Explore the vast range of titles available.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signaling, which have key roles in eosinophilic esophagitis. We conducted a three-part, phase 3 trial in which patients 12 years of age or older underwent randomization in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous dupilumab at a weekly dose of 300 mg or placebo (Part A) or in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 300 mg of dupilumab either weekly or every 2 weeks or weekly placebo (Part B) up to week 24. Eligible patients who completed Part A or Part B continued the trial in Part C, in which those who completed Part A received dupilumab at a weekly dose of 300 mg up to week 52 (the Part A-C group); Part C that included the eligible patients from Part B is ongoing. The two primary end points at week 24 were histologic remission (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score (range, 0 to 84, with higher values indicating more frequent or more severe dysphagia). In Part A, histologic remission occurred in 25 of 42 patients (60%) who received weekly dupilumab and in 2 of 39 patients (5%) who received placebo (difference, 55 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 40 to 71; P<0.001). In Part B, histologic remission occurred in 47 of 80 patients (59%) with weekly dupilumab, in 49 of 81 patients (60%) with dupilumab every 2 weeks, and in 5 of 79 patients (6%) with placebo (difference between weekly dupilumab and placebo, 54 percentage points; 95% CI, 41 to 66 [P<0.001]; difference between dupilumab every 2 weeks and placebo, 56 percentage points; 95% CI, 43 to 69 [not significant per hierarchical testing]). The mean (±SD) DSQ scores at baseline were 33.6±12.41 in Part A and 36.7±11.22 in Part B; the scores improved with weekly dupilumab as compared with placebo, with differences of -12.32 (95% CI, -19.11 to -5.54) in Part A and -9.92 (95% CI, -14.81 to -5.02) in Part B (both P<0.001) but not with dupilumab every 2 weeks (difference in Part B, -0.51; 95% CI, -5.42 to 4.41). Serious adverse events occurred in 9 patients during the Part A or B treatment period (in 7 who received weekly dupilumab, 1 who received dupilumab every 2 weeks, and 1 who received placebo) and in 1 patient in the Part A-C group during the Part C treatment period who received placebo in Part A and weekly dupilumab in Part C. Among patients with eosinophilic esophagitis, subcutaneous dupilumab administered weekly improved histologic outcomes and alleviated symptoms of the disease. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03633617.).

Dupilumab, a human monoclonal antibody that blocks interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 pathways, led to histologic remission in a significantly higher percentage of children with eosinophilic esophagitis than placebo.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving patients 12 to 65 years of age with eosinophilic esophagitis, benralizumab reduced esophageal eosinophil counts but did not reduce dysphagia symptoms.

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). 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). 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. 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. NCT03656380.

The aim of this study was to evaluate Dysphagia Days as a measure of symptom improvement in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis from the HEROES study. Dysphagia Days, defined as a yes answer to the following question: During any meal today, did food go down slowly or get stuck in your throat or chest? was assessed for cendakimab vs placebo. A statistically significant reduction in the mean number of Dysphagia Days experienced was observed with cendakimab 360 mg vs placebo at week 16 (-4.67 vs -1.83; P = 0.0115); an even greater improvement was observed in steroid-refractory patients vs placebo (-4.48 vs -0.04; P = 0.0079). Dysphagia Days represents a relevant clinical end point to capture dysphagia-related symptoms.

ObjectiveTo assess the effect of long-term dupilumab on histological, symptomatic and endoscopic aspects of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) in adolescent and adult patients with and without prior use of swallowed topical corticosteroids (STC) or prior inadequate response, intolerance or contraindication to STC.DesignPre-specified analysis of data from the phase 3 LIBERTY EoE TREET study on patients who received dupilumab 300 mg once a week or placebo for 24 weeks (W24) in parts A and B, and an additional 28 weeks (W52) in part C. Patients were categorised as with/without prior STC use and with/without inadequate/intolerance/contraindication to STC. The proportion of patients achieving ≤6 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf), absolute change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score, mean change in Endoscopic Reference Score and Histologic Scoring System grade/stage scores were assessed for each subgroup.ResultsRegardless of prior STC use, dupilumab increased the proportion of patients achieving ≤6 eos/hpf and improved DSQ score versus placebo at W24, with improvements maintained or improved at W52. The DSQ score and the proportion of patients achieving ≤6 eos/hpf after switching from placebo to dupilumab at W24 were similar to those observed in the dupilumab group at W24, regardless of prior STC use or inadequate/intolerance/contraindication to STC. Improvements in other outcomes with dupilumab were similar in patients with/without prior STC use or inadequate/intolerance/contraindication to STC.ConclusionDupilumab 300 mg once a week demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in patients with EoE regardless of prior STC use or inadequate response, intolerance and/or contraindication to STC.Trial registration numberNCT03633617.

INTRODUCTION:Improvements in symptomatic experience and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are among the most important treatment benefits in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We assessed the impact of dupilumab treatment on HRQoL, patients' impression of dysphagia, and symptoms beyond dysphagia in adults/adolescents (≥12 years) with EoE in parts A and B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET (NCT03633617) study.METHODS:The EoE Symptom Questionnaire (EoE-SQ; frequency and severity of nondysphagia symptoms), EoE Impact Questionnaire (impact of EoE on HRQoL), and Patient Global Impression of Severity and Patient Global Impression of Change of dysphagia were used to assess the efficacy of weekly dupilumab 300 mg vs placebo.RESULTS:At week 24, dupilumab reduced EoE-SQ Frequency (least squares mean difference vs placebo [95% confidence interval] part A −1.7 [-2.9, −0.5], part B −1.4 [-2.3, −0.5]; both P < 0.01) and EoE-SQ Severity (part A −2.0 [-3.9, 0.0], P < 0.05, part B −1.5 [-3.0, 0.1], P = 0.07) overall scores, and improved scores across all individual items. Improvement in the dupilumab group was clinically meaningful to patients. Dupilumab also meaningfully improved EoE Impact Questionnaire average scores and improved individual item scores at week 24, particularly emotional and sleep disturbance. More dupilumab-treated patients reported improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change of dysphagia vs placebo or reported having no symptoms per the Patient Global Impression of Severity of dysphagia at week 24.DISCUSSION:Dupilumab reduced the impact of EoE on multiple aspects of HRQoL, patients' impression of dysphagia, and frequency and severity of symptoms beyond dysphagia in adults/adolescents with EoE.

ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of two different budesonide formulations (effervescent tablet for orodispersible use (BET) and viscous suspension (BVS)) with different daily dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE).DesignAdults with active EoE (n=76) randomly received 14 days’ treatment with either BET 2×1 mg/day (BET1, n=19) or BET 2×2 mg/day (BET2, n=19), or BVS 2×5 mL (0.4 mg/mL)/day (BVS, n=19) or placebo (n=19) in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion, with a 2-week follow-up. Primary end point was histological remission (mean of <16 eosinophils/mm2 hpf). Secondary end points included endoscopy score, dysphagia score, drug safety and patient's preference for drug formulation.ResultsHistological remission occurred in 100%, 94.7% and 94.7% of budesonide (BET1, BET2, BVS, respectively) and in 0% of placebo recipients (p<0.0001). The improvement in total endoscopic intensity score was significantly higher in the three budesonide groups compared with placebo. Dysphagia improved in all groups at the end of treatment; however, improvement of dysphagia persisted only in those treated with BET1 (p=0.0196 vs placebo). There were no serious adverse events. Local fungal infection (stained fungi) occurred in two patients of each budesonide group (10.5%). The effervescent tablet was preferred by 80% of patients.ConclusionsBET or BVS was highly effective and safe for short-term treatment of EoE. The 1 mg (twice daily) dosage was equally effective as the 2 mg twice daily dosage. The majority of patients preferred the effervescent tablet formulation.ClinicalTrials.gov numberNCT02280616; EudraCT number, 2009-016692-29.

INTRODUCTION:The optimal proton pump inhibitor (PPI) regimen for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is unclear. We compared histologic response rates of different dosing combinations.METHODS:A total of 305 patients with newly diagnosed EoE received standard (omeprazole 20 mg daily), once-daily moderate (40 mg daily), twice-daily moderate (20 mg twice daily), or high (40 mg twice daily) dose PPI for ≥8 weeks.RESULTS:Approximately 42.3% achieved histologic response to PPI, with higher rates for twice-daily (moderate 52.8%/high 54.3%) than once-daily (standard 11.8%/moderate 10%) dosing (P < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, twice-daily moderate (adjusted odds ratio 6.75, confidence interval 2.53-18.0, P = 0.0008) and high (adjusted odds ratio 12.8, confidence interval 4.69-34.8, P < 0.0001) doses independently predicted histologic response.DISCUSSION:Twice-daily PPI is associated with higher EoE histologic response rates than once-daily regimen.

The esophageal mucosal integrity is impaired in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate the effect of fluticasone propionate on inflammation and functional and structural markers of esophageal mucosal barrier integrity in adult patients with EoE. In this prospective study, we included 15 EoE patients (median age (IQR), 43 (30-45) years). Patients underwent upper endoscopy before and after an 8-week course of swallowed fluticasone propionate 500 μg BID. Several parameters of esophageal mucosal barrier integrity were evaluated: esophageal electrical tissue impedance in vivo during endoscopy, transepithelial electrical resistance (TER) and transepithelial molecule flux in Ussing chambers using esophageal biopsy specimens, and intercellular spaces as a structural marker of permeability using electron microscopy. Esophageal eosinophils and mast cells were counted, and expression of inflammatory cytokines and barrier integrity proteins was investigated using qPCR. Esophageal symptoms and signs were also assessed. Peak eosinophil and mast cell counts decreased significantly after fluticasone propionate treatment. The esophageal mucosal integrity increased substantially during treatment, as shown by increased extracellular impedance and TER (both P<0.01) and decreased transepithelial molecule flux in Ussing chambers (P<0.05). Whereas expression of genes encoding for inflammatory cytokines (IL5, IL13, eotaxin-3, periostin, TSLP) decreased after treatment, expression of genes encoding for barrier integrity proteins (filaggrin and desmoglein-1) increased. Fluticasone propionate treatment decreases eosinophilic inflammation and improves the esophageal mucosal barrier integrity in adult EoE patients. Improvement of the mucosal barrier integrity correlates with normalization of expression of desmoglein-1 and filaggrin marker genes.