4.7 Article

Functional dyspepsia is associated with duodenal eosinophilia in an Australian paediatric cohort

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 45, Issue 10, Pages 1358-1364

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.14045

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThe pathophysiology of functional dyspepsia (FD) remains unknown. Duodenal eosinophil infiltration has been reported. AimTo assess the association between dyspeptic symptoms and duodenal eosinophilia in children undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, children with normal upper endoscopy and routine histology at a single tertiary paediatric centre between 2010 and 2014 were included. FD was defined as epigastric pain or discomfort >2 months without response to acid suppression. Controls presented with nonerosive reflux disease, dysphagia or rumination syndrome. Intramucosal eosinophil counts were compared between the groups using uni- and multivariate regression analyses. ResultsThirty-six cases and 36 nonmatched controls were identified. Atopic history (39% vs. 25%) and psychological comorbidity (53% vs. 39%; both P = 0.2) were frequent in cases and controls. Self-reported nausea (64% vs. 17%; P < 0.0001), lethargy (19% vs. 0%; P = 0.005) and family functional gastrointestinal disorder(FGID) (28% vs. 3%; P = 0.003) were more common in cases than controls. Duodenal eosinophil counts [median (IQR): 151 (118-207) vs. 76 (60-106) per mm(2); P < 0.001] were significantly higher in cases than controls with >112 eosinophils per mm(2) predictive for FD (OR: 33.6, 95% CI: 7.1-159.0; P < 0.001). Duodenal eosinophilia was associated with weight loss (OR: 7.1, 95% CI: 1.1-45.5; P = 0.04). ConclusionsFunctional dyspepsia in children is strongly associated with duodenal eosinophilia, in the absence of endoscopic or routine histological findings. Frequent atopic and psychological comorbidity illustrate likely multifactorial mechanisms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available