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

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.

Swallowed topical corticosteroids for eosinophilic esophagitis: Utilization and real-world efficacy from the EoE CONNECT registry

BACKGROUND

Swallowed topical corticosteroids (tC) are common therapy for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Widely heterogeneous results have occurred due to their active ingredients, formulations and doses.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of topical corticosteroid therapy for EoE in real-world practice.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study analysis of the multicentre EoE CONNECT registry. Clinical remission was defined as a decrease of ≥50% in dysphagia symptom scores; histological remission was defined as a peak eosinophil count below 15 per high-power field. The effectiveness in achieving clinico-histological remission (CHR) was compared for the main tC formulations.

RESULTS

Overall, data on 1456 prescriptions of tC in monotherapy used in 866 individual patients were assessed. Of those, 904 prescriptions with data on formulation were employed for the induction of remission; 234 reduced a previously effective dose for maintenance. Fluticasone propionate formulations dominated the first-line treatment, while budesonide was more common in later therapies. A swallowed nasal drop suspension was the most common formulation of fluticasone propionate. Doses ≥0.8 mg/day provided a 65% CHR rate and were superior to lower doses. Oral viscous solution prepared by a pharmacist was the most common prescription of budesonide; 4 mg/day provided no benefit over 2 mg/day (CHR rated being 72% and 80%, respectively). A multivariate analysis revealed budesonide orodispersible tablets as the most effective therapy (OR 18.9, p < 0.001); use of higher doses (OR 4.3, p = 0.03) and lower symptom scores (OR 0.9, p = 0.01) were also determinants of effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Reduced symptom severity, use of high doses, and use of budesonide orodispersible tablets particularly were all independent predictors of tC effectiveness.

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.

Clinical Evaluation of the Child with Eosinophilic Esophagitis

The diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is based on clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and eosinophil predominant esophageal inflammation. Clinical symptoms in children with EoE vary based on age and may be nonspecific. EoE has a male predominance with the majority having comorbid atopic disorders. At present, treatment options include medications (proton pump inhibition, swallowed topical steroids), dietary therapy or biologic therapy (dupilumab, approved for those ≥12 years of age). Outside of EoE in the context of oral immunotherapy, EoE is typically chronic requiring lifelong therapy. Long-term complications including feeding difficulties, malnutrition, and fibrostenotic disease.

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.

The Dual Lens of Endoscopy and Histology in the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders-A Comprehensive Review

Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders (EGIDs) are a group of conditions characterized by abnormal eosinophil accumulation in the gastrointestinal tract. Among these EGIDs, Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE) is the most well documented, while less is known about Eosinophilic Gastritis (EoG), Eosinophilic Enteritis (EoN), and Eosinophilic Colitis (EoC). The role of endoscopy in EGIDs is pivotal, with applications in diagnosis, disease monitoring, and therapeutic intervention. In EoE, the endoscopic reference score (EREFS) has been shown to be accurate in raising diagnostic suspicion and effective in monitoring therapeutic responses. Additionally, endoscopic dilation is the first-line treatment for esophageal strictures. For EoG and EoN, while the literature is more limited, common endoscopic findings include erythema, nodules, and ulcerations. Histology remains the gold standard for diagnosing EGIDs, as it quantifies eosinophilic infiltration. In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the histological understanding of EoE, leading to the development of diagnostic scores and the identification of specific microscopic features associated with the disease. However, for EoG, EoN, and EoC, precise eosinophil count thresholds for diagnosis have not yet been established. This review aims to elucidate the role of endoscopy and histology in the diagnosis and management of the three main EGIDs and to analyze their strengths and limitations, their interconnection, and future research directions.

Review article: Emerging insights into the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of eosinophilic oesophagitis and other eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are chronic, immune-mediated disorders characterised clinically by gastrointestinal symptoms and histologically by a pathologic increase in eosinophil-predominant inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract, in the absence of secondary causes of eosinophilia.

AIMS

To highlight emerging insights and research efforts into the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) and non-EoE EGIDs, and discuss key remaining knowledge gaps.

METHODS

We selected and reviewed original research, retrospective studies, case series, randomised controlled trials, and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Standardised nomenclature classifies EGIDs as EoE, eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and eosinophilic colitis (EoC). Incidence and prevalence of EoE are rising, emphasising the need to better understand how environmental risk factors and genetic features interact. Advances in understanding EoE pathophysiology have led to clinical trials of targeted therapy and the approval (in the United States) of dupilumab for EoE. Several therapies that are under investigation hope to satisfy both histologic and clinical targets. For non-EoE EGIDs, efforts are focused on better defining clinical and histopathologic disease determinants and natural history, as well as establishing new therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Unmet needs for research are dramatically different for EoE and non-EoE EGIDs. In EoE, non-invasive diagnostic tests, clinicopathologic models that determine the risk of disease progression and therapeutic failure, and novel biologic therapies are emerging. In contrast, in non-EoE EGIDs, epidemiologic trends, diagnostic histopathologic thresholds, and natural history models are still developing for these more rare disorders.

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.

Recent Advances in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

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

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis—What Do We Know So Far?

Eosinophilic esophagitis is a Th-2 antigen-mediated disease in which there is an influx of eosinophils to all layers of the esophagus, triggering an inflammatory response. Chronic inflammatory process causes esophageal remodeling, leading to difficulties in swallowing. Food impaction, heartburn, and chest pain are other characteristic (but not pathognomonic) symptoms in adults. Although the disease has only been described since in the early 1970s, its incidence and prevalence are rapidly growing, especially in Western countries. According to the diagnostic guidelines, there should be at least 15 eosinophils visible per high-power field in biopsies obtained from different sites in the esophagus upon endoscopy with relevant esophageal symptoms. Other diseases that can cause esophageal eosinophilia should be ruled out. Eosinophilic esophagitis treatment may be challenging; however, new methods of management have recently emerged. The currently used proton pump inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, and elimination diet are combined with biological treatment. New methods for disease diagnostics and clinical course assessment are also available. This review presents current knowledge about the disease, supported by the latest research data.

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.

First Therapeutic Approval for Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) is a chronic, immune-mediated or antigen-mediated esophageal disease. Treatment for patients with EE can be challenging with no previously approved medications. Current management strategies follow the four D’s paradigm of drugs, dietary elimination, dilation, and disease anxiety and hypervigilance therapy. On 20 May 2022, dupilumab was approved by FDA for EE. A dose of 300 mg dupilumab weekly significantly improved signs and symptoms of EE compared to placebo in a phase 3 trial. The approval of dupilumab will fulfill an unmet need for the increasing number of patients with EE.