Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis

Efficacy and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have clinical benefits for treating several atopic diseases. However, consensus on its use for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is lacking. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of MAbs versus placebo for treating EoE.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes were changes in peak esophageal eosinophils count/high power field (HPF) and mean esophageal eosinophils count/HPF. The secondary outcomes were changes in the EoE-Histology Scoring System (EoE-HSS), Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS), dysphagia score, and adverse events (AEs). We compared binary outcomes using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence interval (CI). Considering the diversity of mechanistic properties of MAbs, a pre-specified subgroup analysis by MAb mechanism of action was performed for all outcomes, provided that at least two studies were in each subgroup. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

6 RCTs were included (533 patients). Compared to placebo, MAbs led to a significant reduction in peak esophageal eosinophils count/HPF (MD -0.78; CI 95% -0.87, -0.6801) and mean esophageal eosinophils count/HPF (SMD -0.79; CI 95% -1.5, -0.08). Moreover, MAbs significantly reduced EoE-HSS scores (grade score: SMD -9.31; 95% CI -13.95, -4.6701; stage score: SMD -10.18; 95% CI -15.06, -5.31), EREFS (SMD -5.95; CI 95% -9.19, -2.71) and dysphagia score (SMD -1.79; CI 95% -3.36, -0.23) without increasing AEs compared to placebo. Among those MAbs whose mechanism of action includes the blockage of the receptor for IL-13 (Dupilumab, QAX576, and RPC4046), the scores of EoE-HSS grade, EoE-HSS stage, EREFS, and dysphagia were significantly reduced, and they presented a similar risk of overall and serious AEs compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

MAbs seem effective and safe in reducing esophageal eosinophil infiltrate, EoE-HSS score, EREFS score, and dysphagia symptoms in patients with EoE. However, further evidence is needed to establish its place in EoE management.

[Pathomorphological criteria and features of immune response in eosinophilic esophagitis and reflux esophagitis]

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an immune-mediated disease, manifested by dysphagia and characterized by intraepithelial infiltration: more than 15 eosinophils per field of view at x400 magnification, and requiring differential diagnosis with reflux esophagitis (RE).

OBJECTIVE

To access the implication of EoE histologic scoring system (EoEHSS) for differential diagnosis of EoE and RE and to characterize features of immune response in these diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

38 patients with EoE and 38 patients with RE were enrolled in the study. All the patients had esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy. Biopsy specimens were stained with H&E and combined PAS/Alcian blue staining. Immunohistochemical evaluation was conducted with antibodies to CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20, CD56 and CD68.

RESULTS

Grade score of EoEHSS in EoE was 2.4 times more than in RE (p<0.05). Stage score in EoE was 2.75 more than in RE (p<0.05). Intraepithelial count of CD3+ T-lymphocytes comprised 87 (76-95.5) in high-power view in EoE and 45 (38.5-48.5) in high-power view in RE. Intraepithelial count of CD4+ T-lymphocytes was 35 (28-41.5) in high-power view in EoE and 19 (16.5- 22.5) in high-power view in RE. Intraepithelial count of CD8+ T-lymphocytes comprised 59 (50.5-67.5) in high-power field in EoE and 27 (24-28.5) in high-power field in RE.

CONCLUSION

The use of the EoEHSS histological rating scale for eosinophilic esophagitis is effective in the differential diagnosis of EoE and EC. Predominant cells in intraepithelial infiltrate are CD3+ T-lymphocytes both in EoE and RE, CD8+ cells prevail over CD4+ cells. In EoE intraepithelial count of CD3+ T-lymphocytes is 1.93 times more, count of intraepithelial CD4+ lymphocytes is 1.84 times more and count of CD8+ lymphocytes is 2.19 times more than in RE.