Noninvasive biomarkers identify eosinophilic esophagitis: A prospective longitudinal study in children

ABSTRACT Background Esophageal histology is critical for diagnosis and surveillance of disease activity in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). A validated noninvasive biomarker has not been identified. We aimed to determine the utility of blood and urine eosinophil‐associated proteins to diagnose EoE an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAllergy (Copenhagen) Vol. 76; no. 12; pp. 3755 - 3765
Main Authors Wechsler, Joshua B., Ackerman, Steven J., Chehade, Mirna, Amsden, Katie, Riffle, Mary E., Wang, Ming‐Yu, Du, Jian, Kleinjan, Matt L., Alumkal, Preeth, Gray, Elizabeth, Kim, Kwang‐Youn A., Wershil, Barry K., Kagalwalla, Amir F.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Denmark Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.12.2021
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:ABSTRACT Background Esophageal histology is critical for diagnosis and surveillance of disease activity in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). A validated noninvasive biomarker has not been identified. We aimed to determine the utility of blood and urine eosinophil‐associated proteins to diagnose EoE and predict esophageal eosinophilia. Methods Blood and urine were collected from children undergoing endoscopy with biopsy. Absolute eosinophil count (AEC), plasma eosinophil‐derived neurotoxin (EDN), eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), major basic protein‐1 (MBP‐1), galectin‐10 (CLC/GAL‐10), Eotaxin‐2 and Eotaxin‐3, and urine osteopontin (OPN) and matrix metalloproteinase‐9 (MMP‐9) were determined. Differences were assessed between EoE and control, and with treatment response. The capacity to predict EoE diagnosis and esophageal eosinophil counts was assessed. Results Of 183 specimens were collected from 56 EoE patients and 15 non‐EoE controls with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction; 33 EoE patients had paired pre‐ and post‐treatment specimens. Plasma (CLC/GAL‐10, ECP, EDN, Eotaxin‐3, MBP‐1) and urine (OPN) biomarkers were increased in EoE compared to control. A panel comprising CLC/GAL‐10, Eotaxin‐3, ECP, EDN, MBP‐1, and AEC was superior to AEC alone in distinguishing EoE from control. AEC, CLC/GAL‐10, ECP, and MBP‐1 were significantly decreased in patients with esophageal eosinophil counts <15/hpf in response to treatment. AEC, CLC/GAL‐10, ECP, EDN, OPN, and MBP‐1 each predicted esophageal eosinophil counts utilizing mixed models controlled for age, gender, treatment, and atopy; AEC combined with MBP‐1 best predicted the counts. Conclusions We identified novel panels of eosinophil‐associated proteins that along with AEC are superior to AEC alone in distinguishing EoE from controls and predicting esophageal eosinophil counts. A panel of eosinophil‐associated plasma proteins along with AEC are superior to AEC alone in distinguishing EoE from non‐EoE. A panel of AEC and MBP‐1 predicted esophageal eosinophil counts superior to AEC alone longitudinally. Histologic responders to EoE treatment have a greater reduction in AEC, CLC/GAL‐10, ECP, and MBP‐1 than non‐responders. Abbreviations: EoE, eosinophilic esophagitis; AEC, absolute eosinophil count; CLC/GAL10, galectin‐10; ECP, eosinophil cationic protein; EDN, eosinophil‐derived neurotoxin; MBP‐1, major basic protein. ​
Bibliography:Funding information
Barry K. Wershil and Amir F. Kagalwalla co‐senior authors.
This work was supported in part by a HOPE pilot grant from the American Partnership for Eosinophilic Disorders (APFED) (to AFK, BKW, SJA), Buckeye Foundation (to AFK and MC), K08DK097721 (to JBW), internal funding from Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, and Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Researchers (CEGIR) [to JBW]. Dr. Wechsler was a trainee scholar in CEGIR (U54 AI117804) part of the Rare Disease Clinical Research Network, an initiative of the Office of Rare Diseases Research, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and is funded through collaboration between National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases, and Nation Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. CEGIR is also supported by patient advocacy groups including American Partnership for Eosinophilic Disorders, Campaign Urging Research for Eosinophilic Diseases and Eosinophil Family Coalition
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Steven Ackerman is the guarantor of the manuscript. Dr. Wechsler recruited patients, collected data, supervised biomarker quantification, supervised biostatistical analysis, drafted and critically revised the manuscript. Steven Ackerman conceived the study, supervised biomarker quantification, reviewed data analysis, drafted and critically revised the manuscript. Mirna Chehade recruited patients, collected data, reviewed data analysis, and critically revised the manuscript. Katie Amsden recruited patients and collected data. Mary Ellen Riffle recruited patients and collected data. Ming-Yu Wang performed quantification of biomarkers. Jian Du performed quantification of biomarkers. Matt Kleinjan performed quantification of biomarkers. Preeth Alumkal performed quantification of biomarkers. Elizabeth Gray performed biostatistical analysis. Kwang-Youn Kim supervised and conducted biostatistical analysis. Barry Wershil conceived the study, recruited patients, reviewed data analysis, and critically revised the manuscript. Amir Kagalwalla obtained funding, conceived the study, recruited patients, collected data, reviewed data analysis, drafted and critically revised the manuscript, and oversaw study conduct. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Barry K. Wershil and Amir F. Kagalwalla co-senior authors.
ISSN:0105-4538
1398-9995
1398-9995
DOI:10.1111/all.14874