Budesonide Oral Suspension Improves Outcomes in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Results from a Phase 3 Trial

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Optimal Assessment, Treatment, and Monitoring of Adults with Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Strategies to Improve Outcomes

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic type 2 inflammation-mediated disease characterized by an eosinophil-predominant inflammation of the esophagus and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. Relevant treatment outcomes in the setting of EoE include the improvement of histology, symptoms, and endoscopy findings, quality of life (QoL), and the psychological burden of the disease. Established validated tools for the assessment of EoE include questionnaires on dysphagia and QoL (ie, DSQ, EEsAI, and EoE-IQ). More recently, esophageal symptom-specific anxiety and hypervigilance, assessed using the esophageal hypervigilance and anxiety scale (EHAS), have emerged as contributors to disease burden, confirming the importance of psychological aspects in EoE patients. The EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS) is the only validated endoscopy score in EoE and can quantify mucosal disease burden. However, esophageal panometry using the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) and high-resolution manometry (HRM) have shown potential to optimize the assessment of fibrostenotic features of EoE, providing novel insights into the pathophysiology of symptoms. There is a growing number of licenced and off-label therapeutic options in EoE, with various randomized controlled trials demonstrating the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors, topical steroids, food elimination diets, biological drugs, and esophageal dilatation. However, standardized optimal management strategies of EoE are currently lacking. In this review, we provide an overview of established and novel assessment tools in EoE including patient reported outcomes, FLIP panometry, HRM, endoscopy, and histology outcome measures to improve the outcomes of EoE patients. In addition, we summarize available therapeutic options for EoE based on the most recent evidence.

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.

Eosinophilic esophagitis: Current concepts in diagnosis and management

ABSTRACT

Eosinophilic esophagitis is an antigen-mediated chronic inflammatory disorder that has risen in incidence and prevalence over the past 2 decades. The clinical presentation is variable and consists of mainly esophageal symptoms such as dysphagia, heartburn, food impaction, and vomiting. Current management relies on dietary elimination, proton-pump inhibitors, and topical corticosteroids with different response rates and relapses after treatment discontinuation. With a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology, many molecules emerged recently as targeted treatment including dupilumab (IL4/IL13 blocker), as the first FDA-approved biological treatment, which has changed the management paradigm.

Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Oral Viscous Budesonide in Paediatric Patients with Eosinophilic Oesophagitis in Repaired Oesophageal Atresia

Eosinophilic oesophagitis is a long-term complication of oesophageal atresia (EA), an uncommon condition that affects approximately 1 in 3500 infants. An exploratory, open-label phase 2 clinical trial was conducted in paediatric eosinophilic oesophagitis after oesophageal atresia (EoE-EA) to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of oral viscous budesonide (OVB). In total, eight patients were enrolled in the study and assigned to a twice-daily dosing regimen of either 0.8 or 1 mg OVB, depending on age and height, administered for 12 weeks. OVB was safe and effective in the treatment of EoE-EA. The current investigation focuses on the pharmacokinetics of budesonide and the impact of an oral viscous formulation on its absorption and bioavailability. Using a non-linear mixed effects approach, two distinct absorption profiles were identified, despite marked interindividual variability in drug concentrations. Budesonide exposure was higher than previously reported in children following oral inhalation. Even though no significant effect has been observed on serum cortisol levels, future studies should consider exploring different doses, schedules, and/or treatment durations, as there may be an opportunity to reduce the risk of cortisol suppression.

Dupilumab Improves Health-Related Quality of Life and a Range of Symptoms in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

Improvements in symptomatic experience and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are among the most important treatment benefits in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We assessed the impact of dupilumab treatment on HRQoL, patients' impression of dysphagia, and symptoms beyond dysphagia in adults/adolescents (≥12 years) with EoE in parts A and B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET (NCT03633617) study.

METHODS

The EoE Symptom Questionnaire (EoE-SQ; frequency and severity of nondysphagia symptoms), EoE Impact Questionnaire (impact of EoE on HRQoL), and Patient Global Impression of Severity and Patient Global Impression of Change of dysphagia were used to assess the efficacy of weekly dupilumab 300 mg vs placebo.

RESULTS

At week 24, dupilumab reduced EoE-SQ Frequency (least squares mean difference vs placebo [95% confidence interval] part A -1.7 [-2.9, -0.5], part B -1.4 [-2.3, -0.5]; both P < 0.01) and EoE-SQ Severity (part A -2.0 [-3.9, 0.0], P < 0.05, part B -1.5 [-3.0, 0.1], P = 0.07) overall scores, and improved scores across all individual items. Improvement in the dupilumab group was clinically meaningful to patients. Dupilumab also meaningfully improved EoE Impact Questionnaire average scores and improved individual item scores at week 24, particularly emotional and sleep disturbance. More dupilumab-treated patients reported improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change of dysphagia vs placebo or reported having no symptoms per the Patient Global Impression of Severity of dysphagia at week 24.

DISCUSSION

Dupilumab reduced the impact of EoE on multiple aspects of HRQoL, patients' impression of dysphagia, and frequency and severity of symptoms beyond dysphagia in adults/adolescents with EoE.

Eosinophil Depletion with Benralizumab for Eosinophilic Esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is an eosinophil-depleting anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody. The efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis are unclear.

METHODS

In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients 12 to 65 years of age with symptomatic and histologically active eosinophilic esophagitis in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous benralizumab (30 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks. The two primary efficacy end points were histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the score on the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ; range, 0 to 84, with higher scores indicating more frequent or severe dysphagia) at week 24.

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients underwent randomization: 104 were assigned to receive benralizumab, and 107 were assigned to receive placebo. At week 24, more patients had a histologic response with benralizumab than with placebo (87.4% vs. 6.5%; difference, 80.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 72.9 to 88.8; P<0.001). However, the change from baseline in the DSQ score did not differ significantly between the two groups (difference in least-squares means, 3.0 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 7.4; P = 0.18). There was no substantial between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, which reflects endoscopic abnormalities. Adverse events were reported in 64.1% of the patients in the benralizumab group and in 61.7% of those in the placebo group. No patients discontinued the trial because of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial involving patients 12 to 65 years of age with eosinophilic esophagitis, a histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) occurred in significantly more patients in the benralizumab group than in the placebo group. However, treatment with benralizumab did not result in fewer or less severe dysphagia symptoms than placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MESSINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04543409.).

Histological Outcomes of Pharmacological Interventions in Eosinophilic Esophagitis for Adults and Children: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Multiple pharmacological interventions have been studied for managing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We performed a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials (RCT) to assess the efficacy and safety of these interventions in EoE in adults and children.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive review of Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE OVID, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science through May 10, 2023. We performed frequentist approach network meta-analysis using random effects model. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 25 RCTs with 25 discrete interventions and 2067 patients. Compared with placebo, the following interventions improved histology (using study definitions) in decreasing order on ranking: orodispersible budesonide (ODB) low dose, ODB high dose, oral viscous budesonide (OVB) high dose, fluticasone tablet 1.5 mg twice daily, fluticasone 3 mg twice daily, esomeprazole, dupilumab every 2 weeks, dupilumab weekly, OVB medium dose, fluticasone 3 mg daily, cendakimab 180 mg, prednisone, swallowed fluticasone, fluticasone tablet 1.5 mg daily, OVB low dose, reslizumab 3 mg/kg, reslizumab 1 mg/kg, and reslizumab 2 mg/kg.

CONCLUSIONS

Network meta-analysis demonstrates histological efficacy of multiple medications for EoE. Because of the heterogeneity and large effect size, we recommend more trials comparing pharmacotherapeutic interventions with each other and placebo. An important limitation of this study is absence of clinical efficacy data due to insufficient data. Other limitations include heterogeneity of operator, population, and outcome analysis.

Histopathology of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Microscopic examination of esophageal biopsies is essential to diagnose eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Eosinophil inflammation is the basis for the diagnosis, but additional abnormalities may contribute to persistent symptoms and epithelial barrier dysfunction. Both peak eosinophil count and assessments of additional features should be included in pre-therapy and post-therapy pathology reports. Pathologic abnormalities identified in esophageal biopsies of EoE are reversible in contrast to esophageal strictures.

Pharmacologic Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

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

Endoscopic Features of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures (EREFS) represent the major endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The Endoscopic Reference System (EREFS) grading system is easy to learn and apply during daily clinical practice in the diagnosis and follow-up of EoE patients. When endoscopy is performed by an EoE-experienced physician, the EREFS criteria will identify the majority of EoE patients. The EREFS score from the area of greatest involvement of the esophagus should be reported. The EREFS grading system was formally validated as an endoscopy score and several randomized placebo-controlled trials have shown responsiveness of the EREFS score to therapeutic interventions.

Assessment of the Severity and the Remission Criteria in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an immune-mediated disease that manifests with dysphagia and is characterized by the predominantly eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa. Several instruments have been developed to assess the symptoms of EoE: the Daily Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ), EoE Activity Index (EEsAI), Pediatric EoE Symptom Severity (PEESSv2), etc. The use of the EREFS is a gold standard for endoscopic diagnosis. The EoE histologic scoring system (EoEHSS) was elaborated for the assessment of histological features in EoE. However, the remission criteria are not clearly defined and vary greatly in different studies. Gastroenterologists establish the severity of EoE mainly based on endoscopic findings. At the same time, EoE requires a multidisciplinary approach. The recently developed Index of Severity of Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE) that is built on symptoms, endoscopic findings, and histological features is promising.

Treatment of Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Traditional and Novel Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

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.

Qualitative assessment of the suitability of the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire to monitor dysphagia in children aged 7-10 years with eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND

The Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) is a patient-reported outcome measure that assesses the frequency and severity of dysphagia in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE); however, it has only been validated for use in patients with EoE aged 11-40 years. This study examined the content validity of the DSQ and its usability on an electronic handheld device in children aged 7-10 years with EoE.

METHODS

In this qualitative, observational cohort study, participants were recruited to partake in two rounds of interviews. During visit 1, a cognitive interview examined EoE-associated concepts and the appropriateness of the DSQ for assessing dysphagia. Participants completed the DSQ daily for 2 weeks, and DSQ scores were calculated. After 2 weeks, a second interview assessed the usability of the DSQ on the electronic device and the burden associated with completing it daily.

RESULTS

Overall, 16 participants were included (aged 7-8 years: n = 8; aged 9-10 years: n = 8); most were male (75%) and white (81%), and the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 8.4 (1.3) years. The most commonly reported EoE-associated concept was 'trouble with swallowing' (63% [10/16]). Most participants reported that the questions were 'easy to complete' and 'relevant to someone with EoE and dysphagia'. Overall, participants reported understanding the questions and associated responses; however, further probing demonstrated inconsistent comprehension. Key challenging concepts included 'solid food', 'trouble swallowing', 'vomit', and 'relief'; some participants also reported difficulty differentiating between pain levels (31% [4/13]). Most caregivers reported that their child had experienced dysphagia (94% [15/16]); however, mean (SD) DSQ scores over the study period were low (7.3 [7.4]), suggesting infrequent and mild dysphagia, or a lack of comprehension of the questions. Most participants reported that completing the DSQ on the electronic device was easy (93% [14/15]) and they would be willing to complete it for longer than 2 weeks (73% [11/15]).

CONCLUSIONS

Difficulties with comprehension and comprehensiveness suggest that the DSQ may not be sufficiently comprehensive for use in all patients in this population, and wording/phrasing changes are required before use in a clinical trial setting.

Mepolizumab for treatment of adolescents and adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine whether mepolizumab, an anti-IL-5 antibody, was more effective than placebo for improving dysphagia symptoms and decreasing oesophageal eosinophil counts in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE).

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial. In the first part, patients aged 16-75 with EoE and dysphagia symptoms (per EoE Symptom Activity Index (EEsAI)) were randomised 1:1 to 3 months of mepolizumab 300 mg monthly or placebo. Primary outcome was change in EEsAI from baseline to month 3 (M3). Secondary outcomes included histological, endoscopic and safety metrics. In part 2, patients initially randomised to mepolizumab continued 300 mg monthly for 3 additional months (mepo/mepo), placebo patients started mepolizumab 100 mg monthly (pbo/mepo), and outcomes were reassessed at month 6 (M6).

RESULTS

Of 66 patients randomised, 64 completed M3, and 56 completed M6. At M3, EEsAI decreased 15.4±18.1 with mepolizumab and 8.3±18.0 with placebo (p=0.14). Peak eosinophil counts decreased more with mepolizumab (113±77 to 36±43) than placebo (146±94 to 160±133) (p<0.001). With mepolizumab, 42% and 34% achieved histological responses of <15 and ≤6 eos/hpf compared with 3% and 3% with placebo (p<0.001 and 0.02). The change in EoE Endoscopic Reference Score at M3 was also larger with mepolizumab. At M6, EEsAI decreased 18.3±18.1 points for mepo/mepo and 18.6±19.2 for pbo/mepo (p=0.85). The most common adverse events were injection-site reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab did not achieve the primary endpoint of improving dysphagia symptoms compared with placebo. While eosinophil counts and endoscopic severity improved with mepolizumab at 3 months, longer treatment did not yield additional improvement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03656380.

Review of Non-Eosinophilic Esophagitis-Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease (Non-EoE-EGID) and a Case Series of Twenty-Eight Affected Patients

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease (EGID) is divided into eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and non-eosinophilic esophagitis eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease (non-EoE-EGID) based on the involved gastrointestinal segments. Reports regarding non-EoE-EGID are limited, in part because of its rarity. The present study was performed to review non-EoE-EGID, including its pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Additionally, details regarding 28 cases of non-EoE-EGID recently diagnosed at our Japanese tertial medical center are presented and compared with 20 EoE cases diagnosed during the same period at the same medical center. Comparisons of the two groups clarified differences regarding age- and gender-dependent prevalence between the two conditions, and also showed that systemic involvement and disease severity were greater in the non-EoE-EGID patients. Notably, diagnosis of non-EoE-EGID is difficult because of its lack of specific or characteristic symptoms and endoscopic findings. The clinical characteristics of EoE and non-EoE-EGID differ in many ways, while they also share several genetic, clinical, laboratory, and histopathological features.

Validation of Epigenetic Markers for the Prediction of Response to Topical Corticosteroid Treatment in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

We previously identified 18 CpG methylation biomarkers associated with treatment response to topical corticosteroids (tCS) in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). In this study, in an independent cohort, we assessed the validity of these CpG sites as treatment response biomarkers.

METHODS

DNA was extracted from prospectively biobanked esophageal biopsies from patients with newly diagnosed EoE enrolled in a randomized trial of 2 tCS formulations. Histologic response was defined as <15 eosinophils per high-power field. Pretreatment DNA methylation was assayed on the Illumina Human MethylationEPIC BeadChip. Logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses, adjusting for chip, position on the chip, age, sex, and baseline eosinophil count, were computed to test for an association between DNA methylation and treatment response at the 18 previously identified CpG sites.

RESULTS

We analyzed 88 patients (58 histologic responders, 30 nonresponders), with a mean age of 38 ± 16 years, 64% male, 97% White race. Of the 18 CpG sites, 13 met quality control criteria, and 3 were associated with responder status ( P < 0.012), including sites within UNC5B (cg26152017), ITGA6 (cg01044293), and LRRC8A (cg13962589). All 3 showed evidence of reduced methylation in treatment responders, consistent with the original discovery associations. The predictive probability for nonresponse with all 3 CpG sites was strong (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.79).

DISCUSSION

We validated epigenetic biomarkers (CpG methylation sites) for the prediction of tCS response in patients with EoE in an independent population. While not all previously identified markers replicated, 3 demonstrated a relatively high predictive probability for response to treatment and hold promise for guiding tCS treatment in EoE.

Monitoring Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Routine Clinical Practice - International Expert Recommendations

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are no studies or recommendations on optimal monitoring strategies for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Our objective was to develop guidance on how to monitor patients with EoE in routine clinical practice, on the basis of available clinical evidence and expert opinion.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary, international group of EoE experts identified the following important 3 questions during several consensus meetings: why, by what means, and when to monitor patients with EoE. A steering committee was named, and 3 teams were formed to review literature and to formulate statements for each topic. In a Delphi survey, a level of agreement of ≥75% was defined as threshold value for acceptance. In a final conference, results were presented, critical points and comments on the statements were discussed, and statements were rephrased/rewritten if necessary.

RESULTS

Eighteen EoE experts (14 adult and pediatric gastroenterologists, 2 pathologists and 2 allergists) with a median of 21.7 years in clinical practice, mostly academic or university-based, completed the Delphi survey, which included 11 statements and a proposed algorithm for monitoring patients with EoE. Each statement attained ≥75% agreement. Participants discussed and debated mostly about the statement concerning surveillance intervals for EoE patients with stable disease.

CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded that effective maintenance treatment probably reduces the development of EoE complications, and regular, structured, and, under certain conditions, individualized clinical follow-up is recommended to assess disease activity while opening a window to monitoring side effects, adjusting therapy, and encouraging adherence to treatment. Follow-up should comprise symptom assessment and periodic or repeated endoscopy with histological assessment in specific EoE settings.

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.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histologic Scoring System: Correlation with Histologic, Endoscopic, and Symptomatic Disease and Clinical Use

BACKGROUND

The eosinophilic esophagitis histologic scoring system (EoEHSS) was developed to enhance the diagnostic standard of peak eosinophil count (PEC) in evaluating disease activity in EoE.

AIMS

(1) Correlate the EoEHSS and PEC to measures of symptomatic and endoscopic disease activity, (2) Correlate EoEHSS grade and stage subcomponents to clinical, radiology, and endoscopic markers of fibrotic disease, (3) Evaluate EoEHSS remission in asymptomatic patients with PEC < 15 eosinophils per high powered field (eos/hpf).

METHODS

Secondary analysis of prospective cohort data of 22 patients with EoE that underwent dietary therapy and endoscopy at 3 time points. Active disease was defined by EoEHSS grade or stage > 0.125, symptomatic disease by EoE symptom activity index > 20, endoscopic disease by endoscopic reference score > 2, and histologic disease by PEC ≥ 15 eos/hpf. EoEHSS remission was defined by esophageal inflammation (EI) grade of 0-1, EI stage of 0, total grade ≤ 3, and total stage ≤ 3.

RESULTS

EoEHSS grade and stage did not correlate with symptomatic disease but did with endoscopic and histologic disease. PEC showed similar correlation pattern. Abnormal grade and stage had strong sensitivity (87-100%) but poor specificity (11-36%) to detect symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic disease activity. Lamina propria fibrosis was evaluated in 36% of biopsies and did not correlate with minimum esophageal diameter. Out of 14 patients who were in complete symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic remission, 8 met criteria for EoEHSS remission.

CONCLUSION

The positive and negative correlations of EoEHSS to specific measures of symptomatic, histologic, and endoscopic activity suggest that it provides complementary information in EoE.

Oral Viscous Budesonide in Children With Eosinophilic Esophagitis After Repaired Esophageal Atresia: A Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

A high prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been reported in children with repaired esophageal atresia (EA). Topical steroids proved to be an effective and safe therapy in EoE, although not approved in pediatrics. We report the results of the first clinical trial of oral viscous budesonide (OVB) performed in children with EoE after repaired esophageal atresia (EoE-EA).

METHODS

This open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial with randomized pharmacokinetic sampling, was conducted at the Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital between September 2019 and June 2021. EoE-EA patients received an age-banded dose of OVB twice daily for 12 weeks and were endoscopically evaluated. The primary endpoint was the rate of patients achieving histological remission. Secondary endpoints included clinical and endoscopic benefit after treatment, and safety assessments.

RESULTS

Eight consecutive EA-EoE patients were enrolled (median age 9.1 years, interquartile range 5.5). Of these, 5 received 0.8 mg and 3 received 1.0 mg twice daily of OVB. Histological remission was obtained in all but 1 patient (87.5%). The clinical score showed significant improvement at the end of treatment in all patients. No endoscopic features of EoE were found after treatment. No treatment-emergent adverse event occurred.

CONCLUSION

OVB is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated formulation of budesonide for use in pediatric patients with EoE-EA.

Variability in Swallowed Topical Corticosteroid Practice Patterns for Treatment of Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Given the variety of preparations and lack of standardization of swallowed topical corticosteroids (STC) for treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), we sought to better understand STC prescribing practices of pediatric gastroenterologists. A 12-question survey was distributed to members of North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Special Interest Group and responses were analyzed. Forty-two of 68 physicians responded. Oral viscous budesonide (OVB) was overall first choice STC in 31 (74%) survey respondents, with OVB most frequently utilized in patients under 5 years old and fluticasone propionate in patients 13-18 years old. Nineteen types of mixing vehicles were used for OVB preparation, the 3 most frequent being sucralose, honey, and artificial maple syrup. Insurance coverage, cost, and patient compliance were most frequently cited barriers to STC use. Highly variable STC prescribing practices reported by this group highlights the need for standardization of STC treatment in EoE.

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background and study aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Pre-treatment differential correlation of gene expression and response to topical steroids in eosinophilic esophagitis

Few predictors of response to topical corticosteroid (tCS) treatment have been identified in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to determine whether baseline gene expression predicts histologic response to tCS treatment for EoE. We analyzed prospectively collected samples from incident EoE cases who were treated with tCS for 8 weeks in a development cohort (prospective study) or in an independent validation cohort (clinical trial). Whole transcriptome RNA expression was determined from a baseline (pre-treatment) RNA-later preserved esophageal biopsy. Baseline expression was compared between histologic responders (<15 eos/hpf) and non-responders (≥15 eos/hpf), and differential correlation was used to assess baseline gene expression by response status. In 87 EoE cases analyzed in the development set, there were no differentially expressed genes associated with treatment response (at false discovery rate = 0.1). However, differential correlation identified a module of 22 genes with statistically significantly high pairwise correlation in non-responders (mean correlation coefficient = 0.7) compared to low correlation in responders (coefficient = 0.3). When this 22-gene module was applied to the 89 EoE cases in the independent cohort, it was not validated to predict tCS response at the 15 eos/hpf threshold (mean correlation coefficient = 0.32 in responders and 0.25 in nonresponders). Exploration of other thresholds also did not validate any modules. Though we identified a 22 gene differential correlation module measured pre-treatment that was strongly associated with subsequent histologic response to tCS in EoE, this was not validated in an independent population. Alternative methods to predict steroid response should be explored.

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).

Differences between childhood- and adulthood-onset eosinophilic esophagitis: An analysis from the EoE connect registry

BACKGROUND

Direct comparisons of childhood- and adulthood-onset eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are scarce.

AIM

To compare disease characteristics, endoscopic and histological features, allergic concomitances and therapeutic choices across ages.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of the EoE CONNECT registry.

RESULTS

The adulthood-onset cohort (those diagnosed at ≥18y) comprised 1044 patients and the childhood-onset cohort (patients diagnosed at <18 y), 254. Vomiting, nausea, chest and abdominal pain, weight loss, slow eating and food aversion were significantly more frequent in children; dysphagia, food bolus impaction and heartburn predominated in adults. A family history of EoE was present in 16% of pediatric and 8.2% of adult patients (p<0.001). Concomitant atopic diseases did not vary across ages. Median±IQR diagnostic delay (years) from symptom onset was higher in adults (2.7 ± 6.1) than in children (1 ± 2.1; p<0.001). Esophageal strictures and rings predominated in adults (p<0.001), who underwent esophageal dilation more commonly (p = 0.011). Inflammatory EoE phenotypes were more common in children (p = 0.001), who also presented higher eosinophil counts in biopsies (p = 0.015) and EREFS scores (p = 0.017). Despite PPI predominating as initial therapy in all cohorts, dietary therapy and swallowed topical corticosteroids were more frequently prescribed in children (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Childhood-onset EoE has differential characteristics compared with adulthood-onset, but similar response to treatment.

Mechanisms and clinical management of eosinophilic oesophagitis: an overview

Since the first description of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) less than three decades ago, we have observed a striking increase in the number of patients diagnosed with EoE and the understanding of its clinical and immunopathogenic background. Nonetheless, a plethora of open questions await elucidation. In this Review, we discuss the current state of knowledge regarding the underlying mechanisms, particularly environmental factors and their interaction with genetic susceptibility. Subsequently, we discuss how to translate these factors into the diagnostic and therapeutic management of this chronic, immune-mediated disorder. Finally, we dissect the still long list of unmet needs, such as reasons for and handling refractory EoE and atypical clinical presentations. These open questions can guide us through future research steps and potentially foster reconsideration of the diagnostic guidelines of EoE.

Dietary and Nutritional Support in Gastrointestinal Diseases of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract (I): Esophagus

The esophagus is the centerpiece of the digestive system of individuals and plays an essential role in transporting swallowed nutrients to the stomach. Diseases of the esophagus can alter this mechanism either by causing anatomical damage that obstructs the lumen of the organ (e.g., peptic, or eosinophilic stricture) or by generating severe motility disorders that impair the progression of the alimentary bolus (e.g., severe dysphagia of neurological origin or achalasia). In all cases, nutrient assimilation may be compromised. In some cases (e.g., ingestion of corrosive agents), a hypercatabolic state is generated, which increases resting energy expenditure. This manuscript reviews current clinical guidelines on the dietary and nutritional management of esophageal disorders such as severe oropharyngeal dysphagia, achalasia, eosinophilic esophagitis, lesions by caustics, and gastroesophageal reflux disease and its complications (Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinoma). The importance of nutritional support in improving outcomes is also highlighted.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT03191864.

Endoscopic approach to eosinophilic esophagitis: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Consensus Conference

Endoscopy plays a critical role in caring for and evaluating the patient with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Endoscopy is essential for diagnosis, assessment of response to therapy, treatment of esophageal strictures, and ongoing monitoring of patients in histologic remission. To date, less-invasive testing for identifying or grading EoE severity has not been established, whereas diagnostic endoscopy as integral to both remains the criterion standard. Therapeutic endoscopy in patients with adverse events of EoE may also be required. In particular, dilation may be essential to treat and attenuate progression of the disease in select patients to minimize further fibrosis and stricture formation. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, a group of 20 expert clinicians and investigators in EoE were assembled to provide guidance for the use of endoscopy in EoE. Through an iterative process, the group achieved consensus on 20 statements yielding comprehensive advice on tissue-sampling standards, gross assessment of disease activity, use and performance of endoscopic dilation, and monitoring of disease, despite an absence of high-quality evidence. Key areas of controversy were identified when discussions yielded an inability to reach agreement on the merit of a statement. We expect that with ongoing research, higher-quality evidence will be obtained to enable creation of a guideline for these issues. We further anticipate that forthcoming expert-generated and agreed-on statements will provide valuable practice advice on the role and use of endoscopy in patients with EoE.

Disease Burden and Unmet Need in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease of increasing prevalence, characterized by symptoms of dysphagia and reduced quality of life. A dysregulated type 2 immune response to food and aeroallergen leads to barrier dysfunction, chronic esophageal inflammation, remodeling, and fibrosis. Patients with EoE have impaired quality of life because of dysphagia and other symptoms. They may also suffer social and psychological implications of food-related illness and expensive out-of-pocket costs associated with treatment. Disease burden in EoE is often compounded by the presence of comorbid type 2 inflammatory diseases. Current conventional treatments include elimination diet, proton pump inhibitors, and swallowed topical corticosteroids, as well as esophageal dilation in patients who have developed strictures. These treatments demonstrate variable response rates and may not always provide long-term disease control. There is an unmet need for long-term histologic, endoscopic, and symptomatic disease control; for targeted therapies that can normalize the immune response to triggers, reduce chronic inflammation, and limit or prevent remodeling and fibrosis; and for earlier diagnosis, defined treatment outcomes, and a greater understanding of patient perspectives on treatment. In addition, healthcare professionals need a better understanding of the patient perspective on disease burden, the disconnect between symptoms and disease activity, and the progressive nature of EoE and the need for continuous monitoring and maintenance treatment. In this review, we explore the progression of disease over the patient's lifespan, highlight the patient perspective on disease, and discuss the unmet need for effective long-term treatments.

Pharmacokinetics of Budesonide Oral Suspension in Children and Adolescents With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

The pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) was evaluated during a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study in pediatric patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) (MPI 101-01/NCT00762073). Non-compartmental methods were used to calculate PK parameters in 37 patients after receiving morning doses of BOS, with volume and dose adjusted for age (low dose: 0.35 or 0.5 mg; high dose: 1.4 or 2.0 mg [2-9 or 10-18 years old, respectively]). Relationships between apparent oral clearance and volume of distribution, and bodyweight and body mass index were also evaluated. Budesonide systemic exposure increased with BOS dose. After oral administration, time to maximum plasma budesonide concentration occurred ~1 hour post dose and the half-life of budesonide was 3.3-3.5 hours. PK parameters were similar between age groups for low- and high-dose BOS, indicating that volume and dose adjustments for age were appropriate for pediatric patients with EoE. BOS was well tolerated.

A Clinical Severity Index for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Development, Consensus, and Future Directions

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Disease activity and severity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) dictate therapeutic options and management, but the decision-making process for determining severity varies among practitioners. To reduce variability in practice patterns and help clinicians monitor the clinical course of the disease in an office setting, we aimed to create an international consensus severity scoring index for EoE.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary international group of adult and pediatric EoE researchers and clinicians, as well as non-EoE allergy immunology and gastroenterology experts, formed 3 teams to review the existing literature on histology, endoscopy, and symptoms of EoE in the context of progression and severity. A steering committee convened a 1-day virtual meeting to reach consensus on each team's opinion on salient features of severity across key clinicopathologic domains and distill features that would allow providers to categorize disease severity.

RESULTS

Symptom features and complications and inflammatory and fibrostenotic features on both endoscopic and histologic examination were collated into a simplified scoring system-the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE)-that can be completed at routine clinic visits to assess disease severity using a point scale of 0-6 for mild, 7-14 for moderate, and ≥15 for severe EoE.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary team of experts iteratively created a clinically usable EoE severity scoring system denominated "I-SEE" to guide practitioners in EoE management by standardizing disease components reflecting disease severity beyond eosinophil counts. I-SEE should be validated and refined using data from future clinical trials and routine clinical practice to increase its utilization and functionality.

A Clinical Severity Index for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Development, Consensus, and Future Directions

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Disease activity and severity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) dictate therapeutic options and management, but the decision-making process for determining severity varies among practitioners. To reduce variability in practice patterns and help clinicians monitor the clinical course of the disease in an office setting, we aimed to create an international consensus severity scoring index for EoE.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary international group of adult and pediatric EoE researchers and clinicians, as well as non-EoE allergy immunology and gastroenterology experts, formed 3 teams to review the existing literature on histology, endoscopy, and symptoms of EoE in the context of progression and severity. A steering committee convened a 1-day virtual meeting to reach consensus on each team's opinion on salient features of severity across key clinicopathologic domains and distill features that would allow providers to categorize disease severity.

RESULTS

Symptom features and complications and inflammatory and fibrostenotic features on both endoscopic and histologic examination were collated into a simplified scoring system-the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (I-SEE)-that can be completed at routine clinic visits to assess disease severity using a point scale of 0-6 for mild, 7-14 for moderate, and ≥15 for severe EoE.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary team of experts iteratively created a clinically usable EoE severity scoring system denominated "I-SEE" to guide practitioners in EoE management by standardizing disease components reflecting disease severity beyond eosinophil counts. I-SEE should be validated and refined using data from future clinical trials and routine clinical practice to increase its utilization and functionality.

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.).

Current and emerging therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis

Background: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a Type-2 chronic inflammatory food antigen-driven disease of the esophagus, characterized by eosinophilic predominant inflammation and a constellation of symptoms. The incidence and prevalence of EoE has increased over the past 2 decades. There is an unmet need for approved less burdensome treatment options. Objective: To describe the underlying pathophysiology and diagnosis of EoE and discuss the currently available treatment options. We also aim to review the new and emerging therapies for EoE. Methods: A search of a medical literature data base was performed for articles that discuss treatment for EoE. Results: A comparison of current therapies showed that dietary elimination, swallowed topical corticosteroids, and proton-pump inhibitor therapy are all effective for different populations. Emerging therapies that were reviewed include new topical corticosteroids and biologics directed against Type 2 inflammation. Conclusion: EoE is a chronic inflammatory disorder that can be debilitating, with long-term sequelae. There are no current approved therapies in the United States. Numerous new treatments are on the horizon. Increasing amounts of data are helping to tailor treatment for each patient. Ultimately, shared decision-making is the best approach to guide treatment choices with patients to manage the ever-increasing burden of this disease.

Drug treatment strategies for eosinophilic esophagitis in adults

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a clinical and pathological disorder, characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, and eosinophil-predominant inflammation restricted to the esophagus. Treatment outcomes include symptomatic remission, histological and endoscopic normalization and improving quality of life. Besides dietary modifications and endoscopic dilation, drugs available are swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs) with reduced bioavailability and proton pump inhibitors (PPI).

AREAS COVERED

Herein, the authors review the current treatment strategies for EoE in adults, providing the reader with their expert perspectives. The authors give discussion to the value of PPIs as a first-line therapy for EoE, in addition to the use of STCs. The current development of new formulations of STCs targeting the esophagus and novel therapies aimed at blocking molecular pathways are also discussed. Finally, the authors briefly look at the value of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5RA, IL-13, IL-4 or Siglec8, and oral S1PR agonists to the treatment of EoE.

EXPERT OPINION

Viscose formulations of STC designed to coat the esophagus and new effervescent orodispersible tablets provide increased effectiveness at low doses. Investigational therapies that target several Th2-associated diseases seem useful in EoE. Comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will help to position them in a complex therapeutic scenario.

Foundations of gastrointestinal-based drug delivery and future developments

Gastrointestinal-based drug delivery is considered the preferred mode of drug administration owing to its convenience for patients, which improves adherence. However, unique characteristics of the gastrointestinal tract (such as the digestive environment and constraints on transport across the gastrointestinal mucosa) limit the absorption of drugs. As a result, many medications, in particular biologics, still exist only or predominantly in injectable form. In this Review, we examine the fundamentals of gastrointestinal drug delivery to inform clinicians and pharmaceutical scientists. We discuss general principles, including the challenges that need to be overcome for successful drug formulation, and describe the unique features to consider for each gastrointestinal compartment when designing drug formulations for topical and systemic applications. We then discuss emerging technologies that seek to address remaining obstacles to successful gastrointestinal-based drug delivery.

CD73+ Epithelial Progenitor Cells That Contribute to Homeostasis and Renewal Are Depleted in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although basal cell hyperplasia is a histologic hallmark of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), little is known about the capabilities of epithelial renewal and differentiation in the EoE inflammatory milieu. In murine esophageal epithelium, there are self-renewing and slowly proliferating basal stem-like cells characterized by concurrent expression of CD73 (5'-nucleotidase ecto) and CD104 (integrin β4). Here, we investigated CD73⁺CD104⁺ cells within the basal population of human esophageal epithelium and clarified the biological significance of these cells in the EoE epithelium.

METHODS

We performed flow cytometry on esophageal biopsy samples from EoE and non-EoE patients to determine the quantity of CD73⁺CD104⁺ cells in the epithelium. Simulating the EoE milieu we stimulated primary patient-derived and immortalized cell line-derived esophageal organoids with interleukin (IL)4 and IL13 and analyzed by flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. We performed single-cell RNA sequencing on primary organoids in the setting of IL13 stimulation and evaluated the CD73⁺CD104⁺ population. We performed fluorescent-activated cell sorting to purify CD73⁺CD104⁺ and CD73^- CD104⁺ populations and seeded these groups in organoid culture to evaluate the organoid formation rate and organoid size. We used RNA interference to knock down CD73 in esophageal organoids to evaluate organoid formation rates and size. We evaluated the effects of signal transducer and activator of transcription 6 (STAT6) signaling inhibition by RNA interference, a STAT6 inhibitor, AS1517499, as well as the proton pump inhibitor omeprazole.

RESULTS

EoE patients showed decreased epithelial CD73⁺CD104⁺ cell content. IL4 and IL13 stimulation depleted this population in 3-dimensional organoids with a recapitulation of basal cell hyperplasia as corroborated by single-cell RNA sequencing of the organoids, which suggests depletion of CD73⁺CD104⁺ cells. The CD73⁺CD104⁺ population had enhanced organoid formation compared with the CD73^-CD104⁺ population. Similarly, knock-down of CD73 resulted in decreased organoid formation rate. Genetic and pharmacologic inhibition of STAT6 prevented T helper 2 cytokine-induced depletion of CD73⁺CD104⁺ cells. Lastly, omeprazole treatment prevented the effects of IL4 and IL13 on the CD73⁺CD104⁺ population.

CONCLUSIONS

This study addressed the role of CD73⁺CD104⁺ cells in epithelial renewal and homeostasis in the context of EoE. The depletion of the CD73⁺CD104⁺ self-renewal population by helper T cell 2 cytokines in EoE milieu may be perpetuating epithelial injury. Future therapies targeting epithelial restitution in EoE could decrease the need for immune modulation and steroid therapy.

Medical Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Pediatric Patients

Eosinophilic esophagitis is an immune-mediated allergic disease of the esophagus that affects pediatric patients of all ages. The diagnosis is made by esophagogastroduodenoscopy demonstrating eosinophilic infiltrate of the esophagus. Approaches to treatment involve proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), swallowed topical steroid preparations, as well as dietary elimination. In this review we discuss the evidence and efficacy of each of these approaches.