Mepolizumab for treatment of adolescents and adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether mepolizumab, an anti-IL-5 antibody, was more effective than placebo for improving dysphagia symptoms and decreasing oesophageal eosinophil counts in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial. In the first part, patients aged 16-75 with EoE and dysphagia symptoms (per EoE Symptom Activity Index (EEsAI)) were randomised 1:1 to 3 months of mepolizumab 300 mg monthly or placebo. Primary outcome was change in EEsAI from baseline to month 3 (M3). Secondary outcomes included histological, endoscopic and safety metrics. In part 2, patients initially randomised to mepolizumab continued 300 mg monthly for 3 additional months (mepo/mepo), placebo patients started mepolizumab 100 mg monthly (pbo/mepo), and outcomes were reassessed at month 6 (M6). RESULTS: Of 66 patients randomised, 64 completed M3, and 56 completed M6. At M3, EEsAI decreased 15.4±18.1 with mepolizumab and 8.3±18.0 with placebo (p=0.14). Peak eosinophil counts decreased more with mepolizumab (113±77 to 36±43) than placebo (146±94 to 160±133) (p<0.001). With mepolizumab, 42% and 34% achieved histological responses of <15 and ≤6 eos/hpf compared with 3% and 3% with placebo (p<0.001 and 0.02). The change in EoE Endoscopic Reference Score at M3 was also larger with mepolizumab. At M6, EEsAI decreased 18.3±18.1 points for mepo/mepo and 18.6±19.2 for pbo/mepo (p=0.85). The most common adverse events were injection-site reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab did not achieve the primary endpoint of improving dysphagia symptoms compared with placebo. While eosinophil counts and endoscopic severity improved with mepolizumab at 3 months, longer treatment did not yield additional improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03656380.

A Newly Proposed Severity Index for Eosinophilic Esophagitis is Associated With Baseline Clinical Features and Successful Treatment Response.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Index of Severity for EoE (I-SEE) was recently developed. We aimed to determine the relationship between features of eosinophilic esophagitis and disease severity, and assess change in disease severity with topical corticosteroid treatment, using I-SEE. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of an 8-week randomized trial comparing 2 topical corticosteroid formulations in newly diagnosed patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. I-SEE was calculated at baseline and posttreatment, and patients were classified as mild (1-6 points), moderate (7-14 points), severe (≥15 points), or inactive (0 points). We analyzed clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features at baseline by disease severity, and examined the change in severity before and after treatment, and by histologic response (<15 eosinophils per high-power field). RESULTS: Of 111 subjects randomized, 20 (18%) were classified as mild, 75 (68%) as moderate, and 16 (14%) as severe at baseline. Increasing severity was associated with lower body mass index (30 for mild, 27 for moderate, 24 for severe; P = .01), longer duration of dysphagia symptoms before diagnosis (9 years for mild, 9 for moderate, and 20 for severe; P < .001), and decreasing esophageal diameter (15 mm for mild, 13 for moderate, and 10 for severe; P < .001). Mean severity score decreased after treatment (11 vs 4; P < .001), with lower scores in histologic responders compared with nonresponders (2 vs 9; P < .001). The severity score at baseline predicted need for dilation at follow-up (C statistic, 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed I-SEE correlates with many clinical features at diagnosis, and severity improves with successful topical corticosteroid treatment. Additional investigations in other populations can further confirm its utility.

Determination of a treatment response threshold for the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are measured using the validated EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS); however, a threshold for treatment response has not been defined. We aimed to determine a cut-point for endoscopic response as measured by EREFS. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing budesonide slurry with swallowed fluticasone multidose inhaler for initial treatment of EoE. In the parent trial, EREFS was determined before and after treatment (score range 0-9), as were histologic findings and dysphagia symptoms. We performed tabular, flexible trend, and dependent mixture analyses of measures of treatment response to select the best clinical EREFS threshold. RESULTS: In the 111 included patients (mean age 39 years; 67 % male; 96 % white), an EREFS threshold of ≤ 2 was 80 % sensitive (95 % confidence interval [CI] 69 % to 88 %) and 83 % specific (95 %CI 67 % to 94 %) for histologic response (peak of < 15 eosinophils per high-power field). Flexible trend analysis and dependent mixture modeling similarly suggested that a threshold of ≤ 2 best captured the correlation of EREFS with histologic and symptomatic measures. Dependent mixture modeling found near-total membership in the response class at EREFS of 0 or 1 and > 75 % at EREFS of 2 or 3. CONCLUSIONS: An EREFS of ≤ 2 was the best clinical threshold for endoscopic response to topical steroid treatment, and was consistent with clinical and histologic response. Therefore, future studies can report a binary outcome of endoscopic response when EREFS is 2 or less.

Prevalence and Incidence of Intestinal Metaplasia and Dysplasia of Gastric Cardia in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus After Endoscopic Therapy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for Barrett's esophagus (BE) has unclear effects on the gastric cardia. We investigated the prevalence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) and dysplasia in the cardia after complete eradication of IM (CEIM) and the incidence of newly diagnosed cardia IM or dysplasia after EET. METHODS: We performed a prospective study, from 2013 through 2016, of patients with previously successful EET undergoing surveillance after CEIM (cross-sectional group) and treatment-naïve patients with BE undergoing EET (longitudinal group). Standard biopsies were collected from multiple levels in the cardia and analyzed histologically. We calculated the prevalence (cross-sectional group) and the incidence (longitudinal group) of cardia IM or dysplasia after EET. RESULTS: Of the 116 patients in the cross-sectional group, 17 (15%) had cardia IM or dysplasia after CEIM: 12 patients had IM, 2 patients were indefinite for dysplasia, and 3 patients had low-grade dysplasia. Cardia IM or dysplasia were most commonly found at the tops of gastric folds. Among 42 subjects in the longitudinal group, the pre-treatment prevalence of cardia IM or dysplasia was 28.5% (3 with non-dysplastic IM, 9 with dysplastic IM, 1 indefinite for dysplasia, 2 with low-grade dysplasia, 3 with high-grade dysplasia, and 3 with intramucosal cancer). All achieved CEIM. The incidence of cardia IM or dysplasia was 11.9% after 18 months of follow up. IM or dysplasia was more higher in the cardia after CEIM than in the tubular esophagus (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, we found that cardia dysplasia becomes less, not more, common, after successful EET; recurrence of IM or dysplasia was more frequent in the cardia than the esophagus. Patients with BE undergoing EET should have careful examination of the cardia, with a single set of surveillance biopsies at the top of the gastric folds.

Rapid Recurrence of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity After Successful Treatment in the Observation Phase of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is chronic and recurs if treatment is discontinued. We aimed to determine rates of recurrence, and whether initial treatment with oral viscous budesonide (OVB) resulted in less recurrence than fluticasone from a multidose inhaler (MDI). METHODS: This was the observation phase of a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing OVB with MDI for initial EoE treatment. Subjects with a histologic response (<15 eosinophils/high-power field) in the trial entered an observation phase in which treatment was discontinued and symptoms were monitored. Patients underwent an endoscopy or a biopsy when symptoms recurred or at 1 year. We analyzed time to symptom recurrence and assessed endoscopic severity and histologic relapse (≥15 eosinophils/high-power field) at follow-up endoscopy. RESULTS: Thirty-three of the 58 subjects (57%) had symptom recurrence before 1 year. The overall median time to symptom recurrence was 244 days. There was no difference in the rate of symptom recurrence for subjects treated with OVB vs MDI (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.52-2.08). At symptom recurrence, 78% of patients had histologic relapse. The patients had significant increases in mean Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire score (3.8 vs 8.7; P < .001), and the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (1.3 vs 4.6; P < .001) compared with end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: EoE disease activity recurred rapidly after initial histologic response to topical steroids (either OVB or MDI). Because most subjects had recurrent endoscopic and histologic signs not reliably detected by symptoms, maintenance therapy should be recommended in EoE patients achieving histologic response to topical steroids. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02019758.

Efficacy of Budesonide vs Fluticasone for Initial Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Topical steroid treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) include swallowed fluticasone from a multi-dose inhaler (MDI) or oral viscous budesonide (OVB) slurry, but the 2 have never been compared. We assessed whether OVB was more effective than MDI for initial treatment of patients with EoE. METHODS: In a double-blind, double-dummy trial, patients with a new diagnosis of EoE were randomly assigned to groups given 8 weeks of either OVB (1 mg/4 mL) twice daily plus a placebo inhaler (n = 56) or fluticasone MDI (880 µg) twice daily plus a placebo slurry (n = 55). Primary outcomes were post-treatment maximum eosinophil counts per high-power field (eos/hpf) and a validated dysphagia score (dysphagia symptom questionnaire [DSQ]) at week 8. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic severity (validated EoE endoscopic reference score), histologic response (<15 eos/hpf), and safety. RESULTS: In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the subjects had baseline peak eosinophil counts of 73 and 77 eos/hpf in the OVB and MDI groups, respectively, and DSQ scores of 11 and 8. Post-treatment eosinophil counts were 15 and 21 in the OVB and MDI groups, respectively (P = .31), with 71% and 64% achieving histologic response (P = .38). DSQ scores were 5 and 4 in the OVB and MDI groups (P = .70). Similar trends were noted for post-treatment total EoE endoscopic reference scores (2 vs 3; P = .06). Esophageal candidiasis developed in 12% of patients receiving OVB and 16% receiving MDI; oral thrush was observed in 3% and 2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized clinical trial, initial treatment of EoE with either OVB or fluticasone MDI produced a significant decrease in esophageal eosinophil counts and improved dysphagia and endoscopic features. However, OVB was not superior to MDI, so either is an acceptable treatment for EoE. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02019758.

Utility of major basic protein, eotaxin-3, and mast cell tryptase staining for prediction of response to topical steroid treatment in eosinophilic esophagitis: analysis of a randomized, double-blind, double dummy clinical trial.

Inflammatory factors in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), including major basic protein (MBP), eotaxin-3 (EOT3) and mast cell tryptase (TRP), may predict treatment response to topical corticosteroids (tCS). We aimed to determine whether baseline levels of these markers predict response to tCS for EoE. To do this, we analyzed data from a randomized trial comparing two topical steroids for treatment of newly diagnosed EoE (NCT02019758). A pretreatment esophageal biopsy was stained for MBP, EOT3, and TRP to quantify tissue biomarker levels (cells/mm2). Levels were compared between histologic responders (<15 eos/hpf) and nonresponders (the primary outcome), and endoscopic responders (EREFS<2) and nonresponders. Complete histologic response (<1 eos/hpf) was also assessed, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated. We also evaluated whether baseline staining predicted symptom relapse in the trial's off-treatment observation phase. Baseline samples were evaluable in 110/111 subjects who completed the randomized trial. MBP levels were higher in nonresponders (n = 36) than responders (704 vs. 373 cells/mm2; P = 0.007), but EOT3 and TRP levels were not statistically different. The combination of all three stains had an AUC of 0.66 to predict response. For complete histologic response, baseline TRP levels were higher in nonresponders (n = 69) than responders (370 vs. 268 mast cells/mm2; P = 0.01), with an AUC of 0.65. The AUC for endoscopic response was 0.68. Baseline staining did not predict symptom recurrence after remission. Pretreatment MBP, EOT3, and TRP levels were not strongly or consistently associated with histologic or endoscopic response to topical steroids. While elevated TRP levels may be associated with nonresponse compared with complete response, the magnitude and predictive utilities were modest. Novel methods for predicting steroid response are still required.

Safety and Acceptability of Esophageal Cytosponge Cell Collection Device in a Pooled Analysis of Data From Individual Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have become emerging public health issues. Cytosponge is a novel, minimally invasive esophageal cell collection device. We aimed to assess the data on safety and acceptability of this device. METHODS: We performed a patient-level review of 5 prospective trials assessing Cytosponge performance in patients with reflux disease, BE and EoE in primary and secondary care. Acceptability of Cytosponge and subsequent endoscopy were recorded with visual analogue scale (VAS), wherein 0 and 10 denoted lowest and highest acceptability. Median VAS scores were compared using a Mann-Whitney test. The number of attempts, failures in swallowing the device and occurrence of adverse events were analyzed. Risk factors for failure in swallowing were analyzed using a multivariate regression model. RESULTS: In total, 2672 Cytosponge procedures were performed, in 2418 individuals from 2008 through 2017. There were 2 adverse events related to the device: a minor pharyngeal bleed and a case of detachment (<1:2000). The median acceptability score for the Cytosponge was 6.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.0-8.0), which was higher than the score for endoscopy without sedation (median 5.0; IQR, 3.0-7.0; P < .001) and lower than the score for endoscopy with sedation (median 8.0; IQR, 5.0-9.0; P < .001). Nearly all patients (91.1%) successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, most on the first attempt (90.1%). Failure to swallow the device was more likely to occur in secondary care (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% CI, 1.48-17.79; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The Cytosponge test is a safe procedure with good acceptability ratings in a variety of health care settings.

Clinical Outcomes Following Recurrence of Intestinal Metaplasia After Successful Treatment of Barrett's Esophagus With Radiofrequency Ablation.

OBJECTIVES: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an effective treatment for Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, recurrence of BE after initially successful RFA is common, and outcomes following recurrence not well described. We report the outcomes associated with recurrence following initially successful RFA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 306 patients treated with RFA for dysplastic BE. Complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) was defined as complete histological and endoscopic remission of IM. Recurrence was defined as any presence of IM or dysplasia in the tubular esophagus or dysplasia in the gastric cardia subsequent to CE-IM. We examined rates and risk factors for recurrence, dysplastic recurrence, and invasive adenocarcinoma after CE-IM. We also describe the clinical course of patients following recurrence. RESULTS: Of the 306 eligible patients undergoing RFA, 218 achieved CE-IM and also had subsequent surveillance endoscopy. Of these, 52 (24%) experienced recurrence of IM or Barrett's-associated neoplasia over 540.6 person-years (incidence rate 9.6%/year). Thirty (58%) of these achieved second CE-IM; 4 (1.8% of total, 7.7% of recurrences) ultimately progressed to invasive adenocarcinoma (incidence rate 0.65%/year). Longer Prague M was a strong risk factor for invasive adenocarcinoma (rate ratio of 1.34/cm). Most dysplastic recurrences were in the cardia, and the majority were not visible but detected on random biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with recurrent BE after initially successful RFA achieve second CE-IM; however, 1.8% progressed to invasive adenocarcinoma. Longer Prague M was predictive of invasive adenocarcinoma. Four-quadrant random biopsy of the cardia is advisable during surveillance endoscopy after CE-IM.

A Novel Allergen-Specific Immune Signature-Directed Approach to Dietary Elimination in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

OBJECTIVES: Dietary elimination for treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is limited by lack of accuracy in current allergy tests. We aimed to develop an immunologic approach to identify dietary triggers and prospectively test allergen-specific immune signature-guided dietary elimination therapy. METHODS: In the first phase, we developed and assessed 2 methods for determining selected food triggers using samples from 24 adults with EoE: a CD4+ T-cell proliferation assay in peripheral blood and food-specific tissue IgG4 levels in esophageal biopsies. In the second phase, we clinically tested elimination diets created from these methods in a prospective cohort treated for 6 weeks (NCT02722148). Outcomes included peak eosinophil counts (eos/hpf), endoscopic findings (measured by the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score), and symptoms (measured by the EoE Symptom Activity Index). RESULTS: Parameters were optimized with a positive test on either assay, yielding agreements of 60%, 75%, 53%, 58%, and 53% between predicted and known triggers of peanut, egg, soy, wheat, and milk, respectively. In clinical testing, the mean number of foods eliminated based on the assays was 3.4, and 19 of 22 subjects were compliant with treatment. After treatment, median peak eosinophil counts decreased from 75 to 35 (P = 0.007); there were 4 histologic responders (21%). The EoE Endoscopic Reference Score and EoE Symptom Activity Index score also decreased after treatment (4.6 vs 3.0; P = 0.002; and 32.5 vs 25.0; P = 0.06, respectively). DISCUSSION: We successfully developed a new testing approach using CD4 T-cell proliferation and esophageal food-specific IgG4 levels, with promising accuracy rates. In clinical testing, this led to improvement in eosinophil counts, endoscopic severity, and symptoms of dysphagia, but a smaller than expected number of patients achieved histologic remission.