Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To highlight and interpret two significant differences between eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a type 2 helper cell (Th2) disease, and three other representative Th2 diseases. EoE, asthma, atopic dermatitis (AD), chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and other Th2 diseases employ epithelial alarmins to recognize triggers, share a prototypical inflammatory cascade, and respond to glucocorticoids. However, EoE also has several distinguishing characteristics which may be explained by a distinct pathophysiologic mechanism. METHODS: The following report consist of four related narrative reviews which combine comprehensive PubMed and Google searches. Two reviews were performed to identify and contrast all eligible studies describing serologic markers in EoE compared to asthma, AD, and CRS. Two additional reviews then compare the responses to parenteral biological therapies in EoE and in the same representative Th2 diseases. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: Comprehensive literature searches definitively differentiate the absence of serologic markers in EoE compared to their identification in the other representative Th2 diseases. Similarly, a summary of therapeutic trials demonstrates that while EoE is unable to clinically respond to a variety of parenteral biological therapies, asthma, AD and CRS are very effectively treated with this same approach. A novel pathophysiology for EoE is proposed, and the emerging literature that support its existence is summarized. CONCLUSIONS: The fundamental properties described in this narrative regarding serologic signaling and response to parenteral therapy in EoE could be explained if EoE employs a unique application of the Th2 pathway. One potential mechanism consistent with these observations is that EoE employs exclusively esophageal mucosal constituents to initiate and generate the prototypical Th2 cascade and the fibrostenotic changes that follow.