Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Comparisons of Fluticasone to Budesonide in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

  • Dustin Albert
  • , Theresa A. Heifert
  • , Steve B. Min
  • , Corinne L. Maydonovitch
  • , Thomas P. Baker
  • , Yen Ju Chen
  • , Fouad J. Moawad*
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

38 Scopus citations

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1996-2001
Number of pages6
JournalDigestive Diseases and Sciences
Volume61
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jul 2016

Keywords

  • Budesonide
  • Eosinophilic esophagitis
  • Fluticasone
  • Predictors
  • Topical steroids

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparisons of Fluticasone to Budesonide in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this