Safety and Efficacy of Budesonide Oral Suspension Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

An update on the diagnosis and management of non-IgE-mediated food allergies in children

The spectrum of non-IgE mediated conditions includes well-defined conditions like Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome (FPIES), Eosinophilic Oesophagitis (EoE), Food Protein-Induced Enteropathy, and Food Protein-Induced Allergic Proctocolitis, but also the more controversial food protein-induced dysmotility disorders like food protein-induced gastroesophageal reflux disease (FPGORD) and food protein-induced constipation (FPC). Typically, non-IgE mediated reactions are delayed, with symptom onset from hours to days after exposure to a culprit food. The diagnosis is mostly clinical, and food elimination followed by reintroduction is the primary diagnostic method. Apart from EoE, the diagnosis of these conditions remains challenging, and there is a need to develop specific diagnostic tests. Acute FPIES presents with distinct symptoms, but misdiagnosis is common due to poor recognition. In contrast, some presentations, particularly FPGORD and FPC, overlap with the common, often benign disorders of gut-brain interaction, previously known as functional gastrointestinal disorders. This raises concerns about overdiagnosis and can lead to an unnecessary restrictive diet in infants and breastfeeding mothers. A systematic approach to an elimination diet and the support of a registered dietitian/nutritionist are recommended to ensure nutritional adequacy, suitable alternatives, promote timely introductions when appropriate, support breastfeeding where required as well as prevent nutritional deficiencies and feeding difficulties. This publication aims to provide an update on the spectrum of non-IgE-mediated food allergic conditions and intends to provide clinicians with practical guidance on the diagnosis and management of each condition. The authors acknowledge the need for further research in a range of areas to inform best evidence-based practice.

Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Budesonide Oral Suspension for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A 4-Year, Phase 3, Open-Label Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We investigated the long-term safety and efficacy of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

METHODS

This study (SHP621-303) was a 4-year, phase 3, open-label study in patients with EoE who completed up to 52 weeks of BOS therapy in 2 preceding phase 3 studies. On the basis of treatment assignments in previous studies, patients were assigned to BOS-BOS or placebo-BOS groups. All patients received BOS 2.0 mg twice daily; dose reductions to once daily and interruptions were permitted. The safety and tolerability of BOS were primarily investigated, with exploratory efficacy endpoints also examined.

RESULTS

Overall, 131 patients were included. BOS was well-tolerated, with no unexpected safety signals observed. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 76.3% of patients; most were mild/moderate in severity and unrelated to study drug. The most frequently reported BOS-related TEAEs included abnormal adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation test results (8.4%, 11/131; number of events [m] = 12) and adrenal insufficiency (2.3%, 3/131; m = 3). Esophageal candidiasis occurred in 3.1% of patients (4/131). The aforementioned TEAEs resolved in most patients. At month 48 of treatment, 50.0% and 58.3% of patients achieved/maintained a histologic response (≤6 and <15 eosinophils per high-power field, respectively). The initial reduction (-3.6) in total EoE Endoscopic Reference Score from baseline to the first visit was maintained until month 48.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with BOS was well-tolerated. Despite dosing changes/interruptions, approximately half of patients achieved/maintained a histologic response; initial improvements in endoscopic outcomes were maintained over 48 months.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov number: NCT03245840.

Effect of Food on the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Budesonide Oral Suspension in Healthy Adult Participants: A Randomized Phase 1 Study

Budesonide oral suspension (BOS) is a swallowed corticosteroid indicated for 12-week therapy in eosinophilic esophagitis with minimal systemic exposure following administration. We aimed to assess the relative bioavailability of a single dose of BOS administered under fasting and fed (high-fat/high-calorie meal) conditions. Healthy adult volunteers (N = 20) were enrolled in an open-label, single-center, crossover study and were randomized (1:1) to receive a single oral dose of BOS 2.0 mg under fasting or fed conditions, with a 48-h washout period before crossover to the alternative conditions. Serial plasma samples were collected before and up to 24 h after dosing. Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were calculated from plasma budesonide concentration-time profiles by noncompartmental analysis. The mean peak budesonide concentration (Cmax) was ∼13% lower under fed than under fasting conditions (604.1 vs 692.9 pg/mL). Areas under the concentration-time curves from dosing to the last measurable budesonide concentration and from dosing to infinity were ∼26% higher and ∼27% higher under fed than fasting conditions (3529 vs 2811 pg h/mL and 3892 vs 3075 pg h/mL, respectively). The median time to peak plasma budesonide concentration was significantly longer (∼1 h) under fed than fasting conditions (2.516 vs 1.286 h, P < .001). Safety and tolerability were also assessed throughout the study; all adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Despite slight differences in budesonide PK parameters between fed and fasting conditions, the effect of food on systemic exposure to budesonide (BOS formulation) is not expected to be clinically meaningful.

The Effectiveness of Budesonide Once Daily as Maintenance Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Swallowed topical corticosteroids (STC) are an effective first-line therapy for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), both for induction and maintenance of remission. All interventional trials with STC used twice-daily dosing regimens. However, in other inflammatory gastrointestinal disorders, corticosteroids are given once daily (OD) with equal outcomes and improved compliance.

GOALS

To evaluate the effectiveness of topical budesonide maintenance treatment in a once-daily dosing schedule.

STUDY

Retrospective analysis of confirmed patients with EoE, treated with topical budesonide as maintenance therapy OD, with adequate follow-up available. Patients currently treated with budesonide were contacted to fill out online questionnaires regarding symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The primary end point was histologic remission, defined as peak eosinophil count (PEC) <15 eosinophils per high power field (HPF) after >12 weeks of budesonide OD.

RESULTS

We included 29 patients on STC OD (1 mg, N=28; 0.5 mg, N=1), either budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT, Jorveza, Dr. Falk Pharma; N=12) or budesonide viscous solution (BVS; N=17). After a median follow-up of 767 days on OD dosing (range: 103 to 2396), 86% of patients were in histologic remission. Four patients had histologic disease activity, of which one was treated with BOT. Two patients experienced a slight increase in PEC after dose reduction of BVS to OD (to PEC of 25 and 35/HPF, respectively). However, after switching the formulation to BOT OD they achieved histologic remission.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, we demonstrated favorable results in the majority of patients treated with budesonide 1 mg OD as maintenance treatment for eosinophilic esophagitis.

Dupilumab is efficacious for eosinophilic esophagitis irrespective of prior swallowed budesonide or fluticasone, or prior treatments used alongside swallowed topical corticosteroids: results from the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, LIBERTY EoE TREET trial

BACKGROUND

Standard treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) may present adherence, tolerance, and efficacy challenges. Dupilumab 300 mg weekly is approved for the treatment of EoE in patients ≥ 1 year old, weighing ≥ 15 kg. This analysis aimed to evaluate dupilumab efficacy in patients from the LIBERTY EoE TREET trial (NCT03633617), with prior history of different EoE interventions.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This analysis included patients from Parts B/B - C of LIBERTY EoE TREET. Dupilumab efficacy was analyzed according to prior swallowed budesonide or fluticasone use and in those patients with previously trialed food elimination diet, esophageal dilation, or baseline proton pump inhibitor use, as stratified by prior swallowed topical corticosteroid (STC) use or STC inadequate response/intolerance/contraindication.

RESULTS

Dupilumab improved the proportion of patients achieving peak intraepithelial eosinophil count ≤ 6 eosinophils/high-power field, absolute change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire score, and other histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic endpoints vs. placebo at Week (W) 24, irrespective of prior swallowed budesonide/fluticasone use. Improvements were maintained at W52. Similar results were observed across the other subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Dupilumab was efficacious in patients with EoE irrespective of prior treatments/interventions.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT03633617.

Effect of randomized treatment withdrawal of budesonide oral suspension on clinically relevant efficacy outcomes in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis: a post hoc analysis

Background

Relapse after corticosteroid withdrawal in eosinophilic esophagitis is not well understood.

Objectives

Budesonide oral suspension (BOS) 2.0 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) was evaluated in two consecutive phase III studies (12 and 36 weeks, respectively). For clinicopathologic responders after 12 weeks of BOS treatment, we assessed randomized treatment withdrawal for up to 36 weeks of therapy.

Design

Post hoc analysis of a phase III, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study.

Methods

Clinicopathologic responders (⩽6 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) and ⩾30% reduction in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score from baseline) after 12 weeks of BOS were randomized to continue BOS 2.0 mg b.i.d. (BOS-BOS) or withdraw to placebo (PBO; BOS-PBO) for up to 36 weeks. Relapsers (⩾15 eos/hpf (⩾2 esophageal regions) and ⩾4 days of dysphagia (DSQ)) could reinitiate BOS 2.0 mg b.i.d. This post hoc analysis assessed a more clinically relevant relapse definition (⩾15 eos/hpf (⩾1 esophageal region) and ⩾4 days of dysphagia (DSQ)) for BOS-BOS versus BOS-PBO patients over 36 weeks. To account for BOS-PBO patients who reinitiated BOS before week 36, patients' last observations before reinitiating BOS were carried forward (last observation carried forward (LOCF)) for histologic, symptom, and endoscopic efficacy endpoints (at weeks 12 and 36).

Results

Of 48 patients included (BOS-BOS, n = 25; BOS-PBO, n = 23), significantly more BOS-PBO than BOS-BOS patients relapsed over 36 weeks using this post hoc relapse definition (60.9% vs 28.0%; p = 0.022). More BOS-BOS than BOS-PBO patients maintained histologic responses (all thresholds) and showed improvements in symptom and endoscopic efficacy endpoints.

Conclusion

More BOS-PBO than BOS-BOS patients relapsed, determined by a more clinically relevant post hoc relapse definition. Using LOCF, more BOS-BOS than BOS-PBO patients also maintained or had improvements in efficacy endpoints.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers (https://clinicaltrials.gov/): NCT02605837, NCT02736409.

Clinical, Histologic, and Safety Outcomes With Long-term Maintenance Therapies for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of maintenance treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) among observational studies (OSs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies reporting histologic success of maintenance therapy ≥48 weeks were included. The primary outcome was histologic success rate (defined as <15/<6 eosinophils/high-power field). Risk ratios (RRs) for histologic success of maintenance therapy vs placebo or induction and drug safety were also assessed. Random effects meta-analyses with heterogeneity measured with I2 were performed. RCTs and OSs were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

In RCTs, histologic <15 eosinophils/high-power field rates were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71%-96%) for corticosteroids and 79% (95% CI, 69%-87%) for biologics. Dupilumab alone accounted for 82% (95% CI, 72%-89%), whereas small molecules yielded 28%. Biologics showed higher <6 eosinophils/high-power field rates compared with corticosteroids (70% vs 59%). Clinical success was 58% (95% CI, 31%-83%) for corticosteroids and 59% (95% CI, 34%-82%) for biologics. Budesonide showed common-effect adjusted RR of 7.87 (95% CI, 4.19-14.77) of maintaining histologic remission over therapy discontinuation. In OSs, proton pump inhibitors showed 64% (95% CI, 43%-83%) histologic and 80% (95% CI, 53%-97%) clinical success, whereas corticosteroids achieved 49% (95% CI, 30%-68%) and 51% (95% CI, 18%-83%) rates, respectively. Therapy de-escalation was not associated with histologic relapse (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.51). Long-term safety was confirmed with 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) severe adverse events in RCTs and 5% (95% CI, 2%-9%) in OSs. Treatment withdrawal rates were low (10% for RCTs, 4% for OSs). Moderate to substantial heterogeneity was observed for most outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance therapies prevent histologic relapse in the long term, without clear disadvantage of dose de-escalation from induction to maintenance phase. Low adverse events and withdrawal rates confirm long-term treatment is well-tolerated.

Long-term durability between parent and child patient-reported outcomes in eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Because young children cannot self-report symptoms, there is a need for parent surrogate reports. Although early work suggested parent-child alignment for eosinophil esophagitis (EoE) patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the longitudinal alignment is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the agreement and longitudinal stability of PROs between children with EoE and their parents.

METHODS

A total of 292 parent-child respondents completed 723 questionnaires over 5 years in an observational trial in the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers. The change in and agreement between parent and child Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Symptom Score version 2 (PEESSv2.0) and Pediatric Quality of Life Eosinophilic Esophagitis Module (PedsQL-EoE) PROs over time were assessed using Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. Clinical factors influencing PROs and their agreement were evaluated using linear mixed models.

RESULTS

The cohort had a median disease duration equaling 3.7 years and was predominantly male (73.6%) and White (85.3%). Child and parent PEESSv2.0 response groups were identified and were stable over time. There was strong correlation between child and parent reports (PEESSv2.0, 0.83;PedsQL-EoE, 0.74), with minimal pairwise differences for symptoms. Longitudinally, parent-reported PedsQL-EoE scores were stable (P ≥ .32), whereas child-reported PedsQL-EoE scores improved (P = .026). A larger difference in parent and child PedsQL-EoE reports was associated with younger age (P < .001), and differences were driven by psychosocial PRO domains.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong longitudinal alignment between child and parent reports using EoE PROs. These data provide evidence that parent report is a stable proxy for objective EoE symptoms in their children.

Optimal Diagnostic and Treatment Response Threshold of the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score: A Single-Center Study of 102 Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Background/Aims

The proposed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score serves to diagnose and evaluate treatment responses in EoE. Nevertheless, the validated reference score thresholds for diagnosis and treatment response in Asian patients are yet to be established. This study aims to establish these thresholds for the first time among Asian patients with EoE.

Methods

Patients presenting with ≥ 15 eosinophils/high power field and esophageal dysfunction symptoms between August 2007 and November 2021 were included. Age- and sex-matched non-EoE controls were also enrolled. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic reference score features, and scores were compared between patients and controls. Among patients, endoscopic reference score features and scores, along with peak eosinophil counts, were evaluated both before and after treatment. The optimal threshold was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index.

Results

Overall, 102 patients were enrolled (74.5% men; mean age, 46.9 years). The mean endoscopic reference score was 2.65 and 0.52 for patients and controls, respectively (P < 0.001). An endoscopic reference score ≥ 2 was identified as the optimal diagnostic threshold for EoE (sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86; Youden index, 0.66). Post-treatment data regarding endoscopic findings and histology were available for 30 patients. Regarding histologic response, an endoscopic reference score of ≤ 3 demonstrated the optimal threshold (sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.88; Youden index, 0.83).

Conclusions

The optimal diagnostic and treatment response thresholds were determined to be endoscopic reference scores of ≥ 2 and ≤ 3, respectively. Further studies involving a larger patient cohort are necessary to validate these findings.

Diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis and esophageal food impaction in adults : A position paper issued by the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH)

This position paper deals with an expert consensus on diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis and esophageal food impaction issued by the Austrian Eosinophilic Esophagitis Network, a working group under the patronage of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH). In need of a standardized approach on the management of EoE, recommendations were made based on international guidelines and landmark studies.

Diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis in children: An update from the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN)

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologically by predominantly eosinophilic infiltration of the squamous epithelium. European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) published a guideline in 2014; however, the rapid evolution of knowledge about pathophysiology, diagnostic criteria, and therapeutic options have made an update necessary.

METHODS

A consensus group of pediatric gastroenterologists from the ESPGHAN Working Group on Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases (ESPGHAN EGID WG) reviewed the recent literature and proposed statements and recommendations on 28 relevant questions about EoE. A comprehensive electronic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 2014 to 2022. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 52 statements based on the available evidence and 44 consensus-based recommendations are available. A revision of the diagnostic protocol, options for initial drug treatment, and the new concept of simplified empiric elimination diets are now available. Biologics are becoming a part of the potential armamentarium for refractory EoE, and systemic steroids may be considered as the initial treatment for esophageal strictures before esophageal dilation. The importance and assessment of quality of life and a planned transition to adult medical care are new areas addressed in this guideline.

CONCLUSION

Research in recent years has led to a better understanding of childhood EoE. This guideline incorporates the new findings and provides a practical guide for clinicians treating children diagnosed with EoE.

The 1st EoETALY Consensus on the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis-Current Treatment and Monitoring

The present document constitutes Part 2 of the EoETALY Consensus Statements guideline on the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) developed by experts in the field of EoE across Italy (i.e., EoETALY Consensus Group). Part 1 was published as a different document, and included three chapters discussing 1) definition, epidemiology, and pathogenesis; 2) clinical presentation and natural history and 3) diagnosis of EoE. The present work provides guidelines on the management of EoE in two final chapters: 4) treatment and 5) monitoring and follow-up, and also includes considerations on knowledge gaps and a proposed research agenda for the coming years. The guideline was developed through a Delphi process, with grading of the strength and quality of the evidence of the recommendations performed according to accepted GRADE criteria.This document has received the endorsement of three Italian national societies including the Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), the Italian Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (SINGEM), and the Italian Society of Allergology, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC). The guidelines also involved the contribution of members of ESEO Italia, the Italian Association of Families Against EoE.

Pharmacologic Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), swallowed topical corticosteroids (STSs), and dupilumab are highly effective therapies for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis. Shared decision-making informs the choice of therapy and factors such as ease of use, safety, cost, and efficacy should be addressed. PPIs are the most common medication utilized early in the disease course; however, for nonresponders, STSs are an excellent alternative. Dupilumab is unlikely to replace PPIs or STSs as first-line therapy, except in highly specific circumstances. Identification of novel biologic pathways and the development of small molecules may lead to a wider range of treatment options in the future.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis: The Role of Steroids and the Dose, Duration, and Delivery of Steroid Therapy

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated condition characterized by the eosinophil infiltration of the esophagus (>15 per high power field). Recently, there has been an increase in both the incidence and prevalence of the disease. The common modalities of treatment are dietary modification, proton pump inhibitors, and steroids. However, the United States Food and Drug Administration has not approved any drugs for the treatment of EoE. This review has discussed the role of steroids in the treatment of EoE, focusing on the various formulations of the drug, its dosage, drug delivery, and duration of therapy. The study also covers the common outcomes of steroid therapy and its side effects.

Eosinophilic esophagitis: does age matter?

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus with increasing prevalence worldwide. It is a multifactorial disease caused by a combination of immunologic, genetic, and environmental factors. The clinical presentation of EoE varies largely, especially between different age groups. While diagnostic criteria and therapeutic goals are similar in children and adults, there are differences in treatment, with a more cautious approach in children to avoid growth disturbances. In addition, close monitoring and follow-up are essential in children to ensure uninterrupted growth.

AREAS COVERED

A search in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published between January 2010 and January 2023 to give an overview of the state-of-the-art of EoE epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment while focusing on similarities and differences between the adult and the pediatric population.

EXPERT OPINION

The current state of research indicates that while significant progress has been made in understanding and treating EoE, further research and advances are needed to optimize diagnostic strategies, tailored treatment approaches, monitoring, and follow-up, and improve long-term outcomes for patients. With further innovation, the management of EoE can become more precise and tailored, leading to better patient outcomes and improved quality of life.

Oesophageal wall thickness assessment at endoscopic ultrasound in children and adolescents with eosinophilic oesophagitis: a case-control study

PURPOSE

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease, and an endosonographic evaluation may help the diagnosis. The main objectives of this study were to measure the thickness of the oesophageal wall using a radial endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), mucosa/submucosa (MSM), muscularis propria (MP) and mucosa to muscularis propria (MMP); to compare these measurements between patients with and without EoE; to correlate them with the Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS); and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of these measurements.

METHODS

Children and adolescents (aging from 4 to 17 years) were evaluated in this prospective cross-sectional study. A radial EUS at 12 MHz frequency was used, and EREFS was employed to grade macroscopic findings. Accuracy of the measurements for the diagnosis of EoE was assessed by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

Twenty-six (19 M/7 F) patients (median age 10.83 years, range 5.65-17.46) were evaluated. EoE was diagnosed in 6 patients. The mean (and SD) oesophageal wall thicknesses in the distal oesophagus in millimetres in groups with and without EoE, respectively, were: MSM 1.07 (0.44) and 1.11 (0.33); MP 0.67 (0.25) and 0.60 (0.19); and MMP 1.73 (0.46) and 1.72 (0.32). Mid-oesophagus: MSM 1.16 (0.34) and 1.15 (0.34); MP 0.63 (0.16) and 0.60 (0.2); and MMP 1.79 (0.41) and 1.74 (0.34). In the ROC curve, the distal MP layer thickness presented better discriminative performance, with an area under the curve of 0.61 (95% CI 0.28-0.93) at 0.73 mm cut-off (66.67% sensitivity, 80% specificity, likelihood ratios of 3.33 for positive and 0.42 for negative test).

CONCLUSION

The evaluation of oesophageal thickness measurements by EUS is not useful for diagnosing EoE.

Treatment of Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Traditional and Novel Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents and summarizes the existing studies on the treatment goals and options for pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis utilizing rigorous peer-reviewed literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to traditional treatments, emerging biologic therapies continue to evolve the approach to treating pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis. Well defined treatment goals will aid the continued development of new therapies. Further, innovative assessment tools have changed how the clinician is able to assess the effectiveness of therapies with a trend toward less invasive options. The management of pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis continues to evolve with the advent of both novel treatment options and assessment tools. Treatment choices, with benefits and risks involved, should be presented to families upon diagnosis and tailored towards the individual patient and likelihood of adherence and success. Biologic therapy for EoE presents an exciting option for both first line therapy and escalation for those with severe or unresponsive disease.

Recent Advances in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis is an increasingly common inflammatory allergic disease of the esophagus characterized by esophageal eosinophilia and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. The therapeutic landscape has rapidly evolved for this emerging type 2 inflammatory disorder. We review traditional therapies including updates and expert opinions in addition to promising therapies on the horizon and the history of therapies that failed to meet end points and highlight knowledge gaps for future investigations.

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia. The treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications. Currently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies. Fourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low. Corticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty). Nine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission. Biologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty). Biologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty). Biologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo. Biologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.

Development of a Practical Guide to Implement and Monitor Diet Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Dietary therapy for short- and long-term management of eosinophilic esophagitis is an effective yet poorly understood and underutilized treatment strategy. Despite several prospective trials demonstrating the efficacy of dietary therapies, successful clinical implementation is hampered by the need for a multidisciplinary approach including dietitian support and provider expertise. The availability of these resources is not readily available to most gastroenterologists. Without standardized guidance on starting or completing the diet for gastrointestinal providers and/or consulting dietitians, provider attitudes toward dietary therapy vary greatly depending on familiarity and knowledge gaps in using diet therapy. This review aims to summarize evidence in support of dietary therapy in eosinophilic esophagitis while providing guidance on initiation and implementation of dietary therapy for providers.

Novel corticosteroid formulations in the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis: what is the evidence?

Background and study aims

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a food allergen-induced disease of the esophagus. Chronic, eosinophil-predominant inflammation eventually leads to fibrosis, esophageal dysfunction and severe morbidity. Swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) are a mainstay of anti-inflammatory therapy in the treatment of active EoE. Data on the efficacy of novel corticosteroid formulations, developed specifically for esophageal delivery, have recently become available.

Methods

A comprehensive review was performed aiming to summarize evidence on the role of STCs in the treatment of EoE. Two biomedical bibliographic databases (PubMED, EMBASE) were searched for articles providing original information on the efficacy and safety of STCs in adult EoE patients.

Results

Budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) and budesonide oral suspension (BOS) both surpassed placebo formulations regarding the efficacy of inducing and maintaining histologic, symptomatic and endoscopic remission. Overall, BOT displayed the highest grade of efficacy with clinico-histologic remission rates up to 75% after 1 year. Fluticasone propionate (APT-1011) achieved and maintained histologic and endoscopic responses in the majority of patients, whereas only a positive trend was demonstrated for symptomatic improvement. Mometasone and ciclesonide were studied in a limited number of smaller-scale trials and placebo-controlled data are required to substantiate the promising findings. All STCs displayed a similar side effects profile and were generally considered safe and well-tolerated.

Conclusions

Current evidence supports long-term treatment with novel corticosteroid formulations, challenging the established treatment paradigm of EoE. BOT appears to be the most effective steroid therapy, although head-to-head comparative trials between STCs are needed.

Accelerating synergistic effects of preconditioned mesenchymal stem cells with Crocin and dexamethasone in pulmonary epithelial cells injury

Chemical warfare victims suffer from bronchiolitis and chronic pulmonary obstruction caused by sulfur mustard (SM) toxicity. Despite the mesenchymal stem cells capacity to alleviate inflammation, their low survival rate under oxidative stress severely limits their effectiveness. This study aimed to examine how natural (Crocin) and synthetic (Dexamethasone) antioxidants might affect MSC efficacy. MSCs were treated with the optimal doses of Crocin (Cr.), Dexamethasone (Dex.), and their combination. The A549 cells line was pretreated with the optimal dose of the CEES to mimic the lung disease. Then, the affected A549 cells were exposed to the preconditioned MSCs and conditioned media, and then their survival rates were estimated by MTTor2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. Annexin-V PI apoptosis test was conducted for MSCs and A549 cells. Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) assay and Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test demonstrated the percentage of production of ROS and the cytokines levels in A549/CEES, respectively. The results revealed significant increases in Cr. + Dex. treated MSCs (P < .01) and A549 cells treated with MSCs-CM/Cr/Dex (P < .01) groups' survival. The apoptosis rate and ROS production were reduced in the MSCs-CM/Cr/Dex. Also, considerable decreases in IL-1β (P < .01) and IL-6 (P < .01) and a significant increase in IL-10 (P < .05) in treated A549/CEES by Cr/Dex and MSCs-CM/Cr/Dex supported the synergistic effects of Crocin and Dexamethasone.

[Treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis - advancements and perspectives]

In recent years significant progress has been made in the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), especially in the area of topical corticosteroids. Novel EoE-specific formulations have been developed and first approvals have been obtained for induction and maintenance of remission in adult EoE patients with the orodispersible budesonide tablet in Germany and other European and non-EU countries. A novel budesonide oral suspension is currently under priority review by the FDA for first approval in the U.S. In contrast, the scientific evidence on the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors remains limited. Moreover, new biologicals have been identified which showed promising results in phase 2 trials and are now being studied in phase 3. This article aims to summarize and discuss recent advances and perspectives in the treatment of EoE.

Safety of an investigational formulation of budesonide (budesonide oral suspension) for eosinophilic oesophagitis: an integrated safety analysis of six phase 1-3 clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Questions remain regarding the safety of swallowed topical corticosteroids in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE).

AIM

To assess the safety of an investigational formulation of budesonide (budesonide oral suspension; BOS) from six trials.

METHODS

Safety data were integrated from six trials (healthy adults: SHP621-101 [phase 1]; patients with EoE: MPI 101-01 and MPI 101-06 [phase 2]; SHP621-301, SHP621-302 and SHP621-303 [phase 3]) for participants who received ≥1 dose of study drug (BOS 2.0 mg twice daily [b.i.d.], BOS any dose [including BOS 2.0 mg b.i.d.] and placebo). Adverse events (AEs), laboratory testing, bone density and adrenal AEs were assessed. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates were calculated for AEs and AEs of special interest (AESIs).

RESULTS

Overall, 514 unique participants were included (BOS 2.0 mg b.i.d., n = 292; BOS any dose, n = 448; placebo, n = 168). The BOS 2.0 mg b.i.d., BOS any dose and placebo groups totalled 93.7, 122.4 and 25.0 participant-years of exposure (PY), respectively. Proportions of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and AESIs (any) reported were higher for BOS than placebo; however, most were mild/moderate in severity. The most commonly reported AESIs (exposure-adjusted incidence rates [per 100 PY]) in the BOS 2.0 mg b.i.d., BOS any dose and placebo groups were infections (133.5, 154.4 and 136.2, respectively) and gastrointestinal AEs (84.3, 80.9 and 92.1, respectively). Adrenal AEs were more frequent with BOS 2.0 mg b.i.d. and BOS any dose than placebo (44.8, 34.3 and 24.0, respectively). TEAEs and AESIs related to study drug or leading to discontinuation were infrequent.

CONCLUSIONS

BOS was well-tolerated; most TEAEs with BOS were mild/moderate in severity.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV NUMBERS

SHP621-101 (no clinical trials registration number), MPI 101-01 (NCT00762073), MPI 101-06 (NCT01642212), SHP621-301 (NCT02605837), SHP621-302 (NCT02736409) and SHP621-303 (NCT03245840).

Histologic response to steroids in eosinophilic esophagitis is dependent on delivery compound

Topical steroids are commonly used in treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but currently there is lack of data to clarify most effective regimen. We aimed to study the achievement of histologic remission using the same dose of budesonide in two different delivery formulations. Patients with established EoE treated with pharmacy compounded budesonide capsule or budesonide Rincinol gel (both 3 mg twice daily) were studied retrospectively. Those with pre-treatment and post-treatment histologic assessment were included with main endpoint being histologic remission. 103 patients (62 gel, 41 capsule) were included, with higher rate of histologic remission with gel (84 vs. 59%, P=0.004). A subset of patients in both groups had lack of steroid response (<50% drop in eosinophils) (15% for gel, 32% for capsule). Formulation/delivery vehicle of steroid treatments to esophageal mucosa in EoE appears important for treatment efficacy, with budesonide gel having higher likelihood of histologic remission compared to budesonide capsules in our population. A truly steroid refractory group appears likely in our population. Larger, prospective studies may help clarify best regimen of topical steroids in EoE and may work to identify patients likely to benefit from alternative therapies.

A meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials of treating eosinophilic esophagitis with budesonide

OBJECTIVE

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, local immune-mediated inflammatory oesophageal disease. Although Budesonide is recommended as one of the first-line drugs for EoE treatment, its efficacy is still controversial in multiple studies. Due to the continuous emergence of new and reliable research evidence in recent years, we updated the meta-analysis using RCT trial results to evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Retrieve the data of the randomised controlled trial literature from 2000 to June 20, 2021, on using Budesonide in the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis from the three major databases. Based on the results achieved with the Cochrane risk assessment tool, evaluate the quality of the included literature to extract the data, and perform the Meta-analysis with RevMan5.4 and Stata15.0.

RESULTS

A total of 958 articles were retrieved, with 10 articles finally included, thus forming a sample size of 712 cases. The main outcome indicators of the meta-analysis are as follows: (1) Histological remission: the Budesonide group performs better than the placebo control group when it comes to histological remission of injuries [RR = 23.82, 95%CI = (13.46, 42.21), p < .001]; (2) Eosinophil count: the Budesonide group is superior to the control group in terms of reduced eosinophil count [SMD = -1.34, 95%CI = (-1.52, -1.15), p < .001].

CONCLUSION

More and more high-quality randomised controlled trials show that oral budesonide in the treatment of eosinophils esophagitis was better than the placebo group. Mounting high-quality RCTs have confirmed the efficacy of oral budesonide in the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis and that the effects of this drug may not be so dose-dependent. It is safe to take budesonide for a long time, and this drug is a relatively ideal option for drug treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis at present, so it is worthy of clinical application.Key MessagesWe used high-quality randomised controlled trials to meta-update the previous results to further confirm the clinical efficacy and safety of budesonide.Oral budesonide in the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis is significantly better than the placebo control group. We have confirmed the value of its clinical application and promotion by including more high-quality randomised controlled trials.We also found that the efficacy of budesonide in patients is not dose-dependent, and more research is needed to confirm this.

A New Viscous Budesonide Formulation for the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children: A Preliminary Experience and Review of the Literature

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disease, characterized clinically by esophageal disfunction. Topical corticosteroids (tCS), predominantly fluticasone and budesonide, are considered the effective first line treatment, as well as an option of maintenance therapy in EoE. The way that tCS are administered significantly affects their effectiveness. There is still no ready-to-use steroid drug to be applied topically to the esophagus in children-a few experimental viscous slurries (mainly of budesonide) have been shown in trials to be more effective than steroids administered via metered dose inhalers (MDIs) and swallowed. The best examined steroid solvent of all is sucralose, a high-intensity artificial sweetener. Although it has been shown in a critical review that it is non-toxic and safe for all consumers, there are still some concerns among patients about its potential adverse effect on humans. Due to that fact, we developed a new viscous formulation and evaluated its effectiveness in the treatment of children with EoE. In an open, prospective, single-center study, we administered our new formulation of viscous budesonide twice daily for 8 weeks in patients with an active EoE. After treatment, we performed a control gastroscopy with the collection and evaluation of histopathological samples. We have proven our formulation effectiveness at 64%, as far as histological remission is concerned. We have also shown a reduction in the mean endoscopic reference score (EREFS) from 3.1 points at the beginning of the study to 1.6 points at the end of the study. Bearing in mind how important the acceptance of the solvent is for long-time compliance, especially among children, we also decided to assess the taste of the formulation. Therefore, we asked 46 adults and 10 children to swallow a sample of the solvent and fill in a short anonymous questionnaire about its taste, smell, consistency and easiness of swallowing. General acceptance for the proprietary solvent was high, reaching 7.5/10 among adults and 6.5/10 in children. To be able to compare the results of our preliminary experience, we reviewed the studies which evaluated substances that have been used so far as steroid solvents for the treatment of EoE. The overall effectiveness of the oral viscous budesonide (OVB) ranged from 65% to 90%, which is consistent with the results obtained in our study. Unfortunately, the high heterogeneity of the studies did not allow us to draw reliable conclusions.

Esophageal lichen planus: Current knowledge, challenges and future perspectives

Lichen planus (LP) is a frequent, chronic inflammatory disease involving the skin, mucous membranes and/or skin appendages. Esophageal involvement in lichen planus (ELP) is a clinically important albeit underdiagnosed inflammatory condition. This narrative review aims to give an overview of the current knowledge on ELP, its prevalence, pathogenesis, clinical manifestation, diagnostic criteria, and therapeutic options in order to provide support in clinical management. Studies on ELP were collected using PubMed/Medline. Relevant clinical and therapeutical characteristics from published patient cohorts including our own cohort were extracted and summarized. ELP mainly affects middle-aged women. The principal symptom is dysphagia. However, asymptomatic cases despite progressed macroscopic esophageal lesions may occur. The pathogenesis is unknown, however an immune-mediated mechanism is probable. Endoscopically, ELP is characterized by mucosal denudation and tearing, trachealization, and hyperkeratosis. Scarring esophageal stenosis may occur in chronic courses. Histologic findings include mucosal detachment, T-lymphocytic infiltrations, epithelial apoptosis (Civatte bodies), dyskeratosis, and hyperkeratosis. Direct immuno-fluorescence shows fibrinogen deposits along the basement membrane zone. To date, there is no established therapy. However, treatment with topical steroids induces symptomatic and histologic improvement in two thirds of ELP patients in general. More severe cases may require therapy with immunosuppressors. In symptomatic esophageal stenosis, endoscopic dilation may be necessary. ELP may be regarded as a precancerous condition as transition to squamous cell carcinoma has been documented in literature. ELP is an underdiagnosed yet clinically important differential diagnosis for patients with unclear dysphagia or esophagitis. Timely diagnosis and therapy might prevent potential sequelae such as esophageal stenosis or development of invasive squamous cell carcinoma. Further studies are needed to gain more knowledge about the pathogenesis and treatment options.

Fluticasone Propionate Orally Disintegrating Tablet (APT-1011) for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Topical steroids are effective treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The FLUTE (Fluticasone in EoE) trial evaluated safety and efficacy of APT-1011 (fluticasone propionate oral disintegrating tablet) vs placebo for treatment of EoE.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 2b trial, 106 adults with EoE received 1 of 4 APT-1011 doses or placebo for a 12-week induction period and 40 weeks of maintenance. Primary outcome was histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) at Week 12. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic features and dysphagia frequency.

RESULTS

Histologic response rates were 0% for placebo, 80% for APT-1011 3 mg twice daily (BID), 67% for 3 mg at bedtime (HS), 86% for 1.5 mg BID, 48% for 1.5 mg HS (P &lt; .001 for all groups vs placebo). At Week 12, mean Edema/Rings/Exudates/Furrows/Strictures (EoE Endoscopic Reference Score) total score (max, 9.0) improved from 4.5 to 2.3 for 3 mg BID, 5.3 to 2.1 for 3 mg HS, 4.6 to 1.7 for 1.5 mg BID, 5.3 to 2.9 for 1.5 mg HS vs 5.2 to 4.5 for placebo. Mean dysphagia frequency over 14 days improved from baseline to Week 12 with all active groups improving more than placebo. Improvements were sustained to Week 52. APT-1011 was safe and well-tolerated, with higher incidence of candidiasis noted at the higher twice daily doses.

CONCLUSION

APT-1011 dosing regimens were superior for histologic and endoscopic responses, and for reduction in dysphagia frequency vs placebo. Based on the symptom improvement and assessment of adverse events together with the histologic response rate, 3 mg once daily at bedtime dose showed the most favorable risk-benefit profile.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT03191864.

Long-term efficacy of proton pump inhibitors as a treatment modality for eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a first-line treatment for EoE, but data are limited concerning response durability. We aimed to determine long-term outcomes in EoE patients responsive to PPI-therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed adults with EoE who had initial histologic response (<15 eosinophils per high-power-field) to PPI-only therapy. We extracted data regarding their subsequent clinical course and outcomes. We compared findings between the initial PPI-response endoscopy and the final endoscopy, and assessed factors associated with loss of PPI response.

RESULTS

Of 138 EoE patients with initial histologic response to PPI, 50 had long-term endoscopic follow-up, 40 had clinical follow-up, 10 changed treatments, and 38 had no long-term follow-up. Of those with endoscopic follow-up, mean follow-up-time was 3.6 ± 2.9 years; 30 and 32 patients (60%; 64%) maintained histologic and symptom responses, respectively. However, fibrotic endoscopic findings of EoE were unchanged. Younger age (aOR 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.11) and dilation prior to PPI treatment (aOR 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05-0.83) were the only factors associated with long-term loss of PPI response.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term histologic and clinical response rates for PPI therapy were 60% and 64%, respectively. Younger age and dilation at baseline were associated with histologic loss of response. These data can inform long-term EoE treatment selection.

British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) joint consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic oesophagitis in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly common cause of dysphagia in both children and adults, as well as one of the most prevalent oesophageal diseases with a significant impact on physical health and quality of life. We have provided a single comprehensive guideline for both paediatric and adult gastroenterologists on current best practice for the evaluation and management of EoE.

METHODS

The Oesophageal Section of the British Society of Gastroenterology was commissioned by the Clinical Standards Service Committee to develop these guidelines. The Guideline Development Group included adult and paediatric gastroenterologists, surgeons, dietitians, allergists, pathologists and patient representatives. The Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes process was used to generate questions for a systematic review of the evidence. Published evidence was reviewed and updated to June 2021. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations. Two rounds of voting were held to assess the level of agreement and the strength of recommendations, with 80% consensus required for acceptance.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven statements on EoE presentation, diagnosis, investigation, management and complications were produced with further statements created on areas for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

These comprehensive adult and paediatric guidelines of the British Society of Gastroenterology and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition are based on evidence and expert consensus from a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals, including patient advocates and patient support groups, to help clinicians with the management patients with EoE and its complications.

Long-Term Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis With Budesonide Oral Suspension

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We evaluated treatment withdrawal, long-term outcomes, and safety of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) 2.0 mg twice daily in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis who completed a 12-week induction study.

METHODS

Induction full responders (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf] and ≥30% reduction in the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire score) to BOS 2.0 mg twice daily (ORBIT1/SHP621-301/NCT02605837) were randomized to continue BOS (BOS-BOS) or withdraw to placebo (BOS-PBO) for 36 weeks (ORBIT2/SHP621-302/NCT02736409). Induction partial responders and nonresponders, and patients who received induction placebo, received BOS for 36 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of BOS-BOS and BOS-PBO patients who relapsed (≥15 eos/hpf and ≥4 days of dysphagia [Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire] over 2 weeks) by week 36. The key secondary end point was the proportion of induction partial responders and nonresponders who fully responded after 52 weeks of total BOS therapy. Other secondary end points included the proportion of induction full responders with histologic responses (≤1, ≤6, <15 eos/hpf) at week 12 of the extension study, and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

The randomized withdrawal period enrolled 48 patients (BOS-BOS, n = 25; BOS-PBO, n = 23); 106 induction partial responders and nonresponders, and 65 induction placebo patients received BOS. More BOS-PBO than BOS-BOS patients relapsed over 36 weeks (43.5% vs 24.0%; P = .131) and had histologic responses at week 12 of therapy (P < .001). Overall, 13.2% of induction partial responders and nonresponders fully responded at week 36. BOS was well tolerated; therapy duration was not associated with new safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

For induction full responders, continuing BOS numerically improved maintenance of efficacy vs withdrawal. A longer therapy duration did not raise safety concerns. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02736409.).

Determination of a treatment response threshold for the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are measured using the validated EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS); however, a threshold for treatment response has not been defined. We aimed to determine a cut-point for endoscopic response as measured by EREFS.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing budesonide slurry with swallowed fluticasone multidose inhaler for initial treatment of EoE. In the parent trial, EREFS was determined before and after treatment (score range 0-9), as were histologic findings and dysphagia symptoms. We performed tabular, flexible trend, and dependent mixture analyses of measures of treatment response to select the best clinical EREFS threshold.

RESULTS

In the 111 included patients (mean age 39 years; 67 % male; 96 % white), an EREFS threshold of ≤ 2 was 80 % sensitive (95 % confidence interval [CI] 69 % to 88 %) and 83 % specific (95 %CI 67 % to 94 %) for histologic response (peak of < 15 eosinophils per high-power field). Flexible trend analysis and dependent mixture modeling similarly suggested that a threshold of ≤ 2 best captured the correlation of EREFS with histologic and symptomatic measures. Dependent mixture modeling found near-total membership in the response class at EREFS of 0 or 1 and > 75 % at EREFS of 2 or 3.

CONCLUSIONS

An EREFS of ≤ 2 was the best clinical threshold for endoscopic response to topical steroid treatment, and was consistent with clinical and histologic response. Therefore, future studies can report a binary outcome of endoscopic response when EREFS is 2 or less.

Improvement in eosinophilic esophagitis when using dupilumab for other indications or compassionate use

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab has been approved to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, and nasal polyps and is in active clinical trials for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Given its shared immunopathology, we hypothesized that EoE symptoms and inflammation would improve when dupilumab therapy was used for other allergic indications.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the clinical and histologic response in EoE to dupilumab when treating other atopic diseases.

METHODS

We completed a retrospective chart review of all patients at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Rady Children Hospital who were prescribed dupilumab for atopic dermatitis, asthma, or nasal polyps and had a concomitant clinical diagnosis of EoE. Demographic information along with histology, symptom scores, medications, and diet information were collected. Response to dupilumab was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients were identified. Of which, 11 patients were prescribed dupilumab for asthma, 27 for atopic dermatitis, 3 for nasal polyps, and 4 for compassionate use for EoE. There was no follow-up data for 8 patients. Follow-up histology was available for 26 patients: 22 of 26 had less than 6 eosinophils per high power field after the initiation of dupilumab with significant improvement (pre: 52.9 + 35.1 to post: 4.5 + 10.9 eosinophils/high power field, P < .005). A total of 28 patients had improvement of symptoms, with 24 patients reporting complete resolution of symptoms after dupilumab initiation. Reductions in EoE treatment medications (swallowed steroids, proton pump inhibitors) or expansion of diet occurred in 29 patients treated with dupilumab.

CONCLUSION

Dupilumab therapy initiated for atopic disease effectively induces symptomatic and histologic remission of esophageal disease and reduces the need for EoE-directed therapy in patients with concomitant EoE.

Older patients with eosinophilic esophagitis have high treatment response to topical steroids

BACKGROUND

There are few data assessing treatment response in older eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients and we evaluated treatment outcomes to topical corticosteroids (tCS) in this older population.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of the UNC EoE Clinicopathologic database included subjects with a new diagnosis of EoE treated with tCS. Histologic responses, global symptom response, and endoscopic changes were recorded. Older EoE patients (≥65 years) were compared to younger EoE patients (<65).

RESULTS

We identified 467 EoE patients treated with tCS, 12 (3%) of whom were ≥65 years. Compared to those <65 years, patients ≥65 had longer symptom duration and worse endoscopy scores, but most clinical features were similar. Post-treatment peak eosinophil counts trended higher in the <65 group (25.0 vs 5.5; p = 0.07). Histological response was greater in the ≥65 population at <15 eos/hpf (92% vs 57%; p = 0.02), ≤6 eos/hpf (83% vs 50%; p = 0.02), and <1 eos/hpf (58% vs 29%; p = 0.03). Older age was independently associated with increased odds of histologic response (adjusted OR 8.48, 95% CI: 1.08-66.4).

CONCLUSIONS

EoE patients ≥65 years had a higher likelihood of responding to tCS therapy, suggesting they should be studied more closely and included in future trials.

Development and Validation of Web-Based Tool to Predict Lamina Propria Fibrosis in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

Approximately half of esophageal biopsies from patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) contain inadequate lamina propria, making it impossible to determine the lamina propria fibrosis (LPF). This study aimed to develop and validate a web-based tool to predict LPF in esophageal biopsies with inadequate lamina propria.

METHODS

Prospectively collected demographic and clinical data and scores for 7 relevant EoE histology scoring system epithelial features from patients with EoE participating in the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers observational study were used to build the models. Using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method, variables strongly associated with LPF were identified. Logistic regression was used to develop models to predict grade and stage of LPF. The grade model was validated using an independent data set.

RESULTS

Of 284 patients in the discovery data set, median age (quartiles) was 16 (8-31) years, 68.7% were male patients, and 93.4% were White. Age of the patient, basal zone hyperplasia, dyskeratotic epithelial cells, and surface epithelial alteration were associated with presence of LPF. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the grade model was 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.89) and for stage model was 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.84). Our grade model had 82% accuracy in predicting the presence of LPF in an external validation data set.

DISCUSSION

We developed parsimonious models (grade and stage) to predict presence of LPF in esophageal biopsies with inadequate lamina propria and validated our grade model. Our predictive models can be easily used in the clinical setting to include LPF in clinical decisions and determine its effect on treatment outcomes.

Evidence-based treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis: insights for the clinician

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and eosinophil-predominant inflammation. Left untreated, EoE progresses to fibrous remodeling and stricture formation that impairs quality of life. Therefore, EoE requires either repeated treatments or maintenance therapy. Current guidelines recommend swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs), proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), or dietary intervention as initial options to induce and maintain long-term disease remission. Impractical exclusive elemental diets and suboptimal allergy testing-directed food avoidance paved the way for empirical elimination diets. These are moderately effective and highly reproducible in inducing EoE remission and allow for identification of specific food triggers. Step-up strategies, including two- and four-food rather than six-food elimination diets, should be considered as initial approaches for dietary treatment in patients of all ages, as they reduce the need for endoscopic procedures, shorten diagnostic processing time, and avoid unnecessary restrictions. Formulations of STC originally designed for asthma therapy are suboptimal for EoE treatment, with new effervescent orodispersible tablets and viscose formulations designed to coat the esophageal mucosa providing increased effectiveness at reduced doses. The anti-inflammatory effects of PPI in EoE are independent from gastric acid secretion inhibition; despite evidence from observational research, PPIs are the most commonly prescribed first-line therapy for EoE due to their accessibility, low cost, and safety profile. Double doses of PPI only induce remission in half of EoE patients, irrespective of the drug used or patients' age. Inflammatory rather than stricturing EoE phenotype and treatment duration up to 12 weeks increase chances of achieving EoE remission. Most responders effectively maintain long-term remission with standard PPI doses. Finally, endoscopic dilation should be considered in patients with reduced esophageal caliber or persistent dysphagia despite histological remission. This article provides a state-of-the-art review and updated discussion of current therapies and newly developed options for EoE.

[Treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis - advancements and perspectives]

In recent years significant progress has been made in the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), especially in the area of topical corticosteroids. Novel EoE-specific formulations have been developed and first approvals have been obtained for induction and maintenance of remission in adult EoE patients with the orodispersible budesonide tablet in Germany and other European and non-EU countries. A novel budesonide oral suspension is currently under priority review by the FDA for first approval in the U.S. In contrast, the scientific evidence on the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors remains limited. Moreover, new biologicals have been identified which showed promising results in phase 2 trials and are now being studied in phase 3. This article aims to summarize and discuss recent advances and perspectives in the treatment of EoE.

Improvements in Dysphagia and Pain With Swallowing in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis Receiving Budesonide Oral Suspension

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Quantification of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) symptoms is crucial for assessing treatment outcomes. We aimed to explore the effect of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) on dysphagia and pain with swallowing.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of data from a phase 2 multicenter, double-blind, trial (conducted from July 2012 through October 2014) of patients with EoE, 11-40 y old, who were randomly assigned to groups given placebo or BOS (2.0 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks. Symptoms were quantified using the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) from baseline to week 12 of therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 93 patients were randomly assigned to groups; the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis set comprised 87 patients (38 from the placebo group and 49 from the BOS group). Improvements from baseline in least-squares mean (standard error) DSQ (Q2+Q3) scores were observed. The difference between groups was statistically significant only at week 12 (placebo vs BOS: week 4, -4.9 [1.7] vs -7.4 [1.5]; P = .265; week 8, -7.4 [2.1] vs -10.3 [1.8]; P = .288; week 12, -7.5 [1.9] vs -14.3 [1.7]; P = .01). Similar findings were observed for pain (Q4) scores (placebo vs BOS: week 4, -2.5 [0.8] vs -3.3 [0.7]; P = .484; week 8, -3.0 [0.8] vs -4.9 [0.7]; P = .066; week 12, -3.1 [0.8] vs -4.9 [0.7]; P = .109). More severe DSQ and DSQ+pain scores were associated with presence of other symptoms (such as regurgitation) and physician-rated severity. Improvements in DSQ and DSQ+pain scores were greater in patients with either a histologic or endoscopic response than in patients without a response.

CONCLUSIONS

In a secondary analysis of data from a phase 2 trial of patients with EoE, we found evidence for improvements in dysphagia and pain scores in patients who received BOS (2.0 mg twice daily) vs placebo. Pain with swallowing should be considered in the clinical assessment of patients with EoE. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01642212.

Practice Patterns for Eosinophilic Esophagitis Patients in Busan and Gyeongnam: A Korean Multicenter Database Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis is increasing in Korea and there are few single-center studies regarding eosinophilic esophagitis in Korea. In particular, data about management for eosinophilic esophagitis are lacking. We aim to evaluate the practice patterns, including initial treatment and response, in the Busan city and Gyeongnam province area.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records to gain data on patient characteristics, medication, endoscopic images, and esophageal biopsy results. From January 2009 to December 2019, a total of 42 patients were diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis.

RESULTS

The mean age was 50.7 (from 22 to 81) years and the cohort was predominantly male (78.6%, 33/42). The proton pump inhibitor was the preferred treatment as an initial trial for 64.3% (27/42) of patients, followed by swallowed topical steroids (16.7%, 7/42). Clinical improvement after proton pump inhibitor therapy was achieved in 88.9% (24/27) of patients. Two patients who did not achieve improvement showed a clinical and endoscopic response after swallowed topical steroids treatment. No patient received diet elimination or balloon dilatation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment response of eosinophilic esophagitis was good in Busan city and Gyeongnam province area in Korea. Proton pump inhibitor therapy was the preferred and most effective treatment for eosinophilic esophagitis as the initial therapy.

Treatment with compounded fluticasone suspension improves the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features of eosinophilic esophagitis

No approved medication exists for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in the United States, which forces patients to utilize off-label drugs and/or create their own formulations. We assessed the efficacy of a standardized compounded fluticasone suspension. To do this, we performed a retrospective cohort study identifying all EoE patients treated with compounded fluticasone. Compounded fluticasone was prescribed during routine clinical care and dispensed by a specialty compounding pharmacy. Clinical data were extracted from medical records. Outcomes (symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic) were assessed after the initial and last compounded fluticasone treatment in our system. There were 27 included patients (mean age 34.2; 67% male; 96% white) treated for a mean length of 5.4 ± 4.4 months. The majority (89%) previously utilized dietary elimination or topical corticosteroids, and many (75%) had primary non-response or secondary loss of response to these treatments. After starting compounded fluticasone, symptoms and endoscopic findings improved [dysphagia (89 vs. 56%, P = 0.005), food impaction (59 vs. 4%, P = 0.003), heartburn (26 vs. 4%, P = 0.01), chest pain (26 vs. 8%, P = 0.05), white plaques (63 vs. 32%; P = 0.005), furrows (81 vs. 60%; P = 0.06), and edema (15 vs. 4%; P = 0.16)]. The median of the peak eosinophil counts decreased from 52 to 37 eos/hpf (P = 0.10) and 35% of patients achieved <15 eos/hpf. In conclusion, compounded fluticasone provided a significant improvement in symptoms and endoscopic findings, with more than a third achieving histologic response in a treatment refractory EoE population. Compounded fluticasone should be considered as an EoE management option.

Red Between the Lines: Evolution of Eosinophilic Esophagitis as a Distinct Clinicopathologic Syndrome

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, including dysphagia. While EoE is still considered a rare disease, in practice it seems that more and more cases are diagnosed every week, research in the field is exploding, and the pipeline for treatments contains multiple agents, some of which are quite far along the development pathway. After only scattered cases and small series were published in the late 1970s and 1980, Stephen Attwood, Thomas Smyrk, Tom DeMeester, and James Jones, published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences in 1993 a seminal report that described a clinicopathologic syndrome of esophageal eosinophilia with dysphagia. This review details the origins of this paper and compares and contrast what was observed then and what is known now about multiple aspects of EoE, including the clinical presentation, diagnosis, epidemiology, natural history, and treatments and outcomes. Moreover, it will highlight how the paper presaged a number of controversies in the field that have yet to be resolved, as well as foreshadowed the collaborative, multidisciplinary approach that has led to rapid advances.

Corticosteroids for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children: A Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is focused on dietary, pharmacologic, and endoscopic therapy options. Within the pharmacologic alternatives, topical corticosteroids are the most used, and a large number of studies evaluating their effectiveness have been published, requiring a new summary of evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the histologic and clinical effectiveness of the use of corticosteroids in pediatric patients with a diagnosis of EoE.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and ClinicalTrials.gov (June 2019).

STUDY SELECTION

We selected randomized controlled trials assessing corticosteroids versus a placebo or dietary treatment of EoE in children.

DATA EXTRACTION

Methodologic quality of evidence was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. The primary outcomes were clinical and histologic improvement.

RESULTS

A total of 1655 studies were identified. Five studies were included (206 patients). Histologic response was 49.25% in the corticosteroids group and 4.16% in the placebo group (risk ratio 11.05 [confidence interval 3.8-32.15]; P < .0001). Symptomatic response was 33.6% in the corticosteroids group and 21.8% in the control group (risk ratio 1.62 [confidence interval 0.94-2.79]; P = .08). There were no major adverse effects.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity of the diagnosis of EoE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review revealed favorable results of corticosteroids versus placebo, mainly in histologic response. More studies are needed, by using validated clinical scores, to obtain more reliable results.

Treatment of eosinophlic esophagitis with swallowed topical corticosteroids

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an emerging chronic local immune-mediated disease of the esophagus. Beside proton pump inhibitors and food-restriction-diets swallowed topical corticosteroids (STC) can be offered as a first line therapy according to current guidelines. This review describes the background and practical management of STCs in EoE. So far, mainly asthma inhalers containing either budesonide or fluticasone have been administered to the esophagus by swallowing these medications “off label”. Recently esophagus-targeted formulations of topical steroids have been developed showing clinicopathological response rates up to 85% - an orodispersible tablet of budesonide has been approved as the first “in label” medication for EoE in Europe in June 2018. Whereas it was shown that disease remission induction of EoE by STCs is highly effective, there is still a lack of data regarding long-term and maintenance therapy. However, current studies on STC maintenance therapy add some movement into the game.

BUDESONIDE-INDUCED HYPEROSMOLAR HYPERGLYCEMIC STATE FOLLOWING TRANSJUGULAR INTRAHEPATIC PORTOSYSTEMIC SHUNT

OBJECTIVE

Recognize a rare endocrinological side effect of a drug, budesonide, which surfaced as a result of a major procedure.

METHODS

We describe a patient who presented with hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS) likely as a result of the bypass of first-pass metabolism due to budesonide treatment after a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure.

RESULTS

A 62-year-old female with history of combined variable immunodeficiency complicated by colitis (managed by 9 mg budesonide by mouth daily) and refractory ascites secondary to non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (status post-TIPS 3 weeks prior) presented to the hospital with HHS. Her initial insulin requirements were high but improved after discontinuation of budesonide. She was able to be transitioned to a sliding scale and discharged on metformin. When taken orally, budesonide is subject to high first-pass metabolism resulting in minimal systemic effects. Development of HHS and dramatic insulin requirements within 3 weeks of TIPS with drastic improvement following the discontinuation of budesonide leads us to postulate that this was bypassed, leading to steroid-induced diabetes.

CONCLUSION

The case beckons us to be mindful of procedures that alter drug metabolism and make necessary adjustments to prevent complications.

Budesonide Oral Suspension Significantly Improves Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System Results: Analyses From a 12-Week, Phase 2, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial

Budesonide oral suspension (BOS) is a novel topical corticosteroid, which has been shown to improve symptoms and endoscopic appearance, and reduce peak eosinophil counts in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This trial evaluated the effect of BOS or placebo on the severity (grade) and extent (stage) of 8 histopathologic features observed in EoE, using the validated eosinophilic esophagitis histologic scoring system (EoE HSS). Patients with EoE aged 11 to 40 years with dysphagia were randomized to receive either BOS (2.0 mg twice daily) or placebo for 12 weeks. Mean (SD) EoE HSS grade and stage total scores at baseline for placebo and BOS groups were: grade, 0.42 (0.16) and 0.49 (0.14), respectively; stage: 0.38 (0.14) and 0.46 (0.11), respectively. These scores significantly decreased (improved) from baseline for patients receiving BOS versus placebo (grade: least squares mean change [SE]: placebo vs. BOS, -0.04 [0.03] vs. -0.24 [0.02]; P<0.0001; stage: -0.01 [0.02] vs. -0.19 [0.02]; P<0.0001). EoE HSS total scores improved for 6 of the 8 and 5 of the 8 histopathologic features for grade and stage, respectively, versus placebo. Change in EoE HSS total scores correlated moderately but significantly with change in endoscopic severity (endoscopic reference score; grade: R=0.5349; stage: R=0.5416; both P<0.0001). Change in EoE HSS stage total score correlated weakly with change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire scores (grade: R=0.1925; P=0.0740; stage: R=0.2135; P=0.0471). These data demonstrate that the EoE HSS is a valuable endpoint of treatment response in randomized clinical trials and should be considered for future trials for EoE.