Eosinophilic Esophagitis Symptom Scores Are High in Children Without Eosinophilic Disease. Issue 3 (March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bose, Paroma; Albright, Eric; Idrees, Muhammad T.; Perkins, Anthony; Sawyers, Cindy; Gupta, Sandeep K.; Hon, Emily C.
• Is Part Of: Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition. Volume 74:Issue 3(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-03
• Subjects: dysphagia -- esophageal dysfunction -- patient-reported outcomes; Children -- Nutrition -- Periodicals; Pediatric gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Infants -- Nutrition -- Periodicals; Nutrition disorders in children -- Periodicals; Child Nutrition -- Periodicals; Digestive System -- growth & development -- Periodicals; Gastrointestinal Diseases -- Periodicals; Infant Nutrition -- Periodicals; Nutrition Disorders -- Periodicals; Child; 618.923
• DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000003324
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0277-2116

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Objectives: The Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE) Symptom Score version 2 (PEESSv2.0) is an EoE-specific validated metric for disease monitoring, but its use has not been explored outside of EoE. Our aim was to determine if PEESSv2.0 scores differentiate between children with EoE and non-EoE esophageal dysfunction undergoing initial esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Methods: A prospective cohort study of pediatric subjects was conducted. Children ages 1–18 undergoing initial EGD for esophageal dysfunction were enrolled. Demographics, clinical history, and child self-report and parent-proxy report PEESSv2.0 symptom scores were collected at the time of EGD. Esophageal biopsies were reviewed, and EoE was defined as >15 eosinophils/high powered field (hpf) seen in any level of the esophagus. Non-EoE was defined as <15 eosinophils/hpf. Results: Seventy-one children were included in the study from 2015 to 2018 [59% (42/71) males; mean age 9.2 years; range 1–17 years]. Fifty-eight percent (41/71) met criteria for EoE, and 42% (30/71) were labeled non-EoE. Non-EoE children and their parents had higher/worse median PEESSv2.0 total scores than those with EoE [47.0 vs 28.0 ( P = 0.001) and 40.5 vs 26.5 ( P = 0.012), respectively]. Non-EoE children reported higher median GERD [9.0 vs 4.0 ( P = 0.003)], nausea/vomiting [9.0 vs 4.0 ( P = 0.003)], and pain [11.0 vs 6.0 ( P = 0.001)] subdomain scores compared to those with EoE. PEESSv2.0 dysphagia subdomain scores (child and parent-proxy) did not differ between EoE and non-EoE groups [22.0 vs 15.0 ( P = 0.184) and 18.5 vs 17.4 ( P = 0.330), respectively]. Discussion: Total PEESSv2.0 scores were worse in non-EoE group compared to EoE group. Although PEESSv2.0 is validated for use in monitoring EoE therapy, it does not distinguish children with EoE from non-EoE esophageal dysfunction at the time of diagnostic EGD.