOIMMUNE PANCREATITIS

457

[24] Okazaki K. Autoimmune pancreatitis is increasing in Japan. Gastroenterology 2003; 125(5):1557–8. [25] Abraham SC, Wilentz RE, Yeo CJ, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple resections) in patients without malignancy: are they all ‘‘chronic pancreatitis’’? Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27(1):110–20. [26] Farnell MB, Pearson RK, Sarr MG, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing standard pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy in resectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Surgery 2005;138(4): 618–28. [27] Yadav D, Notahara K, Smyrk TC, et al. Idiopathic tumefactive chronic pancreatitis: clinical profile, histology, and natural history after resection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;1(2):129–35. [28] Kamisawa T, Wakabayashi T, Sawabu N. Autoimmune pancreatitis in young patients. J Clin Gastroenterol 2006;40(9):847–50. [29] Ota M, Katsuyama Y, Hamano H, et al. Two critical genes (HLA-DRB1 and ABCF1) in the HLA region are associated with the susceptibility to autoimmune pancreatitis. Immunogenetics 2007;59(1):45–52. [30] Umemura T, Ota M, Hamano H, et al. Genetic association of Fc receptor-like 3 polymorphisms with autoimmune pancreatitis in Japanese patients. Gut 2006;55(9):1367–8. [31] Chang MC, Chang YT, Tien YW, et al. T-cell regulatory gene CTLA-4 polymorphism/ haplotype association with autoimmune pancreatitis. Clin Chem 2007;53(9):1700–5. [32] Kountouras J, Zavos C, Gavalas E, et al. Challenge in the pathogenesis of autoimmune pancreatitis: potential role of helicobacter pylori infection via molecular mimicry. Gastroenterology 2007;133(1):368–9. [33] Kamisawa T, Chen PY, Tu Y, et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis metachronously associated with retroperitoneal fibrosis with IgG4-positive plasma cell infiltration. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12(18):2955–7. [34] Kawa S, Hamano H. Autoimmune pancreatitis and bile duct lesions. J Gastroenterol 2003;38(12):1201–3. [35] Matsuda M, Hamano H, Yoshida T, et al. Seronegative Sjogren syndrome with asymptomatic autoimmune sclerosing pancreatitis. Clin Rheumatol 2007;26(1):117–9. [36] Okazaki K. Is IgG4-associated multifocal systemic fibrosis the same disease entity as autoimmune pancreatitis? Intern Med 2007;46(3):117–8. [37] Miyajima N, Koike H, Kawaguchi M, et al. Idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis associated with IgG4-positive-plasmacyte infiltrations and idiopathic chronic pancreatitis. Int J Urol 2006;13(11):1442–4. [38] Frulloni L, Morana G, Bovo P, et al. Salivary gland involvement in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 1999;19(1):33–8. [39] Kamisawa T, Funata N, Hayashi Y, et al. A new clinicopathological entity of IgG4-related autoimmune disease. J Gastroenterol 2003;38(10):982–4. [40] Takagi T, Doi T, Sakamoto H, et al. A case report of autoimmune pancreatitis with Mikulicz’ s disease and diabetes mellitus. Nippon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi 2006;103(2): 180–8. [41] Kitagawa S, Zen Y, Harada K, et al. Abundant IgG4-positive plasma cell infiltration characterizes chronic sclerosing sialadenitis (Kuttner’s tumor). Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29(6): 783–91. [42] Bjornsson E, Chari ST, Smyrk TC, et al. Immunoglobulin G4 associated cholangitis: description of an emerging clinical entity based on review of the literature. Hepatology 2007;45(6):1547–54. [43] Ghazale A, Chari ST, Zhang L, et al. IgG4-associated cholangitis: clinical profile and response to therapy. Gastroenterol 2008;134:706–15. [44] Saeki T, Nishi S, Ito T, et al. Renal lesions in IgG4-related systemic disease. Intern Med 2007;46(17):1365–71.

458

GARDNER & CHARI

[45] Krasinskas AM, Raina A, Khalid A, et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2007;36(2):239–57. [46] Okazaki K. Autoimmune-related pancreatitis. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2001;4(5):369–75. [47] Lara LP, Chari ST. Autoimmune pancreatitis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2005;7(2): 101–6. [48] Varadarajulu S, Cotton PB. Autoimmune pancreatitis: is it relevant in the West? Gastroenterology 2003;125(5):1557. [49] Kitano Y, Matsumoto K, Chisaka K, et al. An autopsy case of autoimmune pancreatitis. JOP 2007;8(5):621–7. [50] Finkelberg DL, Sahani D, Deshpande V, et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2006;355(25):2670–6. [51] Hamano H, Arakura N, Muraki T, et al. Prevalence and distribution of extrapancreatic lesions complicating autoimmune pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol 2006;41(12):1197–205. [52] Hamano H, Kawa S. Are there any other organs in which autoimmune pancreatitis-associated lesions remain to be identified? Intern Med 2006;45(15):883–4. [53] Kamisawa T, Egawa N, Nakajima H, et al. Extrapancreatic lesions in autoimmune pancreatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005;39(10):904–7. [54] Hirano K, Komatsu Y, Yamamoto N, et al. Pancreatic mass lesions associated with raised concentration of IgG4. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99(10):2038–40. [55] Hirano K, Shiratori Y, Komatsu Y, et al. Involvement of the biliary system in autoimmune pancreatitis: a follow-up study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;1(6):453–64. [56] Horiuchi A, Kawa S, Hamano H, et al. ERCP features in 27 patients with autoimmune pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55(4):494–9. [57] Notohara K, Burgart LJ, Yadav D, et al. Idiopathic chronic pancreatitis with periductal lymphoplasmacytic infiltration: clinicopathologic features of 35 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27(8):1119–27. [58] Chari ST. Diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis using its five cardinal features: introducing the Mayo Clinic’s HISORt criteria. J Gastroenterol 2007;42(Suppl 18):39–41. [59] Church NI, Pereira SP, Deheragoda MG, et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis: clinical and radiological features and objective response to steroid therapy in a UK series. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102(11):2417–25. [60] Seicean A, Grigorescu M, Seicean R. Autoimmune chronic pancreatitis. Rom J Intern Med 2006;44(1):17–24. [61] Nishimori I, Tamakoshi A, Kawa S, et al. Influence of steroid therapy on the course of diabetes mellitus in patients with autoimmune pancreatitis: findings from a nationwide survey in Japan. Pancreas 2006;32(3):244–8. [62] Kamisawa T, Egawa N, Inokuma S, et al. Pancreatic endocrine and exocrine function and salivary gland function in autoimmune pancreatitis before and after steroid therapy. Pancreas 2003;27(3):235–8. [63] Kamisawa T, Tu Y, Egawa N, et al. Involvement of pancreatic and bile ducts in autoimmune pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12(4):612–4. [64] Kamisawa T, Egawa N, Shimizu M, et al. Autoimmune dorsal pancreatitis. Pancreas 2005;30(1):94–5. [65] Shimoda M, Kubota K, Sawada T, et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis diagnosed on the basis of immunohistology alone. A case report. JOP 2006;7(5):478–81. [66] Chari ST, Echelmeyer S. Can histopathology be the ‘‘Gold Standard’’ for diagnosing autoimmune pancreatitis? Gastroenterology 2005;129(6):2118–20. [67] Zhang L, Notohara K, Levy MJ, et al. IgG4-positive plasma cell infiltration in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Mod Pathol 2007;20(1):23–8. [68] Levy MJ, Reddy RP, Wiersema MJ, et al. EUS-guided Trucut biopsy in establishing autoimmune pancreatitis as the cause of obstructive jaundice. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61(3): 467–72.

AUTOIMMUNE PANCREATITIS

459

[69] Levy MJ, Wiersema MJ, Chari ST. Chronic pancreatitis: focal pancreatitis or cancer? Is there a role for FNA/biopsy? Autoimmune pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2006;38(Suppl 1): S30–5. [70] Kloppel G, Sipos B, Zamboni G, et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis: histo- and immunopathological features. J Gastroenterol 2007;42(Suppl 18):28–31. [71] Aoki S, Nakazawa T, Ohara H, et al. Immunohistochemical study of autoimmune pancreatitis using anti-IgG4 antibody and patients’ sera. Histopathology 2005;47(2): 147–58. [72] Kamisawa T, Egawa N, Nakajima H, et al. Comparison of radiological and histological findings in autoimmune pancreatitis. Hepatogastroenterology 2006;53(72):953–6. [73] Sahani DV, Kalva SP, Farrell J, et al. Autoimmune pancreatitis: imaging features. Radiology 2004;233(2):345–52. [74] Okazaki K, Uchida K, Matsushita M, et al. How to diagnose autoimmune pancreatitis by the revised Japanese clinical criteria. J Gastroenterol 2007;42(Suppl 18):32–8. [75] Takahashi N, Fletcher JG, Fidler JL, et al. Dual-phase CT of autoimmune pancreatitis: multireader study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:280–6. [76] Kamisawa T, Chen PY, Tu Y, et al. MRCP and MRI findings in 9 patients with autoimmune pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12(18):2919–22. [77] Kamisawa T. Angiographic findings in patients with autoimmune pancreatitis. Radiology 2005;236(1):371. [78] Farrell JJ, Garber J, Sahani D, et al. EUS findings in patients with autoimmune pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60(6):927–36. [79] Salla C, Chatzipantelis P, Konstantinou P, et al. EUS-FNA contribution in the identification of autoimmune pancreatitis: a case report. JOP 2007;8(5):598–604. [80] Nakazawa T, Ohara H, Sano H, et al. Cholangiography can discriminate sclerosing cholangitis with autoimmune pancreatitis from primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60(6):937–44. [81] Nakajo M, Jinnouchi S, Fukukura Y, et al. The efficacy of whole-body FDG-PET or PET/CT for autoimmune pancreatitis and associated extrapancreatic autoimmune lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:2088–95. [82] Nakajo M, Jinnouchi S, Noguchi M, et al. FDG PETand PET/CT monitoring of autoimmune pancreatitis associated with extrapancreatic autoimmune disease. Clin Nucl Med 2007;32(4):282–5. [83] Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Ishimori T, et al. FDG-PET of autoimmune-related pancreatitis: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27(12):1835–8. [84] Wakabayashi T, Kawaura Y, Satomura Y, et al. Long-term prognosis of duct-narrowing chronic pancreatitis: strategy for steroid treatment. Pancreas 2005;30(1):31–9. [85] Sohn JH, Byun JH, Yoon SE, et al. Abdominal extrapancreatic lesions associated with autoimmune pancreatitis: radiological findings and changes after therapy. Eur J Radiol, in press. [86] Hirano K, Kawabe T, Yamamoto N, et al. Serum IgG4 concentrations in pancreatic and biliary diseases. Clin Chim Acta 2006;367(1–2):181–4. [87] Choi EK, Kim MH, Lee TY, et al. The sensitivity and specificity of serum immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin G4 levels in the diagnosis of autoimmune chronic pancreatitis: Korean experience. Pancreas 2007;35(2):156–61. [88] Aparisi L, Farre A, Gomez-Cambronero L, et al. Antibodies to carbonic anhydrase and IgG4 levels in idiopathic chronic pancreatitis: relevance for diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Gut 2005;54(5):703–9. [89] Okazaki K, Uchida K, Ohana M, et al. Autoimmune-related pancreatitis is associated with autoantibodies and a Th1/Th2-type cellular immune response. Gastroenterology 2000; 118(3):573–81. [90] Nishi H, Tojo A, Onozato ML, et al. Anti-carbonic anhydrase II antibody in autoimmune pancreatitis and tubulointerstitial nephritis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007;22(4):1273–5.

460

GARDNER & CHARI

[91] Nishimori I, Miyaji E, Morimoto K, et al. Serum antibodies to carbonic anhydrase IV in patients with autoimmune pancreatitis. Gut 2005;54(2):274–81. [92] Kawa S, Hamano H. Clinical features of autoimmune pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol 2007;42(Suppl 18):9–14. [93] Asada M, Nishio A, Uchida K, et al. Identification of a novel autoantibody against pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor in patients with autoimmune pancreatitis. Pancreas 2006;33(1):20–6. [94] Nishino T, Toki F, Oyama H, et al. Biliary tract involvement in autoimmune pancreatitis. Pancreas 2005;30(1):76–82. [95] Mendes FD, Jorgensen R, Keach J, et al. Elevated serum IgG4 concentration in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101(9):2070–5. [96] Takikawa H. Characteristics of primary sclerosing cholangitis in Japan. Hepatol Res 2007;37(Suppl 3):S470–3. [97] Ohara H, Nakazawa T, Ando T, et al. Systemic extrapancreatic lesions associated with autoimmune pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol 2007;42(Suppl 18):15–21. [98] Ghazale A, Chari ST, Takahashi N, et al. Biliary involvement in patients with autoimmune pancreatitis: clinical features and response to treatment. Gastroenterol 2007;132(4): S1216. [99] Horiuchi A, Kawa S, Hamano H, et al. Sclerosing pancreato-cholangitis responsive to corticosteroid therapy: report of 2 case reports and review. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;53(4): 518–22. [100] Hamano H, Kawa S, Ochi Y, et al. Hydronephrosis associated with retroperitoneal fibrosis and sclerosing pancreatitis. Lancet 2002;359(9315):1403–4. [101] Hirano K, Kawabe T, Komatsu Y, et al. High-rate pulmonary involvement in autoimmune pancreatitis. Intern Med J 2006;36(1):58–61. [102] Khalili K, Doyle DJ, Chawla TP, et al. Renal cortical lesions in patients with autoimmune pancreatitis: a clue to differentiation from pancreatic malignancy. Eur J Radiol, in press. [103] Sasahira N, Kawabe T, Nakamura A, et al. Inflammatory pseudotumor of the liver and peripheral eosinophilia in autoimmune pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11(6): 922–5. [104] Chari ST. Current concepts in the treatment of autoimmune pancreatitis. JOP 2007;8(1): 1–3. [105] Hirano K, Tada M, Isayama H, et al. Long-term prognosis of autoimmune pancreatitis without and with corticosteroid treatment. Gut;56:1719–24. [106] Ito T, Nishimori I, Inoue N, et al. Treatment for autoimmune pancreatitis: consensus on the treatment for patients with autoimmune pancreatitis in Japan. J Gastroenterol 2007;42(Suppl 18):50–8. [107] Kamisawa T, Yoshiike M, Egawa N, et al. Treating patients with autoimmune pancreatitis: results from a long-term follow-up study. Pancreatology 2005;5(2–3):234–8. [108] Matsushita M, Yamashina M, Ikeura T, et al. Effective steroid pulse therapy for the biliary stenosis caused by autoimmune pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102(1): 220–1. [109] Ketikoglou IG, Elefsiniotis IS, Vezali EV, et al. Diabetes mellitus responsive to corticosteroids in autoimmune pancreatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004;38(10):910. [110] Tanaka S, Kobayashi T, Nakanishi K, et al. Corticosteroid-responsive diabetes mellitus associated with autoimmune pancreatitis: pathological examinations of the endocrine and exocrine pancreas. Ann NY Acad Sci 2002;958:152–9. [111] Kamisawa T, Okamoto A. Prognosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol 2007;42(Suppl 18):59–62. [112] van Buuren HR, Vleggaar FP, Willemien Erkelens G, et al. Autoimmune pancreatocholangitis: a series of ten patients. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 2006;243:70–8.

Gastroenterol Clin N Am 37 (2008) 461–478

GASTROENTEROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA

Diagnosis and Treatment of Autoimmune Hepatitis Bruce A. Luxon, MD, PhD Division of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, University of Iowa, 200 Hawkins Drive, 4607 JCP, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA

A

utoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is an idiopathic hepatitis characterized by inflammation of the liver, presence of autoantibodies, and evidence of increased gamma globulins in the serum. It represents an enigmatic interaction between the immune system, autoantigens, and unknown triggering factors. AIH also has certain genetic predispositions, such as association with certain human leukocyte antigen (HLA) markers, such as DR3, D52, and DR4. The clinical manifestations of this disease were described in the 1950s and despite significant advances in our understanding of the immune system, the specific cause and pathogenesis of AIH remain unknown. Although medical science has made significant advances in the treatment of many chronic liver diseases, our treatment of AIH is essentially unchanged over the last 50 years. In the last 10 years, there have been more 1800 articles dealing with this disease state, with nearly half of them devoted to the treatment of AIH. This article provides a brief summary of the diagnosis of AIH, the natural history of AIH, an approach to the treatment and follow-up of AIH, and the role of liver transplantation in the treatment of AIH. EPIDEMIOLOGY The mean annual incidence of AIH among white, northern Europeans is 1.9 per 100,000 and its point prevalence is 16.9 per 100,000 [1]. Recent studies have documented that the incidence and prevalence of this disease have remained essentially unchanged over the last 2 decades. In Europe, AIH accounts for 2.6% of liver transplantations. In the United States, as published in 1998, AIH accounted for 5.9% of liver transplants [2]. Like many autoimmune diseases, AIH is a disease that affects women more frequently than men with a gender ratio of 3:1 [3,4]. AIH is typically a disease of younger patients but 23% of adults who have AIH develop the disease after the age of 60 [5]. Elderly patients are more likely to have cirrhosis at presentation (33% versus 10%). This finding suggests that older individuals may have a more aggressive disease that goes undetected until considerable liver damage is done. Elderly patients E-mail address: [email protected]

0889-8553/08/$ – see front matter doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2008.02.002

ª 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. gastro.theclinics.com

462

LUXON

also have a higher frequency of other autoimmune conditions at the time of their presentation with AIH [5]. NATURAL HISTORY The natural history of AIH is varied and depends on host issues that are still not clearly understood. Sentinel studies in the 1970s demonstrated that patients who have untreated severe disease are likely to die within 6 months of diagnosis [6]. These patients clearly need to be treated. Similar studies done in the latter part of the 1970s also demonstrated that certain patients who have AIH are likely to have the disease progress into cirrhosis with the typical development of esophageal varices, portal hypertension, and liver cancer [7]. These early studies suggested that patients who have a severe acute onset of AIH should be treated. Other studies, however, have suggested that there are patients who may not need immunosuppressant therapy. The risk-to-benefit ratio of immunosuppressive therapy with its potential toxicities is not always clear and treatment must be individualized. One subgroup of patients who might not need treatment is those patients who present with asymptomatic AIH. There are few evidence-based data available to guide treatment decisions in these patients whose AIH was diagnosed solely because they have elevated transaminases. Czaja [8] recommends that asymptomatic patients who have minimal enzyme elevations can be safely observed without the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy. Feld and colleagues [9] suggest that the rationale for using immunosuppressive therapy in a patient who has symptomatic disease would be to prevent the development of fibrosis. Feld found that the degree of liver enzyme elevation or the elevation of IgG in asymptomatic patients did not predict outcome, however. Others [10,11] suggest that the liver biopsy can be used to decide if treatment is needed in asymptomatic patients. Czaja [12] suggested that patients who had confluent necrosis on the initial liver biopsy should be treated. Others have suggested that many asymptomatic patients had only nonspecific changes on liver biopsy and that the liver biopsy was not helpful in deciding whether the patient should be treated. A significant proportion of patients who have AIH may have cirrhosis at the time of presentation. Approximately one third of patients have cirrhosis regardless of the age at which they present [9,14]. Most studies have found that patients who present with cirrhosis are more likely to die or develop complications of their liver disease during follow-up [15,16]. This conclusion, however, is not universal. Roberts and colleagues [17] found that the 10-year survival of patients who had cirrhosis was similar to that of patients who did not have cirrhosis at baseline. Patients who have cirrhosis are more likely to need to be treated for a longer time before achieving remission. These patients therefore may have a relatively poor outcome during follow-up [16,18]. Overall survival rates at 5 years (79% cirrhosis versus 97% no cirrhosis) and 10 years (67% cirrhosis versus 94% no cirrhosis) are good irrespective of the presence of cirrhosis [9,19]. Many centers treat patients who have cirrhosis with

DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE HEPATITIS

463

immunosuppressive therapy in an attempt to improve their outcomes, although there are few data to suggest that long-term treatment is beneficial [20]. Some experts believe that patients who have ‘‘burned-out’’ AIH do not need to have immunosuppressant treatment. The rationale for this decision is that treatment of this inactive cirrhosis is fraught with potential side effects from the immunosuppression with little benefit. One additional caveat needs to be addressed regarding the treatment of AIH in patients who have documented cirrhosis. Several of the largest studies were done before viral infections could be excluded in patients who had AIH. These patients who had cirrhosis who were treated with steroids may have had a flare of their undiagnosed viral hepatitis (primarily hepatitis C) contributing to their poor outcome. In addition, many patients who had non alcoholic fatty liver disease may have positive autoantibodies and little or no fat on their biopsies despite the presence of NAFLD-induced cirrhosis. Treatment of these patients with steroids, although not deleterious, would not be expected to be beneficial. There is a growing body of literature that suggests that fibrosis and even cirrhosis attributable to AIH may be reversible with treatment of the AIH [17,21]. Conversely, there are multiple reports suggesting that fibrosis may progress despite immunotherapy [22]. It is not yet clear what differentiates these two groups of patients who respond differently to immunosuppressive therapy. DIAGNOSIS The diagnosis of AIH requires the presence of many typical features and, at the same time, the exclusion of other conditions that may cause chronic hepatitis. Like many autoimmune diseases, there currently are no pathognomonic features that clearly define AIH. Instead, an international panel has developed specific criteria to include or exclude the diagnosis of AIH. These recommendations are shown in Table 1 [13,23]. Other liver disease conditions that may be confused with the diagnosis of AIH are Wilson disease, chronic viral hepatitis (especially chronic hepatitis C), and drug-induced hepatitis. A separate scoring system has been established by the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Study Group. It is shown in Table 2 [13,23]. In using this scoring system, a patient is evaluated based on 11 biochemical, epidemiologic, and clinical markers before treatment and a pretreatment score is calculated. The pretreatment score can be modified to give a posttreatment score based on the response to treatment with corticosteroids. As designated by the committee, scores greater than 15 before corticosteroid treatment are consistent with a definite diagnosis of AIH. A posttreatment score greater than 17 constitutes a definite diagnosis. Similarly, patients who have relatively low scores (less than 10) are unlikely to have AIH. The scoring system was originally created to aid in the selection of homogeneous groups of patients who had AIH, and was primarily to be used for clinical research purposes. Currently the scoring system is most beneficial when trying to ascertain atypical or so-called ‘‘overlap’’ cases. The scoring system has been validated in multiple large studies with the scoring system showing

LUXON

464

Table 1 Features of autoimmune hepatitis needed or excluded for a definite diagnosis Diagnostic features Criteria

Clinical

Laboratory

Histologic

Inclusion

Female predominance Acute, fulminant, or indolent onset Concurrent immune diseases

Predominant aminotransferase abnormality c-globulin or immunoglobulin G level >1.5  normal ANA or SMA >1:80 Active infection with hepatitis A, B, or C viruses Epstein-Barr virus Cytomegalovirus a1-antitrypsin deficiency

Interface hepatitis with or without lobular hepatitis or bridging necrosis

Exclusion Blood transfusion or exposure Hepatotoxic medication Excessive alcohol use (>35 g/d in men and >25 g/d in women)

Bile duct lesions Granulomas Copper or iron accumulation Any lesions suggestive of another disease

Abbreviations: ANA, antinuclear antibody; SMA, smooth muscle antibody.

good sensitivity and specificity for excluding AIH. Because AIH has various presentations that are geographically diverse [24], the scoring system has been validated in the United States, South America, Europe, and Asia. Another factor affecting the usefulness of the scoring system is that the prevalence and types of autoimmune markers vary considerably between patient populations of different ethnic groups, ages, and genders (see later discussion on autoantibodies). Currently, an important use of the scoring system is to exclude AIH in patients who are already known to have hepatitis C. This situation occurs fairly commonly in the treatment of hepatitis C because of the relative frequency of a positive antinuclear antibody in patients who have hepatitis C. Despite its wide use, the scoring system is not successful in excluding the diagnosis of various cholestatic syndromes from AIH [13,23]. The liver biopsy remains essential to the diagnosis and evaluation of disease severity in patients who have AIH or in whom the diagnosis is being considered. The degree of elevation of the aminotransferases does not predict the histologic pattern of injury or the degree of fibrosis. A liver biopsy is also important for diagnosing overlap syndromes such as may occur between AIH and primary sclerosing cholangitis, AIH and primary biliary cirrhosis, or AIH and hepatitis C [25–28]. The liver biopsy typically has a portal cell infiltration that may extend from the portal tract into the lobule. A typical biopsy showing interface hepatitis in shown in Fig. 1 [4]. The presence of plasma cells is usually believed to be the hallmark of the disease, although large studies have demonstrated that one third of patients who have well-documented AIH may have few or no plasma cells [29]. A second classic pathologic finding in the biopsy of a patient who has AIH is a rosette of hepatocytes. A rosette is a collection of swollen hepatocytes

DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE HEPATITIS

465

Table 2 Diagnostic scoring system for atypical autoimmune hepatitis in adults based on recommendations of the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group Category

Factor

Score

Gender Alk phos: AST (or ALT) ratio

Female >3 2.0 1.5–2.0 1.0–1.5 1:80 1:80 1:40 15 10–15 >17 12–17

Abbreviations: Alk phos, serum alkaline phosphatase level; ALT, serum alanine aminotransferase level; AMA, antimitochondrial antibodies; ANA, antinuclear antibodies; AST, serum aspartate aminotransferase level; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; IgG, serum immunoglobulin G level; LKM1, antibodies to liver/kidney microsome type 1; SMA, smooth muscle antibodies. a Unconventional or generally unavailable antibodies associated with liver disease include perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (pANCA) and antibodies to actin, soluble liver antigen/liver pancreas (anti-SLA/LP), asialoglycoprotein receptor (ASGPR), and liver cytosol type 1 (LC1). b Includes destructive cholangitis, nondestructive cholangitis, or ductopenia. c Includes steatosis, iron overload consistent with genetic hemochromatosis, alcoholic hepatitis, viral features (ground-glass hepatocytes), or inclusions (cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex). Data from Ayata G, Gordon FD, Lewis WD, et al. Liver transplantation for autoimmune hepatitis: a longterm pathologic study. Hepatology 2000;32:185.

466

LUXON

Fig. 1. In this example, the hepatic cord architecture is abnormal because of extensive hepatitic rosetting (ovals). In addition, focal central necrosis is noted (arrow). (Courtesy of E. M. Brunt, MD, St. Louis, MO.)

separated from other hepatocytes that show clear signs of damage. Inflammatory cells and a collapsed stroma are also characteristic of the rosette (Fig. 2) [4]. TRADITIONAL AUTOANTIBODIES AIH is traditionally associated with varius autoantibodies. Three of them are found in most patients. These are an antinuclear antibody (ANA), a smooth muscle antibody (SMA), and an anti-liver/kidney microsomal antibody (antiLKM). Presence of these three antibodies should be routinely determined in

Fig. 2. This low-power view highlights the marked portal inflammation that characterizes most cases of AIH. Most cells in the infiltrate are plasma cells (single arrows); in addition, interface activity is severe (double arrows). (Courtesy of E. M. Brunt, MD, St. Louis, MO.)

DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE HEPATITIS

467

all patients in whom the diagnosis of AIH is suspected. Although not all patients have all three antibodies (in fact this is the exception rather than the rule), these antibodies are an important component of the definition of AIH. In addition, the presence or absence of these antibodies may serve to subclassify AIH into three subtypes [13,23,30,31]. Antinuclear Antibodies Antinuclear antibodies are common markers of various immune-mediated diseases, including AIH. ANA may occur alone (10% to 15%) or with another antibody in patients who have AIH. Despite considerable research, the nuclear targets of ANA and AIH remain uncertain. In most laboratories the determination of an ANA is performed by indirect immunofluorescence. Literature from before 1990 put great emphasis on the pattern of immunofluorescence, describing either a homogenous or a speckled pattern. More recent studies have shown that the pattern of indirect immunofluorescence has no clinical significance, however [32]. For the diagnosis of AIH, it is not crucial to have a specific pattern of immunofluorescence. Knowledge of the specific molecular targets of the antibody does not increase the diagnostic precision or have prognostic importance. ANAs have been shown to react against various nuclear antigens, including the centromere, ribonucleoproteins, and ribonuclear protein complexes [10]. In patients determined to have ribonuclear protein complexes, ANAs usually do occur in high titers exceeding 1:160. The ANA titer does not accurately predict the stage of disease, the prognosis, or the activity at the time of diagnosis [33]. When interpreting laboratory tests that show the presence of antinuclear antibodies, it is important to remember that ANAs can be found in various other hepatitic and cholestatic liver diseases. For instance, other liver diseases that have been associated with a positive ANA include primary biliary cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, chronic viral hepatitis (especially hepatitis C), drug-related hepatitis, and even nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Evidence of a positive ANA especially in low titer does not assure that the patient has AIH. The presence of a low-titer ANA does complicate the diagnosis and potential management of patients, especially those who have documented hepatitis C [34]. Anti–Smooth Muscle Antibodies Another traditional group of antibodies found in AIH are SMAs. These are a heterogeneous group of antibodies directed against various cytoskeletal proteins, including actin, tubulin, vimentin, and desmin. The presence of an SMA is common in patients who have AIH, occurring either alone or in conjunction with an ANA in up to 87% of patients. Just as a positive ANA is not specific for a diagnosis of AIH, SMAs are not specific for AIH. They occur in other chronic liver diseases and various infectious, immunologic, and rheumatologic disorders. In most clinical laboratories, SMAs are determined by immunofluorescence using either murine stomach or kidney. The pattern of immunofluorescence again is not helpful in determining prognosis nor does

468

LUXON

it increase the diagnostic accuracy. The antibody titer of SMA does not correlate with disease course or prognosis. In contrast to ANA, it has been noted in multiple studies that SMA titers can change dramatically with time in individual patients [30]. The significance of this phenomenon is not yet known. Anti–Liver/Kidney Microsomal Antibodies The third traditional class of antibodies is antibodies directed against liver or kidney microsomes (anti-LKM). These are directed against specific cytochrome enzymes. In most laboratories the presence of these antibodies is detected by indirect immunofluorescence using activity against the proximal tubules of murine kidney or murine hepatocytes. Although the specific targets of ANA and SMA are largely unknown, there is a large body of literature regarding the targets of anti-LKM. For example, antibodies to LKM1 react with cytochrome monooxygenase CYP2D6. These antibodies also inhibit CYP2D2 activity in vitro [35,36]. This particular antigen has been studied extensively because homologies exist between CYP2D6 and the genome of the hepatitis C virus, suggesting that AIH is the result of misdirected immunologic recognition of the hepatitis C virus. This hypothesis is in contrast to the well-recognized fact that most patients who have chronic hepatitis C in the United States do not have an anti-LKM antibody. Other members of the cytochrome P450 system, including 2C9, 2A2, and 1A2, also interact with anti-LKM. Prevalence of antibodies to LKM depends on geography and age. Patients who have AIH in the United States rarely have an antibody to LKM (less than 4%) [37]. Adult European patients who have AIH are much more likely to have an anti-LKM antibody with an occurrence of up to 20% in some reports. In addition, in Europe anti-LKM is commonly found in pediatric patients. It is not clear why there are such dramatic geographic differences in the occurrence of anti-LKM. It has been suggested that genetic differences in the immune response to a particular target antigen may be responsible. Despite its relatively rare occurrence in the adult United States population, current guidelines suggest that adult patients suspected of having AIH should be tested for anti-LKM [10]. SUBTYPES OF AUTOIMMUNE HEPATITIS There has been an emphasis recently on defining subtypes of AIH. These subclassifications are based on the presence or absence of the three traditional antibodies described above. Type 1 (classical) AIH is the most common type and is the predominant form of AIH in the United States. By definition, patients who have type 1 AIH have either a positive ANA or SMA. In contrast, type 2 AIH is characterized by the presence of an anti-LKM antibody and the absence of ANA and SMA. In the United States type 2 AIH is found primarily in young children and is probably related to DRB1*0701. There was some suggestion that type 2 AIH may have a poorer prognosis than type 1 AIH. Current guidelines suggest, however, that both type 2 and type 1 respond well to corticosteroids [10]. Finally, the third type of AIH is characterized by antibodies

DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE HEPATITIS

469

present to soluble liver antigen (anti-SLA/LP). This type is the least-established form of the disease and its clinical course is controversial. In practice, patients who have type 3 AIH are indistinguishable clinically from those who have type 1 AIH [38]. EXPERIMENTAL OR NONTRADITIONAL ANTIBODIES There are more than 300 articles published in the last decade describing new autoantibodies that occur in AIH. This plethora of publications is important because these new antibodies may help us in understanding the immunopathologic process in AIH. Unfortunately the laboratory tests for most of these nontraditional autoantibodies are not widely available. Only two of the several dozen nontraditional autoantibodies are described here. An antibody against the asialoglycoprotein receptor (anti-ASGPR) has been described since the 1980s [39]. Anti-ASGPR can exist in patients who have AIH who also express an ANA, SMA, or anti-LKM. In contrast to the traditional antibodies, anti-ASGPR may have prognostic importance. Its presence has been shown to correlate with histologic activity and response to treatment. If patients who have AIH continue to have anti-ASGPR, they are much more likely to relapse after corticosteroid withdrawal [40]. Antibodies directed against soluble liver antigen (anti-SLA/LP) are highly specific markers of AIH. The target of this autoantigen is a 50 kD cytosolic protein [41]. Current guidelines suggest that patients who have anti-SLA/LP do not define a valid subgroup of AIH but they are patients who have chronic hepatitis that is histologically compatible with AIH. Current laboratory tests use an immunoassay or a Western blot to detect anti-SLA/LP. From a treatment standpoint, patients who have anti-SLA/LP are more likely to relapse after corticosteroid withdrawal. TREATMENT Indications for Treatment The diagnosis of AIH does not mandate therapy in every case. The decision to treat a patient represents a careful balance between the risks and benefits of immunosuppressive therapy. As described previously, knowledge of the natural history of AIH helps guide the clinician in his decision about whether immunosuppression is needed. Steroid-based treatment regimens are the mainstay of therapy and have been documented to improve clinical and histologic features and survival in patients who have severe AIH. Three randomized controlled treatment trials were published between 1971 and 1974 and demonstrated that prednisone or prednisone in combination with azathioprine enhanced survival, improved symptoms, and showed a dramatic improvement in transaminitis. These controlled trials were done in patients who had severe type 1 AIH. Treatment trials have not been performed in patients who have less severe disease and there are no randomized controlled trials of patients who have type 2 or type 3

470

LUXON

disease. Most clinicians believe that patients who have severe type 2 or type 3 disease would also benefit from immunosuppressive therapy. Based on the clinical trials performed in the 1970s, clear indications for treatment of AIH have been published. The American Society for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) guidelines are summarized in Box 1 [10]. It is unlikely that treatment trials will be performed in patients who have less severe disease or type 2/type 3 AIH and hence the clinician must extrapolate from these previously published studies. The decision to treat patients who have AIH who do not satisfy the criteria in Box 1 must be individualized. Clinicians may use symptoms, the liver biopsy, and the potential for complications as decision points in deciding if immunosuppressive therapy is needed. For example, patients who have only a mild to moderate elevation in their transaminases and evidence of mild interface hepatitis on their liver biopsy have a low probability of cirrhosis and a normal 5-year life expectancy [11,42]. Even patients who have advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis may still benefit from a short-term (3–6 months) treatment trial. Those who have inflammation on their biopsy are most likely to respond. It is also these patients, however, who are much more likely to suffer drug-related complications. Several studies [43] have shown that patients who have cirrhosis have a higher frequency of complications (25% versus 8%) compared with patients who have less fibrosis. A potential explanation for this is that serum levels of unbound prednisolone that result from decreased protein binding may lead to untoward side effects. Nonetheless, patients who have significant fibrosis but have pronounced inflammation on their biopsy may benefit from treatment. As a final issue, however, it is unlikely that established fibrosis or cirrhosis will resolve completely with treatment. Current thinking is that treatment with immunosuppression may delay or obviate the need for liver transplantation in these patients. Patients who have

Box 1: Indications for treatment Absolute Serum AST>10-fold upper limit of normal Serum AST>5-fold upper limit of normal and c-globulin greater than twice normal Bridging necrosis or multiacinar necrosis on histologic examination Relative Symptoms (fatigue, arthralgias, jaundice) Serum AST or c-globulin less than absolute criteria Interface hepatitis Abbreviation: AST, serum aspartate aminotransferase. Data from Czaja AJ, Freese DK, American Association for the Study of Liver Disease. Diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatology 2002;36:479.

DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE HEPATITIS

471

decompensated liver disease (Mayo Endstage Liver Disease Model [MELD] score greater than 15) attributable to AIH should not be treated with steroid therapy and instead should be considered for orthotopic liver transplantation [10,20]. Medical Therapy The treatment of AIH has remained unchanged for nearly 5 decades. Most experts agree that when possible combination therapy with prednisone and azathioprine is the preferred initial treatment of patients who have type 1 AIH [10,12,20]. The AASLD guidelines are shown in Table 3 as two recommended treatment regimens for adults. The combination regimen is associated with fewer side effects attributable to steroids than using the higher dose prednisone alone (10% versus 44%) [44]. There have been multiple modifications of the regimens shown in Table 3 but none of these have been shown to be superior to the standard regimen [10]. The proposed modifications have included giving patients who have advanced cirrhosis prednisolone rather than prednisone, administering prednisone on alternate days, or modifying the dose based on gender, age, or body weight [11]. Side Effects Patients who have AIH who are treated with steroids develop the typical cosmetic changes attributable to prednisone use. These include facial rounding, acne, truncal obesity, and potentially the disabling complication of osteoporosis. There are occasional reports in the literature of patients receiving high-dose monotherapy with prednisone developing hypertension and psychosis. These are exceedingly rare and only 13% of treated patients develop complications that require dose reduction of their steroid [10]. Remembering that patients who have AIH are often middle-aged women, the most common reasons for treatment withdrawal are cosmetic changes, osteopenia with vertebral compression, or worsening of diabetes [45]. To avoid the typical side effects of prednisone, most treating physicians use azathioprine as a steroid-sparing agent. Side effects from azathioprine are relatively rare and occur in less than 10% of patients. In patients who are receiving azathioprine, it has been postulated that it is important to measure the level of Table 3 Suggested doses for initial treatment of type I autoimmune hepatitis Combination therapy Time Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Until clinical endpoint reached

Prednisone 30 20 15 10 10

Azathioprine

Steroids alone Prednisone

50 50 50 50 50

60 40 30 30 20

Combination therapy using both prednisone and azathioprine is preferred initial therapy [37]. Steroids alone should be used in patients who have severe cytopenia, have a concurrent neoplasm, are pregnant or wish to become pregnant, or have known intolerance for azathioprine. All doses given in mg/d.

472

LUXON

thiopurine methyltransferase. Thiopurine methyltransferase is important in the elimination of 6-mecaptopurine and variations in its enzymatic activity affect of the therapeutic action of azathioprine. Low enzyme activity is rare and occurs in less than 1% of the population, however. Heterozygosity (which results in intermediate activity of thiopurine methyltransferase) is much more common and is found in up to 11% of the population. At the present time pretreatment testing for thiopurine methyltransferase activity is a reasonable clinical precaution but it has not been established that routine testing needs to be done in patients who have AIH. Patients who develop cytopenia or have a pre-existing cytopenia should be tested to avoid potential overdosing of azathioprine. In any case, patients treated with azathioprine should be monitored for the development of drug-related side effects, including pancytopenia. Evaluation of the Treatment Response The response to the initiation of immunosuppression therapy is determined on clinical and biochemical grounds [20]. It has been believed that failure to normalize the serum aminotransferases or to reduce gamma globulin levels means that the AIH is not being adequately treated. There is no prescribed minimum or maximum duration of treatment. Instead improvement in the biochemical markers of AIH is expected and treatment is continued until the AIH is judged to be in remission. An important caveat is that histologic improvement may not occur despite improvement in the aminotransferases. Clinical trials have demonstrated that AIH-induced fibrosis can progress despite normalization of aminotransferases. Prospective clinical trials have demonstrated that 5% to 10% of patients who have achieved persistently normal aminotransferases progress to significant fibrosis and even cirrhosis. It is also believed that this group of patients invariably will suffer relapse if immunosuppression is withdrawn [46]. In addition, it is generally believed that histologic improvement often lags behind biochemical improvement by as much as 6 months [20]. A repeat liver biopsy should therefore be considered following biochemical remission. Nearly two thirds of patients enter remission within 18 months and 80% achieve remission within 3 years. In these patients the successful treatment of AIH includes disappearance of the patient’s symptoms, return of their bilirubin and gamma globulin levels to normal, and a lowering of the serum aminotransferase levels to normal or less than twice normal. It is usually assumed but it is not necessarily the case that a biopsy at this point shows normal hepatic tissue or minimal inflammation with no interface hepatitis. In these patients who are believed to be in remission, it is prudent to begin gradual withdrawal of prednisone with the potential to discontinue azathioprine. It is equally important to continue regular monitoring to assess for the possibility of relapse. Using a second liver biopsy to determine treatment endpoints based on the patient’s histologic response remains controversial. Some authors have suggested that normal histology on repeat liver biopsy is mandatory before attempting to withdraw treatment. The phenomenon of a completely normal

DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE HEPATITIS

473

liver biopsy occurs relatively infrequently, however, even in patients who undergo liver biopsy 6 months after normalizing their aminotransferases. Predictors of Relapse Considerable effort has been made to prospectively identify patients who may be withdrawn safely from immunosuppression without suffering a relapse. A study by Hegarty and colleagues [47] demonstrated that as many as 9 out of 10 patients would relapse despite being in remission for many years before treatment was withdrawn. Multiple studies have emphasized the need for histologic resolution before consideration of withdrawal of immunosuppressive therapy. Even histologic resolution of hepatitis is not sufficient to guarantee that the patient will remain in remission, however. An interesting report published by Montano-Loza and colleagues [48] demonstrated that patients who were in histologic remission often relapsed following withdrawal of therapy. In this article, 77% of patients relapsed despite being treated for 24 months before attempting withdrawal of treatment. All of these patients had serum AST within twofold of the upper limits of normal and were asymptomatic. In addition they all had the absence of interface hepatitis on biopsy. It was difficult to identify patients who might remain in remission. Al-Chalabi and Heneghan [49] looked at length of therapy, presence of a normal AST, and gamma globulins, in addition to biopsy findings. Overall most clinicians believe that it remains impossible to predict which patients will relapse. One potential variable that is still being investigated is the duration of therapy before withdrawal. Findings seem at least in some studies to suggest that longer duration of therapy before withdrawal is an important factor involved in reducing the relapse rate in AIH. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES Pregnancy AIH is prevalent among young women in their childbearing years. Although women who have cirrhosis at the time of their AIH diagnosis are less likely to become pregnant often because of hypothalamic pituitary dysfunction, other patients who have less severe forms of AIH may become pregnant. The question remains whether pregnancy is a threat for the patient or the fetus. Several groups have done retrospective studies of pregnancy in patients who have AIH. Early studies suggested that there was a high rate of fetal and maternal complications. A fetal loss rate of 14% was reported in a large case series [50]. Other studies have suggested that pregnancy may not be contraindicated in well-controlled AIH, especially in those patients who have relatively mild liver disease. In a study by Heneghan and colleagues [50], the pregnancies of 162 women who had definite AIH were reviewed. Relatively few patients had flares in disease activity during pregnancy and most patients had normal rates of complication, including eclampsia and fetal loss. In patients who had cirrhosis, Heneghan found that complications were increased. Concern has been raised about using azathioprine during pregnancy because of animal models showing that high doses of azathioprine are teratogenic. In

474

LUXON

published series, physicians have advised patients who were on azathioprine to stop the medication if possible. An increase in the risk for a flare following cessation of azathioprine also poses risks to the pregnant patient who has AIH and to her fetus. Current suggestions are that patients who have stable AIH who are on azathioprine could continue with azathioprine at low doses [20]. Several authors have suggested that AIH may improve spontaneously during pregnancy. Buchel and colleagues [51] reported that in a series of 98 patients, 14 pregnancies occurred. In all the patients studied, the dose of corticosteroids could be reduced during pregnancy. There were no flares of AIH during pregnancy. These authors concluded, therefore, that pregnancy leads to an attenuation of the immune process, possibly the result of a transition of TH1 to TH2 predominance during pregnancy. Other authors have suggested that there is high likelihood of an AIH flare in the peripartum time period and that patients should have appropriate prophylaxis with increased immunosuppression following delivery [20,50–53]. Autoimmune Hepatitis after Liver Transplant In some patients, AIH progresses to end-stage liver disease, necessitating a liver transplant. Patients who have AIH who require transplant are usually young women who present with acute deterioration and have cirrhosis at the time of presentation with appropriately high MELD scores. Fortunately these patients are relatively rare. Various studies have estimated that less than 10% of patients who have AIH do not respond to medical therapy and may need a liver transplant. The issue of whether AIH recurs after transplant has been extensively studied. The estimated risk for recurrence of AIH after liver transplant is 8% for the first year and 25% after 2 years [54,55]. The timing of the recurrence and the diagnosis of the recurrence is still an issue of some debate. Unfortunately, there are currently no defined criteria for diagnosis of AIH recurrence after transplant. Most transplant centers use criteria similar to those used to diagnose AIH in the nontransplanted patient. Because many of the antibodies and other diagnostic tests persist after transplant even in a patient who does not have recurrence of AIH, the diagnosis of AIH in a patient posttransplant is difficult. In a 10-year follow-up of French patients transplanted for AIH, histologic recurrence occurred before clinical or biochemical recurrence [56]. In this study protocol biopsies were done documenting histologic recurrence. Histologic occurrence was documented a mean of 2.5 years after the transplant. This French study demonstrated that biologic and histologic recurrence of AIH may occur more than 10 years after transplant. Other studies have looked at risk factors that might predict AIH recurrence after a transplant. High-grade inflammation in the native liver has been reported as a strong predictor of recurrence of AIH [57]. Some evidence points to an increase frequency of HLA-DR3 haplotype in patients who have AIH occurrence although this is not universal [57,58]. HLA antigen mismatch between

DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE HEPATITIS

475

the graft and the host was not found to differ significantly in patients who had AIH recurrence [57,59]. Studies have also looked at whether the choice of calcineurin inhibitors influences the likelihood of AIH recurrence. In a systematic review by Gautam and colleagues [60], 16 studies reporting AIH recurrence after transplant were summarized. There was no difference in AIH recurrence based on either the choice of the initial immunosuppression or the rate of corticosteroid withdrawal. No firm recommendations can be made about the choice of calcineurin inhibitors or the use of steroids posttransplantation in an attempt to limit recurrence of AIH posttransplant. SUMMARY AIH is a chronic inflammatory liver disease with an unknown cause that is associated with various autoantibodies. This immune disease affecting the liver responds well to prednisone or a combination of prednisone and azathioprine. The specific criteria for the diagnosis of AIH incorporate a wide range of biochemical, histologic, and immunologic features. With treatment, most patients can be brought into remission, although many patients require maintenance therapy with low-dose prednisone and azathioprine. In treating patients with immunosuppressive therapy, combination therapy is initially preferred because of a lower rate of adverse affects from corticosteroids. Not all patients need to be treated, even once the diagnosis of AIH is confirmed. Drug therapy should be considered in patients who have cirrhosis if biopsy demonstrates considerable inflammation. Finally, some patients, despite optimal medical management, require orthotopic liver transplantation. Liver transplantation should be considered in patients who have decompensated cirrhosis attributable to AIH or those who have severe fulminant hepatitis who fail to respond to initial therapy. References [1] Boberg KM, Aadland E, Jahnsen J, et al. Incidence and prevalence of primary biliary cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and autoimmune hepatitis in a Norwegian population. Scand J Gastroenterol 1998;33:99. [2] Wiesner RH, Demetris AJ, Belle SH, et al. Acute hepatic allograft rejection: incidence, risk factors, and impact on outcome. Hepatology 1998;28:638. [3] Luxon BA. Autoimmune hepatitis. Making sense of all those antibodies. Postgrad Med 2003;114:79. [4] Luxon BA. Autoimmune hepatitis: diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2006;8:83. [5] Czaja AJ, Carpenter HA. Distinctive clinical phenotype and treatment outcome of type 1 autoimmune hepatitis in the elderly. Hepatology 2006;43:532. [6] Soloway RD, Summerskill WH, Baggenstoss AH, et al. Clinical, biochemical, and histological remission of severe chronic active liver disease: a controlled study of treatments and early prognosis. Gastroenterology 1972;63:820. [7] Murray-Lyon IM, Stern RB, Williams R. Controlled trial of prednisone and azathioprine in active chronic hepatitis. Lancet 1973;1:735. [8] Czaja AJ. Natural history, clinical features, and treatment of autoimmune hepatitis. Semin Liver Dis 1984;4:1.

476

LUXON

[9] Feld JJ, Dinh H, Arenovich T, et al. Autoimmune hepatitis: effect of symptoms and cirrhosis on natural history and outcome. Hepatology 2005;42:53. [10] Czaja AJ, Freese DK. Diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatology 2002;36:479. [11] Schalm SW, Korman MG, Summerskill WH, et al. Severe chronic active liver disease. Prognostic significance of initial morphologic patterns. Am J Dig Dis 1977;22:973. [12] Czaja AJ. Drug therapy in the management of type 1 autoimmune hepatitis. Drugs 1999;57:49. [13] Alvarez F, Berg PA, Bianchi FB, et al. International autoimmune hepatitis group report: review of criteria for diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis. J Hepatol 1999;31:929. [14] Kogan J, Safadi R, Ashur Y, et al. Prognosis of symptomatic versus asymptomatic autoimmune hepatitis: a study of 68 patients. J Clin Gastroenterol 2002;35:75. [15] Davis GL, Czaja AJ, Ludwig J. Development and prognosis of histologic cirrhosis in corticosteroid-treated hepatitis B surface antigen-negative chronic active hepatitis. Gastroenterology 1984;87:1222. [16] Verma S, Gunuwan B, Mendler M, et al. Factors predicting relapse and poor outcome in type I autoimmune hepatitis: role of cirrhosis development, patterns of transaminases during remission and plasma cell activity in the liver biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1510. [17] Roberts SK, Therneau TM, Czaja AJ. Prognosis of histological cirrhosis in type 1 autoimmune hepatitis. Gastroenterology 1996;110:848. [18] Czaja AJ. Treatment strategies in autoimmune hepatitis. Clin Liver Dis 2002;6:799. [19] Verma S, Redeker A. In type 1 autoimmune hepatitis, is cirrhosis at presentation or follow-up associated with a poorer outcome? Hepatology 2005;42:1237 [author reply 1237]. [20] Heathcote J. Treatment strategies for autoimmune hepatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101: S630. [21] Dufour JF, DeLellis R, Kaplan MM. Reversibility of hepatic fibrosis in autoimmune hepatitis. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:981. [22] Czaja AJ, Carpenter HA. Progressive fibrosis during corticosteroid therapy of autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatology 2004;39:1631. [23] Johnson PJ, McFarlane IG. Meeting report: international autoimmune hepatitis group. Hepatology 1993;18:998. [24] Goldberg AC, Bittencourt PL, Oliveira LC, et al. Autoimmune hepatitis in Brazil: an overview. Scand J Immunol 2007;66:208. [25] Ben-Ari Z, Czaja AJ. Autoimmune hepatitis and its variant syndromes. Gut 2001;49:589. [26] Czaja AJ. Frequency and nature of the variant syndromes of autoimmune liver disease. Hepatology 1998;28:360. [27] Czaja AJ, Carpenter HA. Autoimmune hepatitis with incidental histologic features of bile duct injury. Hepatology 2001;34:659. [28] Czaja AJ, Carpenter HA, Santrach PJ, et al. Autoimmune cholangitis within the spectrum of autoimmune liver disease. Hepatology 2000;31:1231. [29] Czaja AJ, Carpenter HA. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictability of biopsy interpretations in chronic hepatitis. Gastroenterology 1993;105:1824. [30] Czaja AJ, Manns MP. The validity and importance of subtypes in autoimmune hepatitis: a point of view. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90:1206. [31] Meyer O, Abuaf N, Cyna L, et al. Anti-mitochondrial type 5 antibodies and anti-cardiolipin antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus and auto-immune diseases. Clin Exp Immunol 1987;69:485. [32] Czaja AJ, Cassani F, Cataleta M, et al. Antinuclear antibodies and patterns of nuclear immunofluorescence in type 1 autoimmune hepatitis. Dig Dis Sci 1997;42:1688. [33] Czaja AJ. Behavior and significance of autoantibodies in type 1 autoimmune hepatitis. J Hepatol 1999;30:394.

DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE HEPATITIS

477

[34] Kogure T, Ueno Y, Fukushima K, et al. Fulminant hepatic failure in a case of autoimmune hepatitis in hepatitis C during peg-interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin treatment. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:4394. [35] Manns M, Zanger U, Gerken G, et al. Patients with type II autoimmune hepatitis express functionally intact cytochrome P-450 db1 that is inhibited by LKM-1 autoantibodies in vitro but not in vivo. Hepatology 1990;12:127. [36] Manns MP, Griffin KJ, Sullivan KF, et al. LKM-1 autoantibodies recognize a short linear sequence in P450IID6, a cytochrome P-450 monooxygenase. J Clin Invest 1991;88:1370. [37] Czaja AJ, Manns MP, Homburger HA. Frequency and significance of antibodies to liver/ kidney microsome type 1 in adults with chronic active hepatitis. Gastroenterology 1992;103:1290. [38] Czaja AJ, Freese DK. American Association for the Study of Liver Disease: diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatology 2002;36:479. [39] McFarlane IG, Hegarty JE, McSorley CG, et al. Antibodies to liver-specific protein predict outcome of treatment withdrawal in autoimmune chronic active hepatitis. Lancet 1984;2:954. [40] Treichel U, Gerken G, Rossol S, et al. Autoantibodies against the human asialoglycoprotein receptor: effects of therapy in autoimmune and virus-induced chronic active hepatitis. J Hepatol 1993;19:55. [41] Wies I, Brunner S, Henninger J, et al. Identification of target antigen for SLA/LP autoantibodies in autoimmune hepatitis. Lancet 2000;355:1510. [42] Baggenstoss AH, Soloway RD, Summerskill WH, et al. Chronic active liver disease. The range of histologic lesions, their response to treatment, and evolution. Hum Pathol 1972;3:183. [43] Uribe M, Go VL, Kluge D. Prednisone for chronic active hepatitis: pharmacokinetics and serum binding in patients with chronic active hepatitis and steroid major side effects. J Clin Gastroenterol 1984;6:331. [44] Summerskill WH, Korman MG, Ammon HV, et al. Prednisone for chronic active liver disease: dose titration, standard dose, and combination with azathioprine compared. Gut 1975;16:876. [45] Czaja AJ, Davis GL, Ludwig J, et al. Complete resolution of inflammatory activity following corticosteroid treatment of HBsAg-negative chronic active hepatitis. Hepatology 1984;4: 622. [46] Czaja AJ, Wolf AM, Baggenstoss AH. Laboratory assessment of severe chronic active liver disease during and after corticosteroid therapy: correlation of serum transaminase and gamma globulin levels with histologic features. Gastroenterology 1981;80:687. [47] Hegarty JE, Nouri Aria KT, Portmann B, et al. Relapse following treatment withdrawal in patients with autoimmune chronic active hepatitis. Hepatology 1983;3:685. [48] Montano-Loza AJ, Carpenter HA, Czaja AJ. Improving the end point of corticosteroid therapy in type 1 autoimmune hepatitis to reduce the frequency of relapse. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1005. [49] Al-Chalabi T, Heneghan MA. Remission in autoimmune hepatitis: what is it, and can it ever be achieved? Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1013. [50] Heneghan MA, Norris SM, O’Grady JG, et al. Management and outcome of pregnancy in autoimmune hepatitis. Gut 2001;48:97. [51] Buchel E, Van Steenbergen W, Nevens F, et al. Improvement of autoimmune hepatitis during pregnancy followed by flare-up after delivery. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:3160. [52] Schramm C, Herkel J, Beuers U, et al. Pregnancy in autoimmune hepatitis: outcome and risk factors. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:556. [53] Steven MM, Buckley JD, Mackay IR. Pregnancy in chronic active hepatitis. Q J Med 1979;48:519. [54] Prados E, Cuervas-Mons V, de la Mata M, et al. Outcome of autoimmune hepatitis after liver transplantation. Transplantation 1998;66:1645.

478

LUXON

[55] Wright HL, Bou-Abboud CF, Hassanein T, et al. Disease recurrence and rejection following liver transplantation for autoimmune chronic active liver disease. Transplantation 1992;53: 136. [56] Duclos-Vallee JC, Sebagh M, Rifai K, et al. A 10 year follow up study of patients transplanted for autoimmune hepatitis: histological recurrence precedes clinical and biochemical recurrence. Gut 2003;52:893. [57] Ayata G, Gordon FD, Lewis WD, et al. Liver transplantation for autoimmune hepatitis: a long-term pathologic study. Hepatology 2000;32:185. [58] Gonzalez-Koch A, Czaja AJ, Carpenter HA, et al. Recurrent autoimmune hepatitis after orthotopic liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2001;7:302. [59] Milkiewicz P, Hubscher SG, Skiba G, et al. Recurrence of autoimmune hepatitis after liver transplantation. Transplantation 1999;68:253. [60] Gautam M, Cheruvattath R, Balan V. Recurrence of autoimmune liver disease after liver transplantation: a systematic review. Liver Transpl 2006;12:1813.

Gastroenterol Clin N Am 37 (2008) 479–484

GASTROENTEROLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA

Antimitochondrial Antibody–Negative Primary Biliary Cirrhosis Flavia Mendes, MDa, Keith D. Lindor, MDb,* a

Division of Hepatology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1500 NW 12 Avenue, Suite 1101, East Tower, Miami, FL 33136, USA b Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Medical School, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA

P

rimary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease of unclear cause. It is characterized histologically by nonsuppurative destruction of the bile ducts and serologically by the presence of antimitochondrial antibodies (AMA). Several reports indicate that in approximately 5% of patients serologic evidence of AMA is absent, even though these patients share similar clinical, biochemical, and histologic features of PBC with those who are AMA-positive [1]. There is some controversy as to whether autoimmune cholangitis (AIC), AMA-negative PBC, and AMA-positive PBC represent the same entities clinically and immunologically. According to Czaja and colleagues [2] AIC cannot be assimilated into a single diagnostic category. It may represent variant forms of different autoimmune liver diseases, a transition stage between two autoimmune disorders, or a separate entity with varying manifestations. The advent of more sensitive and specific techniques other than indirect immunofluorescence, such as ELISA or immunoblotting, to determine the presence of AMA in patients suspected to have PBC have disclosed that as many as 79% of patients initially considered AMA-negative are in fact AMA-positive [3–7], strengthening the suspicion that the two are indeed one single condition. This article reviews the clinical, biochemical, serologic, and histopathologic features and treatment approach and outcomes in patients who have AMA-negative PBC. The term AMA-negative PBC is used in preference to AIC. CLINICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL FEATURES AMA-negative PBC, like AMA-positive PBC, occurs predominantly in middleaged women and is commonly asymptomatic. When symptoms are present, fatigue, pruritus, and symptoms of sicca syndrome are common initial features, whereas jaundice is usually a late finding. Elevation of the alkaline phosphatase is the typical biochemical feature, with transaminases being only mildly *Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.D. Lindor). 0889-8553/08/$ – see front matter doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2008.02.006

ª 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. gastro.theclinics.com

480

MENDES & LINDOR

elevated. Several studies comparing the clinical and laboratorial findings between patients who have AMA-negative PBC and classic PBC have been published and there is no disagreement that the two entities behave similarly [4–6,8,9]. Table 1 summarizes the most important studies comparing the various features of AMA-negative and -positive PBC. Michieletti and colleagues [5] reported a group of 20 patients who had AMAnegative PBC compared with 20 AMA-positive controls, matched for gender and serum bilirubin. There was no significant difference with respect to signs, symptoms, and associated autoimmune phenomena at the time of diagnosis. Also serum IgG, alkaline phosphatase, and alanine aminotransferase levels were not significantly different. Similar results were reported by Lacerda and colleagues [9] in 35 patients who had AMA-negative PBC compared with 180 patients who had classic PBC and later on by Invernizzi and colleagues [4], who compared 24 patients who were AMA-negative to 273 patients who were AMA-positive seen over a 2-decade period. There were no significant differences with regard to gender, age, incidence of complications, and development of liver failure resulting in death or referral for liver transplantation between the two populations. SEROLOGIC FEATURES Some serologic characteristics aside from the absence of the antimitochondrial antibody may be different between AMA-negative and -positive PBC. Several studies have reported a significantly higher rate of positivity for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) and smooth muscle antibodies (SMA) in patients who have AMA-negative PBC than that seen in AMA-positive PBC. In the different studies the prevalence of ANA ranged between 71% to 100%, and of SMA between 14% to 41% in patients who had AMA-negative PBC, compared with 18% to 33% and 6% to 14%, respectively, in patients who had classic PBC [4–6,9]. Serum concentration of IgM seems to be lower and gamma globulin higher in patients who have AMA-negative PBC [4–6,9]. Some authors have suggested that antibodies to carbonic anhydrase II and antibodies to lactoferrin may be seen more commonly in patients who have AMA-negative PBC than in classic PBC, but no disease specificity has been noted [3]. HISTOPATHOLOGIC FEATURES According to the current thinking classic PBC and AMA-negative PBC share the same histologic features, but minor differences might emerge as more experience is gained in the latter group. Some authors have identified differences in the inflammatory infiltrates of patients who have AMA-negative and AMApositive PBC [10,11]. Ludwig [12] proposes applying the same criteria for diagnosis and staging used for PBC to AIC or AMA-negative PBC. Stage 1 (portal stage) is characterized by infiltration of portal tracts by lymphocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils.

Michieletti, et al [5] AMA No. of patients Age (y) Female gender (%) No. of asymptomatic (%) Complications of cirrhosis Histologic findings

ALP AST ALT TB Number with þANA Number with þSMA IgM Response to UDCA treatment

AMAþ

Lacerda, et al [9]

Invernizzi, et al [4]

Nakajima, et al [6]

AMAþ

AMA

AMA

AMAþ

AMA

35 52  11 All NA

180 53  9

8 57.9  7.2 80(100) NA

89 54.2  9.5 81(91)

NA

23 71 53.3  13.7 52.3  9.4 23(100) 63(89) Higher in AMA 21(91) 48(68) NA

Slightly less portal inflammation in AMA No difference Lower in AMA No difference Matched Higher in AMA

NA

NA

NA

No difference No difference NA No difference Higher in AMA

24 273 52  11 54  11 21(8) 244(89) No difference 17(71) 166(61) No difference 3(13) 22(8) No difference in proportion of patients who had stage II–IV No difference NA No difference No difference Higher in AMA

AMAþ

NA No difference NA No difference NA

Lower in AMA No difference No difference Lower in AMA Higher in AMA

Lower in AMA

No difference

Higher in AMA

NA

Higher in AMA

Lower in AMA NA

Lower in AMA No difference (biochemical and Mayo risk score)

Lower in AMA No difference (biochemical)

NA No difference (biochemical and clinical outcome—death or OLT)

Lower in AMA NA

Abbreviations: ALP, alkaline phosphatase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; ANA, antinuclear antibodies; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; NA, not assessed; OLT, orthotopic liver transplantation; SMA, smooth muscle antibodies; TB, total bilirubin; UDCA, ursodeoxycholic acid.

481

AMA

17 17 51.1 55.0 Matched No difference 8(47) 6(35) NA

NA

AMAþ

Kim, et al [8]

NEGATIVE PRIMARY BILIARY CIRRHOSIS

Table 1 Studies comparing patients who have antimitochondrial antibody–negative and antimitochondrial antibody–positive primary biliary cirrhosis

482

MENDES & LINDOR

The typical duct destruction with granuloma formation, the ‘‘florid duct lesion,’’ is virtually diagnostic, but rarely found. In stage 2 (periportal stage) the inflammatory infiltrates described for stage 1 have increased and involve the periportal parenchyma, often accompanied by prominent portal and periportal ductular proliferation (Fig. 1). Stage 3 (septal stage) is described by the presence of bridging fibrosis, but the features of stage 2 may still be present. Ductopenia and features of cholestasis become noticeable in most instances. Finally stage 4 (cirrhotic stage) is characterized by biliary cirrhosis with nodular regeneration of the hepatic parenchyma and prominent ductopenia. RESPONSE TO TREATMENT The treatment of PBC involves two treatment modalities: ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) and orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). UDCA has been shown to improve liver biochemistry and to slow disease progression, delaying time to death or liver transplantation in patients who have PBC, especially in those who have earlier-stage disease [13,14]. In patients who have end-stage liver disease from PBC, OLT has been shown to prolong survival and to improve quality of life [15,16]. Given the small number of patients who have AMAnegative PBC, and that positive AMA is used as a diagnostic criterion for enrollment in clinical trials, fewer data are available with respect to outcomes of treatment in patients who have AMA-negative PBC. A study by Kim and colleagues [8] evaluated the effect of AMA status in the outcome of patients treated with UDCA and OLT. In this study eight patients who had AMA-negative PBC who were excluded from enrollment in a randomized clinical trial because of the absence of AMA were treated with 13 to 15 mg/ kg/d UDCA and followed at regular intervals. The results of UDCA treatment were compared with the 89 patients who had AMA-positive PBC who were enrolled in the therapeutic arm of the clinical trial. Biochemical improvement

Fig. 1. Typical changes of stage 2 primary biliary cirrhosis with lymphocytic cholangitis and mild interface hepatitis.

NEGATIVE PRIMARY BILIARY CIRRHOSIS

483

and main clinical outcomes (death from hepatic failure or liver transplantation) were comparable between patients who were AMA-negative and those who were AMA-positive. In the same study they reported the outcomes of six patients who had AMA-negative PBC who had undergone OLT, compared with two matched AMA-positive controls for each case. After a median of 36 months of follow-up, graft and patient survival rates and subsequent histologic changes (disease recurrence and steroid-resistant or late rejections) were similar in the two groups. They concluded that AMA status does not affect the response in patients who have PBC to treatment with UDCA or OLT [8]. Gisbert and colleagues [17] reviewed the published studies on therapeutic regimens for AMA-negative PBC. In general the response to UDCA treatment did not seem to be affected by the AMA status. In 13 uncontrolled studies a total of 52 patients were treated with UDCA and serum biochemical improvement was seen in 83% of those patients. Also a favorable effect of immunosuppressive drugs occurred in 57% of 54 patients who had AMA-negative PBC in 17 uncontrolled trials. The problem with these trials is that they included very few patients and most evaluated the effects of treatment on surrogate markers of disease, as opposed to evaluating the effects on histology, survival, or need for liver transplantation. In general it is recommended that patients who have AMA-negative PBC be treated with UDCA 13 to 15 mg/kg/d, no different from what is recommended for patients who have classic PBC, because there is no evidence to support that outcomes from treatment are different. PROGNOSIS Several models to predict survival in patients who have PBC have been developed [18–20]; the Mayo risk score is the most widely validated. It takes into account age, total bilirubin, serum albumin, prothrombin time, and presence or absence of edema [19]. Although these models have not been validated specifically in the AMA-negative population, it is reasonable to use them in this setting, given that most of the evidence available supports that the prognosis and natural history of AMA-negative PBC is comparable to AMA-positive PBC. SUMMARY AMA-negative PBC, also known as AIC, shares similar clinical, biochemical, histologic, and prognostic features with classic PBC. Management of AMAnegative PBC should not differ from treatment of AMA-positive disease. The development of more sensitive and specific assays and increased understanding of the immunopathogenetic mechanisms of these diseases may, in the near future, prove them to be the same disease entity. References [1] Kaplan MM, Gershwin ME. Primary biliary cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 2005;353(12): 1261–73. [2] Czaja AJ, Carpenter HA, Santrach PJ, et al. Autoimmune cholangitis within the spectrum of autoimmune liver disease. Hepatology 2000;31(6):1231–8.

484

MENDES & LINDOR

[3] Vierling JM. Primary biliary cirrhosis and autoimmune cholangiopathy. Clin Liver Dis 2004;8(1):177–94. [4] Invernizzi P, Crosignani A, Battezzati PM, et al. Comparison of the clinical features and clinical course of antimitochondrial antibody-positive and -negative primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology 1997;25(5):1090–5. [5] Michieletti P, Wanless IR, Katz A, et al. Antimitochondrial antibody negative primary biliary cirrhosis: a distinct syndrome of autoimmune cholangitis. Gut 1994;35(2):260–5. [6] Nakajima M, Shimizu H, Miyazaki A, et al. Detection of IgA, IgM, and IgG subclasses of anti-M2 antibody by immunoblotting in autoimmune cholangitis: is autoimmune cholangitis an early stage of primary biliary cirrhosis? J Gastroenterol 1999;34(5):607–12. [7] Kitami N, Komada T, Ishii H, et al. Immunological study of anti-M2 in antimitochondrial antibody-negative primary biliary cirrhosis. Intern Med 1995;34(6):496–501. [8] Kim WR, Poterucha JJ, Jorgensen RA, et al. Does antimitochondrial antibody status affect response to treatment in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis? Outcomes of ursodeoxycholic acid therapy and liver transplantation. Hepatology 1997;26(1):22–6. [9] Lacerda MA, Ludwig J, Dickson ER, et al. Antimitochondrial antibody-negative primary biliary cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90(2):247–9. [10] O’Donohue J, Wong T, Portmann B, et al. Immunohistochemical differences in the portal tract and acinar infiltrates between primary biliary cirrhosis and autoimmune cholangitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002;14(10):1143–50. [11] Watanabe S, Deguchi A, Uchida N, et al. Histopathologic comparison of anti-mitochondrial antibody-positive primary biliary cirrhosis and autoimmune cholangiopathy. Hepatol Res 2001;19(1):41–51. [12] Ludwig J. The pathology of primary biliary cirrhosis and autoimmune cholangitis. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2000;14(4):601–13. [13] Lindor KD, Dickson ER, Baldus WP, et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 1994;106(5):1284–90. [14] Poupon RE, Poupon R, Balkau B. Ursodiol for the long-term treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis. The UDCA-PBC Study Group. N Engl J Med 1994;330(19):1342–7. [15] Markus BH, Dickson ER, Grambsch PM, et al. Efficiency of liver transplantation in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 1989;320(26):1709–13. [16] Starzl TE, Demetris AJ, Van Thiel D. Liver transplantation (1). N Engl J Med 1989;321(15): 1014–22. [17] Gisbert JP, Jones EA, Pajares JM, et al. Review article: is there an optimal therapeutic regimen for antimitochondrial antibody-negative primary biliary cirrhosis (autoimmune cholangitis)? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;17(1):17–27. [18] Christensen E, Altman DG, Neuberger J, et al. Updating prognosis in primary biliary cirrhosis using a time-dependent Cox regression model. PBC1 and PBC2 trial groups. Gastroenterology 1993;105(6):1865–76. [19] Dickson ER, Grambsch PM, Fleming TR, et al. Prognosis in primary biliary cirrhosis: model for decision making. Hepatology 1989;10(1):1–7. [20] Rydning A, Schrumpf E, Abdelnoor M, et al. Factors of prognostic importance in primary biliary cirrhosis. Scand J Gastroenterol 1990;25(2):119–26.