Detalle Publicación


Efficacy of therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis in real-world practice

Autores: Laserna-Mendieta, E. J. (Autor de correspondencia); Casabona, S.; Savarino, E.; Perello, A.; Perez-Martinez, I.; Guagnozzi, D.; Barrio, J.; Guardiola, A.; Asensio, T.; de la Riva Onandía, Susana Rosa; Ruiz-Ponce, M.; Rodriguez-Oballe, J. A.; Santander, C.; Arias, A.; Lucendo, A. J. (Autor de correspondencia)
ISSN: 1542-3565
Volumen: 18
Número: 13
Páginas: 2903 - 2911
Fecha de publicación: 2020
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Topical steroids, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and dietary interventions are recommended first- and second-line therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We investigated differences in their effectiveness in a real-world, clinical practice cohort of patients with EoE. METHODS: We collected data on the efficacy of different therapies for EoE (ability to induce clinical and histologic remission) from the multicenter EoE CONNECT database-a database of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of EoE in Europe that began in 2016. We obtained data from 589 patients, treated at 11 centers, on sex, age, time of diagnosis, starting date of any therapy, response to therapy, treatment end dates, alternative treatments, and findings from endoscopy. The baseline endoscopy was used for diagnosis of EoE; second endoscopy was performed to evaluate response to first-line therapies. After changes in treatment, generally because lack of efficacy, a last endoscopy was performed. The time elapsed between endoscopies depended on the criteria of attending physicians. Clinical remission was defined by a decrease of more than 50% in Dysphagia Symptom Score; improvement in symptoms by less than 50% from baseline was considered as clinical response. Histologic remission was defined as a peak eosinophil count below 5 eosinophils/hpf. A peak eosinophil count between 5 and 14 eosinophils/hpf was considered histologic response. We identified factors associated with therapy selection and effectiveness using chi(2) and multinomial logistic regression analyses RESULTS: PPIs were the first-line treatment for 76.4% of patients, followed by topical steroids (for 10.5%) and elimination diets (for 7.8%). Topical steroids were most effective in inducing clinical and histologic remission or response (in 67.7% of patients), followed by empiric elimination diets (in 52.0%), and PPIs (in 50.2%). Among the 344 patients who switched to a second-line therapy, dietary interventions were selected for 47.1% of patients, followed by PPIs (for 29.1%) and topical steroids (for 18.6%). Clinical and histologic remission or response was achieved by 80.7% of patients treated with topical steroids, 69.2% of patients given PPIs, and 41.7% of patients on empiric elimination diets. Multivariate analyses found the stricturing phenotype of EoE to be associated with selection of topical steroids over PPIs as the first-line therapy; lack of fibrotic features at initial endoscopy was associated with selection of elimination diets over topical steroids as a second-line therapy. The recruiting center was significantly associated with therapy choice; second-line treatment with topical steroids or PPIs were the only variables associated with clinical and histologic remission. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data from a large cohort of patients with EoE in Europe, we found topical steroids to be themost effective at inducing clinical and histologic remission, but PPIs to be the most frequently prescribed. Treatment approaches vary with institution and presence of fibrosis or strictures.