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/s10620-016-4110-9 | DOI Listing |
Adv Ther
December 2024
GSK, US Value Evidence and Outcomes, Collegeville, PA, 19426-0989, USA.
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 PDFAdv Ther
December 2024
US Value Evidence and Outcomes, R&D Global Medical, GSK, Collegeville, PA, 19426-0989, USA.
BMJ Open
December 2024
Value Evidence and Outcomes, R&D Global Medical, GlaxoSmithKline, London, UK
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.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!