Swallowed topical corticosteroids for eosinophilic esophagitis: Utilization and real-world efficacy from the EoE CONNECT registry

Background: Swallowed topical corticosteroids (tC) are common therapy for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Widely heterogeneous results have occurred due to their active ingredients, formulations and doses. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of topical corticosteroid therapy for EoE...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Laserna-Mendieta, Emilio J., Navés, Juan Enrique, EUREOS and EoE CONNECT research group
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2024
País:España
Institución:Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Repositorio:Repositorio Digital de la UPF
OAI Identifier:oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/70957
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/10230/70957
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12533
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Budesonide
Clinical remission
Dysphagia
Effectiveness
Eosinophil count
Eosinophilic esophagitis
Fluticasone propionate
Histological remission
Orodispersible
Swallowed topical corticosteroids
Descripción
Sumario:Background: Swallowed topical corticosteroids (tC) are common therapy for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Widely heterogeneous results have occurred due to their active ingredients, formulations and doses. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of topical corticosteroid therapy for EoE in real-world practice. Methods: Cross-sectional study analysis of the multicentre EoE CONNECT registry. Clinical remission was defined as a decrease of ≥50% in dysphagia symptom scores; histological remission was defined as a peak eosinophil count below 15 per high-power field. The effectiveness in achieving clinico-histological remission (CHR) was compared for the main tC formulations. Results: Overall, data on 1456 prescriptions of tC in monotherapy used in 866 individual patients were assessed. Of those, 904 prescriptions with data on formulation were employed for the induction of remission; 234 reduced a previously effective dose for maintenance. Fluticasone propionate formulations dominated the first-line treatment, while budesonide was more common in later therapies. A swallowed nasal drop suspension was the most common formulation of fluticasone propionate. Doses ≥0.8 mg/day provided a 65% CHR rate and were superior to lower doses. Oral viscous solution prepared by a pharmacist was the most common prescription of budesonide; 4 mg/day provided no benefit over 2 mg/day (CHR rated being 72% and 80%, respectively). A multivariate analysis revealed budesonide orodispersible tablets as the most effective therapy (OR 18.9, p < 0.001); use of higher doses (OR 4.3, p = 0.03) and lower symptom scores (OR 0.9, p = 0.01) were also determinants of effectiveness. Conclusion: Reduced symptom severity, use of high doses, and use of budesonide orodispersible tablets particularly were all independent predictors of tC effectiveness.