Abstract

Background: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease that is increasingly recognized as a systemic inflammatory condition. Its potential association with subsequent coded ocular diagnoses has not been well characterized in large-scale longitudinal studies. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network, which aggregates de-identified electronic health records from multiple international healthcare systems. Adults aged ≥18 years with at least two clinical encounters between 2005 and 2024 were included. Patients with EoE (ICD-10-CM K20.0) were identified as the exposure cohort, while individuals undergoing routine health examinations without EoE served as controls. Those with prior ocular disease, malignancy, or death were excluded. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance demographics, body mass index, comorbidities, medication use, and socioeconomic factors. The primary outcomes were coded ocular diagnostic categories identified using ICD-10-CM codes. To reduce the likelihood of including pre-existing conditions, ocular disease events diagnosed within 3 months after the index date were excluded from the analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Sensitivity analyses incorporated alternative exposure definitions, washout periods, and follow-up durations, with additional stratification by age, sex, and race. Results: After matching, 64,613 patients were included in each cohort. EoE diagnostic coding was associated with a higher subsequent occurrence of several coded ocular diagnostic categories, including visual disturbance and blindness (HR = 1.521; 95% CI: 1.383–1.673), disorders of refraction and accommodation (HR = 1.324; 95% CI: 1.188–1.474), lacrimal system disorders (HR = 1.504; 95% CI: 1.274–1.775), cataract (HR = 1.637; 95% CI: 1.384–1.935), glaucoma (HR = 1.463; 95% CI: 1.157–1.849), and disorders of the vitreous body and globe (HR = 1.903; 95% CI: 1.510–2.399). These findings should be interpreted cautiously because several outcomes, such as visual disturbance, disorders of refraction and accommodation, and ocular pain, were broad diagnostic categories and may be susceptible to detection or coding practices. Conclusions: In this large-scale EHR-based cohort study, EoE diagnostic coding was associated with a higher subsequent occurrence of several coded ocular diagnostic categories. These findings should be interpreted as exploratory associations rather than evidence of direct causal or mechanistic relationships, particularly for broad or detection-prone outcomes such as visual disturbance, disorders of refraction and accommodation, and ocular pain.

IPC Classification

Keywords