The role of maintenance therapy in eosinophilic esophagitis: who, why, and how?

The Relationship Between Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy is a treatment approach based on the principle of incremental allergen exposure to achieve desensitization. Recently, oral immunotherapy has been introduced as a treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy. Some patients receiving oral immunotherapy for food allergy may develop eosinophilic esophagitis. Here, we summarize the literature examining this association, its treatment, and outcomes and discuss possible explanations for this clinical phenomenon. We further identify potential associations with aeroallergen sensitivity and other forms of immunotherapy including subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy. Finally, we discuss management of immunotherapy-induced eosinophilic esophagitis. Epicutaneous immunotherapy is highlighted as an area of therapeutic investigation.

Improved Outcomes in Eosinophilic Esophagitis with Higher Medication Possession Ratio

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity can be caused by treatment non-adherence. Medication possession ratio (MPR) is an established metric of medication adherence. A higher MPR correlates with better outcomes in several chronic diseases, but MPR has not been investigated with respect to EoE. A retrospective cohort study was performed using an established EoE registry for the years 2005 to 2020. Treatment periods were identified, MPRs were calculated, and medical records were assessed for histologic remission (<15 eos/hpf), dysphagia, food impaction, stricture occurrence, and esophageal dilation that corresponded to each treatment period. In total, 275 treatment periods were included for analysis. The MPR in the histologic remission treatment period group was 0.91 (IQR 0.63-1) vs. 0.63 (IQR 0.31-0.95) for the non-remission treatment period group (p < 0.001). The optimal MPR cut-point for histologic remission was 0.7 (Sen 0.66, Spec 0.62, AUC 0.63). With MPRs ≥ 0.7, there were significantly increased odds of histologic remission (odds ratio 3.05, 95% confidence interval 1.79-5.30) and significantly decreased odds of dysphagia (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15-0.45), food impaction (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.55), stricture occurrence (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.29-0.92), and esophageal dilation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.54). Assessing MPR before repeating an esophagogastroduodenoscopy may decrease unnecessary procedures in the clinical management of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab up to 52 weeks in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic oesophagitis (LIBERTY EoE TREET study): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Long-term management options that specifically target the underlying inflammation in eosinophilic oesophagitis are needed. Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13; we aimed to assess its long-term efficacy and safety in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic oesophagitis enrolled in part B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET study who continued to part C (part B-C).

METHODS

LIBERTY EoE TREET was a three-part, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study conducted at 65 hospitals and private clinics across ten countries in Australia, Canada, Europe, and the USA. Adults or adolescents (aged ≥12 years) with a diagnosis of eosinophilic oesophagitis by endoscopic biopsy (peak oesophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]) from at least one oesophageal region despite 8 weeks of high-dose proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and a Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score of at least 10 at baseline were eligible. In part B, patients were randomly (1:1:1) assigned to receive subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg either weekly or every 2 weeks or weekly placebo until week 24. Randomisation was done centrally by interactive voice response system/web response system (IVRS/IWRS) in blocks and stratified according to age (<18 years vs ≥18 years) and use of PPI at randomisation (yes vs no). Patients, study sponsors, and investigators involved in the study were masked to the randomisation outcome. Eligible patients who received placebo in part B and continued to part C were randomly assigned again (1:1) to either weekly dupilumab (placebo/weekly dupilumab group) or dupilumab every 2 weeks (placebo/dupilumab every 2 weeks), with matching placebo alternating with dupilumab doses. Patients who were randomly assigned to one of the dupilumab dose regimens in part B remained on the same regimen in part C for an additional 28 weeks (weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group or dupilumab every 2 weeks/dupilumab every 2 weeks group). Treatment assignment in part C was managed by IVRS/IWRS to maintain blinding of treatment assignment in part B. The primary endpoint of this trial has been reported; here, we report the week 52 outcomes of part B-C. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the part C safety-analysis set, which included all patients who were randomised in part B, entered part C, and received any study drug in part C. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03633617.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 12, 2019, and March 11, 2021, 240 patients were randomly assigned into part B, of whom 227 (74 in placebo group, 74 in weekly dupilumab group, and 79 in dupilumab every 2 weeks group) continued into part B-C and were included in the current analysis. 37 patients switched from placebo to weekly dupilumab, and 37 from placebo to dupilumab every 2 weeks; 74 patients continued on weekly dupilumab and 79 continued on dupilumab every 2 weeks. Of the patients who entered part B-C, 75 (33%) were adolescents, 145 (64%) male, 82 (36%) female, and 206 (91%) White. At week 52, 55 (85%) patients in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, 25 (68%) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, 54 (74%) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and 23 (72%) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group achieved a peak oesophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count of 6 eos/hpf or less. Mean percent change from part B baseline in peak eosinophil count was -95·9% (95% CI -96·9 to -94·9) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, -84·2% (-98·3 to -70·2) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, -84·8% (-94·3 to -75·2) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and -91·2% (-95·9 to -86·5) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group at week 52. At week 52, mean change from part B baseline in eosinophilic oesophagitis Histology Scoring System (HSS) grade score was -1·0 point (95% CI -1·1 to -0·9) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group and -0·9 points (-1·0 to -0·8) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group; mean change in eosinophilic oesophagitis HSS stage score was -0·9 points (-1·0 to -0·8) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group and -0·9 points (-1·0 to -0·8) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group. Similar improvements were observed in the every 2 weeks dupilumab groups. Mean absolute change from part B baseline in DSQ score was -30·3 points (95% CI -34·5 to -26·1) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, -27·3 points (-32·1 to -22·4) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, -20·9% (-25·4 to -16·3) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and -23·7% (-29·1 to -18·3) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group at week 52. Mean change from part B baseline in endoscopic reference score was -5·4 points (95% CI -6·1 to -4·6) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, -6·1 points (-7·3 to -4·9) in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, -5·2% (-6·0 to -4·4) in the every 2 weeks dupilumab/every 2 weeks dupilumab group, and -4·3% (-5·4 to -3·1) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group at week 52. During part B-C, one (3%) patient in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group, one (1%) in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group, and one (3%) in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group received rescue medication. One (3%) patient in the placebo/every 2 weeks dupilumab group and one (1%) in the dupilumab every 2 weeks/dupilumab every 2 weeks group underwent a rescue oesophageal dilation procedure. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were injection-site reactions (ten [14%] in the weekly dupilumab/weekly dupilumab group and four [11%] in the placebo/weekly dupilumab group).

INTERPRETATION

Improvements in histological, symptomatic, endoscopic, and molecular features of eosinophilic oesophagitis observed after 24 weeks of weekly dupilumab treatment were maintained or continued to improve to week 52. These findings reinforce the importance of weekly dupilumab, rather than every 2 weeks, for the improvement of symptoms in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic oesophagitis.

FUNDING

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Comparison of viscous budesonide and fluticasone in the treatment of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Steroids are an important pharmacologic treatment in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Fluticasone and budesonide are the 2 main steroid medications used in EOE treatment, but current United States (US) guidelines do not recommend one agent over the other. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare important patient outcomes when both agents are used.

Methods

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was performed from each database's inception to March 29th, 2023. Two independent reviewers systematically identified trials that compared the effect of budesonide vs. fluticasone in the management of EoE. A meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effects model. The primary outcome was the histologic response (defined as an eosinophil count <15 per high-power field) which reflects the response to treatment.

Results

Three studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis, with a total of 272 patients. All studies were carried out in the US and 1 was a randomized controlled trial. Our meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference with the use of budesonide compared to fluticasone in achieving a histologic response (odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 0.77-2.14; P=0.34; I2=0%).

Conclusion

Our systematic review and meta-analysis indicated no difference between budesonide and fluticasone in achieving a histologic response in patients with EoE.

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.

Food elimination diet is a viable alternative therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis responsive to proton pump inhibitors

BACKGROUND

First-line treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) includes monotherapy with proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), food elimination diet (FED), or topical corticosteroids. Current guidelines suggest patients with EoE should continue any responsive first-line monotherapies. However, the efficacy of FED monotherapy in patients with EoE responsive to PPI monotherapy has not been well studied. Our study aimed to investigate how attempting FED monotherapy after experiencing remission of EoE after PPI monotherapy influenced long-term EoE management.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients with EoE responsive to PPI monotherapy who trialed FED monotherapy. We then employed a mixed method approach to a prospective cohort. Selected patients were observed long term for quantitative outcomes, while qualitative results were obtained from patient surveys regarding their perspectives on the trial of FED monotherapy.

RESULTS

We identified 22 patients who trialed FED monotherapy after experiencing remission of EoE following PPI monotherapy. Of these 22 patients, 13 had remission of EoE with FED monotherapy, while 9 had re-activation of EoE. Out of 22 patients, 15 were enrolled in a cohort for observation. No exacerbations of EoE occurred while on maintenance treatment. Most patients stated that they would recommend this process to others with EoE (93.33%) and that trial of FED monotherapy helped them identify a treatment plan that aligned with their lifestyle (80%).

CONCLUSION

Our work shows that FED monotherapy can be an effective alternative for patients with EoE responsive to PPI monotherapy that may improve patient quality of life, suggesting alternative treatment options should be considered for monotherapy-responsive 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).

Poor Adherence to Medical and Dietary Treatments in Adult Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the adherence to prescribed medical and dietary maintenance treatments in a cohort of adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and to identify associated factors.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, adult patients with EoE who were prescribed medical or dietary maintenance therapy were included. Patients were asked to complete questionnaires concerning treatment adherence (Medication Adherence Rating Scale), beliefs about treatment (Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire), beliefs about disease (Illness Perception Questionnaire), and current symptoms (Straumann Dysphagia Index).

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients with EoE (71% males) were included, with a median age of 43 years. The overall prevalence of poor adherence to prescribed treatments (Medication Adherence Rating Scale &lt; 21 or Diet Adherence Rating Scale &lt; 21) in this cohort was high, being 41.8%. Medically treated patients seemed less adherent to prescribed treatment compared with patients prescribed a diet (35.1% vs 41.8%, P = 0.320). Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified the following independent factors associated with poor treatment adherence: age &lt;40 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.571, 95% CI 1.195-5.532, P = 0.016), longer disease duration in years (OR 1.130, 95% CI 1.014-1.258, P = 0.027), severe symptoms (Straumann Dysphagia Index) (OR 1.167, 95% CI 1.012-1.345, P = 0.034), and low necessity beliefs (OR 4.423, 95% CI 2.169-9.016, P &lt; 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Adherence to maintenance treatment is poor in many adult patients with EoE. Clinicians should pay more attention to treatment adherence, particularly in younger patients, and discuss the necessity of treatment.

Loss to Follow-Up and Health Care Utilization After Initial Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disease, but the extent of patient loss to follow-up (LTFU) and health care utilization has not been fully investigated.

AIM

To determine frequency and predictors of LTFU and health care utilization in EoE patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we extracted data from patients with a new diagnosis of EoE. Follow-up time for each patient was calculated as the time from the first diagnostic endoscopy to the last GI-related contact date in the medical record. Patients with and without LTFU were compared, and the volume of EoE-related health care interactions was recorded.

RESULTS

Of 944 EoE cases, 249 (26%) met the definition for LTFU. Major reasons for LTFU were never being scheduled (45%) and inability to contact patients (40%). Factors independently associated with regular follow-up were having insurance (aOR 2.89; 95% CI 1.85-4.50), white race (aOR 2.16; 95% CI 1.37-3.41), and longer symptom length (aOR 1.04 per year; 95% CI 1.01-1.08). At the time of last contact, patients with follow-up had better symptom response (55% vs. 12%; p < 0.001), improved esophageal caliber (14.3 vs. 12.4 mm; p = 0.005), and more histologic response (45% vs. 4% at 15 eos/hpf; p < 0.001). Health care utilization was high, with an average of 4.6 endoscopies and 4.0 clinic visits over the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

LTFU of newly diagnosed EoE cases was common and associated with lack of insurance, non-white race, and shorter symptom duration. Those who followed up had high health care utilization but improved response rates. Strategies are needed to help decrease LTFU in EoE.

Current treatment options and long-term outcomes in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

Dietary and pharmacological (proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical corticosteroids) therapies are effective for induction of clinical and histological remission of eosinophilic esophagitis. However, data evaluating their long-term efficacy and safety is limited.

AREAS COVERED

Since eosinophilic esophagitis is chronic, clinical, endoscopic, and histological features usually recur when successful treatments are stopped. In untreated patients, persistent esophageal eosinophilic inflammation may progress to fibrostenosis over time, giving place to strictures and narrow-caliber esophagi. This article comprehensively reviews available data on long-term maintenance of eosinophilic esophagitis with pharmacological and dietary treatment. It also discusses limitations re: available literature and outlines data gaps on adherence to therapy and monitoring disease activity in the long-term.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence indicates that long-term maintenance therapy may decrease the risk of esophageal stricture, food bolus impaction, and need for dilation in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Further knowledge on eosinophilic esophagitis phenotypes is needed to ascertain who will benefit best from sustained therapy. Unanswered questions include an adequate definition for sustained remission, best strategies for maintenance drugs and diets, enhancement of treatment adherence, and proper monitoring for long-term surveillance.

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.).

Dilation-predominant approach versus routine care in patients with difficult-to-treat eosinophilic esophagitis: a retrospective comparison

BACKGROUND

Little is known about esophageal dilation as a long-term treatment approach for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We examined the impact of a "dilate and wait" strategy on symptom management and safety of patients with EoE.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included two patient groups: those who underwent a dilation-predominant approach (≥ 3 dilations as sole therapy or for histologically refractory disease [> 15 eos/hpf]); and those who had routine care (< 3 dilations or histologic response). Group characteristics were compared and outcomes for the dilation-only group assessed.

RESULTS

53/205 patients (26 %) received the dilation-predominant strategy (total 408 dilations), predominantly for histologic treatment nonresponse (75 %). These patients were younger (33 vs. 41 years; P = 0.003), had a narrower baseline esophageal diameter (9.8 vs. 11.5 mm; P = 0.005), underwent more dilations (7.7 vs. 3.4; P < 0.001), but achieved a smaller final diameter (15.7 vs. 16.7 mm; P = 0.01) vs. routine care. With this strategy, 30 patients (57 %) had ongoing symptom improvement, with esophageal caliber change independently associated with symptom response (adjusted odds ratio 1.79, 95 % confidence interval 1.16-2.78); 26 (49 %) used the strategy as a bridge to clinical trials. Over a median follow-up of 1001 days (interquartile range 581-1710), no deaths or dilation-related perforations occurred, but there were nine emergency room visits, including one for post-dilation bleeding and four for food impaction.

CONCLUSIONS

A dilation-predominant long-term treatment strategy allowed for symptom control or bridge to clinical trials for patients with difficult-to-treat EoE. Close follow-up and monitoring for complications are required.

LIGHT controls distinct homeostatic and inflammatory gene expression profiles in esophageal fibroblasts via differential HVEM and LTβR-mediated mechanisms

Fibroblasts mediate tissue remodeling in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a chronic allergen-driven inflammatory pathology. Diverse fibroblast subtypes with homeostasis-regulating or inflammatory profiles have been recognized in various tissues, but which mediators induce these alternate differentiation states remain largely unknown. We recently identified that TNFSF14/LIGHT promotes an inflammatory esophageal fibroblast in vitro. Herein we used esophageal biopsies and primary fibroblasts to investigate the role of the LIGHT receptors, herpes virus entry mediator (HVEM) and lymphotoxin-beta receptor (LTβR), and their downstream activated pathways, in EoE. In addition to promoting inflammatory gene expression, LIGHT down-regulated homeostatic factors including WNTs, BMPs and type 3 semaphorins. In vivo, WNT2B⁺ fibroblasts were decreased while ICAM-1⁺ and IL-34⁺ fibroblasts were expanded in EoE, suggesting that a LIGHT-driven gene signature was imprinted in EoE versus normal esophageal fibroblasts. HVEM and LTβR overexpression and deficiency experiments demonstrated that HVEM regulates a limited subset of LIGHT targets, whereas LTβR controls all transcriptional effects. Pharmacologic blockade of the non-canonical NIK/p100/p52-mediated NF-κB pathway potently silenced LIGHT's transcriptional effects, with a lesser role found for p65 canonical NF-κB. Collectively, our results show that LIGHT promotes differentiation of esophageal fibroblasts toward an inflammatory phenotype and represses homeostatic gene expression via a LTβR-NIK-p52 NF-κB dominant pathway.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Incidence, Diagnosis, Management, and Future Directions

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an antigen-mediated esophageal disease defined by the presence of esophageal eosinophilia and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. The pathophysiology involves an allergen-driven Th2 T cell response that triggers infiltration of eosinophils into the esophagus leading to inflammation, remodeling, and fibrosis. This results in disruption of esophageal function and accompanying symptoms - most notably dysphagia. Effective therapies target inflammation or fibrostenotic complications and include proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical steroids, dietary exclusion, and dilation. Clinical trials testing promising biologic therapies are ongoing.

Symptom-based diagnostic approach for eosinophilic esophagitis

The prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been increasing in Japan. Although the diagnosis of EoE is based on simple criteria that include the presence of esophageal symptoms and esophageal eosinophilia on biopsies, there are several important issues associated with the diagnostic approach. Following an extensive literature search, the symptoms of 886 EoE cases in Japanese adults were analyzed and divided into three categories as follows: (1) typical symptoms, such as dysphagia (53%); (2) other upper GI symptoms (40%); and (3) no symptoms found during screening or medical examination, i.e., "asymptomatic esophageal eosinophilia" (19%). The diagnostic approach was reviewed according to these categories as well as according to the presence or absence of esophageal eosinophilia. The present manuscript describes the current therapeutic strategy of EoE and ultimately proposes a symptom-based diagnostic approach for EoE.

Eosinophilic esophagitis: updates on key unanswered questions

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a clinicopathologic disease characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and esophageal eosinophilia. In the last decade, there has been a dramatic increase in its prevalence for reasons that are not completely understood. The underlying pathophysiology involves an antigen-mediated T_H 2 immune response that draws eosinophils to the esophagus, causing mucosal inflammation, esophageal remodeling, and fibrosis. This ultimately leads to esophageal dysfunction that most commonly manifests as dysphagia. In this review, we will discuss updates on key questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of EoE.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Update on Diagnosis and Treatment in Pediatric Patients

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorder characterized by symptomatic esophageal dysfunction and an eosinophil-predominant inflammation of the esophagus. EoE arises from interaction between genetic and environmental factors. In pediatric patients, clinical manifestations vary depending on age, from a gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-like condition to severe dysphagic symptoms. Upper endoscopy is considered the gold standard for diagnosis and monitoring of EoE; however, significant efforts are underway to identify noninvasive diagnostic tools and biomarkers to avoid repetitive invasive procedures. Therapeutic first-line options currently available for EoE are elimination diets, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and steroids. The aim of treatment is to improve clinical symptoms while obtaining mucosal healing and avoiding long-term complications. Dietary treatment options comprise different empiric diets or an exclusively amino acid formula. Despite the efficacy of diets, compliance is often challenging. PPIs and topical steroids represent the main pharmacological options for EoE, and both can induce and maintain remission. Topical steroids have been reported as more effective, but data on long-term safety remain insufficient for both these and PPIs. Endoscopic dilations are currently reserved for severe untreated fibrostenotic disease unresponsive to medical therapies. Several biologic agents are available but not yet approved for EoE.

Rapid Recurrence of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity After Successful Treatment in the Observation Phase of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is chronic and recurs if treatment is discontinued. We aimed to determine rates of recurrence, and whether initial treatment with oral viscous budesonide (OVB) resulted in less recurrence than fluticasone from a multidose inhaler (MDI).

METHODS

This was the observation phase of a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing OVB with MDI for initial EoE treatment. Subjects with a histologic response (<15 eosinophils/high-power field) in the trial entered an observation phase in which treatment was discontinued and symptoms were monitored. Patients underwent an endoscopy or a biopsy when symptoms recurred or at 1 year. We analyzed time to symptom recurrence and assessed endoscopic severity and histologic relapse (≥15 eosinophils/high-power field) at follow-up endoscopy.

RESULTS

Thirty-three of the 58 subjects (57%) had symptom recurrence before 1 year. The overall median time to symptom recurrence was 244 days. There was no difference in the rate of symptom recurrence for subjects treated with OVB vs MDI (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.52-2.08). At symptom recurrence, 78% of patients had histologic relapse. The patients had significant increases in mean Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire score (3.8 vs 8.7; P < .001), and the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (1.3 vs 4.6; P < .001) compared with end of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

EoE disease activity recurred rapidly after initial histologic response to topical steroids (either OVB or MDI). Because most subjects had recurrent endoscopic and histologic signs not reliably detected by symptoms, maintenance therapy should be recommended in EoE patients achieving histologic response to topical steroids. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02019758.

Technical review on the management of eosinophilic esophagitis: a report from the AGA institute and the joint task force on allergy-immunology practice parameters

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the esophagus. Many new studies have been reported recently that describe EoE management. An expert panel was convened by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters to provide a technical review to be used as the basis for an updated clinical guideline. This technical review was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Eighteen focused EoE management questions were considered, with 15 answered using the GRADE framework and 3 with a narrative summary. There is moderate certainty in the evidence that topical glucocorticosteroids effectively reduce esophageal eosinophil counts to <15 per high-power field over a short-term treatment period of 4-12 weeks, but very low certainty about the effects of using topical glucocorticosteroids as maintenance therapy. Multiple dietary strategies may be effective in reducing esophageal eosinophil counts to <15 per high-power field over a short-term treatment period, with moderate certainty for elemental diets, low certainty for empiric 2-, 4-, and 6-food elimination diets, and very low certainty that allergy-based testing dietary eliminations have a higher failure rate compared to empiric diet elimination. There is very low certainty for the effect of proton pump inhibitors in patients with esophageal eosinophilia. Although esophageal dilation appears to be relatively safe, there is no evidence that it reduces esophageal eosinophil counts. There is very low certainty in the effects of multiple other medical treatments for EoE: anti-interleukin-5 therapy, anti-interleukin-13 therapy, anti-IgE therapy, montelukast, cromolyn, and anti-TNF therapy.

Technical Review on the Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Report From the AGA Institute and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the esophagus. Many new studies have been reported recently that describe EoE management. An expert panel was convened by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters to provide a technical review to be used as the basis for an updated clinical guideline. This technical review was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Eighteen focused EoE management questions were considered, with 15 answered using the GRADE framework and 3 with a narrative summary. There is moderate certainty in the evidence that topical glucocorticosteroids effectively reduce esophageal eosinophil counts to <15 per high-power field over a short-term treatment period of 4-12 weeks, but very low certainty about the effects of using topical glucocorticosteroids as maintenance therapy. Multiple dietary strategies may be effective in reducing esophageal eosinophil counts to <15 per high-power field over a short-term treatment period, with moderate certainty for elemental diets, low certainty for empiric 2-, 4-, and 6-food elimination diets, and very low certainty that allergy-based testing dietary eliminations have a higher failure rate compared to empiric diet elimination. There is very low certainty for the effect of proton pump inhibitors in patients with esophageal eosinophilia. Although esophageal dilation appears to be relatively safe, there is no evidence that it reduces esophageal eosinophil counts. There is very low certainty in the effects of multiple other medical treatments for EoE: anti-interleukin-5 therapy, anti-interleukin-13 therapy, anti-IgE therapy, montelukast, cromolyn, and anti-TNF therapy.

Esophageal Dysphagia in the Elderly

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With a globally aging population, dysphagia is a growing health concern among elderly. Increasing reflux disease has contributed to an increased prevalence of dysphagia from peptic strictures and esophageal cancer. Dysphagia can lead to malnutrition and aspiration pneumonia, causing considerable morbidity and mortality. This review article focuses on recent advances in the approach and management of esophageal dysphagia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Endoscopic functional luminal imaging probe is a novel test that complements upper endoscopy, esophagram, and esophageal manometry for evaluation of esophageal dysphagia. Opioid induced esophageal dysfunction (OIED) is an emerging clinical entity that can mimic achalasia. Strictures refractory to dilation can be treated with intralesional steroid injections, electrosurgical incision, or esophageal stents. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is gaining in popularity for treatment of achalasia and other spastic disorders of esophagus. Treatment of esophageal dysphagia may include proton pump inhibitors, endoscopic dilation, or surgery and requires a personalized approach based on risks and benefits. POEM is a valuable therapy for achalasia, but further studies are needed to evaluate its use, and other alternatives, for treatment of OIED and spastic esophageal disorders.

Spontaneous transmural perforation in eosinophilic esophagitis: RARE case presentation and role of esophageal stenting

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a rare disease of the esophagus that is characterized by eosinophilic infiltrate within the esophageal mucosa resulting in chronic inflammation and stenosis. It typically presents with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction with dysphagia and food impaction being the most common presenting complaints. Herein we describe a rare case presentation of a young patient with spontaneous esophageal perforation in the setting of undiagnosed EoE. We suggest that the placement of a covered esophageal stent can provide full closure of the perforation and restoration of the integrity of the GI tract without the need for more invasive open repair. The patient had a short recovery time with no reported postoperative complications upon 30 months follow up. We believe that it’s important to consider and rule out EoE in patients with a history of dysphagia and esophageal perforation.

Illuminating Elimination Diets: Controversies Regarding Dietary Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an immune-mediated disease triggered by food antigens for which dietary elimination treatment can induce and sustain histologic remission. Our review aims to describe the state of the art regarding dietary treatment of EoE, highlighting a number of areas of controversy related to dietary therapy in EoE, including novel modalities for determining food triggers, making the empiric dietary elimination process more efficient, issues of cross-contamination and "dosing" of how much food to avoid or add back, costs and effects on quality of life, long-term efficacy, and the risk of developing immediate IgE-type reactions after initial dietary elimination. Elemental formulas, empiric elimination diets, and targeted allergy test-directed elimination diets are well-described treatments for EoE. Although elemental diets are most efficacious, their clinical use is limited by cost and the palatability of an exclusively liquid diet. While empiric elimination is less effective than elemental formula-based diets, they are more easily implemented and often sustainable. Since the comparative effectiveness of elimination diets with proton-pump inhibitors and swallowed topical steroids remains unknown, there are multiple areas to address with future research.

Cost-effective care in eosinophilic esophagitis

OBJECTIVE

To examine costs related to eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), understand the source of these costs, discuss a possible approach for cost-effective care in EoE, and identify areas for future research in this topic.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SELECTIONS

Narrative review of the literature from 1977 (first description of EoE) to March 2019, focusing on costs and cost-effectiveness analyses in EoE.

RESULTS

High costs in EoE can be related to diagnostic delays, requirement for upper endoscopy with biopsy for diagnosis and monitoring of disease activity, expensive medications currently used off-label, increased food costs related to dietary elimination treatment, frequent doctor visits with subspecialists, and complications or disease exacerbations. Provision of cost-effective care in EoE is an understudied area, and a patient-centric approach is key. There are multiple areas in which future research can make an impact. These include determining predictors of treatment response, minimally or noninvasive methods to monitor disease activity, and validation of the use of multidisciplinary care.

CONCLUSION

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is considered to be a rare disease, but the costs of care and burden of disease attributed to EoE are substantial. However, few studies examine either the costs related to EoE or the approach to cost-effective care for the EoE patient. To provide cost-effective care, a patient-centric approach and shared decision-making model are optimal. In addition, a rational strategy for EoE diagnosis and initial treatment, effective maintenance therapy for disease control and ideally to prevent complications, and appropriate long-term monitoring are all required.

A 12-Week Maintenance Therapy with a New Prepared Viscous Budesonide in Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis

BACKGROUND

A new prepared oral viscous budesonide (PVB) has been effective in inducing clinical and histological remission in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of a 12-week maintenance therapy on clinical, endoscopic, and histological remission using half of the dose used in the induction therapy.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled pediatric patients with active EoE. After 12 weeks of induction therapy with PVB (< 150 cm: 2 mg/day; ≥ 150 cm: 4 mg/day) patients received a maintenance dose of half of the dose used in the induction therapy (1 mg or 2 mg) for another 12 weeks. A 12-week follow-up was then performed in all patients after the end of therapy. Endoscopy was performed at weeks 0, 12, 24, and 36. Symptoms, endoscopy, and histology scores were also calculated. Serum cortisol was evaluated during the treatment period.

RESULTS

We enrolled 20 children (15 males; median age 10 years; range 4-17). After the 12-week induction therapy 18 patients (90%) were in remission, with a significant decrease in the median peak of eosinophil count/HPF as well as a marked reduction in clinical, endoscopic, and histological scores (p < 0.01). At the end of the maintenance therapy (week 24), 17 patients (85%) were still in remission, while there were only 9 at week 36 (45%). No significant changes in cortisol levels were observed during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The 12-week maintenance treatment with the half the dose of PVB was effective in sustaining remission at week 24; however, no reduction in the rate of relapse after suspension of treatment occurred.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis and the Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases: Approach to Diagnosis and Management

The eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) represent disorders of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract that result from the local infiltration and aberrant activity of eosinophils and other immune cells. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well-characterized EGID and is defined by the presence of intraepithelial eosinophils in the esophagus (≥15 eosinophils per high-powered field) and clinical symptoms associated with esophageal dysfunction. The other EGIDs are rare and lack strong data regarding pathogenesis and management. The incidence and prevalence of EoE are increasing, and EoE is now a major cause of upper GI morbidity. Management is multidisciplinary, with collaboration between gastroenterologists, allergists, pathologists, and dieticians, and is aimed at amelioration of symptoms and prevention of long-term complications such as esophageal stricture. Treatment options for EoE include proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical corticosteroids, and elimination diets. Esophageal dilation is used when esophageal strictures or fibrostenotic changes are present. Additional therapies targeting eosinophils and other mediators of Th2 inflammation are under development and are promising. Treatment options for other EGIDs typically involve corticosteroids or dietary elimination.

Long-term Treatment With Proton Pump Inhibitors Is Effective in Children With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

OBJECTIVES

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-responsive eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is frequently observed in children, but data on long-term treatment are scarce. The objective of this study is to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of PPIs in children with EoE.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled children with EoE and histological remission to an 8-week esomeprazole trial (1 mg/kg/dose, twice daily). Esomeprazole was maintained at 1 mg/kg/day for 1 year. Symptom recurrence and adverse events were monitored and a follow-up endoscopy was performed at 12 months. Complete histological remission was defined as ≤5 eosinophils/high-power field (eos/hpf), and partial histological remission as >5 and <15 eos/hpf. Patients had no concomitant dietary restrictions or topical steroid.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven children were included. Histological remission on maintenance PPI therapy was present in 40 children (70.1%; 95% CI 56.5-81.5). Long-term remission rate was higher in children with initial complete histological remission than in those with partial remission (81% vs 50%, P = 0.014). Forty-nine children (86%) remained asymptomatic. Pretreatment clinical and histological findings and median PPI dose/kg/day were similar between relapsers and nonrelapsers. Eleven out of 12 children (91.6%) receiving esomeprazole 0.5 mg · kg ·  day for 12 additional months remained in remission. Mild and transient side effects without requiring PPI avoidance were observed in 5 children.

CONCLUSIONS

Up to 70% of children with PPI-responsive EoE remain in histological and clinical remission on a low-dose maintenance treatment at 1-year follow-up, with adequate safety profile. Complete histological remission to an 8-week PPI trial was associated with higher probability of histological remission on maintenance therapy.

An Evolving Approach to the Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic allergic/ immune-mediated esophageal disease. Knowledge related to the clinical presentation, pathogenesis, epidemiology, natural history, treatment, and outcomes of EoE has rapidly evolved over the past 2 decades. This article focuses on the similarly evolving diagnostic framework for EoE. In the initial clinical guidelines, diagnosis of EoE was based on symptoms of esophageal dysfunction; at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) on esophageal biopsy; and either a lack of response to high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, or normal pH monitoring. The first 2 criteria have remained largely unchanged; however, the role of PPIs has been controversial, particularly due to the recognition of PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE), in which patients with suspected EoE experience resolution of symptoms and esophageal eosinophilia with PPI therapy. A quickly expanding evidence base has found that most adult patients with EoE and PPI-REE share similar clinical, endoscopic, histologic, immunologic, and molecular characteristics prior to the use of PPIs. Because of this, the most recent diagnostic guidelines have removed the lack of response to PPIs as a diagnostic criterion; PPIs are now better considered as a treatment for esophageal eosinophilia. EoE should currently be suspected on a clinical basis when there are symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and at least 15 eos/hpf on esophageal biopsies. A history of atopy and endoscopic signs of EoE are strongly supportive of the diagnosis. However, the diagnosis cannot be confirmed until a thorough evaluation of other potential causes of esophageal eosinophilia has been performed.

Systematic review: adrenal insufficiency secondary to swallowed topical corticosteroids in eosinophilic oesophagitis

BACKGROUND

Swallowed topical corticosteroids are prescribed for eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), but there is a theoretical risk of adrenal insufficiency from their use.

AIMS

To determine if the use of topical corticosteroids to treat EoE is associated with the development of adrenal insufficiency.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review of the published literature from January 1, 1950 to April 1, 2017 using Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central. Studies and meeting abstracts were included that described patients with EoE who received swallowed topical corticosteroids and any investigation for adrenal insufficiency.

RESULTS

The search revealed 1610 unique publications, and 17 met inclusion criteria. There were 7 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 6 prospective observational studies, 3 retrospective observational studies, and 1 case report. Cortisol measurements were performed on 596 individuals with EoE who received topical corticosteroids. Adrenal testing was abnormal, as defined by each study, in 94/596 patients (crude rate of 15.8%). Only 2 studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, being randomised controlled trials that estimated adrenal insufficiency in the active treatment and placebo groups, before and after treatment. None of the seven randomised controlled trials demonstrated statistically significantly different rates of adrenal insufficiency between topical corticosteroid and placebo over treatment intervals of 2-12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Topical corticosteroids were associated with adrenal insufficiency in a minority of patients. Most cases came from uncontrolled observational studies, with widely varying definitions of adrenal insufficiency. Longer follow-up and larger controlled studies are needed to quantify the risk of adrenal insufficiency with maintenance topical corticosteroid therapy in EoE.