Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background and Aims: Eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic duodenitis (EoG/EoD) are often misdiagnosed as functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Consequently, patients with GI symptoms of EoG/EoD may not undergo the necessary steps for diagnosis. We studied gastroenterologists' evaluations of patients with chronic, unexplained, moderate-to-severe GI symptoms that were unresponsive to over-the-counter medications. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional online survey of 202 board-certified gastroenterologists at office-based practices, community hospitals, or academic institutions. Respondents had been in active clinical practice for 3-35 years post-residency training, spent most of their time on direct patient care, managed ≥1 patient with irritable bowel syndrome and/or functional dyspepsia, and performed ≥1 endoscopy per month. Responses were analyzed to identify barriers to EoG/EoD diagnosis and management. Results: Respondents managed a mean of 1880 patients per year; the most common diagnoses were functional dyspepsia (36%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (19%). Mean proportions of patients who underwent upper endoscopy ranged from 42% to 84%. Biopsies were collected from >90% of patients with visible endoscopic mucosal abnormalities vs 42%-72% of patients with normal-appearing mucosae. Approximately 20% of respondents collected only 1-2 biopsies from each site of the GI tract. Only 30% routinely requested pathologists to count eosinophils, and nearly 40% had no histologic threshold for EoG/EoD diagnosis. Conclusion: Gastroenterologists vary in their evaluation of patients with chronic, unexplained moderate-to-severe GI symptoms. Limited gastric and duodenal biopsy collection, particularly from normal-appearing mucosae, and failure to request tissue eosinophil counts might contribute to underdiagnosis of EoG/EoD. Availability and awareness of EoG/EoD diagnostic guidelines should improve detection in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chehade et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: