TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparisons of Fluticasone to Budesonide in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis
AU - Albert, Dustin
AU - Heifert, Theresa A.
AU - Min, Steve B.
AU - Maydonovitch, Corinne L.
AU - Baker, Thomas P.
AU - Chen, Yen Ju
AU - Moawad, Fouad J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, Springer Science+Business Media New York.
PY - 2016/7/1
Y1 - 2016/7/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Budesonide
KW - Eosinophilic esophagitis
KW - Fluticasone
KW - Predictors
KW - Topical steroids
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964370158&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10620-016-4110-9
DO - 10.1007/s10620-016-4110-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 27093866
AN - SCOPUS:84964370158
SN - 0163-2116
VL - 61
SP - 1996
EP - 2001
JO - Digestive Diseases and Sciences
JF - Digestive Diseases and Sciences
IS - 7
ER -