Eosinophilic Esophagitis Is Rarely Continually Symptomatic 10 Years After an Initial Treatment Course in Adults

Long-term course of untreated asymptomatic esophageal eosinophilia and minimally symptomatic eosinophilic esophagitis

Background and study aims The long-term course of untreated asymptomatic esophageal eosinophilia (aEE) and minimally symptomatic eosinophilic esophagitis (mEoE) are not well understood. This study aimed to clarify this course. Patients and methods A total of 36 patients with EE who were endoscopically followed up for more than 5 years, and who underwent more than one endoscopy evaluation after the first diagnosis, were investigated. These patients were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of the continuous treatment: no treatment group (NT group, n=22) and proton pump inhibitor/potassium competitive acid blocker group (Tx group, n=14). Symptoms and endoscopic and histological findings were retrospectively reviewed according to endoscopic phenotypes. Endoscopic assessment was performed using the EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS). Results The median follow-up period was 84.5 months in the Tx group and 92 months in the NT group. During the follow-up period, about half of the patients in the Tx-diffuse group persisted EREFS >3, while the remaining half had EREFS ≤2. The total EREFS in the NT-diffuse group remained almost unchanged (median: 2-4) without apparent exacerbation. In contrast, EREFS in the NT-localized group exhibited an unchanged or gradually decreasing trend, with statistical significance from the first diagnosis to 72 to 83 months after. Conclusions Untreated aEE and mEoE are not likely to worsen even without treatment at least for a median follow-up of 7 years. Instead, the localized type may spontaneously improve, implying a different pathogenesis in the presence of the diffuse type. Further studies should clarify the long-term prognosis.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis-What Do We Know So Far?

Eosinophilic esophagitis is a Th-2 antigen-mediated disease in which there is an influx of eosinophils to all layers of the esophagus, triggering an inflammatory response. Chronic inflammatory process causes esophageal remodeling, leading to difficulties in swallowing. Food impaction, heartburn, and chest pain are other characteristic (but not pathognomonic) symptoms in adults. Although the disease has only been described since in the early 1970s, its incidence and prevalence are rapidly growing, especially in Western countries. According to the diagnostic guidelines, there should be at least 15 eosinophils visible per high-power field in biopsies obtained from different sites in the esophagus upon endoscopy with relevant esophageal symptoms. Other diseases that can cause esophageal eosinophilia should be ruled out. Eosinophilic esophagitis treatment may be challenging; however, new methods of management have recently emerged. The currently used proton pump inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, and elimination diet are combined with biological treatment. New methods for disease diagnostics and clinical course assessment are also available. This review presents current knowledge about the disease, supported by the latest research data.

A meta-analysis of efficacy of topical steroids in eosinophilic esophagitis: From the perspective of histologic, clinical, and endoscopic outcome

BACKGROUND

Swallowed topical steroids are a mainstay drug therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), studies have demonstrated good histologic response, but with enormous discrepancy in clinical and endoscopic improvement. We conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of topical steroids in EoE in histological, clinical and endoscopic improvement.

METHODS

Several databases were searched from inception to August 1, 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical steroids with placebo for EoE in the short-term. The outcomes of interest mainly included basic characteristics of the studies, histologic, clinical, endoscopic response rate and adverse events. The results were pooled together using Reviewer Manager 5.3.5 software, and inconsistency was quantified using I² statistics.

RESULTS

Nine studies were eventually selected. The results showed that topical steroids were effective in inducing histologic response compared with placebo for both complete (OR 35.82, 95% CI 14.98-85.64, P<0.0001; I²=0, P=0.72) and partial response (OR 28.44, 95% CI 8.56-94.47, P<0.0001; I²=70%, P=0.0009). Moreover, topical steroids were useful in gaining clinical response (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.14-5.60, P=0.02; I²=60%, P=0.02) and endoscopic response (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.47-8.36, P=0.005; I²=0, P=0.57). Generally, topical steroids are well tolerated. The most common adverse events are infections and infestations (59 cases).

CONCLUSION

Topical steroids were effective in inducing histological, clinical and endoscopic response in the short-term, and the adverse events were almost tolerable; however, we should interpret the result of clinical and endoscopic response with caution.