Low detection of adrenal suppression secondary to swallowed steroids for eosinophilic esophagitis in a quality improvement project

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).

The role of biologics in pediatric food allergy and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders

Continuing insight into the molecular mechanisms of atopic disorders has enabled the development of biologics to precisely target these diseases. Food allergy (FA) and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are driven by similar inflammatory molecular mechanisms and exist along the same atopic disease spectrum. Therefore, many of the same biologics are being investigated to target key drivers of mechanisms shared across the disease states. The enormous potential of biologics for the treatment of FA and EGIDs is highlighted by the significant increases in the number of ongoing clinical trials (more than 30) evaluating their use in these disease states, as well as by the recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of dupilumab for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis. Here we discuss past and current research into the use of biologics in FA and EGIDs and their potential role in improving treatment options in the future, with the need to have biologics widely clinically available.

Esophageal polyp in a teenage boy with eosinophilic esophagitis

The association of eosinophilic esophagitis and esophageal polyps has been reported in the literature but remains a rare finding in both adults and children. The patient in this case report presented with progressively worsening dysphagia secondary to eosinophilic esophagitis and an esophageal polyp. Dysphagia is always abnormal, and endoscopic evaluation is essential. Dysphagia is a well-known symptom in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. While esophageal polyps as a whole are less common in the pediatric population, they should not be overlooked as a possible cause of dysphagia and esophageal obstruction.