Dustin Albert1, Theresa A Heifert2, Steve B Min2, Corinne L Maydonovitch1, Thomas P Baker3, Yen-Ju Chen1, Fouad J Moawad4. 1. Gastroenterology Service, Department of Medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD, 20889, USA. 2. Gastroenterology Service, Department of Pediatrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Gastroenterology Service, Department of Medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD, 20889, USA. Fouad.J.Moawad@health.mil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Topical steroids are first-line treatment agents for eosinophilic esophagitis; however, some studies have demonstrated modest efficacy in inducing histologic remission. AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine response to two topical steroids (fluticasone and budesonide), compare their efficacy, and examine patient characteristics which could predict non-response to topical steroids. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of an established EoE registry. Inclusion criteria were patients >1 year of age who were diagnosed with EoE as defined by the most recent consensus guidelines. All patients were treated with an 8-week course of either swallowed fluticasone or viscous budesonide. Responders were defined as achieving <15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) in both proximal and distal esophageal biopsies. Demographic, clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features were examined. RESULTS: The study cohort included 75 EoE patients with a median age of 33 years (range 2-64 years), 71 % adults, 84 % male, and 76 % Caucasian. Overall histologic response rate to topical steroids was 51 %, while clinical response was 71 %. There was no significant differences in histologic response to treatment between children and adults (68 vs. 44 %, p = 0.111). There was no significant difference in response between males and females (47 vs. 73 %, p = 0.191) and between the two types of steroids (48 vs. 56 %, p = 0.632). Responders and non-responders were similar in clinical presentation and baseline endoscopic findings. Following treatment, responders had significantly less peak proximal (4.0 ± 4.4 vs. 46 ± 53, p < 0.001) and distal eosinophil counts (3.5 ± 3.8 vs. 60 ± 47, p < 0.001) compared to non-responders. There were no predictors of response to steroids identified. CONCLUSIONS: Histologic response to treatment was observed in approximately half the cohort, while more than two-thirds experienced clinical response to topical steroids. Response was similar between fluticasone and budesonide. Given the lack of differences in clinical presentation or endoscopic features, predictors of non-response were not seen.
BACKGROUND: Topical steroids are first-line treatment agents for eosinophilic esophagitis; however, some studies have demonstrated modest efficacy in inducing histologic remission. AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine response to two topical steroids (fluticasone and budesonide), compare their efficacy, and examine patient characteristics which could predict non-response to topical steroids. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of an established EoE registry. Inclusion criteria were patients >1 year of age who were diagnosed with EoE as defined by the most recent consensus guidelines. All patients were treated with an 8-week course of either swallowed fluticasone or viscous budesonide. Responders were defined as achieving <15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) in both proximal and distal esophageal biopsies. Demographic, clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features were examined. RESULTS: The study cohort included 75 EoE patients with a median age of 33 years (range 2-64 years), 71 % adults, 84 % male, and 76 % Caucasian. Overall histologic response rate to topical steroids was 51 %, while clinical response was 71 %. There was no significant differences in histologic response to treatment between children and adults (68 vs. 44 %, p = 0.111). There was no significant difference in response between males and females (47 vs. 73 %, p = 0.191) and between the two types of steroids (48 vs. 56 %, p = 0.632). Responders and non-responders were similar in clinical presentation and baseline endoscopic findings. Following treatment, responders had significantly less peak proximal (4.0 ± 4.4 vs. 46 ± 53, p < 0.001) and distal eosinophil counts (3.5 ± 3.8 vs. 60 ± 47, p < 0.001) compared to non-responders. There were no predictors of response to steroids identified. CONCLUSIONS: Histologic response to treatment was observed in approximately half the cohort, while more than two-thirds experienced clinical response to topical steroids. Response was similar between fluticasone and budesonide. Given the lack of differences in clinical presentation or endoscopic features, predictors of non-response were not seen.
Authors: D L Francis; A Foxx-Orenstein; A S Arora; T C Smyrk; K Jensen; S L Nord; J A Alexander; Y Romero; D A Katzka Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Chris A Liacouras; Glenn T Furuta; Ikuo Hirano; Dan Atkins; Stephen E Attwood; Peter A Bonis; A Wesley Burks; Mirna Chehade; Margaret H Collins; Evan S Dellon; Ranjan Dohil; Gary W Falk; Nirmala Gonsalves; Sandeep K Gupta; David A Katzka; Alfredo J Lucendo; Jonathan E Markowitz; Richard J Noel; Robert D Odze; Philip E Putnam; Joel E Richter; Yvonne Romero; Eduardo Ruchelli; Hugh A Sampson; Alain Schoepfer; Nicholas J Shaheen; Scott H Sicherer; Stuart Spechler; Jonathan M Spergel; Alex Straumann; Barry K Wershil; Marc E Rothenberg; Seema S Aceves Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Kathryn A Peterson; Kristen L Thomas; Kristen Hilden; Lyska L Emerson; Jason C Wills; John C Fang Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2009-06-18 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Fouad J Moawad; Evan S Dellon; Sami R Achem; Tony Ljuldjuraj; Daniel J Green; Corinne L Maydonovitch; Diana R Brizuela; Sandeep K Gupta; Mirna Chehade Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Swathi Eluri; Sara R Selitsky; Irina Perjar; Johnathan Hollyfield; Renee Betancourt; Cara Randall; Spencer Rusin; John T Woosley; Nicholas J Shaheen; Evan S Dellon Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Anjan Dhar; Hasan N Haboubi; Stephen E Attwood; Marcus K H Auth; Jason M Dunn; Rami Sweis; Danielle Morris; Jenny Epstein; Marco R Novelli; Hannah Hunter; Amanda Cordell; Sharon Hall; Jamal O Hayat; Kapil Kapur; Andrew Robert Moore; Carol Read; Sarmed S Sami; Paul J Turner; Nigel J Trudgill Journal: Gut Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 31.793
Authors: Elisa Gomez Torrijos; Rosario Gonzalez-Mendiola; Manuela Alvarado; Robledo Avila; Alicia Prieto-Garcia; Teresa Valbuena; Jesus Borja; Sonsoles Infante; M Pilar Lopez; Eva Marchan; Patricia Prieto; Mar Moro; Ana Rosado; Vanessa Saiz; M Luisa Somoza; Olga Uriel; Angelina Vazquez; Pilar Mur; Paloma Poza-Guedes; Joan Bartra Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2018-10-09