Sustained milk consumption after 2 years post-milk epicutaneous immunotherapy for eosinophilic esophagitis

Triggers for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE): The intersection of food allergy and EoE

Eosinophilic esophagitis and IgE-mediated food allergy are both food-triggered diseases that are increasing in prevalence. They share many clinical links, including significant comorbidity and similar food triggers, and as atopic diseases, they likely share upstream mechanisms related to barrier function and signals leading to TH2 skewing. In this review, we focus on links between eosinophilic esophagitis and IgE-mediated food allergy with an emphasis on what insights may be derived from overlapping food triggers and immune phenotypes. Through further investigation of these connections, we may be able to better understand not only IgE-mediated food allergy and eosinophilic esophagitis but also general atopic response to food proteins and evolution of allergic response to food.

The Relationship Between Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Immunotherapy

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

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.

Type 2 Inflammation in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: From Pathophysiology to Therapeutic Targets

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the esophagus characterized clinically by symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction and histologically by eosinophil-predominant inflammation, whose incidence is rising. It significantly affects patients’ quality of life and, if left untreated, results in fibrotic complications. Although broad consensus has been achieved on first-line therapy, a subset of patients remains non-responder to standard therapy. The pathogenesis of EoE is multifactorial and results from the complex, still mostly undefined, interaction between genetics and intrinsic factors, environment, and antigenic stimuli. A deep understanding of the pathophysiology of this disease is pivotal for the development of new therapies. This review provides a comprehensive description of the pathophysiology of EoE, starting from major pathogenic mechanisms (genetics, type 2 inflammation, epithelial barrier dysfunction, gastroesophageal reflux, allergens, infections and microbiota) and subsequently focusing on the single protagonists of type 2 inflammation (involved cells, cytokines, soluble effectors, surface proteins and transcription factors) that could represent present and future therapeutic targets, while summarizing previous therapeutic approaches in literature.

Oral Immunotherapy for Children with Cow's Milk Allergy

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common IgE-dependent food allergies in children. Some children develop severe and persistent CMA, with near-fatal reactions after exposure to trace amounts of cow's milk (CM). Because milk and dairy products are included in various processed food products, it is difficult to completely remove milk, which negatively affects the quality of life of children with CMA. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) can alleviate food allergen-induced anaphylaxis under continuous ingestion of a little of the causative food. Children with severe CMA may benefit from OIT, but the treatment requires a long time and poses a risk of anaphylaxis. Moreover, in recent years, new therapies, including omalizumab, sublingual immunotherapy, and epicutaneous immunotherapy, have played the role of optional OIT. In this review, we present the current methods of and other attempts at OIT, and discuss OIT for safely treating CMA.

Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis During Oral Immunotherapy

Food allergies are antigen-driven diseases that can lead to IgE-mediated reactions of immediate hypersensitivity (eg, anaphylaxis triggered by a single food) or non-IgE reactions of delayed hypersensitivity such as eosinophilic esophagitis (eg, inability to eat multiple foods manifesting as abdominal pain, choking, dysphagia, vomiting, reflux, food impaction). Although both types of disease have their own unique set of challenges in diagnosis and management, it is a particularly vexing problem when a patient is afflicted by both conditions. This situation can happen when individuals with IgE-mediated food allergy undergo desensitization using currently available forms of oral immunotherapy. In this Grand Rounds Review, we review diagnostic approaches to oral immunotherapy-associated eosinophilic esophagitis, potential relationships between primary and secondary eosinophilic esophagitis, potential management approaches, areas of uncertainty, and upcoming research. Optimally supporting patients in their journey with food allergy requires shared decision making regarding alternative management strategies and the stimulation of robust research.

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and allergen immunotherapy: Lights and shadows

Allergic diseases, such as IgE-mediated food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, are relevant health problems worldwide and show an increasing prevalence. Therapies for food allergies are food avoidance and the prompt administration of intramuscular epinephrine in anaphylaxis occurring after accidental exposure. However, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is being investigated as a new potential tool for treating severe food allergies. Effective oral immunotherapy (OIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) induce desensitization and restore immune tolerance to the causal allergen. While immediate side effects are well known, the long-term effects of food AIT are still underestimated. In this regard, eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs), mainly eosinophilic esophagitis, have been reported as putative complications of OIT for food allergy and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic asthma and rhinitis. Fortunately, these complications are usually reversible and the patient recovers after AIT discontinuation. This review summarizes current knowledge on the possible causative link between eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and AIT, highlighting recent evidence and controversies.