Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative effectiveness of topical steroids vs. PPIs for the treatment of the spectrum of eosinophilic oesophagitis

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.

Increasing Age at the Time of Diagnosis and Evolving Phenotypes of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Over 20 Years

BACKGROUND

The presentation of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is heterogeneous, but trends over time are not known.

AIM

To determine whether clinical and endoscopic phenotypes at EoE diagnosis have changed over the past 2 decades.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, adults and children with newly diagnosed EoE were phenotyped as follows: (1) inflammatory vs fibrostenotic vs mixed on endoscopy; (2) atopic vs non-atopic; (3) age at symptom onset; (4) age at diagnosis; (5) presence of autoimmune or connective tissue disease; and (6) responsive to steroids. The prevalence of different phenotypes was categorized by 5-year intervals. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess for changes in patient features over time.

RESULTS

Of 1187 EoE patients, age at diagnosis increased over time (from 22.0 years in 2002-2006 to 31.8 years in 2017-2021; p < 0.001) as did the frequency of dysphagia (67% to 92%; p < 0.001). Endoscopic phenotypes were increasingly mixed (26% vs 68%; p < 0.001) and an increasing proportion of patients had later onset of EoE. However, there were no significant trends for concomitant autoimmune/connective tissue disease or steroid responder phenotypes. On multivariate analysis, after accounting for age, dysphagia, and food impaction, the increase in the mixed endoscopic phenotype persisted (aOR 1.51 per each 5-year interval, 95% CI 1.31-1.73).

CONCLUSION

EoE phenotypes have changed over the past two decades, with increasing age at diagnosis and age at symptom onset. The mixed endoscopic phenotype also increased, even after controlling for age and symptomatology. Whether this reflects changes in provider recognition or disease pathophysiology is yet to be elucidated.

Comparison of drugs for active eosinophilic oesophagitis: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is currently no recommendation regarding preferred drugs for active eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) because their relative efficacy is unclear. We conducted an up-to-date network meta-analysis to compare proton pump inhibitors, off-label and EoE-specific topical steroids, and biologics in EoE.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 2023. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy of all drugs versus each other, or placebo, in adults and adolescents with active EoE. Results were reported as pooled relative risks with 95% CIs to summarise effect of each comparison tested, with drugs ranked according to P score RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were eligible for systematic review. Of these, 15 studies containing 1813 subjects with EoE reported extractable data for the network meta-analysis. For histological remission defined as ≤6 eosinophils/high-power field (HPF), lirentelimab 1 mg/kg monthly ranked first. For histological remission defined as ≤15 eosinophils/HPF, budesonide orally disintegrating tablet (BOT) 1 mg two times per day ranked first. For failure to achieve symptom improvement, BOT 1 mg two times per day and budesonide oral suspension (BOS) 2 mg two times per day were significantly more efficacious than placebo. For failure to achieve endoscopic improvement based on the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score, BOT 1 mg two times per day and BOS 1 mg two times per day or 2 mg two times per day were significantly more efficacious than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this network meta-analysis supports the efficacy of most available drugs over placebo for EoE treatment, significant heterogeneity in eligibility criteria and outcome measures among available trials hampers the establishment of a solid therapeutic hierarchy.

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.

Pharmacotherapies in eosinophilic esophagitis: state of the art

Eosinophilic esophagitis is a chronic immune-mediated esophageal disease with a Th2 inflammatory response to inhalant and food allergens that cause an eosinophilic infiltration of esophageal mucosa. The diagnosis requires an upper endoscopy with esophageal bioptic samples, in particular the number of eosinophils must be >15 eos/high power field. The main symptoms of EoE in adults are dysphagia and food impaction, and its incidence is growing. Nowadays, the etiology of EoE is not well understood and no standard therapy is available. Therefore, the aim of this review was to analyze the major studies present in literature regarding the various therapeutic approaches to this disease.

Formulations of Topical Steroids in Eosinophilic Esophagitis-Current Treatment and Emerging Possibilities

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disorder characterised by eosinophilic inflammation and esophageal dysfunction symptoms. The recommended first-line treatment options are proton pump inhibitors and swallowed topical steroids (STS). However, current recommendations regarding STS are based on relatively few studies employing various doses and formulations. Our aim was to review the STS formulations currently used in the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, to demonstrate in a practical way the variety of exiting application methods, and to present emerging options for STS delivery to the esophagus. After the literature review, we established that the three most commonly used STS formulations include mist from an inhaler, viscous suspensions compounded with vehicles for oral use, and a recently introduced proprietary medication in the form of orodispersible tablets. Several drug delivery technologies with potential use in EoE are under investigation. To ensure optimal adherence, the choice of formulation should be based on efficacy, patient preferences and experience of the clinician, as well as current recommendations. Further studies are needed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of existing STS types, and to develop new, well-tolerated and effective drug formulations.

Histologic and Clinical Effects of Different Topical Corticosteroids for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Lessons from an Updated Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Topical corticosteroids (TS) have become standard therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, a variety of drug formulations have been used for which results of histological and clinical responses may be different. We aimed at determining the short-term histologic efficacy of TS for EoE based on randomized placebo-controlled trials and to review clinical response.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on TS versus placebo for active EoE published until June 2019. Treatment effects were calculated as risk ratios (RRs) comparing histologic remission between groups.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs (6 budesonide and 3 fluticasone) involving a total of 483 participants were included. A substantial overall effect of TS on acute histologic remission (RR 12.5, 95% confidence interval 6.0-25.9) was found despite varying definitions of histologic response. Indirect comparisons between drug and formulation types showed a trend for a better histologic efficacy of budesonide (RR 13.5 vs. 10.4 fluticasone) and for the orodispersible tablet (RR 46.2 vs. 11.5 suspension, and 10.4 nebulized formula/spray), but only based on small patient numbers. Scores used for clinical response assessment were different between studies, and short-term clinical results were less impressive: significant differences favoring TS were found in 4/9 RCTs (4/6 budesonide, 0/3 fluticasone).

CONCLUSIONS

TS are effective for short-term induction of histological remission in EoE with less impressive clinical response rates. The mode of drug delivery to the esophagus may be a relevant factor for the degree of histologic remission. Further trials should use uniform assessment criteria and long-term patient-centered outcomes.

Response of eosinophilic oesophagitis to proton pump inhibitors is associated with impedance-pH parameters implying anti-reflux mechanism of action

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective therapies for eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), but the mechanism of action is uncertain. At on-PPI impedance-pH monitoring, improvement in oesophageal chemical clearance assessed with post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index characterises PPI-responsive EoE and reflux disease. Off-PPI, higher efficacy of the oesophago-salivary reflex as measured with PSPW-associated pH increments characterises PPI-responsive reflux disease and could typify PPI-responsive EoE as well.

AIM

To establish whether PPI responsiveness in EoE is associated with higher efficacy of the oesophago-salivary reflex.

METHODS

Prospective multicentre study in EoE patients investigated with impedance-pH monitoring before starting PPI. Impedance-pH parameters in PPI-responsive and PPI-refractory cases were compared. PPI response was defined histologically.

RESULTS

Considerable PSPW-associated pH increments (median 1.4 units) were found in 80 EoE patients, with significantly higher values in 48 PPI-responsive than in 32 PPI-refractory cases (1.8 vs 1.0, P = 0.02). Mucosal integrity, as measured with mean nocturnal baseline impedance was more severely impaired in the distal oesophagus in PPI-responsive cases, the gradient between mid and distal oesophagus being significantly higher (546 vs 137 Ω, P = 0.0002). PSPW-associated pH increments and the baseline impedance gradient between mid and distal oesophagus were independently associated with histological response at multivariable logistic regression; at receiver operating characteristic analysis, the area under the curve of PPI response calculated by combined assessment was 0.88.

CONCLUSION

Higher efficacy of oesophago-salivary reflex and more severe mucosal damage in the distal oesophagus are associated with EoE response to PPIs, implying an anti-reflux mechanism of action as most likely.

A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Adults and Children

BACKGROUND

Network meta-analysis is used as a data synthesizer, incorporating direct and indirect evidence about treatments in a series of randomized control trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy of various treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect data to investigate the efficiency of drug therapies, which were evaluated in relevant randomized control trials for EoE.

RESULTS

Seventeen eligible studies (14 two-arm and 3 multiple-arm) were introduced to the meta-analysis. A total of 1011 patients were included, in whom 15 therapeutic interventions were used, namely: (1) budesonide oral suspension, (2) budesonide 1 mg orodispersible tablet twice daily, (3) budesonide 2 mg orodispersible tablet twice daily, (4) esomeprazole, (5) fluticasone, (6) nebulized steroid, (7) placebo, (8) prednisone, (9) anti-IL-5-mab (mepolizumab), (10) anti-IL-5-mab [reslizumab(1), ie, 1 mg/kg], (11) anti-IL-5-mab [reslizumab(2), ie, 2 mg/kg], (12) anti-IL-5-mab [reslizumab(3), ie, 3 mg/kg], (13) anti-IL-13-mab (QAX 576), (14) anti-IL-13-mab [RCP 4046 (180)], and (15) anti-IL-13-mab [RCP 4046 (360)]. Budesonide 1 mg orodispersible tablet twice daily showed the highest efficacy (SUCRA 0.91), whereas placebo was the least effective. In adult patients budesonide 1 mg orodispersible tablet twice daily remained the optimal treatment approach, whereas the corresponding therapeutic approach in pediatric patients was fluticasone.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that budesonide 1 mg orodispersible tablet twice daily was the best treatment for EoE, as it was the most effective. This treatment remained the optimal approach in adult patients, whereas fluticasone was the best treatment in pediatric patients.

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.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a relatively new disease that has reached an incidence similar to that of Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis. With this increased presence, greater recognition is essential. This applies both to children with nonspecific but potentially debilitating symptoms and to adults who have spent years behaviorally compensating for narrow esophageal strictures. The pathogenesis of EoE is rapidly being unraveled and is based on initiation of a type II allergic response to specific food antigens, leading to dense esophageal eosinophilia, chronic inflammation, and esophageal fibrosis. With greater familiarity and understanding of EoE, treatments are evolving, including identification and avoidance of food antigens; broad applications of topical steroids; and, eventually, pathway-specific biologic therapy.

Randomised clinical trial: the safety and tolerability of fluticasone propionate orally disintegrating tablets versus placebo for eosinophilic oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

APT-1011, a fluticasone propionate orally disintegrating tablet formulation, is under investigation for the treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE).

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of APT-1011 administered to patients with EoE and to assess the effect on clinical symptoms of EoE, endoscopic appearance and oesophageal eosinophilia.

METHODS

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 1b/2a study was conducted at seven medical centres in the US to evaluate the safety and tolerability of APT-1011 over 8 weeks in adults and adolescents with EoE. Participants were randomised to placebo (n = 8), 1.5 mg APT-1011 BID (n = 8) or 3.0 mg APT-1011 QD (n = 8). Safety and tolerability were assessed as the primary outcome; histologic and endoscopic measures were assessed as exploratory outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no deaths, serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), severe TEAEs or discontinuations from the study related to a TEAE. In one participant randomised to 1.5 mg APT-1011 BID, a reduction in cortisol was observed, but without evidence of adrenal insufficiency. Compared with placebo, treatment with APT-1011 resulted in greater reductions in oesophageal eosinophil counts, EoE Endoscopic Reference Score, patient global assessment and symptom-based EoE activity index from baseline to end of treatment (Week 8).

CONCLUSIONS

APT-1011 was safe and well tolerated in adolescents and adults with EoE. Exploratory efficacy outcomes demonstrated improvement in histologic and endoscopic findings as well evidence of symptom improvement. The results of this study support the continued development of APT-1011 for the treatment of EoE (NCT-01386112).

Pharmacological treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis: current options and emerging therapies

Introduction: The epidemiology of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has increased rapidly to represent a common cause of chronic and recurrent esophageal symptoms. Current treatment options have limitations so the development of novel therapies is a matter of growing interest.Areas covered: This article provides an up-to-date discussion of current therapies and investigational options for EoE. Established anti-inflammatory treatments for EoE at present include dietary therapy, proton pump inhibitors and swallowed topic steroids, which should be combined with endoscopic dilation in case of strictures. Refractoriness, high recurrence rates, and need for long-term therapies have promoted the investigation of novel, esophageal-targeted formulas of topic corticosteroids, and monoclonal antibodies (including mepolizumab, reslizumab, QAX576, RPC4046, dupilumab, omalizumab, infliximab, and vedolizumab) for EoE, with some having been demonstrated as effective and safe in the short term. Several additional promising therapies are also discussed.Expert opinion: Several therapeutic targets have shown efficacy and will be approved to treat EoE, especially corticosteroid-sparing options and those for patients with multiple Th2-associated diseases. Personalized therapeutic strategies for initial and maintenance treatments of EoE must be rationally designed, to reduce the burden of disease and answer meaningfully the needs of all stakeholders involved in EoE.

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

INTRODUCTION

Despite its initial description over 25 years ago, there is little known about the course of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) after an initial course of medical or dietary treatment. We aim to assess the long-term symptomology and quality of life (QoL) metrics in patients 10 years after initial treatment for eosinophilic esophagitis.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria: single center study of EoE patients diagnosed over 10 years ago with completion of an 18-question structured telephone interview. A cohort of patient's prospectively underwent an esophageal barium exam, esophageal sponge cytology, and evaluation by a esophagologist at greater than 10 years' time since original diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients were included in the study. The average age at follow-up was 55.0, with the majority male (64.8%). At the original diagnosis, 62.9% and 37.0% were initially treated with topical steroids and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), respectively,compared to 59.3% and 7.4% after 10 years, and 7.4% of patients reported a history of dilatations. Only 11.8% noted avoidance of trigger foods, with 62.7% noting an unlimited diet without caution. QoL decrease secondary to EoE was noted to be trivial to minimal in 56.9% of patients, mild in 19.6%, moderate in 15.7% and severe in 7.8%. In the prospective follow-up cohort, the results of telephone survey results matched the direct physician-obtained interview in 88% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Ten years after diagnosis, treated EoE is rarely continually symptomatic, requires mainly PPI-based therapies and is associated with a minimal decrease in QoL scores.

Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies

Background and Objective

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) is an immune/antigen-driven inflammation that causes esophageal dysfunction. Budesonide has shown promising effect in the management of EE in multiple studies, and we therefore conducted this systematic review/meta-analysis to assess budesonide efficacy and safety in order to provide more updated and robust evidence.

Methods

In April 2018, we conducted a systematic electronic search through four databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (ISI), and Cochrane Central. All original studies reporting the efficacy of budesonide in the treatment of EE were included in our meta-analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was employed to assess the risk of bias among included randomized controlled trials, while the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used for non-randomized studies.

Results

A total of 12 studies including 555 participants were included in our review. Budesonide showed marked efficacy at the level of histological response compared to placebo [risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) 11.93 (4.82–29.50); p > 0.001]. Analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies revealed considerable reduction in eosinophil count, with a mean difference (MD) (95% CI) of − 69.41 (− 105.31 to − 33.51; p < 0.001) and 46.85 (33.93–59.77; p < 0.001), respectively. Similarly, there was a marked improvement in the clinical symptoms via the analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies, with an RR (95% CI) of 1.72 (1.22–2.41; p = 0.002) and MD (95% CI) of 2.45 (0.76–4.15; p = 0.005), respectively.

Conclusion

Budesonide showed significant effect at all treatment endpoints. However, since budesonide carries a risk of candidiasis and our inferences are based only on a small number of included studies, more research is warranted to clarify these results.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40268-018-0253-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis identify symptoms and quality of life as the most important outcomes

BACKGROUND

Well informed patients who are in cohesive partnership with physicians and who have realistic expectations towards therapy are more likely to be adherent, which results in better disease control.

AIM

To assess which therapy goals adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis consider relevant.

METHODS

Following refinement during three focus groups, a study brochure and questionnaire were sent to 148 patients. Patients ranked the importance (five levels) of short-term (in the next 3 months) and long-term (≥1 year) treatment effect on symptoms, quality of life (QoL), histologically-detected inflammation and fibrosis, endoscopically-detected inflammation, and stricture formation as well as achieving histological remission while asymptomatic. Patients' characteristics associated with treatment goals were identified using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 109 respondents (mean age 43 years), 85 were men. Over 90% chose symptoms and QoL improvement as important short- and long-term therapy goals. A greater proportion attributed more importance to long-term reduction in endoscopic (90% vs 73%, P < 0.001) and histological (81% vs 62%, P = 0.002) inflammation, and histologically-detected fibrosis (79% vs 64%, P = 0.018) when compared to short-term reduction in these features. Patients (88%) ranked achieving histological remission while being asymptomatic as important. Gender, therapy use, education level, QoL, symptom severity, and history of dilation were associated with patients' choice of treatment goals.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients attributed most importance to improvement in symptoms and QoL. Reduction in biological activity was judged less important, but more relevant in the long- compared to the short-term.

PPI Trial for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Chaos in the Community

INTRODUCTION

Despite consensus eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) statement published in 2011 calling for a 2-month trial of protons pump inhibitor (PPI), the guidelines are not followed by many. We studied the practice patterns in our community and response to a PPI retrial in patients previously diagnosed with "idiopathic EoE."

METHODS

All patients presenting to the senior author's practice with suspected EoE from 2011 to 2015. Two cohorts were studied: (1) patients diagnosed in the community as "idiopathic EoE"; (2) treatment naïve patients given a PPI trial at University of South Florida. PPI responsive eosinophilia was defined after 2 months of high dose PPIs after initial diagnosis of mucosal eosinophilia and histologic response of <15 eosinophils per HPF. SPSS v19.0 was used to calculate mean difference and odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

In total, 78 patients met inclusion criteria, 46 patients had outside diagnosis of "idiopathic EoE," and 41 patients received a PPI trial at University of South Florida. In total, 34/46 (73.9%) community patients were placed on a PPI, 3/46 (6.5%) were placed on elimination diets, 31/46 (67.4%) steroids, and 21/46 (45.7%) were treated with both steroids/PPIs. Fewer patients received PPI trials in the community 3/46 (6.5%) versus 26/34 (76.5%) at our center [OR, 46.6 (95% CI, 11.3-191.5); P<0.0001]. In total, 12/26 (46.2%) were PPI responders on our retrial despite previously being diagnosed with idiopathic EoE. The group initially diagnosed at our center had a higher PPI response rate 12/15 (80%) versus 12/26 (46.2%) in the community group [OR, 7.58 (1.42, 40.55; P=0.018)].

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of a PPI trial is misunderstood and may be confused with the more traditional PPI trial for gastroesophageal reflux disease. This algorithm is critical and should be done before empiric steroids/diet therapies.

UK guidelines on oesophageal dilatation in clinical practice

These are updated guidelines which supersede the original version published in 2004. This work has been endorsed by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the oesophageal section of the BSG. The original guidelines have undergone extensive revision by the 16 members of the Guideline Development Group with representation from individuals across all relevant disciplines, including the Heartburn Cancer UK charity, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The methodological rigour and transparency of the guideline development processes were appraised using the revised Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool.Dilatation of the oesophagus is a relatively high-risk intervention, and is required by an increasing range of disease states. Moreover, there is scarcity of evidence in the literature to guide clinicians on how to safely perform this procedure. These guidelines deal specifically with the dilatation procedure using balloon or bougie devices as a primary treatment strategy for non-malignant narrowing of the oesophagus. The use of stents is outside the remit of this paper; however, for cases of dilatation failure, alternative techniques-including stents-will be listed. The guideline is divided into the following subheadings: (1) patient preparation; (2) the dilatation procedure; (3) aftercare and (4) disease-specific considerations. A systematic literature search was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Develop-ment and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and decide on the strength of recommendations made.

Treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in the pediatric patient: an evidence-based approach

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a unique form of non-IgE-mediated food allergy characterized by esophageal eosinophilic infiltration that commonly causes dysphagia and food impaction in children and adolescents. Assessing the efficacy of dietary restrictions or drug therapies to achieve clinical and histologic resolution of EoE through randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has resulted in new evidence-based guidelines. Avoiding food triggers is the only therapy targeting the cause of the disease. None of the currently available food allergy tests adequately predict food triggers for EoE. Exclusively feeding with an amino acid-based elemental diet and empiric six-food elimination diet (avoiding the six foods most commonly related with food allergy) has consistently provided the best cure rates, but their high level of restriction and need for multiple endoscopies are deterrents for implementation. Simpler and less restrictive empirical methods, like a four-food (milk, gluten-containing cereals, egg, legumes) or a two-food (milk and gluten) elimination diet, show encouraging results. Proton pump inhibitors are currently a first-line treatment, achieving histological remission and improvement of symptoms in 54.1 and 64.9% of pediatric EoE patients, respectively. The efficacy of topical corticosteroids in EoE assessed in several trials and summarized in meta-analyses indicates that budesonide and fluticasone propionate are significantly superior to placebos, both in decreasing eosinophil mucosal infiltration and in relieving symptoms. Owing to differences in drug delivery, viscous budesonide formulas seem to be the best pharmacological therapy for EoE.

CONCLUSION

Applying evidence-based therapies and a practical management algorithm provide an effective control of EoE. What is Known: • Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) now constitutes the main cause of dysphagia and food impaction in children, adolescents, and young adults. • Its chronic course and frequent progression to subepithelial fibrosis leading to strictures and narrow-caliber esophagus indicate the need for treatment. What is New: • Therapeutic goals in children with EoE include resolution of esophageal symptoms, to cure esophageal inflammation (mucosal healing) and restore a proper esophageal caliber in case of fibrostenotic endoscopic findings. Avoiding iatrogenic drug effects and nutritional deficiencies, as well as maintaining an adequate quality of life, is also essential. • Novel evidence-based guidelines, endorsed by several European scientific societies, incorporate recent advances in knowledge from several randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews to provide the best standard of care to pediatric patients, by following simple management algorithms.

Six-Food Elimination Diet and Topical Steroids are Effective for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

Topical corticosteroids or six-food elimination diet is recommended as initial therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

AIMS

We aimed to summarize published manuscripts that report outcomes of these therapies for EoE.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review in MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase of published manuscripts describing topical fluticasone, topical budesonide, and six-food elimination diet as therapies for EoE. We conducted meta-analysis of symptom improvement and the change in peak mucosal eosinophil count, with heterogeneity between studies examined with meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Systematic review yielded 51 articles that met inclusion criteria. Summary histologic response rates were 68.3% [95% prediction limits (PL) 16.2-96.0%] for fluticasone, 76.8% (95% PL 36.1-95.1%) for budesonide, and 69.0% (95% PL 31.9-91.4%) for six-food elimination diet. Corresponding decreases in eosinophil counts were 37.8 (95% PL 19.0-56.7), 62.5 (95% PL 125.6 to -0.67, and 44.6 (95% PL 26.5-62.7), respectively. Symptom response rates were 82.3% (95% PL 68.1-91.1%), 87.9% (95% PL 42.7-98.6%), and 87.3% (95% PL 64.5-96.3%), respectively. Meta-regression analyses decreased the initially large estimate of residual heterogeneity and suggested differences in histologic response rate associated with study populations' baseline eosinophil count and age.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature describing topical corticosteroids and six-food elimination diet consists of small studies with diverse methods and population characteristics. Meta-analysis with meta-regression shows initial histologic and symptomatic response rates on the same order of magnitude for topical corticosteroids and six-food elimination diet, but heterogeneity of study designs prevents direct comparison of modalities.

Cost Utility Analysis of Topical Steroids Compared With Dietary Elimination for Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Topical corticosteroids or dietary elimination are recommended as first-line therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis, but data to directly compare these therapies are scant. We performed a cost utility comparison of topical corticosteroids and the 6-food elimination diet (SFED) in treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, from the payer perspective.

METHODS

We used a modified Markov model based on current clinical guidelines, in which transition between states depended on histologic response simulated at the individual cohort-member level. Simulation parameters were defined by systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the base-case estimates and bounds of uncertainty for sensitivity analysis. Meta-regression models included adjustment for differences in study and cohort characteristics.

RESULTS

In the base-case scenario, topical fluticasone was about as effective as SFED but more expensive at a 5-year time horizon ($9261.58 vs $5719.72 per person). SFED was more effective and less expensive than topical fluticasone and topical budesonide in the base-case scenario. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed little uncertainty in relative treatment effectiveness. There was somewhat greater uncertainty in the relative cost of treatments; most simulations found SFED to be less expensive.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cost utility analysis comparing topical corticosteroids and SFED for first-line treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, the therapies were similar in effectiveness. SFED was on average less expensive, and more cost effective in most simulations, than topical budesonide and topical fluticasone, from a payer perspective and not accounting for patient-level costs or quality of life.

A Review of the Novel Application and Potential Adverse Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are known as a class of pharmaceutical agents that target H⁺/K⁺-ATPase, which is located in gastric parietal cells. PPIs are widely used in the treatment of gastric acid-related diseases including peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis and gastroesophageal reflux disease, and so on. These drugs present an excellent safety profile and have become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in primary and specialty care. Except for gastric acid-related diseases, PPIs can also be used in the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection, viral infections, respiratory system diseases, cancer and so on. Although PPIs are mainly used short term in patients with peptic ulcer disease, nowadays these drugs are increasingly used long term, and frequently for a lifetime, for instance in patients with typical or atypical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease and in NSAID or aspirin users at risk of gastrotoxicity and related complications including hemorrhage, perforation and gastric outlet obstruction. Long-term use of PPIs may lead to potential adverse effects, such as osteoporotic fracture, renal damage, infection (pneumonia and clostridium difficile infection), rhabdomyolysis, nutritional deficiencies (vitamin B12, magnesium and iron), anemia and thrombocytopenia. In this article, we will review some novel uses of PPIs in other fields and summarize the underlying adverse reactions.