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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10620-016-4110-9DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

fluticasone budesonide
8
eosinophilic esophagitis
8
topical steroids
8
comparisons fluticasone
4
budesonide treatment
4
treatment eosinophilic
4
esophagitis background
4
background topical
4
steroids first-line
4
first-line treatment
4

Similar Publications

Introduction: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with exacerbations which can reduce quality of life and increase mortality. Single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) is recommended for maintenance treatment of COPD among patients experiencing exacerbations despite dual-therapy use. This real-world comparative effectiveness study compared the impact of SITTs, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI), and budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FORM), on COPD exacerbations and mortality.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • This study examines how well patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) stick to their medication regimens, comparing a single daily inhaler (FF/UMEC/VI) to a combination that requires two inhalations twice a day (BUD/GLY/FOR).
  • Using insurance claims data from 2019 to 2023, researchers evaluated adherence (how often patients take their medication) and persistence (how long they continue treatment), with a total of 11,597 COPD patients involved.
  • Results showed that patients using the single inhaler (FF/UMEC/VI) had better adherence and persistence over 6 and 12 months compared to those using the combination
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objectives: To evaluate and compare medication adherence and persistence for patients newly initiating single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) and multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Japan.

Design: Retrospective, new-user, active comparator, observational cohort study using inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Setting: Health insurance claims data from the Medical Data Vision Co.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!