Evidence Hub

An improved guideline adherence and PPI efficacy has been accompanied by a decrease in diagnostic delay, and strictures before diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis in the North Denmark Region - a retrospective registry study of the DanEoE cohorts

D. Melgaard, Amalie Byrholdt Hansen, C. Pedersen, Elise Sandholm, T. Hansen, L. T. Frandsen, A. Krarup

Clinics And Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology, 2023

346 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In the North Denmark Region an increased awareness of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) was observed after 2011 where a regional biopsy guideline was implemented. This resulted in an increased awareness of EoE and a 50-fold increase in the incidence of EoE patients between 2007-2017.

AIMS

The aims of this study were to examine the progress in diagnostic delay, complications, PPI treatment, and follow up since 2017 in Danish patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective registry- and population-based cohort study (DanEoE2 cohort) including 346 adult patients with esophageal eosinophilia diagnosed between 2018-2021 in the North Denmark Region. The DanEoE2 cohort included all possible EoE patients by using the Danish Patho-histology registry based on the SNOMED-system. The data was analyzed and compared to the DanEoE cohort (2007-2017).

RESULTS

The diagnostic delay of EoE patients diagnosed between 2018-2021 in the North Denmark Region had decreased to a median of 1.5 (5.5 (2.0;12) versus 4.0 (1.0;12), p=0.03) years. Strictures before diagnosis had decreased (12% versus 4%, p=0.003). The number of patients started on high-dose PPI increased (56% versus 88%, p<0.001). An intensified awareness regarding national guidelines and follow-up was observed as an increase in the number of histological follow up (67% versus 74%, p=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparisons of the DanEoE cohorts showed a decrease in diagnostic delay, a decrease in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 346 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free